The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Moore Butts #25 -- Is This Any Way To Run A Country?

Episode Date: October 14, 2025

The country was founded on the principle that it's a confederation where both federal and provincial levels of government have powers and responsibilities. It's worked for 158 years, but does it still work? Another fascinating Moore-Butts Conversation, especially relevant to the times Canada is living in today. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Is this any way to run a country? The Moore Butts, conversation number 25, coming right up. And hello there, welcome to Tuesday. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving weekend. Time for a break. Time to give thanks.

Time to see the family. Time to travel for some. But it's a nice break. It's an opportunity to get away from things for a couple of days. I hope you had that opportunity. I know some people have to work over the holidays. But most of us, I think, get a chance to take the time off. And if you did, hope it was worthwhile.

Okay, it's hard to believe, but this is the 25th episode go to the Moore-Butz conversations. This will be a good one, of course. And in a moment, we'll tell you all about it and we'll get James Moore and Gerald Butts back behind microphones to talk about exactly what they think in terms of the way the country's run. This isn't political, it's almost constitutional.

But I think you're going to find the conversation. more than a little bit interesting. At least, that is my hope. That is my wish on the Tuesday of this week. But first of all, as we always do at the beginning of the week, we give you an opportunity to answer the question of the week. And this week's question, Well, in some ways, it goes to the heart of politics in this country.

And that could be federal, it could be provincial, could be municipal, could be a school board, it could be any number of things. This is the question we're asking this week. Would you consider running for public office? If so, why? If not, why not? Pretty straightforward question. Would you consider running for public office?

I want you to think about that. But not for too long because this is a collapsed week for any number of different reasons. I'll kind of explain them in a minute. But today is Tuesday. The question has to be answered by 3 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow. 3 p.m. That's earlier than usual. I'll explain why in a minute.

So that's your first obstacle. You've only got, well, you know, 24 hours or so to come up with the answer to that question. And when you do, you put it into 75 words or fewer. And you send it to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge podcast. at gmail.com. Please remember to include your name

and the location you're writing from. Okay, want to hear that question one more time? I mean, I think it's a good question because it strikes to the heart in many ways of our democracy. Would you consider running for public office? And it could be any of those offices I listed, right? in terms of electoral possibilities.

Would you consider running for public office? If so, why? If not, why not? Okay. 3 p.m. tomorrow. Here's the reason why. Later today, I'm in Scotland. Later today, I fly back to Canada.

because I have an engagement in Montreal I'm really looking forward to this week and then I'm flying back but tomorrow is when I need the answers because I want to put this program together the Thursday your turn plus the random ranter I've got to snap the whip on the random ranter too

to tell him he's got to be in early because I'll put this program together probably late Wednesday night because the event I'm doing is during the day Thursday and then I'm flying back on Thursday night. So there you go. There's all my excuses. That's topic number one for today. So let's get to the main topic of the day, which is the Moore-Buts Conversations.

James Moore, the former conservative cabinet minister in the Stephen Harper days, Gerald Butz, the former top liberal strategist for Justin Trudeau in the 2015 election. So there you go. There, Moore and Butts. This is conversation number 25. We started a couple of years ago. And they've been terrific. Now they're on every second Tuesday.

So let's get her started. Get it introduced, tell you what it's about. Here we go. More buts number 25. So gentlemen, I made the mistake this morning of, you know, going to my favorite AI machine and asking it to tell me, give me the basics of federal provincial relations in Canada. Who has what responsibility and powers and such, et cetera,

and how does it all really work? I mean, I know I've covered enough of these things, but I wanted to see what chat GPT or whatever AI machine I was using would spit out. And let's put it this way. I had a headache in about 15 minutes of reading this stuff. But you both had to live it. And James perhaps even more than, or sorry, Jerry,

even more than James in the sense that he worked for both a provincial government. the Dalton McGinty's government and then the federal government under Justin Trudeau. So why don't you start us, Jerry, with a, you know, a sense, is it that headache-making, as we tend to think sometimes, as soon as federal provincial relations are mentioned, people sort of run for the core, you know, the doors and the exits.

