The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Moore Butts -- Can Political Makeovers Work?

Episode Date: February 3, 2026

What does and what should Pierre Poilievre do now after receiving a ringing endorsement from his party? Was the Poilievre we saw on the weekend the same Poilievre we will see in the future? James Moore and Gerald Butts have another one of their very popular conversations, now also available on our YouTube channel. 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 more Butts? James Moore, Jerry Butts, coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, along with James Moore in Vancouver, Jerry Butts, on the eastern half of the continent for this week. Lots to talk about, as always, and so let's get right at it. You've had a couple of days to think about what happened on Friday night in Calgary, with Peripoli, you know, a resounding 87. something percent vote in favor of his leadership. So I wanted to get first your initial thoughts about what that actually means going forward. And James, I know this will be a true test of the two of you in terms of our sort of agreement that we don't get partisan on this program.

So let's see how that works out. James, you go ahead first. In two words, I would say mission accomplished. And mission accomplished in really challenging circumstances, right? It's not just that, you know, Pierre Pauliev went from being 20 points up against Justin Trudeau and then losing the campaign to Prime Minister Carney, even though you always have thrown the cafe. You know, he did better than any leader since 88. But going into the convention, yes, he lost his seat. He won back his seat in place in Parliament and a by-election.

But the circumstances of the week leading into it were particularly challenging, right? you've had the belligerence of Donald Trump, you had this separatist story about, you know, activists and the Alberta separatist moving, moving, meaning with someone associated with the administration, who knows what that means, you know, tensions between Premier Ford and his expectations that Premier Smith and others be more robust and aggressive against it. Like, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors in the broader ether with regard to the sort of the broader conservative movement and the separatist universe and the Trump universe and all that. And PR came in and got 87.4% of the vote. He gave a speech that I thought was really impressive for the mission, for the moment, for the room. I think the story that he sort of told the room about his daughter, which I know he's been reserved to do. Everybody in public life is, most people, I think, are actually pretty cautious about their personal lives, you know, put it in the window for votes.

I think there's kind of been a healthy boomerang about that, about people being cautious about talking about their families. I thought that was a very touching moment where he talked about Valenti's. his daughter. And I think people are leaving the convention, I think, conspirated and energized about things. The question, of course, is about the margins for growth and what the broader universe and that the available voting pool looks like and his ability to pitch to it. But that's tomorrow's problem. Today's problem was rallying the caucus, rallying the membership, getting a good number, coming out of a United. And I think mission accomplished. I think it was a very good weekend for Pierre and very good weekend for the party.

Jerry? I'd largely agree with what James said, Peter. I think that the objective here was to consolidate the conservative movement behind Pierre Pauliev's leadership. And it's impossible to argue based on the facts that he was not successful. But I don't think anybody's ever doubted that Pierre Polioliev is popular with the conservative base. The question is, can he branch out? Can he show Canadians who are not showing up to political? rallies, which of course is the vast, vast majority of Canadians, that he has something to offer

them, and that is still very much an open question. It doesn't surprise me that 87% of conservative party members support Pierre Paulyev's leadership. He is their guy, and they are his party. And the question is, what can he do with it to generate a different outcome than the one he had in the last election? There were really two audiences on Friday night. there was clearly the audience in the room who would actually do the voting, but he was also, I'm sure, trying to also portray, in a way, a new Pierre-Polive to Canadians in general, those who were watching on a Friday night on the various all-news channels. Did the Pierre-Poliev we saw on Friday night,

is that the new Pierre-Poliev or was that just a Friday night Pierre-Poliev? I think he's presented himself in a way that provides him more optionality and flexibility in terms of what the universe might look like in three months or six months or nine months, 12 months. You know, it wasn't just that Justin Trudeau was coming to the end of his time in office. He said, Pierre was purpose built for that moment, which was a post-Donald Trump era, middling Joe Biden era, end of the liberal regime. Mark Carney was not on the scene.

who knew and it was sort of the 10-year turnover for a government. And Pierre was built for that talking about affordability, talking about, because he physically manifested and presented what the voting universe that he was looking for, right? Which are young families who are struggling to get the scratch together necessary for a down payment for a house and to find a job on upper mobility. You have a family. You might have a child who has some challenges and just trying to find your way in the world. Yes, he's been a politician for 20 years.

