The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -- The Week Everything Changed

Episode Date: January 23, 2026

First, Mark Carney said the rupture is real and our days tied to the US are over. Twenty four hours later, Donald Trump implies "You better be careful Mark." So now, its game on, the fight is real and who knows just where it will all end up. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Are you ready for good talk? And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, along with Chantelli Bear and Bruce Anderson. It's your Friday good talk, and as always, lots to talk about on this day. I want to get going, but I want to give a little preamble first, so bear with me, you too. We all know that Donald Trump does not like to share the stage. He wants to be the only one on the stage at any time, and this, therefore, has not been a good week for him, because he wasn't the only one on the stage. In fact, there were times at which he was basically ignored,

although clearly thought about. And one of those occasions was Mark Carney's Davos speech earlier this week, which received widespread applause, praise, from different parts of the world. And nobody can even Pierre Paulyev called it an eloquent speech. so there you go. But Donald Trump, of course, was upset as a result of the things that were said by Mark Carney in that speech.

And not surprisingly, I'm sure everybody, including Carney, knew that he would strike back in some fashion. And he did. When he got the chance at the podium, he kind of belittled Mark Carney in a way. And he has taken various shots, and I'm sure there are more to come, of a substantive tariff way, perhaps, in the next few hours or days. But I think the unkindest cut of all came last night, and it wasn't directed just at Canada, but at all NATO allies.

When Trump said that the NATO allies who came to Afghanistan didn't fight at the front. Now, he would know what that feeling would be like, seeing as he never fought at a front. In fact, he was a draft doctor during the Vietnam War. But he accused the NATO allies who defended the United States as a result of Article 5 in NATO, including Canada, who went to Afghanistan, fought, died there.

159 Canadians died in Afghanistan. And for him to stand there last night and suggest that they really didn't get anywhere near the front is utter crap. And we and they deserve an apology. We won't get one. If anything, he'll just kind of step it up. But nevertheless, for those Canadian veterans who were upset today, as they should be, who watch their buddies die on the field,

And the hundreds who came back permanently scarred by the experience, either physically or mentally. So let me start this conversation about this week and that relationship between the Canadians and the Americans. Bruce, why don't you start? I mean, I'm assuming this is the worst in our history that this relationship has ever been between Washington and Ottawa. I mean, I can't recall anything in the... the history books, certainly in my time, that's anything like this. I think it is the worst that it's ever been.

I think the distinction that some will want to draw and is a fair distinction is that the relationship between Canadians and President Trump is the worst relationship that we've had with the president. I think the relations between Canadians and Americans are bound to be taking a steady beating through this. And partly, that's because we can feel some empathy for Americans who didn't vote for Donald Trump and don't like what he's doing, but it's hard not to notice the number of leaders in business, whether in banking, defense, technology,

in civil society, in the Republican Party, who want to look away from what Donald Trump is doing. It's hard to notice that and not feel as though. America is not doing what it should do to deal with this threat to world peace and to do and to do a and to salvage what's left of a world order that has not been perfect, but has kept civilization moving generally in a positive direction. So the silence and the acquiescence and the normalization by many Americans is going to, it probably does take us to a place where more Canadians than ever before feel that they can't trust mainstream America to act in a way that we used to take as kind of normal for granted that these were positive relations. That when push came to shove, we would look to help each other out rather than they would look to push us

now. And Trump articulated a version of the relationship and keeps on doing it, which I listened to Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart in the middle of the night, actually. And they were obviously speaking about it from the standpoint of the UK, Europe, but they're, you know, they speak for a broader constituency than that. Alster Campbell called it the most horrifying speech he'd ever seen. apparently he was in the room and was booing and heckling during it and good for him that he was and he called out the fact that people in the room too many of them were kind of chuckling at some of the worst jokes in Donald Trump's mind they were probably jokes talking about the Somali people having low IQ out and out racism like that that has become almost normalized it

It's become so normalized by Trump that it scarcely rates a mention in the coverage of this barrage of insults and misstatements of fact and diminution of people all around the world. So where are we at in terms of the relationship with America? Yeah, it's probably as bad as it's as it's ever been. hard to know whether we're looking at a pendulum effect, as we've talked about before, or whether or not this is going to continue. It's shocking to me that one in five Canadians still say that they have a positive view of Donald Trump because it's a lot who have a really negative view. And so he is dividing us.