What do you make of it? Well, it's a fact of life in both orders of government, Peter, that's for sure. And it's definitely a headache, but it is the constitution that's been bequeathed to us by our predecessors. So it's a fact of life in both places, whether you're in a provincial government or a federal or in the federal government. I remember Dalton McKinty used to loathe going to first minister's meetings, probably even more than any, either of the prime ministers I've served, largely because he has. had to sit next, as he'd put it, someone who represents the equivalent of Milton, Ontario, and get treated as an equal. And that's a challenge.

You know, it's a huge challenge if you're in a big province. It's an even bigger challenge if you're in a small province to get your priority set. But I also think that as annoying as it is and as boring as it can be for observers of politics, It's the only way to govern a country of this size that you have provinces with strong powers that can meet local needs. Otherwise, people are just, I'm from Nova Scotia, so I'm probably a little biased on this. Maybe James feels the same way from the other end of the country. But Ottawa is just too far afield from the people of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, or I suspect poor Coquitlam, British Columbia, to adequately represent their views. you sure wouldn't want someone in Ottawa running your school on Cape Breton Island.

One of the reasons we're doing this today is we're going to see a lot more of these discussions taking place over the next while. As a result of the general economic situation, as a result of terrorists, as a result of discussion about pipelines, you name it, major projects across the country, they're going to involve all levels of government, especially the feds and the provinces. Before we get to some of that stuff, James, you're, opening thoughts on this on this issue canada is a confederation we say federalism but that's the interaction but four provinces came together and decided to create a federal government that's the origin story of canada upper and lower canada new scotia new brunswick came together in 1864 and said we need to create a federal government such that we can have proper relationships uh back with

westminster and back with the crown to redress of grievances and we'll be better if we're together that's what that's how it happened so because the provinces created the federal government, they reserve powers for themselves that would be the most attractive and reasonable for them to deal with so they can transact with their constituents on a daily basis. The bigger stuff, monetary policy, our continental perimeter security, our trade relationships, you know, criminal code, like broader things, bigger things that kind of are on a human level that eventually became the charter and other things. We'll let Ottawa, the national capital that hadn't been chosen yet by then. We'll let the federal government

but the stuff that we want to do. So the provinces chose the powers that were the best for provinces to have back in the origin story of Canada. And so you see the germ of that now across the country where provinces depend more transfer payments or more powers or more authority and they preach more to Ottawa

because Ottawa doesn't understand and they have a further distance. But people often forget about that that in Canada, the provinces created the federal government and we are a confederation of a coming together of provinces. And that spills into

and even if people aren't sort of conscious of that, The political culture that has spilled out from that over the past 160, 10070 years has resulted in a lot of the language that we use in our politics and the disposition that we have and the posture that provinces have where everybody kind of stands with folded arms and looks at the Ottawa and says, well, they don't quite get us. And it's part of the game of the dance between provinces and the federal government. It's been like that since day one. You know, you mentioned 1864 and just in case people are going out. didn't he mean 1867? No, 1864 was the Quebec conference, which ended up leading to eventually the 1867 deal on Charlottetown and the conferences. Correct. Exactly. Jerry, you raised your hand there. I don't know whether you wanted to...

Yeah, I just wanted to make a quick point exactly about that timing, right? It's easy to forget at the other end of the telescope of history where we are now. But let's remember that one of the main reasons we all got together was because the U.S. Civil War was raging at the time. we needed to get together to defend ourselves from what was becoming an increasingly violent and antagonistic republic to the south of us. Unlike today. Of course.

Right. Okay, let's bring it up to date with, you know, one possible example of how this is going to work because this involves clearly two levels of government. This is the pipeline issue. And it involves three governments, governments that are, at this point, really don't see eye to eye on these things. And so I want to try and understand how it could, how it will play out, or how it,

I'm not looking for the end game. I'm looking for, like, what actually happens in these discussions that are likely to take place now? I mean, you've got the feds, and they will eventually have to be involved in approving or seeking the approval of a certain pipeline, if there's going to be one. You've got Alberta that wants one. You've got BC that doesn't want the one they're talking about because of a variety of environmental issues for one.

