The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -- Was This The Week Canada Really Changed?

Episode Date: September 18, 2026

For Mark Carney, this was a week to remember. Wining and dining the big players in big money, then flying over to France to be wined and dined by the EU. What will all this deliver, and how will Donald Trump react? And no matter what he says, should Canada care? Chantal and Bruce are here with their thoughts. 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 Mansperch here, along with Bruce Anderson and Chantelli Bear. You know, I'm not quite sure where to start this week, because it's been one of those weeks. I mean, a lot of stuff. Obviously, stuff that affects the prime minister, but stuff that I think affects Canada, the way we look at ourselves and who we are. So let me talk about that just for a second and get your thoughts on it. You know, we had a week of whining and dining big money in Toronto.

We were wine and dined by Europe. We put airports on the leasing block. All this while watching Stephen Harper standing, you know, verbally alongside Mark Carney on the U.S. Canada story and more. And then you had this, like, remarkable scene last night of Pierre Polyev, who had a 25-point lead in the polls just a year and a half ago, having to sneak out the back door of his own caucus, avoiding the cameras and comments.

So I don't know, there are a lot of lanes there we can go on, pick the lane, Chantelle, and, you know, give me a sense of, you know, what's going on. And in effect, has it changed the nature of our country of all these kind of things that have been going on lately? No, I don't think it has changed the nature of our country. country, will it change the nature of our country or will it reshape the way we see ourselves and our place in the world over time? Certainly, I believe that process was already ongoing

over the past year since Donald Trump has done whatever he's done, but also how Mark Carney has responded. What we have seen, though, is putting more flesh on the bone of looking elsewhere, are recasting our relationships given which has been happening in the United States. So instead of sitting back and complaining and saying all of the things that we may think about the Trump administration, this government has been trying to, one, put the words, we are going to do things differently into action, but also using the opportunity of the crisis to do things that probably have been on the minds of many governments over the years. So I'm just going to take airports as an example of that.

The first government that started to think about leasing, we're not giving away our airports, by the way. We're not nationalizing airports. We are leasing their operation, or we would be, to investors who would want to make a profit out of it, whether they do and whether that translates into better operations of airports is something that has happened in some countries. Many countries have been doing that and not in others. So we'll see over time.

But the first government that talked about that was Jean-Critzain's government and then backed off and went the route that we have now. Stephen Harper looked at it and thought, I'm going to have too many. branding issues with acceptability. It's too easy to maneuver this and who we're giving away our airports. Bill Mourneau appointed the committee to look at the issue and it recommended going the route that we're going. And what I thought was interesting was that among the people on the committee were Michael Sabia, who is now the clerk of the Privy Council, Mark Wiseman, who is now our ambassador to the U.S. appointed by Mark Carney, and the Dominic Barton,

who's just being appointed by Mark Carney as the head of his investment agency. So clearly these people are close to the prime minister. One assumes that Mark Carney himself was already of a mind to do this airport move. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but I'm saying that it wouldn't be happening if there was not receptivity in public opinion to new ways of doing things. And at least to have a debate, I'm not going to go in to. to the EU thing yet, but that is also, it's changing the conversation. We will be having a conversation about the EU.

We are not becoming a member that is bound by Brussels rules. That is not the point, but it is an interesting conversation to be had, and this week we really opened that conversation. Okay, Bruce, your thoughts in general on this issue. about, you know, the kind of things that happened this week, you know, and Shantel's kind of like. This week, you know, for me, I don't think that I've seen a week like this in the 45 or so years that I've been following politics closely.