There's no question about it. You know, I'll be looking forward to seeing if what Trump did this week, and in particular what he said about our troops, the staying behind lines, has an effect on that number or whether or not we just got a core of MAGA voters in Canada who look at Donald Trump and say, that's the kind of leadership I want.

I'm sad to say that there is a number like that, and it's not as small as I would have thought at this point. Hopefully it gets smaller because the arguments that he's making are insulting to us, to people around the world, and they're dangerous. Last point for me is picking up on your point, Peter, is that line in his, I wouldn't even call it his speech, just kind of a flow of crap from his brain, where he talked about everybody in the room probably would be speaking German, maybe a little Japanese if it hadn't been for the United States.

and you mentioned the role that we played in Afghanistan. In World War II, Canada lost more people per capita than the United States did. We sent a huge number of people into combat based on a much smaller population, 11 million people. And we had a lot. We had 45,000 people who paid the ultimate price. And to treat the idea of this relationship with NATO, countries, as though they only exist. Canada only exists because of the beneficial posture of the United States is just so beyond

the pale. It's kind of outrageous that there hasn't been even more reaction in the United States to the things that Trump has said. All right. That may be a contrarian. No, I'm not going to. Yes, the relationship between the U.S. administration, I do believe, like as Bruce does, the distinction between Americans and Canadians versus U.S. administration against most of our allies. It's not just us.

What we watched this week was a U.S. administration at war with its allies. The Danes also sent soldiers to Afghanistan. then, others did so did the Brits and lost people. So this wasn't targeted at Canada, but I don't believe that Mark Carney's speech in Davis would have had the kind of residence that it had if he had not been reading the international room totally properly. And that speech has had such legs.

I don't think we have had speeches from a Canadian Prime Minister, and we've had brave speeches before. I'm not saying Brian Mulerone wasn't brave when he spoke about apartheid. Stephen Harper did have strong speeches, but that speech had more legs, I think, than any prime ministerial speech on the world scene that we've seen before, both domestically and internationally. But there are other signs that we are not alone,

more signs than we have seen over the past year, we have seen since the beginning of 2026. The president is also withdrawn his invitation to Mark Carney to sit on his so-called peace council. That is probably good news because it avoids Mark Carney having to say yes or no, which he'd been avoiding because the clear answer would have been no. But Mark Carney is not the only one that hasn't joined that peace council. there is not a single member of most of the EU, I should say not maybe one member that has signed on. At some point it looked like, to tell you how serious this is, yesterday when they signed off on this peace council,

Belgium was in the list and you think, that sounds weird. Why would Belgium join when France, the UK was in Belgium, it was Belarus. So you kind of go, this is really professional. That goes with making a big speech at Davos, I'm talking about Trump, and using Iceland when you should be saying Greenland. I'm sure people in Reykjavik took it personally for a couple of hours. But when you look at polls to go back to the Canada-U.S. relation, more Americans trust Canada by far than trust their own president,

which is also, I don't think we've ever had as much profile with the U.S. public as we do now. Probably the last time they paid as much attention to us, and it was a fleeting moment was the day of the 1995 referendum. And that was a very different context than the context we are in at this point. So to go to Bruce's point about business leaders, they may be shooting themselves in the foot somewhat because any business leader at this point that announces that it's going to be doing something with Canada will likely get a strong positive reaction from a public relations point

of view. It's actually a better thing to do business with Canada today than it was a year ago in the U.S. So that is kind of an interesting development. On the last point, mega voters, I do believe we have them. I don't believe that they're going to be phased in any way, shape, or form because they would have been before this. And they are becoming a problem for the Conservative Party to manage, because for the most part,

they are also conservative voters, or they hail from the right of center. And we saw that earlier this week when Pierre Puellev issued this single tweet on Greenland. If you looked at the response to that tweet, it kind of didn't go the way of, on second talk, probably we should rethink whether Trump is a good thing. And went the other way, Mr. Puellier, is now disqualified. He's shown as true color. He's not a real conservative in the mind of such voters and those who influence them. So I think we will have to live with that reality and that it will become a factor in some Canadian politics over the next year when Alberta holds, if it does, as planned, a referendum.