So how does this play out in terms of federal, provincial discussions, relations, meetings? How will it work? Did you say beatings or meetings? Right. Right. Because I vividly recall the crunch time at the Trans Mountain Pipeline when we had the, what I jokingly called internally, the conference of New Democrats after John Morgan had been elected. And Rachel Notley was premier of Alberta, of course. And one was for the Trans Mountain Pipeline and the other was sort of kind of against it with conditions. And we couldn't get them to come to terms, which is why the federal government had to buy it in order to make it happen. because, you know, nobody was going to go forward with that project while the government of British Columbia was against it. I would add a couple of complicating factors. The courts and most

importantly, the coastal first nations of British Columbia in the particular project that you're referring to, the Northern Gateway 2.0 that Premier Smith has sort of kind of proposed. I can't really tell whether she's trolling the country or she actually is making a serious. proposal. But the Coastal First Nations, right there on their website, they wrote to the Prime Minister several months ago when this first came about and said, look, folks, we've been here for 10,000 years. You've been here for 400. This is never happening. We have the constitutional authority to make sure it never happens. And trust me, we will never change our minds on it. So I'm not even sure why we're having this discussion, to be honest, without

the consent of coastal First Nations. And then, of course, related to that you have the courts. And James will recall the reason that Gateway got killed in the first place was because it was the government and the proponent were judged to have not met their constitutional obligations, their duty to consult with First Nations, with indigenous people, rather, during the first proposal. So, you know, a lot of this stuff sounds boring and legalistic, but it is who we are. And unless someone wants to stand up and change the Constitution, it's going to be who we are for the foreseeable future. Another part of it, too, is that, I mean, if you think about the pipeline from Alberta to the

West Coast or British Columbia, right, then I know we're trying to circumscribe this conversation to federal province and the tension, because from that, you can imagine what the next few fights are going to be on other topics, which is fine. But there's federal, provincial, and of course, local, but also indigenous. And then there's also, you know, as Ted Morton and others have talked about as Jerry just described the court party as well, that the judicial part of this is there as well. Now, we, you know, I didn't quite agree, and we didn't quite agree that we didn't do a have a duty to consult, but it's what it is. The court ruled how they ruled. But also, even within the indigenous component, there's elected and there's unelected and there's matriarchs and there's

hereditary chiefs, there's the, and there's a cycle of elections that are completely incongruent with the other levels of government. So this is a complicated mess of governing Canada, and often people don't think about that. So you want to build a pipeline, Daniel Smith, and we're going to put aside $14 million to do some consultation when she was asked by Bashi Capello. So what about coastal First Nations? She's like, yes, I'm going to be flying out there in the next few weeks. We're going to have some meetings. So, okay, well, let's start the clock on a 10-year countdown. Like, what are we doing here? So, by the way, another layer to all of this about sort of the dysfunction. I talked a minute ago about how the origin story of Canada, the provinces and all

that and where we are today, but also part of Canada's origin story was the Senate. And the Senate has now fallen apart in the sense of it was originally supposed to be of course a regional representation of the country and a deflection point and an opportunity to engage and then it was provincially, the provincially emphasized fine. And now it's completely fallen off of that. Now it's become sort of a bank of people who have a life of experience who are often plutocrats who are self-appointed to the Senate because the way Justin Trudeau decided to reform the Senate in the way that he did. And they're not at all representative. And if you ask most senators, they will say, I'm from this region, but I'm here because I believe in this issue or because they're

representing a certain faction of, I think, of Canadian ideological spectrum, not necessarily there on a regional mandate and they're not elected to do so. So because the Senate is now sort of constituted that, or because they're appointed because of the vanity of the prime minister. And this is a blue sin and a red sin. There's no, there's no, you know, one party that was right or wrong about that. So as a consequence of that, now, premiers have an obligation to not just govern their province, but be seen to be fighting for their region. So what does that mean in 2025-26? Is it Daniel Smith going into leadership review, going into a provincial election campaign on the horizon? She needs to be seen to be tough and fighting for the province of Alberta. So here's

$14 million. We're going to fight for a pipeline. They're not going to do it. The private sector had to back away because the government didn't get it right. So we're going to put money in the table and we're going to lead it. And we're going to do the Kind of Morgan pipeline, but in reverse. Kind of Morgan was private sector money that couldn't get to the finish lines. The government had to take it over and push it through. So what we're going to do is we're going to start the process with the government and make it so attractive. And then we're going to have at some point, I assume, some kind of sale, which will yield

benefit to the taxpayer, and then we'll have a pipeline to the coast. And that's how it's going to work. It's all a fairy tale. That is not how this is going to be reconciled in terms of the needs of Alberta and the needs of Canada to get products to global markets. But this is Daniel Smith, her version of pulling up that Alberta flag and waving it and saying, I'm fighting for my province, but it's not going to work. And as much as I'm on her side in the mission, this is not how it works in Canada.