I think the degree to which the country is focused on what are we going to do? How, what should we do going forward? It's rare that there is so much interest. preoccupation, a combination of anxiety, but also optimism. But there really does seem to be a kind of a unified interest in this. And part of what's fascinating to me is that, you know, people often talk about the desire for change, that why is politics always seen the same? Why don't we ever see big, different ideas? And we're seeing ideas for change that are not incrementalist right now. They're big ideas. And instead of reacting to them in a way that's,

that reveals the anxiety and the fear of change, most Canadians anyway, in our work seem to be saying, let's give it a look. We need to do things differently. We need to do, we need to have more pace. We need to be alert to the threats, but we also need to be ambitious about the opportunities. I don't think I've seen a mood like that. And I don't think I've seen. a leader who's quite able to capture that moment, shape the moment, do something with it that's constructive. And why do I think that he's effective at that? I think the first thing is that politicians in politics has been trained to kind of divide

for effectiveness over time, to find a kind of a segment of voters to, you know, circle them and to describe everybody else as being on the other side of the fence. And it has been from time to time a more or less effective strategy, but it has been the kind of muscular training of political parties and leaders for a long time. I don't think Mark Carney spends much time doing that. I think he spends more time trying to figure out how do I unify people. How do I actually get Danielle Smith and Scott Moe and Christine Freshett and Stephen Harper and Dave Evey? Stephen Harper into a conversation, which doesn't really have any partisanship showing in it.

We're very, very little. And that's quite unusual. And it's deliberate, I think. And I think it's something that the country is sort of seeing in the way in which Mr. Carney is approaching things. And they like it. I think the other thing that strikes me about the way in which he's conducting himself is, for all of the years, polling that I've been polling on what people like in a political leader.

A strong leader is often a phrase that kind of rises to the top. But people don't always see a strong leader. And they don't always mean the same thing when they say a strong leader. Jean-Cretchen was from time to time considered a strong leader and people like that, even if they didn't always like the positions that he took. But sometimes his strength was divisive. Ryan Mulroney from time to time was seen as a strong leader. Stephen Harper was sometimes seen as a strong leader.

But I think there's a strength in how Carney is presenting his ideas that is resonating with people. And maybe more so because they feel like we need that kind of leadership, that tell it to me straight, use language that I can understand, deliver an idea that is going to make me pay attention. And the last point for me is the, and I know we're, probably going to get into how is Pierre Paulyev doing and what do we make of that but when I was growing up and probably the same for YouTube there were only two TV channels so you didn't really have much choice there were two there were two there were two there was an English one of a French one

yeah that's it right and I think in politics today national politics today there's the Trump channel and what are we going to do about it channel and people are having been consuming a lot of the Trump channel. It's still there in front of us every day. He's not getting better. He's not getting smarter. He's not getting more genial. If anything, it's getting worse.

But there's a lot of interest in the, what are we going to do about it channel? And I think that's where Carney and a bunch of the provincial premiers and probably the reason why Stephen Harper decided that he was going to step on that stage too, is that is the, not a vacuum, but that is the information. that people are looking for now. Okay, I know Chantel wants to get back in here, but before she does, I just want to circle back to my opening question

and get your answer, Bruce, on it, because Chantel gave an emphatic no, basically, on this issue of whether the country is changing. Are we looking at a different kind of Canada as a result of the things that have been going on, you know, over the last year? But especially when you look through the prism of this, past week.

There's a lot of stuff happening here. I think we are, but I don't think this week was the, I think this was a week where it became more and more apparent what has been developing for some time, which is this, this sense that the world is disrupted. And rather than feel like we need to cower in place and just hope for the best that there are things that we can do about it, there are things that we're going to do about it, there are things that are already underway. And I think that, you know, for many Canadians watching the arrival of the biggest investors in the world,

enthusiastic about having conversations about what they can do with Canada and in Canada, I think that that is different. There used to be more protectionism. There used to be more of a let's just kind of huddle together for warmth and effectiveness. There used to be more statism. And I think people are far more open to, we can stand up. We can build a stronger economy. We have been doing that.

