The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk - Will It Make A Difference?

Episode Date: April 1, 2022

The Pope apologizes but how will that change the situation on reconciliation?  Bruce and Chantal on that and much more -- the billions to be spent on new jet fighters barely causes a ripple.  And next week's budget -- who is writing it -- the Liberals or the NDP or both?

Are you ready for good talk? And hello there from Stratford, Ontario. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Chantelle Hebert is in Montreal and Bruce Anderson is in Ottawa. I don't know whether you've ever been to the Sistine Chapel. Perhaps you've just, you know, looked at a number of art books, you know, those table art books, tour of the Sistine Chapel, one of the most famous, you know, rooms in the world. No doubt about that. And inside that room, one of the most famous paintings in the world by Michelangelo is on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, right? And it's that area where God is reaching out with a finger to touch the finger of Adam. It's the creation painting.

And if you go to the Vatican, if you tour the Vatican, you go to the Sistine Chapel, that is the image of many that are on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel that people focus on a lot. And one of the people who focused on it this week was one of the leaders of the indigenous groups from Canada that went to the Vatican this week to meet with the Pope with hopes of getting an apology from the Pope for the actions of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada. So when this fellow looked up at the ceiling and he saw that image, to him it wasn't about God and Adam. It wasn't about the creation. To him, he looked at that and he said, that's reconciliation. That's reaching out. And for him, that became a symbol of this week.

And it has been quite a week. We've seen Canadian Indigenous groups in the square outside the Vatican, inside the Vatican, and this morning dancing, singing, performing cultural parts of their background for the Pope, who was sitting there watching and was about to speak. And speak he eventually did, and apologize he eventually did and apologize he eventually did and the church through the pope has only apologized twice before in its history about acts like this once was in ireland once was in brazil but now the pope has apologized for what he called deplorable abuses by the church for indigenous peoples, and especially children in Canada. Deplorable is a very strong word. And he signaled that he's coming to Canada

at some point. I don't think a date has been set yet to apologize on Canadian land. So this comes after years of pleading for this, asking for this, and now they have it. So what has this week, which has been quite remarkable in some of the sites we've seen, what does it actually mean? What does it tell us has been quite remarkable in some of the sites we've seen what does it actually mean what does it tell us has been accomplished here chantelle do you want to start um i'm guessing that it uh it tells the world uh that the debate that we've been having in this country which is convinced i believe a vast majority of Canadians did some real wrong had been perpetrated, that has now been validated by the Pope. And I think that matters

in the big picture. I think that matters to Indigenous people who are not necessarily living in Canada, this recognition that there is no rationalization, this was a different era, et cetera, to excuse the abuse that was committed against indigenous people. And I think in this country, it also sends that message, and I believe it is important. I think it's important for indigenous people to hear, but I believe it's important for other Canadians to hear too.

Bruce. Well, I think it's a good day. It's a, it's a positive step. I still believe that it's shocking that it has taken the Catholic church this long to arrive at a point where they acknowledge their institutional responsibility. You know, I get that there was probably a lot of internal debate. I get that there was a feeling of,

well, if we're going to ultimately take the step of apologizing, let's do it in a time, in a circumstance, in a manner of our choosing and i'm pleased for the indigenous advocates who work tirelessly to go and make their case and be patient with the system not sure that i would have been as patient as they appeared to be waiting for the catholic church to finally the, the wrongs that were committed. But as these things go, you know, it's the, it's the big institution that was involved in the residential school system

that had not yet fully and comprehensively embraced its responsibility. So it has to be a good thing that that's been done. And hopefully, you know, the images and the sounds and the words that I heard coming out of the meeting with the Pope were positive, were about reconciliation. So I'm happy to see that and pleased that this step happened. You wanted to add to that again, Chantal? Yes, on the point that it serves a useful education purpose in Canada. And you may be tempted to think, considering everything that we've seen and heard, all the commissions that worked on it, that that is kind of an extra bit of a luxury.