leaving that aside, but physically in terms of his presentation and how he spoke about things and his issue emphasis, he was purpose built for 2020, 23, 24, going into 25. And then, of course, everything changed with Donald Trump. There's a world in which Donald Trump, whether it's Epstein files or his health or the midterms or things could fall apart for Donald Trump really fast. And if that's the case, then things could snap back in a way that is wide open and accretive for peer polyive. entirely possible that things get way worse and even more emphasized on Donald Trump. And so Pierre, by sort of frankly staying neutral on that question at the convention, and I know a lot of people

want Pierre Pollyov to be really aggressive and all that. But the message and the narrative and the posture of a possible prime minister of the country with regard to Donald Trump, we don't know what Donald Trump is going to look like in the next 48 hours, let alone the next 48 months. But he's going to be president on paper for the next 36 months. So we don't know. So he's sort of, you sort of, given himself some optionality strategically in terms of what he wants to present to Canadians whenever we go to the polls, three months, six months, nine months, and he's not hemmed in with that with the base or with the general public. And I think that was very smart. I think a lot of people want him to react to Greenland or react to the peace board or different

things. I think that's a mistake. He's the opposition leader. He doesn't have to do that. Prime Minister Carney has that burden and responsibility. Pierre doesn't have that. And what he offers to Canadians as a choice in the next campaign, he should reserve as much of that political room and capital and strategy for himself, and I think he's done that. Do you agree with that, Jerry? The reason I ask is it just seems like Donald Trump is on the mind of all Canadians right now, or most Canadians, and most of them are aggressive about Donald Trump. Yeah. Some of them are, you know, are in favor of what Trump's saying, but that's a smaller number, much smaller than the more aggressive one. And for Pahliav to go to the microphone on Friday night

and never mentioned Trump's name. And I don't think it was ever mentioned at all from the podium during the convention, at least certainly on Friday and Saturday. Do you think that's a smart strategy? No, I think the reason, I think James gives a very good argument, but I think the real reason that he didn't mention Donald Trump is that small group of people who support Donald Trump are way overrepresented in the room he was talking to,

and he knows that. And that's why they skillfully avoided that topic the entire weekend because they don't know how the crowd's going to react if he criticizes Donald Trump. It reminds me of the way Daniel Smith promoted the MOU with the federal government at her own convention and got booed for it. That's the real challenge with the conservative movement.

It's they built a party, which charitably you could call a big 10 party, but I would say overrepresents a very small minority opinion within the country, which is that we should go in the direction that Donald Trump is taking the United States. And until he confronts that, I think he's going to have a really difficult time winning an election. Your original question, Peter, if I could have a minute on that, I didn't, I mean, I did think that story, the section of the speech about his daughter was lovely and touching, but I did not see much new from Pierre Puelev. I think the clear message he was delivering was, I think that I did really well in the last election,

and it was a matter of running the same election a little better, and I'll be Prime Minister of Canada, that there was no indication there that he felt he made any mistakes, that his campaign made any mistakes. He didn't own up, take responsibility, therefore, for any of those mistakes. And if you're a regular Canadian watching that, you're seeing the greatest hits package. You're not seeing a new album.

Some of that, look, on the Trump stuff, I don't disagree with Jerry. Like, there's a, there's a portion of the conservative movement. I know what percentage is,

is certainly overrepresented, perhaps in that room, and amongst people, but there are some people in the conservative universe who think, who actually do like Donald Trump, and they're just disappointed that he's coming apart

and that he's distracted with, you know, the ballroom and the nonsense and the Nobel Prize. And something, but they like the fact that he's offending the people who offend them. Fine. There are other people who think that Donald Trump is kind of just another politician. He's just really eccentric and he's not that big a deal. And he's really unfortunate for us because he's making it hard for us to win. And then there's, I think, the broad majority,

in my view, I wish it was a super majority, but there's a broad majority in the conservative movement who are people like me and others who think that Donald Trump is a serious and existential problem for the world in terms of the shattering effect he's having on conservatism, decency, dignity, honesty, like, you know, the speech. So, and I, and I wish that they were more represented. But it doesn't matter. The reality is presenting itself in the way it is, and Pierre has to manage it, and he's doing it as best he can. With regard to shifting his presentation for other voters and being seen as different, you know, Stephen Harper, you know, we used to say, we don't talk about strategy in public, we just do strategy. And so if Pierre is going to shift, he doesn't stand,

and you don't stand in a keynote speech to the country and to party members and say, here's what happened last time and here's what's happening now and here's what's going to happen in the next quarter. And by the time the next, if he's going to have a shift, do the shift. Don't say the shift. Do the shift. And frankly, if you look at the, if you compare sort of apples to apples and what he's sort of said in keynote speeches, there has been a shift. It's been subtle, but it's been significant, I think.

