The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk - The Tofino Walk on the Beach

Episode Date: October 1, 2021

Chantal is in Montreal and Bruce is on the road today but the talk is always clear -- and today it's more of the post-election talk as we head into October ten days clear of the vote that gave the country another Trudeau minority.  Trudeau's agenda and cabinet , O'Toole's leadership and Indigenous rights top the good talk agenda.

Are you ready for good talk? Acana Pet Food, where every ingredient matters. Some companies like to brag about their first ingredient, but the Acana Pet Food team is proud of their entire bag. That's because every recipe has been thoughtfully sourced and carefully crafted with the highest quality ingredients, starting with quality animal ingredients, balanced with whole fruits and vegetables.

Acana Pet Foods are rich in the protein and nutrients your dog or cat needs to feel and look their best. Available in grain-free, healthy grains, and singles for sensitive dogs. Akana, go beyond the first ingredient. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here in Stratford, Ontario. Chantelle Hebert is in Montreal. And Bruce Anderson, he's actually on the road today in Toronto. So he's hiding out in a hotel room in Toronto.

But patching us in because there's no way he wants to miss Good Talk on any day. Fingers crossed for the sound quality, but I'm so excited to be here. Good. I don't know how many people have been to Tofino, but I've been there a couple of times. I think you guys have probably been there at some point or another. Not rich enough. No.

Well, it is a fantastic place. It's beautiful. You know, west coast of Vancouver Island. It's hard to beat it anywhere along the west coast of vancouver island it's pretty spectacular but tofino is is right there it's got a great beach i think it's called long beach you think you're in california i mean it's beautiful there's surfing there's the whole bit it great spot. Well, it turns out that for National Reconciliation Day, Truth and Reconciliation Day, the Prime Minister kind of looks like he made it into a long weekend

and he's got the family and kids in Tofino and was out on Long Beach yesterday. So I guess the question is, some people are really upset about this uh and thinking that this was kind of dismissing the meaning of the day now in his defense he had been in a an event the night before with other politicians um that signaled and marked the day. But yesterday, the images of him on the beach with family kind of turning it into a long weekend, I'm not sure how that's going to fly.

And I thought we could open up today's Good Talk with a little discussion on that because it will lead us into the bigger discussion on Indigenous. But let me start with that was tofino a mistake chantal if we're talking about it right off the top it probably is not because it was a great idea you ask is it going to fly i think it landed like a lead balloon. And there are many reasons for that. Some have to do with context. The prime minister's office publishes an itinerary for the prime minister every day.

And when he is taking a day off, it says personal. Otherwise, it says private meetings, and it says where he is for that day. And his itinerary yesterday morning said Ottawa private meetings. It didn't say Tofino private meetings. That was adjusted when it became obvious that someone somewhere had seen the prime minister in Tofino. Then a spokesperson for his office said, well, yes, he's in Tofino, but he's making calls to survivors to find the way forward on this file. He's not on the beach. Good luck will have it. Then pictures surfaced of the prime minister on the beach.

So the entire thing suggests that the prime minister and his office did not feel that it was a great idea to tell Canadians where the Prime Minister was on that day. The absence was made less conspicuous by the event of the night before. But the problem for Mr. Trudeau is you can't have everything. You can't have the great solemn words and the creation of a day to reflect on reconciliation. And at the same time, have your actions on that. They not follow your words. That's been a familiar pattern on other files. And it doesn't, there is, you can want to have a holiday.

The prime minister has access to planes, by the way. He's not going to miss a flight and not find another one to get to Tofino. But this was really tone deaf. Bruce? Yeah, I don't think there's any question that this is clumsy and deserved to be considered again. But I also feel like the whole question of whether or not this is kind of a permanent mark against Mr. Trudeau in the sense of do people believe that he doesn't care about this agenda? I doubt it.