Let me just remind you that when former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien went on Tout le monde en parle, the Quebec talk show last fall, he reduced the experience of those Indigenous children to his own experience in boarding school. So, yes, education is certainly continues to be required for Canadians too. And I believe that the word of the Pope, I agree with Bruce, coming as late as it does,

still carries weight with many Canadians who have wanted to just dismiss this as a product of past times. I think that is a key to this story because the temptation for us is always to say well you know this is like this is a terrible part of our history but it's history you know like it was way back it was decades if not more than a century ago well in fact that that is not the case you know some of this was happening in our lifetimes, and I don't just mean my old lifetime, but younger ones too, not that long ago.

It's still in many ways part of our present, and that's what this whole, you know, truth and reconciliation is really all about. And it's hard, you know, we go through moments. We went through a moment in in terms of the unmarked graves where it became front and center top of uh top of the agenda um in in terms of concern on amongst canadians generally um but you know time moves on in our 24-7 world and you know other things come in uh and it kind of slides off the agenda. Peter, can I add something?

I do think that the two kind of ways of denying the legitimacy of this grievance or shuffling it aside or minimizing it are kind of, it happened a long time ago or the kretchen version it wasn't that bad everybody had a bad story to tell um or can't we just kind of get over it and and i mean we've we've even seen some politicians in canada saying indigenous people need you know a better work ethic or something like that they need to kind of concentrate on helping themselves move forward and um i think that the that those kinds of answers to an obvious problem that was created no matter when it was created if they're not addressed even though i get that every that there's a lot of people who say, I'm so tired of wokeism,

I'm so tired of apologies and everything else. Well, so what? Suck it up. We've got to accept some aspects of the past have created really important divisions in society that if we don't address are only going to get worse. And I i was really noticing a lot the dutch and the the duke and the prince and the duchess the tour of the caribbean uh in the last few weeks uh william and kate and the number of times that it was uh important and valuable i, for them to talk about the role of the UK and the slave trade. Because the impact of the slave trade is still very much with us. It's still, you know, a huge social issue. It's still a huge aspect of the racism that divides American society and not just American society. And I'm sure it was a difficult decision for the royal family or for the UK to acknowledge as much

as they have been required to or chose to. But I think it's necessary. I think it's really important that these conversations happen, even if some people get a little frustrated with them. You can call him a duke as well as a prince, by the way. You can? Yes. As well as a prince, yeah. He's both. But I'll tell you, and this is a departure from the situation in terms of what happened

in the Vatican today, but it's an interesting signal that a different generation is ready to move and move quickly. What the Duke and the Duchess did while they were getting, you know, hammered on the slavery issue is the Duke signaled that he's ready to change in a significant way in the sense that he wants to, you know, you might argue about how significant it is, but in terms of the Commonwealth, to pull out of that in terms of head of the Commonwealth. He's ready to change his role when he eventually, you know, becomes the monarch. And it's those kind of things, it's those signals from new generations that have to take place, whether you were talking about the monarchy or whether we're talking about the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada. And unless there's significant movement made, and you can argue about how significant this one was today in terms of the Pope. But there has to be those kind of changes happen if we're going to move forward with any significance on this. I agree, but also I think that if we, I haven't polled this with young people,

but I'd kind of be surprised if a very large number of young people believe that the Pope, by virtue of being the Pope, is infallible, and that the king of england the next king of england charles was chosen by god and both of those things are meant to be understood as kind of cultural anchors and were in prior generations not by everybody but by the large number of people i think and just hearing them said now, in the context of what, how much has changed generationally, in attitudes and value systems and beliefs. Good for him to have said it. But I do think time was running out on this idea of the divine right of the monarch, and the fact that monarchs were essentially chosen by some god.