Well, that makes me ask the question, is this any way to run a country? And I'm not advocating one way or the other on this particular project. I'm just going, this seems to be what we constantly end up doing, whatever the issue is. And this is a classic because we keep seeing the same thing, up every couple of years with the same end result with you know provinces disagreeing the feds disagreeing with at least one of the provinces if not both the indigenous groups and there I mean let's face it they're not united on these issues there are indigenous groups that are for this thing but nevertheless you go this is where the headaches come right like is there any way these

kind of issues can ever be resolved given the system we have I know You both say, this is what history gave us. This is who we are. This is what our system is. But is it one of those frustrations that it's actually on the table what a lot of these meetings we're having right now, that things can't get done because of the roadblocks to get in the way? Well, look, it feels like Lucy with Charlie Brown's football when it comes to pipelines in this country because we built the Trans Mountain Pipeline.

We doubled it of four decades, five decades later. And we're pretending none of that happened, right? The people of Canada just spent $40 billion to build a pipeline to the West Coast so that we could get our resources to global markets. Now that pipeline's been open barely a year, maybe a little over a year now, James. And we're already talking about building another one. So I think it's important that we take a step back and realize it's not that we can't get anything done in this country. Sometimes we do.

It's just difficult if we want to do it democratically. And that's where constitutional democracy, that's the way we work. And if somebody wants to put their hand up and say, let's change the constitution, let me know in advance. So I can maybe move to Scotland with you, Peter, for that discussion. But hey, bravely on if you want to. I'm one who believes that our Constitution is a pretty good document. And that first pipeline, by the way, if I'm correct, is still not at full capacity, right? Correct. And it's not the first pipeline. We have many.

Right. James, you got a thought on this before we... Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I often think, like, if a project is worthy of winning and being realized, it should meet the standard of any test and any scrutiny. We often talk about this in politics. They say, well, what are the rules of the leadership race? Is it one member, one vote? Is it weighted by region, weighted by riding association? What's the threshold of the payment that you have to get into the race?

How many signatures do you need of existing party members? Do you have to have a certain amount of caucus support and all that? And my view is always like, that's always interesting. It's a tactical question. But if you're worthy of winning the leadership of a political party, whatever the rules are, there will be so much momentum behind your candidacy. Your team will figure it out. if you're worthy of winning, you'll win the leadership.

It'll happen because just the inertia and the momentum behind your candidacy will push through any barrier to your leadership if it's really meant to be. I think that's true as well of projects. Now, many projects get delayed and, you know, I can say Northern Gateway was sort of scrubbed aside as conservatives do because Justin Trudeau politically decided it because it was approved. It was approved at a stage, but not the final stage. And it still is bewildering to me, again, as a conservative, as a British Columbian, the lack of depth of understanding of the dynamics that exist in the province of British Columbia, the, you know, Canada's third largest province and the complications that we have here because of this, the delay in which treaties were settled from east to west and the wide open nature and the judicial dynamic in British Columbia and the powers that are afforded to indigenous British Columbians.

And it was said 10 or 15 years ago, well, Canada has ethical oil. It's ethical. Oh, okay. Well, then let's just build the pipe up. And now people say, well, Donald Trump is in the White House. Don't you want to fight Donald Trump? So you can hate Donald Trump and also hate the idea of going from one tanker a month to one tanker a day. You can actually hold both positions.

And the idea that you can say to indigenous British Columbians, so you hate Donald Trump, don't you? Yes. And we'll give you a piece of the revenue from this. So everything's good now? No, not everything's good now. It's not that simple. Like, as Jerry said, there's a mentality, and even if people disagree with it, coastal first nations believe, and there's clear evidence that it's true,

that they have been here for 10 to 14,000 years. The rest of us who are not of indigenous ancestry, we've been here for, you know, sometimes some of us 20 years, some of us five years, some of us two years. We have been in the country for a couple of years who are making decisions on a group of people. Some of the proponents, not at all. Yeah, exactly. And so you have people who feel that it is their burden, their honor, their responsibility to be caretakers of a land that has been bequeathed to them from millennia. And that's their view.