He doesn't say Canada's broken. He doesn't say everything, the linescape is awful in Canada's. You know, we've broken our stuff. selves and that's why Donald Trump could do this. This is our fault. This is Canada's fault. You know, liberals are reanimating those clips I see in some of the ads that I've seen online in the last couple days. So Pierre will navigate that, but that's his challenge. But if you actually look at what he's saying to Canadians is, it's very different. And I, you know, the, the way he's standing there, the sets, the flags, the, his posture, the body language, it's different. And it's,

and it's a, and it is a shift towards recognizing that this is a great country, Canada, first to all that. He'll be, I think, more aggressive about that as we get closer to a campaign because the dynamics in the room, but he will execute his strategy. He's not going to come out and say what his strategy is. He will do the changes, I think, relative to the last campaign and forward facing, but he will do them, but he won't say, hey, by the way, here's what I'm doing differently. But he will execute them. He's not dumb. He's a very smart, shrewd political operator. You know, you've both seen at times situations like this unfolding. your party and other parties.

What is the leader who's being renewed in a sense because of that vote? How does he handle a caucus when he gets back in the actual caucus room? Not on the convention floor, but in the caucus room. And knowing full well that some members of that caucus were not happy. Certainly some are not happy enough that they left. Others have supposedly been thinking about it. How do you as a leader, who's been renewed by your party,

handle that in the caucus room. Give it a try, Jerry. Well, I think it's an opportunity for him, right? I think the last thing he wants now is to have three, four months of stories about whether or not people will leave his caucus. And he's got this 87.4% approval from his own party, which he can brandish in conversations with his caucus.

members and say, look, we're both members at the same party. It's clear who the party wants to be its leader. If you are not with us, now is the time to leave. And I would, if I were in his shoes, if I were on his staff advising him, I would say this week is the week to coterize all these conversations. That if anybody is in that room who shouldn't be in that room because they don't want to be in that room, now is the time to politely ask them to leave. And you've got the mandate of your own party to do it. So that's what I would do in his shoes. I'm not sure that's what they will do, but that is what I would do. I think that's right. And look, in a democracy, the majority has rights. And a supermajority really has rights. And 87.4% of the

party members have said, you know, Pierre was elected the leader of the party and defeating the former Premier of Quebec, defeating the mayor of Brampton, and winning a resounding first ballot victory where he won almost every single riding in the country. Went into the campaign, didn't get the results that he wanted, went back, won a by election, and he's gone to the party membership, and he's won 87% of the vote. If you're not with him, then that's fine. There's the door, and that's fine. But there's no question that he has the right to lead the party,

and the party should have the expectation that members of the caucus in good standing be aligned with him. And if you don't, don't. And so, you know, given that it's a minority parliament, given that we're coming up on the one-year anniversary of Prime Minister Carney, becoming prime minister a little bit longer for the one year anniversary of the campaign. But, you know, it is a minority parliament on average the last 18 months. I would expect that members of caucus, whether or not they're going to run again, they should be asked to submit their packages to reoffer themselves as nomination candidates by the end of February.

And if they don't, they don't like, I would start pressing the question and getting on with it. Do you expect to see any changes in, you know, the group immediately around him? I mean, he has a new campaign manager. But I see Jenny Byrne, who was his old campaign manager, is still not being shy about what her suggestions are for the path forward. But beyond that, there's also caucus management and who's got key positions within caucus. Yeah, I mean, insights into that are maybe it's impossible for Jerry or I to talk about because there's an interpersonal dynamic there because this, you know, he is choosing his, for lack of a better phrase, he's choosing his ride or die crew of people who are going to be. going to be the front-facing crew of the of the caucus and party who he's going to go into a campaign with. Prime Minister Trudeau had his, Brian Mulroney had his, Stephen Harper had his. And, you know,

when we would go into a campaign, whether it was me and John Barrett and Jason Kenney and Ron Ambrose, like, like, you know, you have your core. And, and I was proud to be put it. So Pierre will have his. I don't know who that is, but he will choose that. He's been given the margin to exercise what he thinks is the best team dynamic and do that. Steve Outhouse, by the way, he's a good friend. He actually officiated my wedding. He's a good friend and a good guy. He's had a lot of experience and a ton of success in politics. And of course, in politics, you know, losing is partially success as well because you really, you know, how did Thomas Edison invent the light bulb? You try 99 things that don't work. And, you know, he was asked, you know, geez, you failed a lot.