Time was running out. I think time ran out some time ago. Exactly. And it has only been saved by the monarch in the seat at the moment, right? And the affection that's held for her pretty much around the world. But when those days are over, everything one assumes is going to change. A lot of things could change in that relationship. All right, we're going to move on to a different segment.

But first, this break. And we're back with good talk i'm peter mansbridge in stratford chantelle's in montreal bruce is in ottawa um next topic on the uh on the list today um i'm old enough to remember you know the debate around the CF-18s when the purchase was made in the mid-'80s, and that debate went on for some time, and it involved a lot of money, and the issue about where contract work was going to be done in Canada for the purchase of CF-18s. This was the fighter jet, the most modern, the new modern fighter jet for the Canadian Forces. Well, it's been 15, 20 years since we started the discussion about what would for the canadian forces well it's been 15 20 years since we started the discussion about what would replace the cf-18s and there has been lots of debate governments have

come and gone ministers have come and gone billions and billions of dollars has been discussed and in some cases spent on the process process of determining which ones of these different fighter jets that were on display to Canada would be the choice. Well, this week, or the last couple of days, the decisions made, it isn't going to be what's been rumored to be for almost 15 years, choice of canada the f-35 in fact had been announced other times and then and then governments changed their mind but that's going to be the f-35 and once again there will be tens of billions of dollars spent on purchasing i think it's 88 of these stealth fighter jets supposedly they're going to help us in our defense of the Arctic.

I'm not sure how that's going to work, seeing as there's most places in the Arctic an F-35 couldn't land anyway. But nevertheless, what was fascinating about this story, when it finally dropped this week, is it was a one-day wonder or a one-hour wonder. It just didn't get much discussion and hasn't since and i wonder what that tells us um about the world in which we live right now where there are obviously other big issues that are out there but this is a huge huge purchase um bruce why don't you start us well it probably shouldn't be a huge huge purchase in the sense of hugely politically consequential i think we've tended in the past to make these things become

political footballs and it hasn't really been because that's good public policy or it's kind of the right way for politics to work to apply stress and friction to these decisions. It's tended to be overblown, whether you go back to the EH-101 helicopters or earlier versions of discussions about the F-18 or the F-35, they all tend to get overloaded with a sense of political consequence and the idea that if you're in the opposition, you should really challenge whatever it is that the government's going to do because the price tag seems large and the utility might seem more marginal to some voters. I think one of the reasons why we are where we are is first of all we talked about this a couple of weeks ago that price tags don't have the same eye-popping value that they used to have whatever this number was 65 planes was it nine billion dollars have i got that right oh it's a lot more it seems like it must be more than that but it's here we are there's like

a billion dollars each these things and everybody is looking at their at their computers the three of us trying to figure out what that actual number is tells us something about the fact that we're not as eye-popped by the number as we would have been perhaps in the past and then the second thing is we're we're involved in watching and helping with a conflict the likes of which is really quite worrying it's worrying because we don't really know what it means for the world order because russia's involved because we don't exactly know what kind of country and military ally the United States is going to be after next year or the year after that. And the idea of not having a military with as much equipment as we can reasonably afford strikes people today, I think,

as a problem that we need to be more vigilant about. So I think there's more of a sense of reduced shock around the price tag of these things, and also maybe a greater sense of the need to maintain a modern military to protect ourselves and to participate in joint efforts with our allies to promote and ensure world peace. Okay. What do you make of this, Chantal? I think there is, you know, the big picture, which is that we are buying these now, and context does matter. That decision the government was going to have to take at this point

at some point this spring the ukraine uh conflict with russia has changed the context and i believe the liberals uh found an opportunity in a crisis on this because this because this goes beyond we're buying all these airplanes and the price tag is really heavy and no one is saying this is too much money or think of how many childcare places you could have created. All those arguments we heard and false equivalencies in many instances in previous debates.