We sometimes maybe underestimate how good we are at it. So let's get on with that. People want to put on the gas, not on the break right now. All right. Chantal. And I think the key phrase is people are interested in looking at things. I don't think you should jump to the conclusion that at the end of the day, they will come out on the other side saying,

this is great. It's a conversation. So you don't change the character of a country in a month or in a week. And to tell you the truth, lots of things that are interesting happen this week, but I don't think that most people would qualify the Investment Summit or the speech to the EU or the airport announcement to name those three

is defining moments in the life of Canada. existential life. They are more means to an end and the attitude that welcomes them was built in before all of these events happened and we saw that in the reaction to the decision by the prime minister to walk away from a concession deal with the Trump administration. It was baited in. We used that word for another purpose but the resistance spirit as been there. And as the prime minister keeps reminding Canadians, this is also not new in Canadian history. Whenever there have been attempts over history to go down the route that the Trump administration has suggested, the response in Canada has been resistance and is setting aside

of other issues, French, English, First Nations, to look together in the same direction. But You talk about, you know, is it changing the country or the way we do things? I would compare it to the first term of Brian Mulroney and all of the things that he set in motion. That was the last time we had a prime minister who attempted serious structural change rather than Stephen Harper might have liked to, but he didn't have the basis of support. There is a Nixon to China issue when having. a liberal, so-called liberal prime minister leading that change. Stephen Harper helped Mark Carney this week, but also helped himself.

He is that that point where he has been away from office long enough, and all prime ministers that we've covered came to that point, where you rebound as an elder statesman. It happened to Pierre Trudeau. No one wanted to have Pierre Trudeau on a stage right after he left office. It happened to Brian Mulroney. It has been happening to Jean-Critzain,

and now it's happening to Stephen Harper. And it cuts both ways. I mean, once you're the elder statesman, you're basically saying, you know, I'm above the partisan point scoring, and I have to say that if I were the prime minister, I would be going down that route. But what I found also interesting

in the coming together of the person I consider our most pro-American prime minister, that would be Stephen Harper, and our most pro-European, Mark Carney, is the fact that I spent the years before Trump returned and then we had the federal election telling audiences that in Canada we work in cycles. So we usually put up with a party in government for about a decade, and then we kicked them out and we switched to the liberals and back to the conservatives. we were due for a change in the cycle by the time the last election rolled around. And as I was looking at those two prime ministers on the same stage, I thought we did have a change in the cycle from liberal to more conservative.

The only thing is we did it by only changing the prime minister, as opposed to the party and government. But that also accounts for how Pierre Puehliev has been shedding thousands and thousands of votes to the liberals because they, those voters, see that change in Mark Carney that goes in the direction of a more conservative government, even, and many liberals are comfortable with that change because the liberal party is comfortable with almost anything that takes it and keeps it in government. But voters who want to change after the Trudeau years are finding that Mark Carney is delivering that change.

I thought that's a really interesting experience, because. as opposed to Mulroney, Mark Carney, is inherited an experienced non-quantity caucus. And that means he's not spending his first years in office fixing up messes for lack of experience on the bench around him. You know. Yeah, go ahead. I just wanted to pull out on one or two threads that Chantelle touched on that I found really interesting. She described a period of resistance. And I think that was exactly the way that I saw much of last year.

I think that we may be moving away from that, that focus on resistance to the United States towards something. That's the next stage. And for me, it's a little bit like if we want to overuse these metaphors. It's moving away from elbows up, more towards head up, look around for the opportunities. I think there's still a lot of, we're not going to go along with what Trump wants, but that's almost settled math right now that we're not going to go along with what

Trump wants and that we're going to maybe see if America gets better and hope that it will and that we can find some mutual accommodation there, but we're going to do other things too. And I think that maybe this week is a bit of an inflection point where more evidence was on the table for people of the more opportunities that there are for the country. And so that's why I think this week was important, not that it started a process of change in the country, but that process that was already underway took a new gear. The second thing, Chantelle, I think put her finger on it exactly that these are ideas, whether it's the EU or the treatment of airports, that people are open to. Doesn't mean that they're settled. Doesn't mean that people are immediately saying,

well, we love this idea because Mark Carney's for it. But it also means that. people on the other side of it who are reflexively saying, hell, no, we can never do that, are missing the mood. They're missing the fact that people actually believe that they should and need to hear a good argument against before deciding that they're going to oppose. And just for full disclosure, I wrote a substack piece that touched on some research that I had done for one of the groups of pension funds that's interested in this, shift in how airports operate.