I think it was clumsy in the sense that even if he decided that he was going to be traveling to Tofino on that day, it would have been better had his office organized to let people know about the event the night before and about the calls that he reportedly made while he was traveling so that people could kind of understand a little bit more that he wasn't completely indifferent to the day. So that's more of an issues management question. But, you know, I can't disagree with Chantal's point of view,

which is that the day is meant to have symbolism and symbols, therefore, they matter. And symbolically, this was not the story that he would have wanted for that day. Having said that, I also was driving through Toronto yesterday and I went by a park where hundreds and hundreds of people were gathering to mark the occasion and I don't know I sort of I felt after watching and hearing the various things that I heard about yesterday not just the the PM's thing that that this had been a useful thing to do and that we should take some, we should see it as somewhat good news that the country embraces this conversation, is serious about it, and that it represents, you know,

that in the last year or two, maybe we've had a step change in how we talk about Indigenous relationships. No, somewhat similar to what you experienced yesterday. I mean, what I was aware of was in so many schools across the country, from east to west, from, you know, south to north, Canadians were, kids especially, you know, were wearing the orange t-shirts and, you know, orange sweaters and remembering and taking classes and reading books and, you know, all the things that so many people wanted to see happen after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported six years ago now. It was happening, and it was happening on a, you know, a wide national scale by thousands, if not tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people.

And then this, you know, talk about symbolism, the prime minister doing what he did. I mean i i find it stunning absolutely remarkable that uh no one in his office said you know what this is not going to look good there is no way this can look good in spite of you know what you attended the night before but i mean why hold off a day or pick another weekend do something because you will live with this forever. This will now always become a part of the discussion and the debate, just like other things, as Chantal mentioned, other seemingly tone deaf moments on certain events. This will now, whenever the issue is raised, and we're going to get to one of the big issues um on the indigenous fall in a moment but whenever it's raised this will be part of the package it will be reminded about how he

hit the beach and the story will get greater and greater next it'll be you know he was surfing he was this he was that whatever it was it wasn't what the day had been designed to be and uh you know so i think uh tone deaf is probably the most and clumsy or probably the most uh you know polite words that can be used for uh for for for yesterday's events especially when this was a week where not only were we signaling the day, but the courts threw back yet another attempt by Ottawa to dismiss an earlier decision about Ottawa's vulnerability on the issue of child, indigenous children's rights in terms of education and health

and so on and so forth, which also looks, I mean, on the face of it, looks tone deaf. Like people go, you've got to be kidding. They lost the case in court. Why are they fighting it?

Why are they fighting it for years? And why are they probably still going to fight it even after losing this latest round? They keep seeming to be putting themselves in a box on the Indigenous file. At the same time, you know, I give him credit on the water situation. It's still appalling that there are like three dozen communities, all Indigenous, that don't have safe drinking water. But there were hundreds a couple of years ago. So there has been movement on that part of the file.

But on this, on the court case, and now what happened yesterday, man, it's not a pretty picture. If it quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck, and there is a pattern in what you have just described. I want to talk about this court issue, but first a word about something that Bruce said that I believe is important going forward for this national day. He talked about schools. And there has been debate about some

provinces not making this day a day off provincially. The schools were open in Quebec and Ontario. And I think that's a good thing because I believe that more is accomplished by having schools open on that day and all of the things that Bruce talked about happen than adding a day off in the calendar of parents and children across the country. And I say that having watched what has been happening over the years on November 11th, another federal day off that is not a day off provincially. And where the day has served to do activities with kids, to bring stories about the world wars in the picture and Canada's role in them. And there are times when it is actually more useful if you really want today to be a day of remembrance to have schools go on as normal and courses go on and universities as normal and these kinds of issues being discussed more rather than having the opportunity to skip town and spend

an extra day at the beach. Now about the court case. This is something that the government could have done for the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation. And that would have been to say, we lost fair and square. I read that ruling of the federal court. It threw out all of the federal arguments. And the federal government was arguing against the Human Rights Tribunal decision in two files, not on the principle of compensating Indigenous children or ensuring that they have access to health services, but on the notion that those tribunals have overstepped their mandate, there is very little in the federal court's ruling that will give grounds to any federal lawyer to say, we're going to take this to the Supreme Court and you said, we're laying down our weapons here. We are not going to continue this rearguard battle, especially since there was a vote in the last parliament in the House of Commons on a motion calling on the government to stop