The fact that there's not an election for some time probably helps. But Trudeau reversed himself this week this goes beyond we're ordering a bunch of airplanes that will cost a lot of money for the military uh it in 2015 and you probably all saw videos of it he was adamant that one of the promises of the liberals was that they would cancel this contract, which they did. And now the liberals will tell you, well, what we said was that we would go ahead with purchases after a due process. And we've now delivered on that process. But make no mistake, the Ukraine conflict explains why there is no outcry either about the buying and about the reversal of the policy.

By the way, it's $15 billion. I did just check. Yeah, $9 billion. And the initial cost that the conservatives talked about, and that was challenged by the parliamentary budget officer, by the way, was nine billion for sixty five. Now we're buying eighty eight of those. But but way back then, the parliamentary budget officer had said the price tag that the conservatives is putting forward is too low. We'll see if this price tag does live up to the expectation. But it tells you something about the mood of the country versus defense and what Russia's invasion or attempted invasion of Ukraine has done to the public mood. And on that note, and it was in French, so we could never use it.

Yves-François Blanchet of the Bloc Québécois, last week, I thought, summed it up best when he explained that, in theory, he has always been opposed to more defense spending. But in practice and in light of what has been happening, he has changed his position on that particular issue. I think that's reflective of what many Canadians in Quebec and elsewhere have been going through in their mind, in their process of this announcement. I agree. You know, and that's really interesting because you wonder how long that mindset stays, right? is somehow resolved with a certain degree of satisfaction in the next couple of months, does that feeling like the Blanchette expressed,

does that disappear from the public mind in terms of defense purchases for sure? And part of the issue about how much this is going to cost is the fact they didn't put a number on it. When they announced that earlier this week, they put a number on the number of planes. 88, as Chantel mentioned, that's a lot of planes. But they didn't put a number on the cost. And the cost has always been an issue. As has the issue about where some of the contract work will be doing. That was the big thing on the CF-18s, right?

Was there Manitoba that benefited to a degree or not enough or what have you, enough to upset other places like Quebec? Or the reverse. Or the reverse, exactly. But I wonder whether this issue that Blanchet offers up in terms of his own position is something that is, you know, transitional. It's only going to last a certain while and during the period in which it is

lasting, you move certain things through. You know, I possibly, or some aspects of it probably will if as we all hope the situation in ukraine comes to a ceasefire soon um then some amount of the emotional energy that goes into support for ukraine and support for re-equipping our military, that sort of thing, that will dissipate somewhat. That's normally what you would expect to happen. There are always other priorities competing for people's attention and for their sense of urgency. Having said that, I think the one other thing that's hugely different is the role of the United States and our military alliances, which are more

uncertain than I think they've been in my lifetime. I think there was always a certain, we maybe didn't want to acknowledge it, but a free rider instinct that as long as the United States was building the world's biggest, most best equipped, most technologically advanced military, and that we were so closely allied with them, that for us to spend some of our money on military equipment was maybe something that we could afford to not do, we could spend the money on other things, because the United States would have our backs. And I don't think that that's as clear. I think that it is more clear, perhaps, that we need to have a strong alliance with other NATO countries. Because there might be another day when Donald

Trump is president and decides that he wants to take the United States out of NATO or has some other wacky scheme that doesn't involve standing with us, whether it's in the North or in some other context. And who knows? I don't think that we should kind of build our whole military budget and our plan for sovereignty and security around the prospect of Donald Trump. But Donald Trump is only one symptom of a problem that we've talked about quite a bit in the United States, which is that a lot of Americans do not see themselves as playing the role that we've historically seen America playing as a helpful buttress for democracies and the idea of peace in the world.

And I think it's, it's prudent for us now to think about that as well. And I think that is part of what Canadians are, are thinking about some anyway. A couple of points at the public opinion. There's not been, I think over the time that we've covered politics in this country, never been as receptive to an increase in defense spending as it is now.