And you can disagree with it. But when you have that in your heart and you have that in your mind and you have judicial hearings on your side, you can't just go to them and say, wipe that aside and look at Donald Trump. Now you're on favor? No, there's a little bit more momentum behind their argument than yours. And if you don't get that, you don't get that. you're not going to win. Jerry made a good point about, you know, Pipeline's probably not the example we really want to use here

because of the various feelings that it produces on the part of all the participants in the discussions. But give me an example of where the system works, where you've had, you know, governments who were perhaps on different sides of an issue or not exactly agreeing on the issue, But that the system worked to bring them together, that the determination of who had what responsibilities and what powers between the different levels of government ended up with something that worked. Well, I think, I mean, I don't want to use an example that I was involved with. So I'll use the social union framework under the Kretchen government.

I think that we tore ourselves to pieces trying to amend the Constitution in a way. way that would recognize Quebec's unique status or not unique status, unique reality within the country as the only majority Francophone province in the country and the source of, you know, the beating heart of French culture outside of France. And we didn't, we didn't succeed in that despite repeated efforts through formal constitutional talks, but we kind of did through the social union framework where the premiers and the prime Minister of the day negotiated how they would go about funding programs and recognizing one another's jurisdiction. I think that the one that I was involved with directly that I think was the most

successful was the Health Accord in 2004, which was negotiated and then upheld by, negotiated by Prime Minister Martin. I was in Premier McKinney's office and it was upheld by Prime Minister Harper. And it really bought peace and progress in health care for 10 years. We probably need another one for a very different era by this stage. But look, I mean, it worked. And kudos to you, Jerry, for doing that because its chance would have it. When the health accords were signed with the, were announced between the federal government and the provinces, on that day, an opposition MP named James Moore was driving around in my truck with opposition leader Stephen Harper,

who happened to be in Vancouver on that day. And we turned on the radio back in the days when you did that. We turned on the radio and we were parked by the side of the road. We listened to the press conference, which was being streamed either on CBC or CKNW at the time in Vancouver. And we listened to the press conference. And they got to the announcement and all that. We had to go to our next appointment.

We turned the radio off. And Stephen Harper looked at me and he goes, this is amazing. And I was like, really? He said, the liberals have chosen. They've taken health care off the playing field for a decade. This is the best thing that could have happened on this file for us. And I said, oh, really, said, yeah, for all the obvious political reasons.

To your question, Peter, examples of positive stewardship and federalism. I'll inverse it. We've been, I've been poking at premiers, but here's a good example of a premier. Gordon Campbell, and I don't think he gets nearly as much praise for this, and he's, you know, outside of British Columbia and those who knew his stewardship of the province's province. Former mayor of Vancouver, he ran for Premier lost, and he ran in one. So he learned a lot more than the loss than he did in the victory. came back, was elected in 2001, three majorities in a row.

But in his time as Premier of British Columbia, he worked with three different very personalities and very political, different political dynamics. The dying days of the Jean-Cretti has government, the shift to Paul Martin and the rise and fall of Paul Martin, and also dealing with Stephen Harper and threw up all three of them, there were minority and majority federal governments. And dealing with very different prime ministers at very different stages of their political life cycles, managed to focus and say, how do I get along with this, this prime minister? Through most of British Columbia's history, it was always good politics to just, British

Columbia is like Alberta is typically when there's a liberal federal government, almost all of our history is just a fight with Ottawa. Fighting with Ottawa is good politics. Gordon Campbell, I think probably permanently reversed that in the sense that he just found a way to get to get along with Kratia and Martin and Stephen Harper. And it was a creative to B.C. for the 2010 And the Olympics, massive new infrastructure projects, expanding sky train to the airport and, you know, rebuilding the cocahalla highway and like all kinds of projects that are beneficial because a Premier decided that goals-oriented politics, regardless of political team, is what the public really cares about. And he was rewarded with back-to-back-to-back majority governments. One more I'd add, Peter, is the Canada pension plan reforms that Bill Murno led and was a variety of liberal and conservative governments around the country at the time. and they enriched the Canada pension plan. People said that it would never,

that unanimity which was required in order to do it would never happen. It happened and therefore we do not have the pension debates in this country that are tearing apart other countries, including the one again immediately to the south of us. Okay, we're going to take our halfway break. It's a little more than halfway, but we'll take our break. We'll be right back at it. A couple more good areas to go. on this topic. More Butts conversation, the latest one. Back in a moment.