He said, no, I've learned 99 things that don't work. So this is good. And so with, and Steve Outhouse and conservatives, we're good at learning from our defeats. And, you know, and, you know, Steve Outhouse has had a lot of success and failures, some of which, you know, have been, I think, eye-opening to the movement. Anyways, he was there. He was present. He was visible. He was in the media.

And so conservative party members, prospective candidates, campaign managers who didn't get a chance to go to Calgary, saw him in the media. If they don't know him, they got in. You see a very substantive, smart, familiar face within the movement who people really like and have confidence in. So Pierre is putting in place the pieces. He understands the responsibility in the mission of the moment. and I'm sure he will align his critics and caucus folks and all that to

to satisfy the moment of expectation for the base. All right. And for those who don't know, Steve Outhouse is the new campaign manager. And that's who James is talking about. I guess my question was as opposed to personalities directly. It was more the sort of image. If he has successfully changed or is attempting to change the way he,

Canadians in general look at him. Is part of that look also who's around you? And I appreciate most Canadians don't know the names of all the different people around him, but there is kind of an image of those who are around him, the way they talk, the things they say. Is there any obligation, do you think,

Jerry, to change that kind of makeup as well? Well, I think part of the challenge he had in the last campaign was it was very much a one-man band. right, that there wasn't James Moore and John Baird and Jim Flaherty that people could turn to and say, oh, this looks like this is going to be Pierre Pauliav's cabinet, and I'm pretty comfortable with that. I think that was a big weakness in their campaign, and it manifested itself in their recruitment of candidates. They tended to recruit lifelong members, younger people, but lifelong members of the conservative movement, people who thought the same way they did about the world.

That was especially true in Ontario and Quebec, but also true in British Columbia. And I think it really hurt them there. Whereas I think back, obviously in the Carney campaign, we didn't have a lot of time to recruit people. But we did bring in a couple of people like now Minister Hodgson to put in the window to say this is the kind of person who's going to be part of a Mark Carney government.

And we spent a lot of time on this, probably more time than we spend on anything other than the platform in the Trudeau years recruiting candidates, the Bill Mornoes of the world and the Jody Wilson-Raybolds of the world and all of these people who had their own independent standing in their communities that you could send a signal to those communities that you were going to be represented by people who you knew and were comfortable with, right? And I didn't see a lot of that from Pierre Poliav, and I certainly didn't see a lot of that in the convention. And when you think about the cycles that opposition parties go through when they're in opposition. It's a lot easier to

attract candidates when you're ahead by 20 points in the polls than it is when you're down. Believe me, I've been in both positions and I've watched people jump at the opportunity to get on the ticket and then jump at the opportunity to get off the ticket when the polls go sour. And it's certainly a lot easier. And I expected last fall in the run up to what was, pretty obviously going to be an election year in 2025, that you'd see, you know, a big name from Bay Street show up to run in Toronto to be Pierre Pauliev's finance minister, industry minister. Same thing with the oil patch in Calgary. And it just didn't happen.

And I think that really heard him. And he missed an opportunity to do that. And I think it's going to be a lot harder to do it. But if I could, Peter, I want to go back to the point that James was making about how you deal with Trump. and the, because I do think that you're correct, it is the question that's on Canadians' minds. But I think it's bigger than Donald Trump. It's about the United States and what is happening to the United States and how we arrange ourselves to deal with what's happening in the United States.

And as usual, I think Canadians are way ahead of their political leaders on this. They realize what's happening in the U.S. I think David Cochran said it very memorably on CBC. that the United States, Donald Trump is president of the United States because the U.S. is the way it is, not the other way around. And I think that's going to be true whether J.D. Vance becomes president of the United States in the next 12 months or after the next 36 months. I think it's going to be true even if the Democrats win the election, because the fundamental reality of the U.S. is that half of Americans hate the other half of Americans, and they each think the other is a bigger threat to

their country than any external force. And that means probably for the rest of our lives, we're going to be dealing with this America that whipsaws from one poll to the other, depending on how 200,000 people in five states vote every four years. So I think that what Prime Minister Kearney, and I'm obviously not unbiased here, I'm a big supporter of the prime ministers, I think what he has done very strategically and deftly in the past year or so, but especially in the past month, is to show Canadians that he understands what's happening in the U.S. And that it necessitates a different policy posture and positioning from the Prime Minister of Canada. And if it appears you're just kind of waiting to hope that Donald Trump goes away and the United States goes back to normal,

I don't think that there's very many people in Canada who believe that's a likely possibility. So the number one job of the leader of a political party that stands a chance of forming a government, is to describe to Canadians, not their political strategy, but what is their strategy for the country in this new world? And the reason, in my view, that twice as many people want to see Mark Carney, Prime Minister, as Pierre Paulyev right now, is that Mark Carney is lapping Pierre Paulyev on that topic.