That may change, but for the reasons that Bruce has talked about, the Trump, many of the assumptions of Canadians had about the United States were shattered over the Trump era. And there is no guarantee that that era will not have a second phase. And as long as Vladimir Putin is in Russia and the situation in Russia is as fraught as it is, I'm not sure that the ceasefire is going to just make people go home and say, well, let's not do this anymore. But I think what happened that was important this week is that for once, as opposed to the helicopters at the time of Jean Chrétien or the F-35, when Harper and Trudeau were facing off, is that for now, at least, defense spending is being taken out of the electoral arena as a political football.

And that makes a difference. If the two main parties are now going to be relatively on the same page with nuances, there will always be nuances, that takes it out of the play in an election. And I believe that's important because I don't think it has done a service to the debate on national defense and defense spending, that it is so readily being used as a political football in the electoral arena. And you could say that about a bunch of other things like climate change and childcare. And when you look at the past week, you start thinking how much our electoral politics has really gotten in the way of consistent policymaking in this country. That's a, that's an interesting point.

In a way it kind of signals where we're going with our next topic. And that's, you know, we're a week away from the budget and what, what enters the, the equation in terms of the writing of that document. Um, so let's take a quick break and then we'll come back on that. back with chantelle and bruce i'm peter mansbridge in stratford ontario you're listening to the bridge the good talk edition on sirius xm channel 167 canada talks or on your favorite podcast platform and wherever you're listening to us we're glad you're with us.

All right. In a week's time, April 7th, next Thursday, the Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, will stand up in the House of Commons and read her budget speech. Much anticipated. How is she going to make things work with a huge deficit and even bigger national debt, obviously. At a time when there's been an arrangement cut with the NDP, now I'm not sure just how closely they're involved in the budget process. I mean, it's like Charlie Angus

sitting there next to Chrystia Freeland. Are they penning these paragraphs in the budget process. I mean, it's like Charlie Angus sitting there next to Christian Freeland. Are they penning these paragraphs in the budget? I don't think so. But there's clearly some understanding, at least, between the two parties on some of the key issues that are likely to be in that budget. Am I wrong about that? Should we assume that they're getting a preview of this document? I'm sure that there will be some mention of dental care in the document, if that's your question.

You can't sign off on an agreement in principle that's got a bunch of grocery items, and then when the first budget comes along of three that you've committed to support find no trace of it so so that uh will be there and also uh i noted last week that uh jack me saying took care to remove uh the sense that defense spending could be a poison pill by putting the line in the sand of the NDP on that, not that we don't want to see Thursday's budget as a moment when both parties to this deal have a constituency to reassure, and those constituencies are looking for somewhat contradictory things. There is the New Democrat constituency that wants to see what the NDP has agreed to give a pass to in exchange for its support. And I think that's why there was preventive talk by Jagmeet Singh on defense spending.

They want to see if there is a bang for the NDP's buck or whether it's just a way to avoid an election because the party's broke and its electoral prospects are not that brilliant. But on the liberal side, the so-called blue liberals who feel that the party's fiscal management reputation was restored at great cost over the Martin-Trétien years, now fear that this is going to be sacrificed to the deal with the NDP and to the consolidating of Justin Trudeau's legacy. And that going forward beyond that, there will be a price to pay for the party itself and its branding. And they will be looking to see whether this budget signifies that it's an open bar. Just come and help yourselves with new programs. We can pay for everything and not worry about tomorrow because we're having a big party here and it's on for three years. And I'm curious to see how the two will be reconciled because it's a budget, as you pointed out.

So you can't just do it with words. There will be a number of columns there. I don't expect to see a zero deficit under Justin Trudeau, but some fact that outside observers who are versed in budgetary matters will find somewhat credible would help those blue liberals feel a bit better. And they are disquieted more so i think than many new democrats how disquieted are they i mean is there an open fight going on there no we're not there yet uh and but but the concern is real and you're hearing it. And much of it comes from people associated with Paul Martin in the past. You know, people like John Manley, people like David Hurley, who used to be part of the palace guard of Paul Martin.