And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Tuesday episode. It's a Tuesday turn for the Moore Butts combination of Jerry Butts, a former liberal insider, former advisor to Justin Trudeau, and sometimes advisor to Mark Carney, is a well these days, James Moore, the former conservative cabinet minister in the Harper cabinet. Okay, our topic, you know, federal, provincial, how they get together, how they talk to each other, how they actually make progress on big issues. I want you to look ahead for a moment because we're into some heavy-duty big issues in the next months and possibly years with the big projects that are being awarded eventually to different parts of the country and there will be a lot of discussion, debate, and division over those projects. When you're looking ahead, what do you see in terms of how this relationship

between governments is going to unfold given the kind of issues that they're going to be facing who wants to go take a first crack at that well i'll be the first one to say i'm deeply worried about this peter i think that we have in two provinces one presently and probably if the polls are right another shortly we have we'll have a government in alberta that's kind of playing footsie with a separatist movement and uh we may have a government in quebec that uh wants to lead one So it's a very challenging environment, you know, when everybody, we should be able to agree that no matter what our differences are, we're all Canadians, right? And I think that that's part of why James and I like to do this show with you to show that just because you have, you come from different political parties. It doesn't mean you can't agree that this is an awesome country and we should all be in the business of making it better. I am very worried that these projects. projects that a couple of these projects, one of which we've already discussed, could be used as a proxy to start a fight that has a much deeper and lasting, a scarring effect on the ability of the country to come together and do things at precisely the time where we're going to need to, because the United States is not the reliable partner. It has been in the past. James? Yeah, all true. The, you know, now it's easy for me to say this is.

of British Clement because we haven't had quite the same relationship with Ottawa that the province of Alberta has. Like, like, you know, Alberta is right to be angry. They're right to be frustrated. They're right to be disappointed in my view. That they have a product that enriches all of Canada, not just Alberta. You know, their net payers massively to the federal treasury on a per capita basis than anybody else by a massive margin. And they have a shrunken voice in the parliament of Canada, in the Senate of Canada. And often, you know, governments are elected not just by being in disagreement with Alberta, but by poking and chastising Alberta in spite of the fact that they pay so many of our bills. I understand why they're angry. On the other hand, I also, I'm like Jerry,

that I'm a Canadian patriot first, that I don't have much time for people who play games with. Like, you have to have fidelity to system, fidelity to the country, fidelity to the process by which decisions are made, not just only to your preferred outcome or otherwise you walk away. That not how a country is built. That is not good citizenship. That is not good state craft. You have a burden of obligation. And Peter Lougheed, you know, he said, I'm an Albertan. I'm a proud Albertan, but I'm a Canadian first. He famously said, we need a lot more of that in the country. And I do, like Jerry, I do have anxieties, but that's part of the tension of Canada. We're the, you know, the second largest country in the world in size, but 37th, I think, largest in terms of

population. And we are very regional. We're very small pea provincial in our economies and how they're developed. And Canada has always been defined by its cleavages, east and west, north and south, Aboriginal and non, Protestant Catholic in the early days, French and English, new Canadians, you know, multi-generation Canadians, urban, suburban, rural. Like, we're a country that has all kinds of fall lines and cracks throughout the country. It's normal in politics for people to kind of exploit those divisions and say, I will represent you because the other side won't. That's good that those divisions can kind of come to the surface and be talked about. it's to be expected there to be exploited but you're but if you're going to play with a firecracker

you've got to be really careful with what you're doing with it and and we have seen through this through the course of Canadian history a lot of recklessness that's kind of brought us really close to the edge well and especially in a time in place where there are lots of malevolent actors out there that would love to see this country fall to pieces right just the kicks and giggles of watching chaos ensue on a 9,000 kilometer border with the United States It's like we need to be grownups about this and realize that there are really malevolent actors that mean this country harm. And some of them are in the United States, by the way. Let me, we talked about this once, I think, a couple of years ago on one of our early conversations.

And neither of you were that as interest as I was in seeing it potentially happened. But perhaps this is a different time. I mean, you know, the phrase is used that we're at a hinge moment on a lot of stuff right now. And the way the two of you just described the situation would suggest certainly at least a hinge moment. My question is, should Canadians be, have more of an opportunity to see these discussions and debates unfold in front of them? I mean, we're sort of decades past the First Ministers conferences that were televised, and, you know, you could watch exactly the kind of things play out. It was all on the Constitution in those days, for the most part.