Okay. Well, on that point, we're going to take a break. When we come back, I want to talk about one of the urtons that's happening right now between Canada. than the US. And it appears to be the fact that the U.S. is very openly trying to involve itself on the discussions that are going on

in Alberta about the possibility of secession. We'll talk about that. When we come back, I also want to give everybody a heads up on the question of the week, which we announced yesterday, but just in case you missed it, because you've only got another day or so to get your answers in. And it's not about politics for a change.

It's about the Olympics. They start this Friday. You know, what are your thoughts generally on the Olympics? Do you watch them when they come on? What do you watch? Why do you watch? Is it all about just the hockey for you? Give us your sense on the Olympics.

Normal rules apply, 75 words or fewer. You've got to have your answers in by 6 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday. The address to write is the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. And 6 p.m. Eastern Time tomorrow, I said that. Also your name and the location you're writing from. Those are all the rules.

Those are the questions. Get your answers in and look forward to it. Okay, we'll be back right after this. And welcome back. Peter Mansbridge here, along with James Moore, the former Harper Cabinet Minister and Jerry Butz, the former Trudeau senior aide, principal secretary, to Justin Trudeau after the 2015 election.

Second topic for today, gentlemen, and it is, as I mentioned just before the break, it's about these apparent attempts by the Americans to involve them. Well, it's more than apparent. We've actually heard Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary, and others speak about this, sort of openly saying Alberta should really consider this possibility of leaving and joining the United States, sort of ramping up the talk on that. and the Alberta separatist movement claiming that they've actually had discussions with senior members,

or at least members of the Trump administration. Where are we on this? What are we make of this? You know, some people are outraged at it. Should they be, James? Yes, but on the other hand, if you take a minute to pause, you kind of realize that this poisons the project, right? that still the I think the strong vast majority of Albertans, particularly Calgarians and Edmontonians, have no interest in Donald Trump or that universe.

You know, if you're a suburban or rural Albertan and you're frustrated with liberals and you're frustrated with status quo, like your parents were and your grandparents were and your great-grandparents were. I mean, there's long, deep roots of people in that part of the province and that part of the country, not wanting anything to do with liberals. and their sort of worldview and their approach to Alberta. And that poisons, I think, is going to be in the politics for a long time as it has been. But that said, Donald Trump, if that's the face of what's next for Albertans, I don't think you're going to find deep purchase with Albertans with that way of doing things. And also the way in which the argument has been built in the contemporary dynamic by Daniel Smith and by others about Alberta's problem.

Alberta's problem is not in, you know, you hear Daniel Smith saying we need to reanimate Keystone XL pipeline so we can have further economic integration with you. United States. That's been the problem. The problem has been over dependence on the United States where one-third of Canada's export, 80, 85% of Canada's exports globally go to the United States, of which one-third is our energy sector. And the need to diversify away from the United States, that's been the project. And so if people are going to say, well, Alberta needs to separate to sort of distance ourselves from that project and double down on the American experience, in light of the backdrop of the Venezuelan opportunity for America to bring in energy from there,

that's lose-lose. So I think that playing footsie with the administration for a whole bunch of reasons in terms of the cultural misalignment, the political misalignment, the unpopularity of Donald Trump personally with Albertans and Canadians, I think all of that makes this toxic. Like if you're somebody, if you love Donald Trump more than you like Canada, go ahead and leave Canada. Leave. There are websites where you can apply

to be an American citizen and there are all kinds of living opportunities in the United States and all kinds of environments and cultural experiences. By all means, go and be an American. A lot of Canadians choose to do that. Fine. By the way, if you look at the polls,

there are more Americans who wish to be Canadians than there are Canadians who wish to be Americans. But if you're one of those, go ahead. As the kids say, do you. But you don't get to take Alberta with you. That is not how this works. Jerry. Amen, brother.

I could not agree more with that. I think that, look, I think it is outrageous. It's absolutely outrageous. But I think it's good that it's been fleshed out into the open because the dynamic, the political dynamic that James described, can now take hold that people can see this project with these Yahoo's for exactly what it is, which is cloaking themselves in an independent Alberta movement

so that they could have closer ties with Donald Trump's America. And I think that it's a great thing. I think of all my family in Alberta and Edmonton and Calgary and environs, they would never in a million years vote for independence from Canada. And I think that one of the most heartening developments to ensue from this is just all of these Albertans coming out and saying they're proud Canadians. I love it. I think that we could end up with a stronger, more unified country because of it.