And our research did suggest that people were open to this, but, you know, I was careful to sort of write that there will be debates about prices and impact on consumers and service standards, and there should be. But for me, that degree of openness contrasted with what I remember from researching the privatization of Air Canada in the Mulruna years, where the reflexive instinct was, something is going to be lost and we need to probably not go in this direction. Eventually they did. But that openness also translates into this EU conversation where we saw,

you know, the conservatives, I really struggle with what do they say about it that makes sense as a party that has been a champion of more open trading relationships, but ends up wanting to express a kind of an anti-Europe view that sounds like an echo of Donald Trump. And so they're left being against doing more with China, against doing more with Europe for a kind of a make-believe solution with the United States. Let's just go back to free trade. It's become more incoherent. And it was hard to imagine that that would be possible based on the last several months. You know, I found it fascinating to read some of the quotes coming out of some MPs,

conservative MPs, that were coming out of that caucus yesterday in British Columbia, who were, you know, faceless and nameless. They didn't want their names mentioned. But one of the quotes that I found most telling was, nobody wants to hear what we have to say anymore. We're in a moment here, but they just don't care what we say. We're not interested in hearing about it. Well, there is a time when official opposition can actually demonstrate its usefulness by showing out it makes things better rather than how it destroys or kills things by opposing them.

And we are in that period. In the case of CETA, I mean, one, I think most reasonable people would agree that if you hear of an idea, you should let it. mature so that you know if you're looking at a flower or a weed before you try to cut it off. And that is not what happened this week. Instantly, we became members of an organization that has a bureaucracy in Brussels. It was the easiest line of attack to defeat because we are clearly not doing the let's change the next trade Washington for Brussels and let's add more bureaucracy as we try to shed hours. But SETA, the free trade deal that we currently have with Europe, was worked on and started under Stephen Harper. So at some point, you cannot say, this baby is a creature of

the pro-European, he's going to sell us out to a world government, Mark Carney, knowing the history of the file. So you're left with the impression. I have this test. that I obviously cannot do for very long because of what I do for a living. But that if I decided to mute Pierre Puelev on my social media feeds, I might forget this existence over the days when I'm not seeing him on social media

and I would not miss anything in the arguments that matter in the national conversation at this point. And that's a fairly devastating finding that I made this week. I thought, what would happen if I wasn't exposed to any of this? And the answer was, nothing would happen. We would still be having the same conversation, except that the noise on the side would be gone. That is what those MPs, I think, we're trying to say.

There is no attention. But there is no attention paid to them, because when is their attention paid to Piap Wadiyev, when he tries to be constructive? And I think he has a problem getting his caucus united behind constructiveness at this point. That has become fairly obvious. So this is where we are at. What do you do if you're the only conservative who became prime minister since Brian Mulroney is standing next to the prime minister for a photo shoot?

And you're having a caucus meeting to try to say, I'm the leader and the voice of the conservative movement. and by the way, in that family picture, I did now with one absence. I saw Jean-Cristin and I saw Stephen Harper, and I thought, where could Justin Trudeau be? Yeah, well, we know. Peter, I think that's your question of, does anybody care what they have to say? I think people would. I think it's, we all have seen it before.

Opposition parties get down on themselves and feel like nobody cares, and it's a lousy role. And then you sort of almost hear them blaming the public for not being interested in what they have to say, as opposed to it's your job to find something that's valuable to inject into the public conversation. This is a rare moment where the valuable thing to do is to join the conversation about what are we going to do about it. And if you generally are going to agree with the direction that the government is setting, you should say so. And you should say, you know, we're going to be watching for a couple of things because these are important things that government needs to be on the alert for. You can find ways to sound positive.

You can find ways to emphasize the loyal part of loyal opposition more than the opposition part. And this party under this leader is just rejecting that. I mean, Pierre-Polyos' problem is not that Trudeau left and Carney arrived. Sure, that created a big problem for him. But to put everything on those two factors is to ignore the fact that he has studiously been unable to position himself with any grace or dignity or thoughtfulness about the U.S. relationship except for a couple of appearances on U.S. media last week. And he doesn't really have much to say that sounds different from Canada is broken. Now, Canada is broken.