But you saw the back and forth between First Ministers, and it wasn't always pleasant. Sometimes it could take on a real different tone. I just wonder if we're really at a hinge moment and these big decisions about the future of the country are being made should Canadians not see them not just get a sort of a review at the end of the day from a news conference or a press release of some kind should they not actually see the back and force going on

between the leaders of the country? I would say sometimes, yes, sometimes no, which is a non-answer. But I think, frankly, it depends. Because then you've sort of get sort of a, you know, a constitutional question period, whether you just have, you know, genuflecting and posturing and rhetoric that can get out of control. But I think sometimes it makes a lot of sense. For example, I mean, I propose this in a column that I wrote that, that on internal trade in Canada, why shouldn't that be televised? Have they have, like, if Prime Minister Carney said, I want all the premiers here, give them enough time and have them in the room and say, we're going to

start with the default position of having no internal barriers to trade. And if you want to erect some for your regional economy on a certain basis, let's have it out in the open. Let's have you articulate it. Maybe it makes sense for government procurement in New Brunswick to be isolated only to New Brunswickers and that a big firm from Toronto shouldn't come in and stomp out local businesses and gobble up all the government procurement. And you want to protect that for the local New Brunswick economy. Say that. Say that. Educate the rest of us. Tell us why that's really important to you as New Brunswickers and let's have that conversation. Or if Quebec wants to isolate culture in a certain way fine say that tell us why you want to have that

internal barrier let's educate the country let's have a moment let's do that and i don't think that would be massively divisive to the country and other times though it can be really problematic and really divisive and i don't think you necessarily want to have those conversations out in the public i'm not as concerned as i think maybe you've you've intimated peter about this being hinge moments you're like you know all right well we had the referendum in 1980 in quebec well that was a hinge moment right then we led to the patrication or repatriation of the constitution in 1982 and the imposition of the charter well that's a crisis moment then Mulroney comes in then free trade oh my god we're going to be subsumed by the united states and they're going to expand it to nafta oh my god what are we going to

then the 95 referendum oh my god we're then the failure of meech the failure of charlott oh my god what are we going to do uh Stephen harper gets elected jerry says oh my god what are we going to do jerry jrudeau gets elected and james moore says oh my god what are we going to do but we've but these are moments, right? And we survive as a country. I do think we get sturdier over time. I do think we are able to absorb these things. We're a country that's gone through a lot of traumas, a lot of traumas, and we will survive. And I think that the 9-11, I think Donald Trump and the threat to the economy and the economic sovereignty of Canada, I think these traumas handled appropriately through measured responsible leadership of the federal government and provinces and everybody

coming together actually probably makes us stronger in the fullness of time. It doesn't seem like it when you're in it, but in the fullness of time, we'll be better for it. All right, Jerry. I don't know what I could add to that, Peter. I think I agree with everything James said. I would say, looking forward, I think we are going to have the most public of discussions, and that's going to be in the next election. Because I think, you know, if you look at our history, minority governments last somewhere around 18 months is the median. That means we're probably going to have an election sometime around this time next year. If history is, is to be the judge.

And I think the last election was about who we don't want to be. And the next one will probably be about who we do want to be. And that's a good thing. Yeah, but it'll also come on the pivot point of the Quebec election, which will have happened. And then you're on the doorstep of the Alberta election, which will have a voice. And, you know, Peter, you asked, I think a really relevant question there.

Like, is there an opportunity for us to come together? My answer was my answer about it depends on the issue and whether or not it would be a toxic dynamic. another one is like tell me about the premiers and the federal governments is proximity to the next election right and that's why I do think we have a 2025 was a special moment because frankly none of the big provinces had there was plenty of distance between them and the next provincial election in British Columbia in Alberta in Ontario in Quebec that there's a lot of distance between them and the next provincial elections such that they could actually do some stuff compromise a little bit fine put some water in their wine put some stuff on the table maybe take some political risks in the immediate term that they can repair within their caucus, repair within their party, repair within their province, and still present themselves as a strong leader in the next campaign and take some risks for the benefit of the country. And a lot of people hope that that would be the case in British Columbia with pipelines. A lot of people hope that would be the case,