the, okay. Peter, can I just pick up on that? Just for a second, quick point. Chantel's point about Pollyas' response, I think is exactly right. It needed in the Internet age, the equivalent of about a year and a half for him to decide what he could possibly say

that might walk a line between something that would resonate with mainstream voters that they need to win and wouldn't offend those MAGA voters. And so it was a, more than a day late and probably a dollar short in terms of the kind of leadership that people are looking at in this incredibly tense a moment. And public opinion is more tense than I've ever seen it. That's the other aspect of where are we at.

We're at an absolute moment where people are kind of transfixed and worried. Okay. I just want to make a couple of points on some of the things you both said. Talking about those business leaders in Davos, and when I say business leaders, you know, we're talking about the elite, right? We were talking about billionaires and tech bros and all that kind of stuff, who were at the front of the room, near the front of the room when Trump spoke. And they were up on their feet applauding when he finished and glad-handed. And, you know, so good for our friends that the rest is politics, you know,

who stood up and did what they did and booing and jeers at Trump. Two final things on his stuff about veterans and past wars. He was big on continually saying the United States won the Second World War. There's no doubt that the United States had a major influence on the ending of that war. There's no doubt about that. But let's not forget, they joined it more than two years later. Three years late? We had dead on the battlefield and so did many other countries.

long before the U.S. joined. Same in the First World War. Okay? So let's not forget that. But let's also not forget this. When he says that NATO troops, including Canada, weren't at the front lines, let me remind everybody

how the first four Canadians died in Afghanistan. They were on the front lines that night when American planes bombed them. killed them. It was a mistake, a tragic mistake. But if we weren't on the front lines, that wouldn't have happened. We were on the front lines. And that's how we lost our first four Canadians in Afghanistan. Okay, let me get back to the issue at hand. What is this situation now that we, you both suggest, the worst things have ever been between our two countries?

between our two governments. What does this do for Dominic LeBlanc, who's supposedly trying to negotiate some kind of an arrangement with the U.S.? Is that, you know, does that still exist? Is there still, excuse me, a possibility there? You know, you heard Trump's Flunkies, Bissant and Ludwig crapping on Canada last night.

Again. Does this go anywhere, or do we just sort of shelve it, move on and start the new order that we're trying to establish, according to the prime minister? In good conscience, it would be tempting to say, let's just move on, but I don't think that that makes sense. I think duty of care on the part of the Canadian government does involve making its best effort to negotiate.

If it comes to that, renegotiate a Kuzma deal. I'm not saying that, and I think I take from the Prime Minister's words in Davos, that we will not sign a trade agreement that looks like an act of redition and submission to the US. So let's also agree that we shouldn't at any cost want to sign something. But I think this week, over the past two weeks, the US gave the Canadian government some political wiggle room on Kuzma, not in the sense that we should walk away or that we should ever accept that on the basis of one speech, then we have ruined our chances of renegotiating a decent Kuzma, revised Kuzma agreement, if it comes to that again. But because people have been

watching Donald Trump act with the EU and with the UK, two countries with whom he saw. trade deals as if those deals did not exist when it's suited as whims, which basically tell you you can renegotiate all you want. But at the end of the day, its signature is not worth the paper it's written on. And that is being demonstrated again and again. Yes, there may be new tariff threats, some of those threats, as we have seen this week, And as we saw in the past, after the fourth ad, Ontario Premier in the U.S., Donald Trump said that he would impose a further 10% tariff on Canada. That didn't happen.

The 200% tariff online and champagne from France. We will see the tariffs he threatened this week on the UK and the EU. He is now withdrawn. Nobody knows for how long. So I think the message is, yes, we need to do what we need to do on Kuzma, and it may or may not work out. But we should not become fixated as if the fate of 2026 or the success of the government was based on the Kuzma renegotiation. If we had talked about this back in December and said, what's the big issue in 26 on the Canada-U.S. front, it would have been Kuzma renegotiation. Well, I understand a lot of business lobby still think so.