But they do talk about something serious for the party. That it may be that in three years, the biggest issue will be the debt and the deficit and how much it's preventing Canada from doing the things that it needs to do. And at that point, the next leader, who may be the person who has to write Thursday's budget, will have to stand for some sense of fiscal management. And if there is one area where the liberals are weak under Justin Trudeau, it's the perception that they are strong fiscal managers.

Circumstances, but also personalities play to that. You know, and I know, that when you look at Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau and you know and i know that when you look at stephen harper and justin trudeau and you think fiscal management you don't look at justin trudeau and that in three years will matter possibly more to the liberal party than to justin trudeau himself you want to weigh in on this bruce yeah sure on on your first question peter whether the one could reasonably assume that the ndp has a pretty good understanding of what's in the budget, I would just say that both of those leaders, Trudeau and Singh, put a lot of currency on announcing this chance that they will arrive at next week's budget uncertain about whether or not the deal will survive that budget. So whatever it will take in terms of a continuous conversation leading up to that day, they both want to know that there's not going to be any daylight about

whether the NDP is going to support this budget. They both have a strong interest in that being the case. So I think we should take that as read. The second thing is that there are some budgets and there are some instincts in politics where instinct is let's not make a bigger deal out of this or try to create the sense that it is a a bigger event in the history or the life of the country and i think this feels a little bit more like that kind of budget if i'm the government we're still mired in a covid pandemic i think think that we're not talking about it today because probably you talked about it several days in a row this week, Peter, or at least a number of days, which is good. But I think there's still a lot of anxiety about whether or not there's more COVID around than

there are measures to contain it, mostly provincial decisions. But at the end of the day, I think the government probably looks at this budget as a budget where they have to say useful things about inflation. They have to do some useful things that attenuate inflation. And by useful, I don't mean just try to reduce gasoline prices, because, you know, from my standpoint, it doesn't look to me like you can actually do that. You could alleviate the cost of living for pains for people by, you know, some help solve climate change over the long term, then reducing them now in the hopes that those reductions will get passed on to consumers. It doesn't seem like a very sensible idea. So I think inflation will be front and center. It wouldn't surprise me given the number of countries where we're seeing a conversation about wealth tax or unexpected windfall profit tax i was watching kirstarmer on the on on youtube this morning coming out of the uk talking about he's the

he's the labor leader the labor leader in the uk talking about this it wouldn't surprise me to see something of that sort which might inflame the people that Chantal was alluding to, the more blue liberals who are kind of wondering whether or not that sort of, they might call it tinkering with the tax system, is antithetical to the idea of a stable tax system that encourages investment. It wouldn't surprise me if we see something like that, some combination of measures to deal with inflation in a sense that if there are organizations companies that have made enormous profits without having incurred enormous costs during the pandemic that that maybe that's an area to do something but overall i don't expect this to be the kind of budget where the government is asking people to see it as being a kind of a huge

step change in the future of the country. They've been making announcements like child care and like around climate change, which I think formed the bedrock of what it is that Trudeau wants to be Go ahead, Chantal. On this notion of an extra tax on the wealthy, it certainly would give Jagmeet Singh a win that he has wanted, but has not necessarily gotten it. It would allow him to walk out of the House of Commons to the lobby on Budget Day and say, see, here is a token of what I brought with this arrangement. The liberals weren't really talking about this until now. So politically, that would be interesting. But that brings me to another point. We always talk about those red Tories,

progressive conservatives who have been orphaned. But if you look closely at the Trudeau government, you could say that of blue liberals. Jean Chrétien was not a blue liberal, but he had a number of them around the table and usually in economic portfolios. John Manley, Paul Martin, I include Ralph Goodale in the bunch. You guys look at this cabinet too. I dare you to name very many influential blue liberals around Justin Trudeau's table. I don't really see very many of them to counterbalance the critical mass that is on the other side of the ledger. Well, I should probably guess at a few, but they probably wouldn't welcome hearing their names.