I do think, however, the United States government, and that's what we're talking about here, apparently these guys had meetings with the State Department, the United States government, actively participating in the weakening of its largest trading partner, its largest export market, is absolutely outrageous and a self-owned for the United States. because there may be people in Donald Trump's movement who think they would love to take the chaos they're fostering and festering in their own country and export it north of the border. But it's a much worse world for the United States of Canada breaks into pieces. And I was also interested to see the putative next premier of Quebec.

Lamonbong say, oh, I'm all for that. And maybe I want to make common cause with these Albertans who want to destroy Canada. I think even people who consider themselves sovereignsists in Quebec or independentists in Quebec would be really uncomfortable with that negative messaging that their objective is to destroy the country. I think most people who would vote yes in a referendum believe that Canada would stay together ex-Cabec. And although I think that's equally outrageous, I think it's probably good for the unity of the country that these forces are being fleshed out and they can be connected. confronted in the town square rather than just in the dark corners of the internet where they're more comfortable. But are we flushing it out and confronting it in the public square?

I mean, the prime minister has said, I've asked Trump to respect Canadian sovereignty, and that's kind of as far as he's gone on this. Should there be more than that? I mean, should we, you know, if this is the game they want to play, should we have be, Should ministers of the Canadian government be out there saying, really you want to be Minneapolis? Do you want to be that? Is that the way you want you to see your government govern?

Honestly, if we were, you know, if this was an issue's management call on behalf of Prime Minister Carney, right? Or if we were part of the priorities and planning cabinet committee, let's pretend we are, right? I'm sure he watches. I'm sure he watches every second Tuesday. Yeah, if you subscribe to YouTube, you can download it and save it for later and watch it on a flight if you like, yeah.

You know, but no, I think, I think the answer to that question would be, let's see what tomorrow brings. And then tomorrow, the answer will be, let's see what tomorrow brings. I don't think that you can make a plan. There are certain values and principles and, you know, red lines for sure. But let's see what tomorrow brings. Right now, no, because this is accretive to Canada. the handful of, you know, Yahoo's who are out there who are speculating about Alberta leaving from the country.

And by the way, I get what Premier Smith said when she spoke at the conservative convention, that there's a, you know, a quarter of Albertans or, you know, half a, I can't remember the number. She was half a million or a million, million Albertans who are sort of in this tranche of, who have kind of given up on Canada and we need to win them back and all that. So whatever that number is, they have legitimate grievances. And they shouldn't all just sort of be castigated as sort of Trumpian and all that. Like they have legitimate anger and grievance about things. and they need to be supported, triaged, and brought back into the Canadian family for sure.

However, we're not there yet in terms of hitting a panic button with the White House because things could get worse. That's another sort of a truism about politics is no matter how bad things may seem right now, it is always possible for things to get worse. And if you are seen to be precipitating it getting worse, then you're not, that's not what Canadians want either. Canadians are angry, but they want their prime minister to still be strategic and thoughtful about this. They don't want you. You don't respond with belligerence, to belligerence with belligerence. You respond to the belligerence with studied thoughtful management.

And it's a daily reassessment, not a macro direction. Yeah. I hear what you're saying. But, you know, the issue that things could get worse, they keep getting worse. Right? Well, they keep getting worse than the United States. I mean, look, I think that I take a lot. of heart by, from the recent research I've seen, that Canadians are much more likely to express

positive views about their country than they were a couple of years ago. And I think that's a direct, that's directly related to both the United States attacks on Canada and the prime minister's more positive view about the country than his predecessor. I think the way to fight these fights is to be on the side of three quarters to 80 percent of Canadians who are fiercely proud of their country and want to see their leadership be very positive about their country, not to paper over our many problems. And we do have problems. I remind my colleagues from outside of Canada all the time, it's not just unicorns and lollipops up here. We definitely have our own problems. But at the end of the day, there's not a country in the world that wouldn't trade

their problems for ours. And I think that the prime minister has been a successful prime so far largely because he gets that in his bones and he exudes that in the way he communicates about the country and the way to confront the small minority of people who would who would prefer to see Canada no longer exist which is what we're talking about here is to talk about all the great things about the country and how we can even we can be even better so I don't I I also think that it was it was because I see where you're coming from on this Peter and And I certainly have those moments. It's like, you know, someone's hacking you with a stick through the entire hockey game.