But I think to the voter that has been looking at what has been happening, the realistic voter, and voters are often more realistic than business lobbies, the message has been, yes, we should try. But we should not make it the end all of government action over the next year. Bruce. I think that's right. I think the government has a duty of care to manage the relationship as well as it can and to keep on accelerating efforts to find new customers to build new trade relationships to attract new investment.

And I think that, you know, the prime minister has spent a very, very large portion of his time on those priorities. And clear he intends to continue to do that. I think the if there's a bit of a ray of light for me in the way in which Trump's comments landed this week it is that he

you know he was so awful he gave bullying an even worse name and probably embarrassed more people in his country than he had before and definitely would have started to cause some worry if not a murmur publicly, but some worry among American companies for whom global trade is important. And it's a lot of companies that rely on having business opportunities around the world.

For them to look on what's happening now, to hear the fact that the NATO countries are talking about a NATO without America, to hear the EU talking about the development of this anti-coercion measure, some people refer to it as a bazooka. which is essentially code for a series of decisions that countries could take to isolate themselves from American business and economic pain, or to inflict economic pain on America. Trump may not care about those things, may pretend not to care about those things,

and too few in his party will say that they care about those things, but a lot of the donors to the Republican Party care about those things. and while they may have enjoyed his braggadocio, his, you know, his insult party, they do care about money, maybe more than anything else. And at some point, the risks to their economic opportunities stop becoming something that they can kind of write off because the American economy is being supercharged by, you know, federal spending of one sort or another tax cuts. but instead they have to look at the rest of the world and say, but what if countries around the world do the kind of thing that Mark Carney was talking about,

the middle powers work together? What if we find ourselves with smaller opportunities, fewer opportunities, and therefore less opportunity for growth down the road? I do think that that argument will start to develop some more root system in the United States over the coming months. Now that will feel like an eternity for those of us who don't want to listen to Donald Trump say what he's going to say. He's got three years more to serve as president, which is just a kind of an unimaginable thing to contemplate. But last point for me is I noticed this morning that he was tweeting about maybe he should go for a fourth term.

Now, in his mind, he had three. And sometime about this time next year, after the midterms are done, which I think will be quite bad for the Republicans, this thing will start to become real. Is he actually going to try to prevent anyone else from becoming president but him? He'll start to become real for J.D. Vance, for Marco Rubio, for all of those others who have to sit there. and I'm not giving any slack to J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio, they've chosen to sit there.

They've chosen to echo his themes. But if they're doing that because they have ambition, and he's basically going to try to snuff that ambition out, what are they going to do about that? So I think there's a crossroads coming. I don't want to say it's a pendulum because I still think it's a direction. But there's a crossroads coming sometime in the next 12 months where his personal huge, hubris and ambition is going to face some come up and some resistance. And hopefully for the world, it'll be more than a little bit.

Well, you know, many people, including myself, or hope you're right, but there's no evidence of it. That gutless party that he leads, you know, is doing nothing. Every once in a while he's here, a hint of somebody speaking out, but really, not much. Can I swing it back to Canada? I mean, it wasn't a perfect week for Carney. There's issues about a speech he gave in Canada. But before I get to that first,

does he need a stronger mandate right now to defend the country through this crisis that he tells us about and that we witness? And when I mean that, when I suggest that, I'm saying, hey, they've tried for whatever it is now, six, eight months to get a majority government by getting people to cross over. So far, so far that hasn't worked.

It's close. But go ahead, Chantal. You know what I'm getting at. Does he need a stronger mandate? I know what you're getting at. I'll preface this by saying, I don't believe a two-seat majority is a great outcome in the sense that a two-seat majority basically opens you up to blackmail from whatever

member is not happy. Ask Lucien Bouchal, and he led the official opposition, just a few seats ahead of the Reform Party. The number of times he had to do rather stupid things to make sure because he was being threatened with losing that spot to someone who wanted something. And he was only leader of the official opposition. Imagine if you're the prime minister.