What was like somebody was reminding me. Peter and I used, I don't know, Chantelle, Peter and I used to watch that show 24 back in the day, Kiefer Sutherland Show. And what a great show it seemed at the time. And if you look at it now, you go, that's a stupid. show. Some things just don't age very well. And his candidate is broken thing, which he's so over-indexed and invested on because

nothing could go wrong because he was going to beat Justin Trudeau. He, that's still stuck to him. And if he wants to be a different kind of leader with a successful future, he has to enter the candidate is strong and going to get stronger conversation because that is where the puck is gone. to overuse that metaphor. And if I just may add, Pierre Pallier was not the only person

who reacted to the EU events, so that I was immensely more interested in reading I Francois Blanchet's comments and what he would be looking out for because it started with, I'm going to help Mr. Carney get this to a proper destination for Quebec and Canada, and here are the things that I'm going to be watching out for.

And I thought, yeah, this makes sense. I want to hear what they have to say and how they plan to be part of the conversation. So I'm getting this from the leader of the Black Quebeco. And Mr. Blashe did not say Mark Carney is great, and it's all going to be great. That is not what he said. He said, here is how I'm going to do my job as an opposition leader,

looking at this concept that many of us find intriguing. And it works. to do that. It works better than saying caricaturing what is happening in a way that makes you not look like you're a serious person, which is basically what the Conservatives stood to themselves this week. Okay, I've got to take a break. But I want to talk more about this Europe thing because a lot of people are more than a little bit interested in this discussion and where it's going, if it's going anywhere. We'll do that right after this.

And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Friday episode, which of course is Good Talk with Chantelle-Barre and Bruce Anderson. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 160, Canada Talks, or you're listening on one of our podcast platforms, or you're watching us on our YouTube channel. Glad to have you to this. Okay.

I guess it's been almost a year since Mark Carney told the country, the relationship as we have known it with the United States is over. It's never going to come back, but it will not return. And as a result, we're going to look at other possibilities for diversification on Canada's trade front. And so that is clearly what he's been doing. He's traveled to Asia. travel to Europe. He's traveled, well, he's traveled a lot of places. He always seems to be traveling.

I don't know when this guy sleeps. As far as I know, he still runs every day. He looks in terrific shape and he never looks tired. I really do. Is he human? You got to wonder. Anyway, so this week, you have Europe responding to the kind of things that Mark Carney and Canada have been saying over the past year by suggesting some association with the European Union. First, it looked like it was, they actually talk in membership here. Carney shot that down. It's now some kind of associate membership. But what exactly that means?

We don't know. I'm not sure even the participants know with some certainty what it means. There has been some anxiety on the part. of some people, not just Pierre-Polayev, about, well, how far is this going to go and is this really what we want to do? So what do we know? What do we actually know for a fact other than the words of being an associate member? I don't think that the person who said associate members, that would be the leader of the EU parliament,

who would even know what it actually means. the little meat that was put on the bone of the concept has been put by Mark Carney in a speech and is fairly general and there is nothing in there that would sound terribly surprising. So I think the EU is trying to find a different purpose for itself. It also needs to overcome some fairly serious difficulties on energy supply. As we are speaking, the issue that is capturing minds and dominating the conversation in Europe this morning is not at all Canada

joining the EU or what an associate member looks like. It's much more ominous in the sense of coming from Germany, coming from Poland, coming from France, rumors of war, real war. That's the reality that Europe is in this morning. So given that there is a, a place for Canada, but we should keep in mind that there is a really serious anxiety driving conversation ongoing in Europe that goes well beyond whatever our purpose is in that conversation. I think we will have, I believe the Prime Minister means for this to be more than just some deal on critical minerals or some deal on sending natural gas, liquefied gas to join. Germany, but certainly a lot less than becoming a member of the EU.

And I also believe that part of the thinking on the part of some of the EU leadership is for this to be a template for other countries, Australia, New Zealand, even Asian countries, to kind of find a way to have a better flow of thinking, fighting, possibly. but also selling and buying from each other. And it's going to take a while, and it's going to involve a conversation. Remember that these things, whether you agree with the outcome of that or not, that the free trade agreement with the United States started off with two leaders singing on a stage in Quebec City.