And that tells you a lot that I could guess at a few, too, but they would probably send us emails to say, what do you mean I'm a blue liberal? Because no one wants to be called that. When in the Chrétien days, it was seen as a token that the government had an anchor on the fiscal side. Now, no one is really bothering with that. There are blue liberals in caucus, by the way. But they are so brave that when they talk to newspaper reporters about their concerns over the pact, they remain anonymous. Which tells you that there is not a revolution underway within the liberal caucus at this point. If he was in the liberal caucus, Mark Carney, if he was there,

would he be considered a blue liberal? You'd think on the face of it, on paper, that he would be, but not necessarily always by his actions. Big climate change guy, you know, almost seemed to side with some of the Occupy Wall Street protesters back in that day? I think that it's a good question, but it does feel to me like they're different. The question of what kind of economic policy makes sense has a different layer to it now than maybe it did in the past, which is about income inequality. And so in the past,

I think the blue liberal versus non blue liberal, you know, could be kind of short form to how big a deficit or how quickly to a balanced budget kind of roadmap. But I think that the thing about Carney is he might be in some ways, he might be somebody who looks like a blue liberal, but he's very passionate about the climate change issue and the need to reorganize the investment flows in the world so that they solve that problem, which is not historically that kind of policy framework that a liberal would champion. And the second thing is the income inequality issue is really one of if we don't do more to keep that divide from widening. Certainly what I see in our data, the number of young people who say, if you give me a choice between the idea of capitalism and the idea of socialism. I think socialism might be better for

me because I don't see capitalism doing what it is doing for older and wealthier people. I think Carney, among others, who are of a liberal persuasion, see that as being a question that if not resolved, will ultimately undermine the stability of the economy and the financial system and our political system. And I tend to think there's there's reason to believe that, too. So I think it's a little bit more complicated question. And also the last thing I want to say on the deficit is I also wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see more encouraging fiscal numbers because the economy is performing pretty well. That generally means the coffers are fuller than was anticipated. And governments don't like to tip their hands on that until budget day.

It makes for a pretty good announcement as part of a backdrop for, and we're going to spend this on child care and this on dental care and this on military equipment and so on. So I'd expect to see something like that, too. To go back to Mark Carney and his passion for climate change, which is true. The problem with the absence of people like that who would be perceived as on top of economic files and inclined to be prudent with money is that the government is staking the success of Canada's climate policy on convincing Canadians that it is possible to achieve goals without killing the economy. Voices like that around the cabinet table and then government would go a long way for that.

And that is one of the risks of the pact with the NDP. It's all good and well to have three years and to have a fairly or a more aggressive plan on climate change than those that we have seen in the past. But you do need, especially in the face of conservative opposition in premier's offices, but also the official opposition on Parliament Hill, you do need to demonstrate that it makes sense. And I'm not convinced that I'm convinced that Stephen Gilboa has the environmental credentials to put forward a workable plan that does address the issue.

And I'm convinced that Justin Trudeau is behind that. But I am not convinced that either of them is the best person to make the case on the economic side of why this plan not only makes sense, but is probably essential for Canada's economic future, not just because of the planet, which to many people sounds like a big, long, distant horizon, but in the world economy and preparing for the day when there will be climate tariffs on exports, for instance, that do not decarbonize. This is all coming, but I don't think the government at this point has a voice that has the economic credentials to make that case compellingly, and that is a risk for its success

on climate policy. Can I ask a question about the divisions within the parties because we've spent a lot of time in the last few months talking about the real not apparent but the real divisions within the conservative party especially as they gather around now to try and pick another leader um we just spent a few minutes talking about the divisions uh the potential divisions inside the liberal party potential in the sense of they haven't really blown open yet, but they might. What about the NDP? Have they swallowed that pill whole,

or is there any discomfort noticeable inside the NDP caucus on the deal they've made? There is almost certainly discomfort within the NDP caucus. I don't believe that you get Ed Broadbent and others like that, who are party elders, to come out and say this is a great idea and this is a good deal if you are not trying to calm the waters. So there is a potential there for pressure. But I don't believe we will see those over the budget.