I don't believe that at this point, many Canadians are convinced that not having a majority as prevented Mark Carney from, leading the country at a difficult time. I do believe that if the House of Commons starts, the House of Commons dynamics have not really been tested yet. A lot of the action has happened outside,

and a lot of the legislative action is still on the to-do list rather than we've been there and done that. If over the next few months it becomes apparent that the House of Commons is becoming dysfunctional, that parliamentary games have supplanted a constructive legislative conversation. I think the liberals would likely seize the opportunity to have the Prime Minister tell the country, I need to have a functioning parliament in the way that the dynamics are working out. It's obstruction rather than opposition that is coming from the bench across from me.

I've gone back. I have friends, many of them liberals, who are arguing for this snap election. I need to have a stronger mandate idea. I have to point out to them that I have covered my share of minority premiers and prime ministers who believed that they had enough of a handle on this to precipitate circumstances. And who have, and Justin Trudeau is kind of a case in point after the pandemic. And we've ended up in the best case scenario with literally the government that they had before, a minority government. Stephen Harper could speak to that in 2008.

He believed he had all the cards needed and the global recession that played to his strength and Stifanzion's weakness. And it did not work. The first campaign like this that I covered was in 1975 in Ontario. Bill Davis had a minority government. He allowed himself to fall on a few points of percentage on rent control. It was a big issue back then. And in 77, Ontarians went back to the polls, and they gave Mr. Davis exactly the same legislature

except that they switched official opposition. Pauline Marlainneau a few years ago taught she was on to such a great thing that some columnist outside Quebec wrote her as, She's got this in the bag on day one and ended up the leader of the opposition and terminated her career. So I have only seen one occasion in those I covered that worked. It was Jean Charray in 2008 when he said, I need to get my two hands on the wheel. That was the slogan in the middle of the fiscal financial crisis.

It worked for him. But that's one out of, I don't know, seven or eight examples. So I would be very cautious about just. using the rhetoric, I need a stronger mandate to convince Canadians that he should be handed a majority. Bruce? You know, I think that there are two theories of what minority governments are meant to do in terms of how voters think about them.

One theory holds that if you get a minority, that really what voters are asking you to do is to be in a series of compromises with other parties, to make your policies more reflective what the other parties want and to do things that are different in some respects from what you campaigned on. The other theory is that voters don't vote for a minority government. It happens as a consequence of the way that the votes fall out, but at the end of that process, people want a government that's going to govern and isn't going to be constantly held by the throat by opposition parties with the threat of an election. Now, I happen to believe in the second theory being more, at least the case in this particular instance.

I think that probably what voters would want, which I'm sure they won't get, is for the opposition leader, Mr. Poliev, to say, I won't have an election for two years. I won't even try to cause an election, I should say, for two years. I think people are looking at this moment and saying, if ever there was a moment where we just wanted to have a government that pursued the things that it believes are important without constantly having to wonder whether or not it needs to apply a check on those kinds of things to avoid an election, it is this moment. Now, I don't think he's going to do that. So I think the question of whether or not there's going to be an election really does come down to how Pierre Poliev is going to play his cards. He is somebody with a lot of swagger and a very thin resume. And I think that people are looking at the world right now saying, is that what we need? We want somebody with more swagger and less experience?

I don't think it's a very strong proposition for the Conservatives. Why I don't think that their party is well advised to do what they're probably going to do next week, which is to endorse him wholeheartedly. You can even see, I wouldn't say, on the margins of the Conservatives, movement. There's a lot of fairly mainstream conservative voices who couldn't be louder almost

without being directly confrontational with Polyev saying he is not the conservative leader for this moment in time. Now, anyway, that's neither here nor there. They're going to endorse them. I'm quite convinced of that. But as to whether or not there's an election, I think Chantel's right that people don't want an election.

They want government. And they'd But they're happy enough with the government that they have. Not to say that they think it's perfect, but they think the direction makes sense. And they understand what Mark Carney is trying to do. They understand that he's not everything that every other leader has been. He's a unique kind of individual, but they think that that's a bit for the times. So who knows whether we'll have an election. I do think there's every prospect that we will be faced with extremely important and difficult

decisions. And the temptation for the opposition parties will be to say, we need to oppose these, we need to threaten to have an election, and who knows what will happen at that point. But it will be a dynamic year for sure. All right. Always reminds me of that famous John Drury on camera at the end of one of his items. Who knows, who really knows? John Drury, CBC News, Ottawa. Okay, we're well past our time for our first break, so let's take it Now we'll come right back, right after this. Please log in through the Google Home app. And welcome back.