and desist from these legal actions. And every single opposition party voted for that motion, including a few liberals on the government side and the government abstained. So if you don't believe strongly enough in what you're doing, that you want to show up and vote to say, we believe we're doing the right thing, then possibly it would have been a good time to say, we got the message from the federal court and we will be dropping uh this um this legal battle and moving on to awarding compensation i still think that there is a chance that they will do that but again i think given all that it was another missed opportunity you know i watching this over the last couple of years, one of the awkward parts of all this is there doesn't appear to be a case being made in a public fashion

for why the government is taking the position it's taking. I mean, they try to answer that question, but it doesn't seem like it's, that it's being heard, if it's being made at all. Bruce, I don't want you to put you in a position that you don't want to be, but, or you don't agree with, but at the same time, I assume there has to, there must be a case where that why the government is taking the position it's taking. I mean, is it all about money? Is it all about the impact of this decision in terms of cost at a time when governments and federal government, no slouch in this matter, is spending billions and billions of dollars on other things? Is this all about money? I don't think so,

but I share your frustration that the only real comprehensive version of what the government is trying to do with these cases is not really available to the public. We don't hear it. It's not, it's not. And so all we hear is the legitimate sense of frustration and grievance that it looks like the government says it cares about indigenous people and in particular indigenous children and keeps on litigating against their interests. So I've been around enough situations where organizations I work with have to pursue legal channels and

approaches that look horrible publicly, but for which there is some underlying rationale, it's hard to explain, but also hard to avoid if you're just trying to do good governance now i have to assume either that the motive of the government uh in continuing these court cases is to deny compensation for these kids or limit it or somehow kind of reduce the um uh the generosity of future sale settlements that have you or that they're getting legal advice that says you need to you need to pursue these arguments in order to keep a precedent from occurring that you don't want to occur. Now I'm saying that because I, I have trouble believing that the motive is the first. Um, and so, um, I tend to look at the

government on this and say, you know, like if I'm just thinking about their political context, rip this bandaid off yesterday and say, we're not going to fight these court cases anymore. And the people that I know who are kind of working on these files there, there's, there's nothing about them that makes me think that they're trying to reduce the entitlements of these kids or that they, that they take some sort of pride in standing on some sort of legal point that is being argued by their attorney. So I assume without knowing for sure that the arguments that are being made are being made not by the politicians to the lawyers, but by the lawyers to the politicians saying, let us pursue these arguments these ways for these reasons.

And, you know, we've all seen situations where politicians kind of ignore that legal advice um do they put themselves in another kind of jeopardy so it feels to me like there's a hobson's choice there in the end uh hopefully that this ruling um gives the government a way to end the hobson's choice and pick the the that makes the most sense, given their political kind of orientation on these issues and the public's general sense of let's move one side to it, when you kind of wonder, well, maybe there is another side to it. We just don't really hear it expressed or explained. Well, if there was a legal argument to be had, it was lost. So that should make what happens next a no-brainer. I'm with Bruce.

I don't believe the issue is that we're trying to save dollars on this. I think the issue is that the federal government would like to have the flexibility to set the terms of the compensation according to criteria that are not as much based on a blanket we're going to give each kid who was taken away from his or home after 2006. We're talking 2006 here. That's not in some previous life. $40,000, parents, grandparents. The fact that that works out to billions of dollars tells us something about how Canada is taking children or denying Indigenous children in our times the services that other children have had. But having done the argument thing in court and having been told to pack up and move on, I think the lawyers should now be allowed to move on to other challenges

and the government move on to putting in practice those tribunals orders. Completely agree. You know, if there's actual negotiation going on between lawyers, you can appreciate at this point that the lawyers on the indigenous side are telling their clients hey don't change a thing you know we're winning in terms of public opinion we're winning in the courts we're like pitching a shutout here nobody's touching us why would we change anything? They're going to have to crater their position,