You want to see someone punch them in the face at the end of the game. And maybe you do that when you're up for goals, but not when the game, the outcome is very much still at issue. I think the, you know, it's, you got to just resist that urge while the game is on. Because you got to take faith in the people of the country. And I've said this a million times probably on this podcast as well, that I am firmly in the people are not stupid school of politics. And that's especially true of Canadians. I think they've proven to us over the past couple of years

that they take their country and threats to it very seriously and that they're looking to roll up their sleeves and participate in making it better for each other. So if you can always put yourself on the side of people who have that sentiment and that you authentically articulate that sentiment yourself, that is the best way to fight these fractious, negative, dark influences in the country. It's to fight them with what the country is and what it could be, not what they want other Canadians to believe that it's going to be.

And also it has to be said as well. Like if you if you enumerate, say, the 10 biggest challenges of Canada, you know, yes, Donald Trump looms over, you know, obviously the narrative. Sure. But getting an energy project built to the West Coast, that's not Donald Trump's problem. Productivity issues in Canada. That's not Donald Trump's problem. Housing affordability. That's not because of Donald Trump.

Tax competitiveness. That's not Trump. Education and people, you know, we have the highest educated population in the world and translating that into a forward. mobility and jobs. That's not because of indigenous reconciliation. That's not Donald Trump. Urbanization, public transit. That's not Donald Trump. Stresses on our health care system because of demographics.

That's not Donald Trump. He didn't help any of that, but none of those problems are because of Donald Trump. We have our own problems. And I do think that while Trump is obviously the gorilla in the room that has to be managed, et cetera, et cetera. We have our own problems. We have our own challenges. Donald Trump makes most of them worse, but we have our own problems

and our own challenges. And I think you can over-index on Trump and you look to be out of touch with the other issues that people are struggling with on a daily basis. And that's, I think, what Prime Minister Carney needs to be careful about. I think Pierre Polyev is maybe overcorrected in the other direction where he doesn't recognize the guerrilla in the room. And where those two worlds meet and where that ground is in that moment where you're seen to be effectively managing both responsibly, I think that's probably the political sweet spot. I'm probably going to ask this question a couple of times through the first half of this year, if not throughout the year.

but how do you see things unfolding for us for Canada in the next couple of months? A quick thought from each of you on that. Jerry? Yeah, well, it's eerily reminiscent to 2018 for me, Peter. I think that Donald Trump, I think the point James made earlier about Donald Trump losing political steam is true. And just last night in a special election in Texas and you don't want to over index on these things, but it's, you definitely want to take note of them. There was a 50 point swing from the Republicans to the Democrats. And in every special election since Donald Trump has been president

for the second time, the Republicans have lost, right? So I do think that there is a dynamic and natural reaction to Donald Trump in the United States. And we should never write off the American people, as opposed to the American president, that this is still a democracy in the United States and it is still a republic that's entirely in the hands of the people who live in the United States. So, you know, maybe we get surprised. What does that mean for Canada?

I think it becomes more difficult for Donald Trump to enter the USMCA-Kizma negotiations from a position of strength. If he's worried about losing all of these districts, to the Democrats where jobs are dependent upon the free flow of trade to the United States. And one of my constant frustrations in Canada is I think we underplay our leverage. We are not powerless. We are not weak.

We are the largest export market for the United States products and services. And when Donald Trump disrupts that flow of trade, he costs Americans their jobs. and that has a natural and very quick feedback loop in American politics. So I think that we're in a stronger position than people realize. I think the government recognizes that. And I think that we're going to be very tough negotiators going into the Kuzma round. You got the final word, James. Sticking to what I said, you know, like ask me the question tomorrow.

I may have a different answer. But the trend for Donald Trump is not. better. I think time is on Canada's side. I think as you, you know, he will react to, you know, the 6% Rotten Tomatoes score for Melania's documentary and the grift around that and the, and the reviews, and he won't like it. And I don't know how he's going to lash out about that, but he will as we get, as the Epstein files are poured over and all the ugliness around that comes out, that's going to come really close to the water's edge if it hasn't gone further than that already with him and people around him. And that's going to cause a reaction. And I don't know what

that's going to look like. As you get not only to the midterms, but you get past the primaries for the Republicans who are seeking the midterms, they may start popping off and breaking away. You're seeing some of that now. You're seeing some senators who are finding some courage and speaking against Donald Trump on a myriad of different issues from Greenland to tariffs and all that. I think that caucus and constituency is going to get bigger after the midterms when people start running for the presidency on both the Republican Democratic sides. I don't think Donald Trump's going to like that. Maybe he'll try to stay on for a third term and then that's going to cause a crisis. And I don't know what that's going to look like. And also the U.S.

me in terms of people's lived experience as trending in all the wrong directions. And that's going to have consequence. So we stick to our needing, focus on Canada, do legitimate and substantive things that Canadians will feel are better off. Put those in the window if you're paraproletal. You have talked about the post-Donald Trump world.