I don't know what that voice was, but nevertheless, we'll move on. You're listening to the Bridge Friday edition. That's Good Talk, of course, with Sean Telle-A-Bear and Bruce Anderson. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Glad to have you with us. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform, or you're watching us on our YouTube channel. Okay.

Next up, Mark Carney got a lot of praise for his Davos speech last week. No doubt about that. Not from Donald Trump, but certainly from a lot of other people around the world. However, he came back to Canada, he made another speech, directed just at a Canadian audience

in Quebec City on, I guess it was yesterday. that's caused some troubles, especially in one part of the country. Chantel, why don't you give us the background of this? And keeping on mind, we are running late here, probably because I've talked too much during this program today, but nevertheless, Shantel. We get those speeches in advance with an embargo sometimes. This was the case yesterday, and I started reading it about an hour before the Prime Minister delivered that he is in Quebec. city, and a venue, the Stadelle, which sans a symbol of, it was built to resist American invasions. So in a symbolic place.

When I started reading it, I have to say I could see what trouble would happen. I'm told the prime minister wrote it. Maybe he did. But if he did, maybe he was fatigued or he should have run it by as many Quebec advisors. because it starts with the notion that the conquest, which is what happened right next to the Stadel, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, unlocked Canada's future and the place we are at.

It's really hard for a Francophone to convey to non-Frankophones. How much history is being ignored in that contention? It starts with Quebecers who would tell you that we didn't come 1960 in the quiet revolution because of the Catholic Church only. It was also because in 1960, in my lifetime, Quebec was still a place that was basically run by the Anglo elite that was using most Francophones as cheap labor. There is, if you want to do history, plenty of evidence in parliamentary committees of people affirming that no Francophone was qualified enough, for instance, to handle big financial

decision. So that's a history. But then you've got the Acadians who this morning woke up to say, do you remember that the British Army after the conquest sent troops to churches and put people on boats to deport them away from New Brunswick and from Acadia? Franco-Manitobans will chime in and say, remember Louis-Giol that we now celebrate that was hung on the orders of a Canadian prime minister? Franco-O-Ontarians, I am one of those,

will talk to you about Regulation 17, which forbid the teaching in French in the province of Ontario. Do you want me to go on? So the Prime Minister's contention that you start at the conquest on a happy road that leads you to rainbows is not going down well in Quebec, but what it mostly illustrates

is in absence of, of understanding of Canadian history or the sensitivities of francophones in this country. It may not seem to matter, but in a province where the license plates say, I remember, it's totally unwise to go down that route. And I will add two things. Justin Trudeau would never have started a speech on that note. But if the prime minister wants to take advice from someone who also wouldn't and knows his history,

he should call Stephen Harper because Stephen Harper would have known never to start off by signing the conquest was the beginning of a great history for Canada, for its Francophones and Anglo minorities. That was not the point

that the Prime Minister was trying to make. But if you're going to take moments in history, it's hard to think of a worst time to start off on this happy history. than the conquest. And of course, in this setting, there will be consequences politically.

The Pats of Quebec is having a meeting. The cac is going to be asked to react to this, and the reaction is going to be very negative. And federalist, Francoffons, will look at this and say, give him better advice before we end up in a referendum campaign. Was it a mistake, Bruce? Well, look, I mean, I'm not going to quarrel with what Chantelle has said.

That's her interpretation and the people that she's been talking with. And I didn't have the time yesterday to pay close attention to the speech. I followed it somewhat. I saw a lot of different themes in there, which I thought were important for the country to hear. I'll leave it to the prime minister's office to answer the criticisms. that Chantal has raised about the speech. From my standpoint, I think it was an important set of messages about unity.