which, I don't know, in a way just makes it even that much more difficult to come up with a solution to this. But I don't know. I tend to agree with both of you that it's time. It was probably time a few years ago. It's certainly time now to, as Bruce said, rip the Band-Aid off and get this resolved. Part of the discussion around the cabinet table on this will be the uh those who are in the in the cabinet positions that affect this

portfolio and uh unlike past years there there are two really now there's um uh and the lead one it seems especially lately has been mark miller who's the indigenous services minister and who has even in the campaign even just a couple of days before the actual election, was on one of the First Nations as part of opening up a new water filtration plan. I've always, in my years watching this situation unfold and the different ministers who have been in it, that ministry has often been one that ministers, you know, go into kind of reluctantly

and then get out of as soon as they can. And it's been part of the problem because, you know, the various Indigenous groups across the country are constantly trying to train, if you will, a non-Indigenous person in that portfolio. The Prime Minister is, you know, when he's not on the beach, cheap shot, is also cabinet-making. And I imagine when he gets around to that box,

he's got to make a decision on Mark Miller. I don't know what Mark Miller wants, but it would seem to me with the number of Indigenous leaders I've spoken to, it's not unanimous, but most of the ones that I have spoken to would like to see him stay in that portfolio. Would that be the wise position at this point is to keep him in the job he's in even if he has ambitions to to to reach higher who wants to take a run at that cabinet making is uh there are so many considerations that you never know what will end up happening because of things that have nothing to do with actually efficiency or personal preferences. And this cabinet is a bit of a puzzle in the sense that there's the gender parity issue. And then there is the introducing at least one male minister from

Alberta, and the list goes on. Consistency would require to keep an efficient minister in that difficult portfolio. It doesn't jump to mind that there are many in the current cabinet that have a personal commitment to the file, and he does. And he had that personal commitment to the file before he was appointed in that position. And you are right, the revolving door portfolio that it has been has been a hindrance and not a help because there has been a tendency on the part of ministers to serve their penance and hope for a promotion or a switch to another portfolio as soon as possible. We have had people who would have been really able ministers if they'd been allowed to stay for longer, Jim Prentice under Stephen Harper is a case in point, but they were never there long enough to make a big difference. So yeah, on

balance, I would keep him there. But on balance, I realized that Mr. Trudeau is playing with a team that's got a few A players, many, many B and Cs, and Mark Miller would be considered an A player at this point. I'd love to hear the conversation, if there is one, you know, the Prime Minister calls Mark Miller or brings him into the offices and says, Mark, I want you to stay in that portfolio, because you've achieved, you know, a degree of success, and we want you to continue doing that, and we want to resolve all these issues. And Mark Miller says, and here's where I'm imagining, Mark Miller says, okay, Prime Minister, of course,

I'll do what you ask, but I would like to place one condition, and that's we drop this case on the kids. Can we do it? Can we drop it now? Now, I don't know. You can't. I'm not sure you're ever in the position to put down an ultimatum like that.

It'd be interesting if you did. And then you'd have to tell the justice minister because, yes, it does involve the two ministers in charge of Indigenous files, but these also involve justice. Well, the Justice Minister might love that opportunity too at the same time. Bruce? Yeah, I'm Mark Miller.

We've all known lots of cabinet ministers and seen lots of them in action, and from my standpoint, in the more than 30 years I've been watching cabinets, Mark Miller is one of the top 5% or 10% in terms of quality individuals in cabinet. The PM is lucky to have him there. He's done, I think, a really good job in a very, very difficult portfolio. And he's done that because he's very empathetic and he's extremely smart and he's very hardworking. I don't think there's any daylight between him and the prime minister, to your point, Peter, of him sort of putting a condition with the PM. I think it would be more of a conversation if they were going to even need to have a conversation about that. But it would be a conversation rather than

some sort of a quasi-negotiation because they've known each other for a very long time. And I think they share a lot of similar perspectives and probably just are able to have a conversation about something that requires that kind of understanding of where they want to go with a critical part of a critical file. I think that cabinetmaking, I agree with Chantal, is complicated. I think there's also probably an instinct on the one hand to not change ministers who have huge familiarity and grasp of complex portfolios. And at the same time refresh the lineup somewhat. But if, if, if I were Mr.