you know, in Quebec, maybe with agricultural supports when it comes to supply management or Ontario when it comes to. And, you know, it hasn't quite happened yet. I haven't lost all hope. But, you know, that dynamic of how close are people to their next judgment day with the voters is really important in terms of how much sense of, am I in Alberta first or am I Canadian first, or am a Quebecer first or my Canadian first? And those clocks always have to be watched. How much time is left on the clock for those premiers in the federal government such that they will put the country first as opposed to their political risk calculus? Yeah, I think this concept of timing is a really important one, Peter. I'll give you two examples. The one that James mentioned already, I'm sure they were celebrating in the Conservative

caucus when the Health Accord was signed because that meant basically that health care wasn't an issue for the entire time Stephen Harper was Prime Minister. And the other point of, we came into office in 2015 looking around the country, realizing there were a bunch of liberal governments provincially, and they probably weren't going to last very long. So all of the big things that we needed to get done that required provincial cooperation. The pension plan reform that I've already mentioned, renewing the health accord, assisted dying legislation, marijuana legalization, all of this stuff that had to be done with kind of seamless cooperation between the feds and the provinces. We knew two things. One is governments that oppose the federal government were going to get elected somewhere around the middle of the term. That's just the way the country works. And more, you know, maybe even more importantly than that, the prime minister was only going to have his, political capital for so long. And that's a function of new governments as well. You come in

with a bunch of political capital. You hopefully invest it in things that matter to make change happen or at least to implement the mandate you've been sent to do. And then it gets harder to do things, the longer the government gets in the tooth. All right. We talk about the clock running out and it's run out on us for today. I mean, it's another great conversation. I still, I still wish that there could be that day, or a couple of days, where they're all sitting around the table, all the players, whether it's the prime minister, the premiers, territorial leaders, the indigenous leaders. And we hear exactly where they're coming from on these different issues and these different debates and differences.

I think it'd be good for the country because, listen, James, you listed off all the things that have happened once 45, 50 years. I know I was there at all of them, and they were, in a sense, hinge moments. But you just get a feeling that this is bigger than, really, it's bigger than all of them because of the impact of our southern neighbor in its current administration and the potential for disaster looms quite heavy. And what people are saying behind the curtains, to me, should be in front of the curtains and should be in front of the cameras.

Yeah, and I think it's increasingly hard for politicians to get away with not being sincere. We have a whole generation of Canadians, people on the world, a whole generation of people who observe the world through their smartphones, three inches from their face in 4K, and they can see who's being sincere. You can see it in the muscle twitches of their face. You hear it in the tone of their voice. You can see it in the sincerity, the dilation of the people's, as my son says, Real recognizes real and sincerity recognizes sincerity.

You can't, you can't build the public. You just can't anymore. And so if somebody's trying to spin them, people see it from a mile away now. And that's a good thing. And I think there's an accountability in there that politicians now understand that you're better off to be, to lead with the truth and don't try to snooker people because it is not going to work. Okay. I'm going to leave it at that. Thank you both.

Jerry, James. Great conversation. We'll talk to you again in two weeks. Great to be here, Peter. Thank you. And you know what? It was a great conversation. I'm not sure we, you know, obviously we don't all agree on everything.

And neither do you. But I'm sure you have your feelings about a variety of the issues that were discussed in the last 45 minutes, all of which are worth thinking about. of this time in the history of our country. All right, that is going to wrap it up for this day. It has been a treat to bring the latest Moorabouts conversation number 25 to the bridge audience. A reminder about your deadlines tomorrow, right?

Three o'clock Eastern time to answer the question of the week. All the details were at the top of this program. And the question was pretty simple. Would you run for public office? If so, why? If not, why not? 75 words or fewer.

3 p.m. tomorrow is the deadline. Eastern time. The Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com is where you send your submissions and you include your name and the location you're writing from. All right. Thanks so much for listening today. It's been a treat.

Tomorrow will be an encore edition, and it's a good encore edition. It's a recent one, but it's a good one, as you'll see tomorrow. We're back on Thursday with Your Turn, The Random Ranter Friday. Our special 30th anniversary edition of Good Talk, which is the 30th anniversary of,

the referendum in 1995. It was at the end of October where we're going to, you know, there are a lot of people are doing shows. We're going to sort of get at the front of the train on this and do it for this Friday. So hope you enjoy that. Anyway, I'm Peter Mansbridge, as I said, thank you so much for listening today.

We'll talk to you again in less than 24 hours. Thank you.