And this really goes to what was the intent, what was the purpose? And then did he kind of start the speech out in a way that helped or hindered that purpose? You know, that's obviously debatable. But the purpose was obviously not to kind of inflame Franco-Canadian. it was to unite Canadians. And the arguments that he made there and the moment in time

that he chose to make them, I think, is important. I remain concerned about attitudes in Alberta headed towards a referendum. I remain concerned in part because the Conservative Party leader doesn't say he's for Alberta independence, but he talks about Canadian politics as though the only issue that matters is a pipeline aggressively

pushed through against whatever opposition might exist and that is the kind of thing that we know can be quite divisive. It isn't a call for unity. It's a call for kind of strenuous advocacy against those who have a different point of view than you. I don't think that's what the country needs right now and I think that what Prime Minister Carney was trying to do

was remind us of the things that we share in common as values, not necessarily to describe history in exactly the way that everybody can agree on it. But I think it was an important speech, and I think it's one that helped add a little bit more to the way that he communicates with Canadians so that they see the economist, yes, they see somebody who's capable, speaking in global context, but also somebody who can speak to some of the social values that are important to Canadians too. I'll just add one thing.

I agree with Bruce about the intent of the speech, but he sabotaged themselves and he has given the sovereignty movement its best weekend since he became prime minister. This will resonate far and wide, and anyone who hasn't heard it in Quebec by Monday morning, we'll know all about it. That's all I'm saying. So if you call that the definition of success, good luck. Okay. Well, we'll watch and see how it plays out and where it lands over the next few days and weeks.

We've got to take our final break, come back and talk about next week in Ottawa because it's a big week. We'll do that right after this. All right, final segment now for a good talk for this week. Chantelle and Brewster here. I'm Peter Mansbridge. to have you with us. Okay, next week is a big week, for a number of reasons in Ottawa. Parliament returns after its holiday season break.

Pierre Pollyev faces the decision of his party about his leadership. And by the end of next weekend, we should know that. As Bruce mentioned earlier, and I think Chantelle agrees, most people at this point think that he's going to be safe on that leadership review, but the number will be important. We'll see what that is in terms of a percentage of the party who agrees that he should stay on. And, of course, the NDP leadership races going on in the background, very much in the background, really.

But they're starting to take swings at each other, so that's always a sign that you're getting close to decision-making time. But the setting next week, what are you going to be looking for when Parliament returns and you watch the play. You kind of hinted at it earlier. A lot will depend on what Pollyev is going to do, what position he's going to take, what things he's going to say about the government

and the predicament that Canada finds itself in right now with the United States. What will you be looking for? Chantelle, why don't you start this round? I think I'll start looking for whatever, not this when Parliament returns, but a week later after the leadership. review vote on Pierre Puelev because I think all minds on the Conservatives are going to be

on this convention. I think the Prime Minister is meeting the premiers in person Thursday night and Friday. So I don't expect the House of Commons to be the major theater of next week's political action. That will change after the leadership vote. But I have been interested thinking about the leader. vote in the fact that Mr. Poylev publicly, but also behind the scenes, has been under intense pressure to raise his game in the light of the Davos-Karni speech. And he has and came out with what finally was lengthy and mostly constructive from an official opposition standpoint response

to the Davis speech. Whether that's a one-off to appease the moderate not red meat section of the conservative movement, the many conservatives who want to see an inspiring prime minister, and not someone who is always going for the juggler on the central issue of the day, or goes mute, we'll see after the leadership vote. But for sure, this will determine where Mr. Pladyev goes from there. And no, I don't know how it's going to play out,

how much he's going to get, how much he needs, certainly in my book, should be over 80%. The other thing we will be looking for after the leadership vote, if, as everyone expects Mr. Poliev is confirmed, is whether everyone will want to stay with him in caucus or inside the Conservative Party, or whether there are people there who are saying put until they see how the leadership vote

is resolved. So these, I think the first week is basically going to be a Pierre Paulyev week. And we too will tell you, will give you a sense of where the House of Commons is going, whether Mr. Carney has managed to secure a majority through people walking across from the Conservatives to the Liberals. All these possibilities only start opening up on tone, on substance, and on dynamics after Friday night's vote in Calgary at the conservative convention. Okay, Bruce.