Trudeau, I would not move Jonathan Wilkinson at environment and climate change. I would not move Mark Miller. He's obviously not going to move Chris to your Freeland. I don't know that my list of would not moves goes much beyond that, but I wouldn't move Mark Miller to your very direct question. Okay, so who would we move? Our little cabinet making session here on Good Talk. I didn't think we were going to do this.

Yeah, Okay. Well, you know, I mean, I think you make the case, you know, obviously for that you stay with certain people who seem to have done well, but you also, you know, you just lost what you were trying to achieve in a majority government. You've got a minority government. You have certain things, certain areas where you're trying to patch up your relationship with the people um you know i think we've kind of talked about defense and whether harjit sajan should be uh replaced in that portfolio but are there any name i mean the problem with cabinets

these days is most canadians don't know who you know aside from a couple of names don't really know any of them um they're sort of you hear about them the day they're appointed and then you don't really hear about them again until they're replaced. But is anybody not deserving of a position of some authority in cabinet right now that the prime minister may be contemplating their exit from his little group and being replaced? Chantal.

Well, you have to start off from the premise that it's going to be very hard to drop any woman from the current cabinet for the obvious gender parity reason you're short for and you want to bring on at least one male minister that would be the Randy Boissoneau from Edmonton you're going to have at least one minister from Alberta the two elected MPs are male so doesn't really matter what you think about the qualities or the faults of whoever is female and remaining on that bench, most of whom have served well, by the way. And then you've got question marks. and it has made a difference to the outcome of this election and to the previous election, especially in areas like the GTA, but also the greater Vancouver area. On the other hand, he is seen by most of the groups

that call for tighter gun control regulations as an obstacle to those. And I saw this week the group Je je me souviens from Polytechnique, calling on Justin Trudeau to replace Bill Blair in his portfolio so that they have a minister who is more open to tighter gun control regulations. So that's a question mark for Justin Trudeau to deal with. Dominique Leblanc has been really useful as the points person for intergovernmental affairs relations. You could imagine him doing something else that would be really useful, but this is a prime minister who is about to go in a major federal provincial debate over the financing of healthcare. You probably want a minister who is

able to call in the various provinces and not have whoever answers the phone hang up on him because he or she is so divisive or has no influence on the prime minister. And no one doubts that Dominique Leblanc has influence on Justin Trudeau. They too have known each other for a long time. So another question mark here, if you're going to have a big debate over health care, should you have a health minister as opposed to the current one that can actually debate Quebec in particular and Quebec's first main language, French? It's not helpful to advance the federal arguments on health care that the minister cannot actually carry your own arguments in French because of language challenges.

So other question mark here. Mark Garneau probably loves being foreign affairs minister. But is he as dynamic as the job will require going forward? And if he is reconducted, will we see him go the road of John McCallum and Stéphane Zion and become an ambassador in six months? His is a safe seat. It's easy to have a by-election there. And I can think of at least three other MPs who would like to be foreign affairs minister, the list is probably longer. And then there's the case of Stephen Guilbeault, you guys may not be

aware of this, but apparently, suddenly, he has become the main topic of interest in the Quebec media. And the debate is all over, should he be the environment minister? I agree with Bruce that Wilkinson should remain at the environment. But Stephen Guilbeault has run into trouble with his bill on the new Broadcasting Act. He is very popular in cultural circles and environmental circles in Quebec. I'm not sure that he should stay in heritage to continue with his previous bill, but I am convinced that if he moves to the environment, the Prime Minister will be painting