And eventually some flesh ended up being put on the bone, and eventually Canadians got to vote on whatever the outcome was. So it's, imagine that we today, what we saw this week, I'm not trying to diminish it, is basically Ursula Vanderlin

and Mark Carney singing when Irish eyes are smiling. That's the stage we are at. The next stage is supposed to come in October at a summit in Canada, subject to developments in Europe that may overtake a lot of this. You know, Bruce always hates it

when I make these kind of suggestions or ask these kind of questions. But if it gets that next stage, should the Canadian government, should the Prime Minister be getting a broader mandate from the people of Canada about entering a situation like that? I mean, as, you know, as Chantel said, the 88 election turned out, you know, was basically about free trade. and the relationship of the United States. Yeah, probably.

Yeah, I think that's right. I think that prime minister is fairly, you know, explicit. Yesterday or the day before about there's going to be debate. There's going to be, you know, disagreement and people are going to get to see it. And presumably at some point, they're going to have the opportunity to make a choice. Now, I mean, that presumes that an election would give them a choice between the conservative, or the conservatives and the NDP and the BQ or some combination thereof saying we're against this and the liberals saying we're for it, that's an assumption. It might or might not be the

case. But I think we're a long way from there because I think Chantelle's right that there's a lot of work that needs to be done to sort of dig into what this could mean. But some elements of it, I think, could move more quickly than others, separate and apart from some sort of formal designation and probably that's the pace that the prime minister wants to be on because some of the issues do have some urgency to them rather than think about how do we build the perfect structure how do we solve the urgent and build solutions for the long term i think should be the mindset and probably is the mindset i agree with what chantelle said about the starting point of Mulroney and Reagan

and that this was a little bit like that but I think that there is a difference the world before Mulroney went to that stage with Reagan was not the disrupted world exactly that we see right now and one of the preconditions for this conversation having taken root so quickly

in Europe is that Europe is very dynamically interested in what unwinding the United States has done to the defense and security arrangements, especially in the context of Russia, playing the role that it's playing in Ukraine, especially given the rise in importance of China. So I think today's world is creating a different set of instincts in Canada, for sure, and in Europe. And those instincts are partly a function of the fact that the world is not the world that it seemed to be and that you can't rely on the United States to play that stabilizing role in the world and to and to kind of support a world order in which countries can disagree and negotiate

and push and shove each other around trade agreements and that sort of thing. But the fundamentals that have to do with who's going to defend one another, Those weren't so much in question. So I think Canada has two essential things that the Europeans or many of the Europeans will want. One is this idea of being reliable, trusted, having values that are similar. If you look at Russia and China and the United States and you say, we don't see that in those countries, that's a really important attribute for Canada. And the second is a degree of, of excellence.

expertise and resources. And I think the resources in critical minerals and energy are the most commonly discussed ones. But they are important for those European countries to know that they can have a supply that doesn't depend 95% as it's the case for some products with China or too much on Russia for energy or too much with the United States on technology. All of those factors, I think are quite different from the precursors to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and really are at the heart of why this conversation has some urgency. Except that we should not forget that for all of the things that Bruce mentioned, critical minerals, energy, we have a free trade agreement with the European Union. It is in operation. It has been there for 10 years. Yes, 10 countries have not formally ratified it. France is one of those, by the way, mostly for reasons.

of agriculture and environmental regulations. But it is in operation. We already have the groundwork, which means that whatever results from these stocks has to go further than a normal trade agreement. Completely agree. We already have it. And that is where it becomes interesting.

How does it work? What does it do? What does it do for us that we can't already do with CETO? those are all questions that will need to be answered. And in any agreement, there is give and take on both sides. So what's our give is going to be the big question that is not being addressed and that will be debated in Parliament? And at that point, not just Parliament, not just the opposition parties, the provinces

will also get to decide whether that give is worth it. And I'll remind you that back at the time of the FTA, Ontario decided that it wasn't good enough for it. Mostly, I think, because it had the auto-packed in place already, so it didn't have as much to gain as other provinces. But still, that debate did happen. It wasn't a sign that Canada was going to break up, that Ontario said no to the FTA while Quebec and Alberta said, yes, we had an election and moved on. and that is the normal process. But I'm with Bruce. I've seen the snap election rumors.