Yeah, I think that's right. I think it is a Poliyev week. You know, there's a metaphor. I guess it's used in politics. You're either in the sword position or a shield position. You're either on offense or on defense. And if I ask myself, who would I absent any values judgment or anything like that, would I rather be Pierre Poliiev going into this week or Mark Carni.

going into this week in terms of the conversation, the combat in the House of Commons, I would rather be Mark Carney because I think that his, the argument that he will make an answer to however Pierre Pollyev criticizes him is one that will resonate with more Canadians more fully. We've just done a big survey and I'll only quote one piece of data from it, which is that 64% of Canadians are satisfied with the way that the Carney government is approaching things. That's five points up from November. More importantly, it includes 29% of conservative voters, 69% of NDP voters, 66% of BQ voters. That's unusual in a situation where people are feeling that anxious for an incumbent government to see that level of support. And in times like this,

that support, that satisfaction isn't table pounding enthusiasm. It's people saying, I don't think anybody could do better and I don't think there's a better strategy to pursue. For Pierre Pauliev, then, the challenge is, okay, all lights are going to be on you, all eyes are going to be trained on you, including in your own party. I think Chantel is exactly right. Why would anybody cross the floor now? Why don't they wait until see how that vote goes and then take the measure of whether or not they're comfortable in the party and they're comfortable with leadership?

but he's been evolving his position because he recognizes on some level that what he's been doing hasn't been good enough, hasn't been effective enough, hasn't seemed to meet the moment, and the moment is greater than it has ever been in his time in politics. What do I mean when I say that? Well, he sort of reduced everything right now to a kind of a three-part argument. Okay, Mark Carney gave a good statement. speech. But liberals are all talk. They never do anything. And we need a pipeline. As strategies go, that's not much, right? It's not much because the first part of it is acknowledging

that the other guy has the strengths that people see, the advantages that people see over you. The second part is, I don't see in our data a lot of voters going, Mark Carney makes speeches, but he doesn't do anything. They say, this is a guy who's working hard to, attract more customers and more investment into Canada. They may not be happy with the housing affordability question or the cost of living, but they do see a lot of activity. And when Carney says there will be more, these relationships will be deeper in terms of the trade arrangements, I think people are inclined to say, well, it's been, you know,

a year, that's not very long for those efforts to pay fruit. So I think Pollyev has a weaker hand going in, but people are going to, to be paying attention to him like they haven't in a long time. And on that point, if all he talks about is a pipeline, and the implication is elect me if you want somebody who's going to force a pipeline through, I think that lands with a thud

in a day when people are looking at leaders and saying, why do we want that? I've got one minute left, Chantal. So you've got to deal with this one for me. a bit of a rift developed this week between Doug Ford and Mark Carney, a rift that didn't exist up until then. They were pretty palsy breakfasting together in the whole bit. It's over the Chinese EVs situation, the auto situation.

Is this a permanent rift? Is this a, how big an issue is this? And once again, a less than a minute. I think, no, I don't think it's a permanent rift. I think both of them were playing their parts and doing their jobs, the prime minister by finding a deal for canola and seafood in exchange for a very minor opening of the market to eBs from China. And the Premier of Ontario playing a part by saying, I don't want, I don't need cheap cars, I need investments to build cars because my auto industry is threatened.

I would also note that most of the rift played out in public before the Devo's speech, Mr. Ford has a good ear for his province, and I suspect that polls over the next few days will show a bump in the Prime Minister's popularity in Ontario as a result of the Debo's speech. So I think by Friday when they all meet, everyone will be able to find common ground. I may be wrong,

but that's where I expect things to land this week. We'll have to save that little clip. I may be wrong. You don't hear that often, but we'll play it every once in a while. Oh, just go right in the headline that we used to. And of course, we will make a list who's been right or wrong. Did you guys not bet something significant a few years ago?

Oh, God. Yeah, I too have a memory. That's all history now. Yeah, right. And on a day where we talked about a lot of Canadian history, that one would rank in the top ten moments. All right. Thank you both.

Have a great weekend, and thank you to all of those of you who have been listening to Good Talk on this week. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks for listening. Have a great weekend. Talk to you next week. Have a good weekend. You guys.