a target on the back of his environment minister. Bruce? Well, as always, I found that very interesting and uh lots of food for thought um chantal i and a number of things you said i completely agree with even some i hadn't thought of i now vehemently agree with but here's what i would probably be thinking first if i was the prime minister at this juncture the first thing i would do is look at my lineup of current ministers and say, is there anybody who's egregiously underperformed? And I think that's a short, if not empty list. But then I would sort of say, well, who are the ministers on my roster who served long enough with enough

distinction that it might be time to look at them and say, is there some next chapter for you that doesn't involve occupying a seat around the cabinet and table? And I think there are a few that sort of fit that description. Chantal mentioned one of them. And that then gives you a sense of, okay, well, if there's a transition opportunity for a few, that opens up a few more options. And then the next criteria I would go to is who has underperformed from the standpoint of being really politically useful? Because, you know, in some departments, you can have a minister who's competent enough that nothing ever goes off the rails. But they really achieve no visibility. It's so hard to get attention for a lot of what ministers do now.

So it's not completely on them if they don't. But if they're not trying very hard or accomplishing some measure of effectiveness from a communication standpoint, it's a big part of the job. These are not people who were picked for these jobs because they're great administrators in most instances. They're picked for those jobs because they're great administrators in most instances they're picked for those jobs because they're successful politicians and the art of politics is um you know kind of leading a a mandate through a department and its execution but also communicating and building support for that mandate uh with the general public um and i think there probably are

several who if you looked at and said did, did anybody really notice what they did? Did they make much of an effort to break through that kind of wall of disinterest and all the other competing information that's out there and kind of land some messaging that's useful for the government? And so maybe there's a couple more there um um and yes you'll notice i'm studiously avoiding naming names because i don't really feel like that's this has been a great lecture on process right and i said and i mean that do we have i actually say that in a complimentary way i mean i think it is a good lesson on process in terms of how you might put together a cabinet, but it's also, but you're quite right. You managed to deftly do that without

mentioning a single name. I got to take a break. Thank God. Yeah. And then we'll come back and talk about another exciting moment. Will Aaron O'Toole make it through the next week. Okay, we're back with Good Talk. Bruce Anderson's in Toronto in a hotel room. That's why it sounds maybe a little muffled, but it's not bad, actually. It's pretty good. And Sean Talleybear is in Montreal. I'm in Stratford, Ontario. I'm Peter Mansbridge. This is Good Talk on the Bridge. And you can hear us, obviously, on Sirius XM, Channel 167, and wherever you get your podcasts. All right, Aaron O'Toole. The next week is an important one for him. He'll still have his job a week from now, but it may be greatly threatened, depending on the outcome of the meeting, of the membership of his party. Chantal, we love starting with you. Mr. O'Toole will be meeting with this caucus for the first time in person,

I understand, on October 5th, so early next week. At that first meeting, per legislation agreed to by the House of Commons, I think in 2015, in the last stretch of the Harper government, I believe, MPs are expected to decide whether to award themselves a series of powers, such as the power to select their chair, etc. And one in particular is the power to review the leadership of the leader, to vote out the leader. That's going to be a caucus vote. In the previous parliament, when Andrew Scheer met his MPs for the first time, they declined to give themselves that power.

That did not protect Andrew Scheer, as we know. A few months later, he was still gone. But should they award themselves that power, then there will be a process in place that would allow, on the basis of the signature of one-fifth of caucus that there would be a secret ballot on whether Erin O'Toole should remain as leader or whether an interim leader should be appointed. Now, two points. Mr. O'Toole is going to be facing challenges going forward. There are already members lining up to have petitions signed to start processes for a leadership review earlier than the scheduled one in 2023. So here's the issue for him. Would it be better for him if the MPs next week gave themselves that power and subsequently did have a vote for his leadership that affirmed it.