That conversation is coming up. The guy will not be president forever. He will not be alive forever. But the challenges of Canada endure and the opportunities well. And I do think that there will be, to your point, Peter, as you started the segment, there will be an inspiriting window here

through, I mean, you know, the hockey and all that, but the Olympics, I was ministered for the 2010 Olympics. I remember coming out of the 08 recession, going into 2010 Olympics, and that inspirited nature and what that meant, there was actually really good politics in that. As Brian Mulroney found out in 1988 after the Calgary Olympics, as Harper found out in 2011 after the 2010 Olympics, there's an inspiriting thing about sports and Canadians coming together and waving the flag, seeing our best athletes and performers and some of our best diplomats on the world stage, making us proud. There's a good moment, I think, for Canada coming, in 20 through

2006 and what it means for the country. And I think we will expect our politics to reflect that. Don't just be angry. Don't just respond to Trump. Respond to the moment and give us something better to think about as we look past Trump through the rest of 26. I think that's a big part of where politics is going. All right, James.

I'll give you a freebie for 30 seconds. You're going to be in Ottawa today, Tuesday, for the unveiling of the latest prime ministerial portrait. trade, and that is of Stephen Harper. You'll be there for that. And what are you going to take away from that moment? It'll be nice to see everybody again. When I think about 20 years ago when Stephen Harper became prime minister, I think about how improbable it was not that long before that happened, that that was ever going to

happen. When Stephen Harper launched his leadership race, we were the official opposition. We were in single digit in the polls. Canadian Alliance was going nowhere. Civil War on the party. 13 people, not a couple. 13 out of 66 members of parliament were sitting as independence. it's Joe Clark and the progressive conservatives were still there. We were broken into multiple parts and we were going nowhere.

And inside of a couple of years, Stephen Harper brought the family together, created one conservative movement, one conservative party. We won a minority government, but won a government for the first time. We won an election since 1988. And nobody thought it was possible. And it was because Stephen Harper was focused on the movement, the policies, and putting together something that was credible to Canadians. And as conservatives who were there, who got to ride shotgun with Stephen Harper,

we're very, very proud of that achievement and we'll be talking a lot about it this week. So, Jerry, you're welcome. Listen, you know, look, I tip my hat to Mr. Harper. He, I think what he accomplished from where he started is one of the most impressive things in Canadian political history. The fact that through the force of his own personality and will, he was able to fuse together those disparate movements into a political force that gave the country confidence it could govern is one of the most remarkable things that's ever happened in Canadian history.

And while I disagreed a lot with some of the things that many of the things that Prime Minister Harper did when he was Prime Minister, I think as someone who has spent a lot of my life in politics and in political organizations, It's just a master class in what he was able to accomplish from the ground up. And I congratulate him and hope he has a great day in Ottawa. Well, I hope he likes the painting, for starters. The times we've seen these kind of things before. Yeah. Well, the times we've seen these kind of things before,

not just in prime minister's portraits, but others where the principal went, yeah, I don't really like that, but nevertheless. I'll tell you one thing about Stephen Harper that, that rarely recognized in his political career is that in the late 90s, before Canadian Alliance days and before the formation of the new party with him, he used to be,

he was one of the first people I picked on the original ad issue panel in the 90s. And he was great. He was really terrific on that. He only did a few of them, but he did enough to be remembered. Find that footage, CBC if you're looking. If you're listening, CBC should find that footage.

That's right. Okay, listen, gentlemen, thank you very much. And for those out there who are watching, this being the first of the more buts conversations that's been on YouTube. I'm glad you've joined us. And we look forward to seeing you again in two weeks' time for more butts. But next week, it'll be the Raj Russo conversation.

And that will be here on YouTube as well. That's it for today. Tomorrow will be an end bit special. Enjoy it. It's a good one. Lots of good stuff on it. All right. Peter Mansbridge for Jerry Butts and James Moore.

Thanks for watching. We'll talk to you again in about 24 hours. Bye for now.