And I find that that would be like calling people to a banquet with a half-baked cake. You need to see the full shape of the cake before you come to the table. What if you don't eat dessert? Well, in that case, probably you belong to a party that I'm not going to name. Let me just make a couple of points. One picks up on what Chantel said earlier about the mood in Europe, and she's absolutely right in so many European countries. And it hasn't just happened in the last week or two.

It's been happening for the last six months, at least, this fear of war. And we're talking like war like WW3 this time. And that fear permeates across. many European countries and is the dominant fear right now. Having said that, there is a degree of fascination with what's happening here. And in particular with what's happening with Carney

and the approach he's taken to Trump. They all know the guy because of his banking time, both in England and Canada. There's a piece in the lead piece in McLean's this week, it was just pretty interesting about how European countries and others are watching very closely what Carney is up to.

Does that hurt us or help us the fact that there is that attention on? We've never seen this before. It helps us because there is no way that we can mitigate hurt coming from Washington whatever we do. So the options, and we saw that again this week. Basically, if you trade with Canada, we're going to cut off trade to you,

says the president of the United States to the EU in this environment. There is no calculation about hurt versus help because we can only help ourselves by doing what we are currently doing. What's the alternative to cave and say, okay, we will forever do whatever you allow us to do with you and with no one else, because that's the proposition we're facing. We are not in a sane negotiation environment here. We are in a, you will do my bidding or else I will come after whoever else wants to play with you in the schoolyard. So it's kind of useless to use political analysis skills to say maybe we should do less of that because we would help ourselves more

with the U.S. This is a beyond help situation. I would argue when it comes to the U.S. trade thing. All right. I think the, I think that, you know, politics under Trump has become a horrible reality show. And it's created this sense of,

holy cow, why can't we have a leader that is thoughtful, the serious, let alone aerodyte. And in that content, courageous a little bit, right? And so what's happened, I think, is that Carney has partly by just who he is, but the situation that he found himself in ended up looking like a grown-up who's serious

about the policy choices available, who is dealing with some kind of crisis dimensions of those policy choices in Canada, is very late when he talks about them, not in a way that people can't relate to, but in a way that people listen and lean in and want to hear more. more about, and that's unusual. Not every politician can do that. But the contrast with Trump is the contrast that people are looking for in Canada, but in other parts of the world, too. And I think that's the way in which a lot of people are responding. And I say that in part, it's not just the way in which he communicates and thinks about things, but it is a little bit the standing up to Trump and doing it not in a overly performative way, but

But, you know, when the prime minister said, nobody's going to tell us who we can trade with, nobody's going to tell us what language we can speak. There were a lot of leaders in the last year who weren't willing to say things like that in the direction of Donald Trump. And I think that people are sort of sensing now that this is a moment where more can. You know, I had the sense this week that Carney toughened his phrasing as, just exhibited by you. After Kraychan went after Trump last week,

which gained a huge amount of public support for Kratchen to do that. And I think it opened the door a little bit wider for Carney. I mean, he hasn't been shy going after Trump, but his stuff in the last few days has been much more direct, as you just outlined. We've got to take our final break. Come back. I want to get Chantel to update us on the Quebec thing,

the Quebec election, which is now only a couple of weeks away. Things have been happening. And it's, hey, it's a confusing picture, you know, for those outside of Quebec to try and, you know, track the different lines, the different parties that are happening there and where this seems to be leading, the polls are having a hard time trying to figure it all out right now. So we'll get Chantel to update us on that.

But right now we'll take our life. Last break, we'll be back after this. And welcome back, final segment of Good Talk for this week. Chantelle, Bruce, Peter, all here for you. All right, Chantel. Yeah. Don't lose us in the names of all the horses in the race. Oh, man, I used to get in so much trouble when I call political election nights a horse race.