And that depends on his reading of caucuses mood and whether he has enough support to survive such a vote. If that were the case, he would be better off for that vote to happen because he could then claim that he has secured the backing of caucus, that they were given the opportunity to replace him. I could not give you a countdown. My impression from outside is that at this point, a majority would probably vote to retain Aaron O'Toole. And I'll just remind you in passing that even if it came to a vote and a majority in caucus said, we don't want Aaron O'Toole if I were him I'd go home and do something else but he would also have the option of rerunning for his job in the way that Stockwell Day did with very little success as we all remember but still but so the sense I get from

afar is that Mr. O'Toole actually wants his MPs to give themselves that power next week. You know why they're doing it on October 5th, of course. He's trying to hide that story behind the other big story of that day. Your birthday? Your book.

The launch of my book is October 5th. It's going to obviously attract so much attention that this will be buried. That's clever. Boy, you're good at putting that little promo inside there. More available at thepetermansbridge.com. Anyway. I've been thinking about this, Peter.

I assume that you were going to ask me about that. Let me just jump in there. If I were Mr. O'Toole and I sort of think about how leaders who've been under this kind of pressure in the past have sort of looked at their situation. And it's one of those things where you have to be really clear eyed about it. You have to be really honest with yourself and your small team about the situation you're in, because I think that it's possible that he gets through next week okay, but that isn't going to be the end of it. He has got some serious, serious trouble coming his way. It's going to come from people who want vengeance because they think that he's mistreated them. He's going to come from people who want revenge because they think that he campaigned to win their love in the leadership and then abandoned them when he was campaigning to win

the votes of Canadians. And it's going to come from people who are just frustrated that yet again, the Conservative Party has found a way to shrink the number of accessible voters that it has when it should be trying to do the opposite. Now, those three groups aren't the same and they don't all get along and they don't all want the same outcome, but they all probably want one thing in common, which is a different leader come the time of the next election. And so he needs to figure out which of those things can I do something about? And if you were in his shoes, you would call Stephen Harper and say, can I come and meet with you? And can you talk me through this?

And if the answer is, I'm really busy, can we get together maybe in March or April? Then you know your answer is that the Harper people are against you. And then you call Pierre Polyev and you say, look, we need to have dinner and we need to sort through our problems and we need to find a way to fight together. And if Pierre Polyev says, see you in April or May, but I'm busy right now, then you know that you're not going to get the support of Pierre Polyev and the people who support him. Now, if both of those things happen, he probably should throw in the towel because I don't think that you can sustain that role if you have that much kind of institutional slash

organized indifference or mistrust of your leadership. But then he has the third choice, which is to try to build a public persona that is more compelling than the one that he was able to marshal before election day and is directionally where he really believes the Conservative Party in the country should go because he's got an opportunity with the platform to try to do that. He, for people who watched him closely, I think, in the last couple of years,

and that's not everybody in Canada, there's a sense of, well, what does he really believe? Is he really kind of secretly or not so secretly kind of in agreement with social conservatives um or is he is he really just kind of a liberal in in conservative clothing i think he if he wants to sustain his leadership by building some public enthusiasm for it he needs to be absolutely blunt and use language that's unmistakable about what his personal values are, the priorities that he sets for the country, and not try to look like he's kind of walking a very fine line between what Conservatives in Western Canada will be willing to hold their nose and go along with, and what centrist voters in

the rest of Canada might be interested in voting for in a change of government scenario down the road. It's a very, very tough road that he's got to hoe, and that's the radish metaphor. You know, if he did throw in the towel, I would be quite the front bench on the conservative side of the House of Commons. You know, enough either former leaders

or those who wanted to be leader sitting there and no leader, no obvious's side at this moment of decision for his party? Who would be the most conservative or the most, you know, who would be the biggest supporter of Aaron O'Toole at this point, either in the House or outside of the House? The biggest supporter of Aaron O'Toole is called, is virtually unanimous Quebec caucus, including senators, who, to a man and a woman, as far as I can tell, believe that anyone that comes after will actually

cause the disappearance of the party in Quebec versus someone who has gotten the blessing of both Brian Mulroney and François Legault, which is something that they believe they can take to the bank and do more with in another election. Now, Bruce mentioned Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper would have still to think long and hard before he decided that he was not available until maybe early next year for a meeting,