I think it will be more interesting to watch what happens if the federal government approves the Bijna oil project off the coast of Newfoundland and how that plays out when environmentalists turn their guns potentially on the NDP to say this is your dancing partner. So that will be, I think, more of a test. But by and large, the NDP caucus has been told by virtually anyone who is anyone in the party that this is a good decision. I believe some people are keeping their powder dry and they're waiting to see the budget, but also that decision on Bénin to decide whether they keep that powder dry or not. It seems to me that there is always going to be in any sort of partisan organization, there are going to be people who are there to achieve the partisan objective

and people who are there to achieve a policy objective, but mostly there'll be a blend of both of those things. And within the NDP caucus, just as within the liberal family, there are undoubtedly some people who say, well, I'm not sure if I quarrel with the policy that will be the outcome of this, but I worry about the political consequences for us. Will we be as competitive or will we lose competitiveness? And I do hear, I don't even know if I'd call them blue liberals, but brand liberals, people who really care about the custodianship of this brand that has been around Canadian politics and successful for a long time,

wondering if the brand positioning has been compromised to the point of this agreement is really the kind of tipping point choice. himself more squarely on the center left and left of the spectrum but it's a debatable proposition for sure i i kind of respect those who are who are worried about it i do think on the on the ndp side jagmeet singh did the best thing that you could do in the circumstance in his way of representing the deal as doing good things for people because i think it really does make it hard for an NDP activist to say, okay, maybe there's some good things for people in this, but what about for our party's electoral prospects? That is not stylistically an easy thing for a new Democrat to say. Their unique selling proposition is we're the party that cares about doing good things for the people more than we care about cynical electoral machinations. Whether that's true or not,

I think it's sort of part of the brand proposition and has been of the NDP. So I think Singh has done a pretty good job of attenuating that worry. And also, there are probably some who are in the mechanical side of the party, who also see no election for a few years as an opportunity to recover financially to think about the future and in the world that we're in and what is the right set of propositions, especially if some of the key items on the to-do list have been ticked off by the Liberals from a policy standpoint. So time is in some respects their friend, even if they did take some political risk with this choice. All right.

I've only got less than a minute left. You touched on this earlier, Chantal, but maybe a closing thought on it. For Justin Trudeau, an interesting couple of weeks, he's got a partner on the left with the NDP, and he's got, at least for this past week, a partner on the right in Doug Ford on the child care bill in Ontario. So he's got the Conservatives as partners on one side, the NDP as partners on the other.

Is that just a fleeting moment, or is there something? Did that not bring back memories of Bill Davis and Pierre Trudeau and the Constitution and the National Energy Program? They walked in tandem, remember? Ontario, conservatives in Ontario at Queen's Park and liberals in Ottawa have usually found ways to get along to their mutual benefit. Usually I say because I think the relationship between Mike Harris and Jean-Claude Sainz's government was acrimonious at best. But that has been a winning formula for both sides of it.

And it's always to the annoyance of the prairie premiers. And I'm sure this is the case again, but I'm convinced the prime minister is going to want to make the most of it. Also, the Ontario and the Quebec elections are giving him a good excuse to not have those health care talks until late next fall.

All right. Which must be a relief. We're going to leave it at that. Next week, good talk will come to you from Scotland, or at least that's where I'll be. Bruce and Chantel will be at their normal post next week. No noon hour.

Good Talk next Friday. It'll be at 5 o'clock, but also available, obviously, as a download on your podcast throughout next Friday night and weekend. Thanks to you both. Good to talk to you. Have a great weekend this weekend. And we'll see you on the bridge on Monday.