You know, my producer screaming in my ear, they're not horses, they're people. And it's not a race at this point. it's kind of a standing still and running at the same time. We have two leaders' debates back-to-back this week, both in French. There will be a third one in the middle of next week. It will be the last debate. I should preface this by saying, I'm not sure how many people actually sat for two debates in a row this week.

So I would be curious to see the ratings for that second debate. But I think there is a consensus coming out of those debates that we expect there has been almost no movement in the public opinion polls since the beginning of the campaign. And when you look at, you've got five parties, all of them look like they're poised to have seats. It's difficult to know which of the Patski Vigua or the incumbent TECC would have the most seats or enough support to run a minority government. It's been kind of a, you know, a mushy environment. There is an expectation that that may change in the weekend polling as a result of the debates. Why? Because the consensus is, and I share that consensus,

that while four of the five leaders did okay or didn't hurt themselves and probably help themselves, Madame Freschette, the current Premier, did not do all that well, very much on the defensive on the first night. and not particularly effective. Better on the second night where the focus turned to the referendum plans of the Parts Quebecois.

But that doesn't mean that those debates are the last word on where this campaign is going. If we get polls next week that show the PQ suddenly getting the bump it needs to get to a majority government, a lot of people who think they've made up their minds but don't want a referendum. Maybe I'm inclined to say,

wait a minute. that's not necessarily what I want. And when Bruce will tell you, when there are four other options to choose from, there can still be a lot of movement. So where this is going? I could not tell you. I felt after watching the first of the two debates that if there had been a narrow chance for the government to be returned to office, that chance became slimmer this week. but you know how this works you saw it in the referendum in Quebec when polls started showing that the yes vote and separation would win people started rethinking how they wanted to vote or whether they wanted to vote so I think those polls the next batch of polls plus the debate next week will be really important and then if there is a trend because there's been no real trend we will see it emerge but maybe when we talk next week.

Okay. I saw one polling analysts say just the other day that for the premier, the current premier, that at this point, analyzing the polls, it could mean she could still win or it could mean she could get wiped out. Yeah, the fork for her seats, depending on it, he figures she loses six seats every time she loses a point. So his fort for her is anywhere between one seat and 35 seats. And that also depends how the third parties do in what regions versus.

But I do think that we may get out of that fog more definitely after the Raduc Canada debate next week. Okay. I've got a minute for you, Bruce, to tell us what all this means. Well, the big takeaway for me is that through the process, of the last year and a half or longer, the ability of politicians in Quebec to sell separatism has gotten weaker, not stronger. And we see it in the way in which Mr. Blanchett

has approached his advocacy in Ottawa in the last little while, and we see it in the challenges that the PQ are having at creating the circumstances for a big victory. And they've been kind of backsliding a little bit and struggling to get traction. I think that is the main reason, among others. You know, I've had a number of our listeners and viewers right in from Western Canada, especially from Alberta, saying, okay, this is all interesting,

but when are you going to talk about the referendum that's taking place? And not just, you know, like the assumption is there's one question on the Alberta ballot. There are, what is it, nine? I mean, there's a lot of questions on it. Yes. Four or five deal with constitutional reform and finding allies to get there. And then others deal with immigration and the rights of refugees. Well, we will discuss it.

We're going to, you know, the Quebec election is coming up first. And then it's a couple of weeks after that. The Alberta story is going to dominate some parts of our discussion. And we will certainly have it. So stick with us. We'll have that discussion. Okay, that's going to do it for this week. Thank the two of you.

It was another great conversation. Look forward to these every week, as I know. Our listeners and viewers do as well. So thanks to Bruce, thanks to Chantelle. Have a great weekend, you too. And we'll talk you again in a week's time. The buzz is out tomorrow. 7 a.m. Eastern Time in your mailbox.

Go to National Newswatch.com slash newsletter to subscribe. There's no charge. And you'll have it at 7 a.m. Eastern time. in your inbox. That's going to do it for this day and this week. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again in, well, on Monday.

Bye for now. Good to see you guys. Take care. Have a good good time.