not because he was treated particularly well by Aaron O'Toole over the course of this campaign. Bringing out Brian Mulroney and mentioning him in French interviews and not spending a lot of time talking about Stephen Harper, except to say this isn't your grandfather or your father's party. Who did that refer to if not Brian Mulroney? But Stephen Harper did leave a legacy. It was a united party that was looking forward, that was not hostage to social conservatives, and that broke through in Quebec. He has to know that if Erin O'Toole goes down quickly, the next leader will likely be chosen by social conservatives and brought back to its reform rules. And I refer you to an open letter this

week by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, former Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, whose prescription for the party under the guise of supporting Erin O'Toole was that the party should turn against Quebec, launch a fight against asymmetrical federalism as it applies to that province, fight Bill 21 on secularism, and go big on pipelines and energy projects and dismantling Justin Trudeau's environmental prescriptions. If Mr. Wall were here, we could ask him where he gets the impression that voters in Ontario and BC would want to vote for that. But still, it tells you something about some of the pull that will be part and parcel of the succession

and where it could lead the Conservative Party with an election maybe two, two and a half years down the road. You know, it was only a few years ago that we were talking about Brad Wall taking French lessons. Well, now he could lead the party that he has in mind without speaking French. Exactly. So obviously those lessons didn't work out too well. Or if he did, he decided he didn't need to use them. we're almost out of time and i have a minute for each of you the prime minister earlier this week uh you know outlined his agenda or what he what were the important parts of his agenda i want you to name or or to talk about the one area

that you think is the most important on his agenda list. We'll do that right after this. Okay, as I said, we've only got time for a minute or so each. The Prime Minister's agenda, what's the most important point on there? Which box do you check off Chantal? The one he didn't but he reappointed this finance minister so I'm guessing it would be useful to have a fiscal update going forward before the end of the year. So that you know fiscal update is it's not a budget but it gives you a clear indication of kind of the direction in which they're heading.

And sometimes it managed to slip in a few tax changes, even into a fiscal update, which is always a challenge and would be especially so in a minority government. But we'll see. Bruce. that getting to a place where the fiscal situation of the country and the economic growth rate and sense of a return to normalcy is clear. We're not quite there yet. It feels on a good day like we're in the last inning of that, but we're not there yet. And so there is going to be some controversy and some discomfort with standing up these vaccine mandates and the rules around plane and train travel. I'm sure we're going to be talking about that through into the new year. And hopefully at that point, we'll be through that. And then the country really can turn to what is the non-pandemic agenda look like or the post pandemic agenda look

like? And I think Chantal's right that that's a big, there's a big set of questions there about the fiscal realities and, and where we stand. So that's, that's the priority for me. All right. Good discussion as always on good talk. I enjoyed hearing both of your perspectives on all the issues we discussed today. A couple of pointers about next week. On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week, there will be no episode of The Bridge because I'm otherwise occupied. Can't I just do it alone on Wednesday?

Like, I just want to do all the smoke mirrors and truth myself and i can talk about your book you won't be there but yeah well we'll give that some serious consideration uh but it will be a busy week on the book book launches as chantelle knows from her books um they do tend to occupy a good chunk of your time in doing publicity and promotion around those books. And I'm looking forward to launching my book off the record. I've already done a number of interviews and promotional tours, and I've got a lot more to do in the next 10 days to two weeks. So next week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, no edition of The Bridge on SiriusXM.

My buddy Andrew Crystal will be doing that hour. So look forward to having to hear what he has to say. Maybe I'll give a plug to both books. You know, who knows? But back Thursday and Friday of next week, and of course Friday of next week will be a good talk where these two good people, Bruce Anderson and Chantelle Hebert,

will be back with us. So that's it for this week on the bridge and for good talk i'm peter mansbridge for chantelle and bruce thanks for listening and we'll talk to you again well in a few days time Thank you.