The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Moore Butts Conversation -- Does Elon Musk Have The Answer To Government Waste? - Encore

Episode Date: July 23, 2025

Today an encore presentation of an episode that originally aired on February 18th. The Moore Butts combo is back with a big question -- how do you cut government waste and does Elon Musk have the answer? James Moore, the former Conservative cabinet minister. Gerald Butts, the former Liberal top strategist, get back together on their long running series here on The Bridge to tackle this question.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. It's the summer of 2025, and that means our encore special Wednesdays will continue through the summer, focusing on some of the best programs we had in the past year. And that past year has changed, right? At the beginning of the year, Justin Trudeau was prime minister, the liberals were in government. Well, today the liberals are still in government, but it's a different different Prime Minister Mark Carney. So some of the things changed as a result of that but some of the topics are still incredibly relevant. Hope you enjoy this edition of our summer repeat series. Hello there, welcome to Tuesday and welcome to another week of The Bridge.

Yesterday was a holiday in some parts of the country, not all parts of the country, as Family Day is marked in different places at different times but it was in Ontario among other provinces yesterday and as a result, Sirius XM was allowing its staff a holiday and it was a holiday weekend which was punctuated certainly in this province and other areas as well of the country by a lot of snow heavy wind It was a nasty kind of weekend and it was exemplified in that accident that happened at the Toronto Pearson Airport yesterday With the Delta jet that literally flipped over they're still trying to figure out exactly what happened there. And as these things go on aircraft incidents and accidents, it usually

takes a while. There are lots of rumors around, but it usually takes a while before you nail things down firmly. Now, what else can I tell you about the long weekend? Well, I can tell you this, and this is really a tribute to all of you who have made this an exciting little venture, a venture called The Bridge. It's been five years now, almost the full five years since we started this program. First as a little podcast and SiriusXM was very interested. And so it's now on SiriusXM every day, Monday to Friday. It is also on YouTube. And the YouTube version has become this huge success. Last week's Good Talk, which we put on YouTube every Friday. Last week's YouTube version of Good Talk had over a hundred thousand views. That's the most we've ever had. That's a lot of views. I've seen

television programs on Gable TV that don't get that many views. So we're proud of that fact. But we're proud of the fact that you enjoy The Bridge, or many of you do. And it's placed The Bridge as a podcast consistently over the last few years as the number one Canadian political podcast in Apple's ratings of Canadian political podcasts or at least podcasts that are of a political nature that are listened to in Canada. Of the top 10, I'm kind of sad to report that most of them are US-based podcasts. Not all of them, but most of them. But the top Canadian one, and right now it's sitting at number two, is The Bridge. The House from CBC is, I think, number five the last time I looked at. And Althea Raj's Toronto Star podcast is number 10.

I think that's what I saw the last time I looked at the ratings. But consistently, we've either been number three, number two, and occasionally number one. The rest of those top ten, as I said, are all American based. But what am I saying here? I'm saying that's a tribute to you as those who listened to our program and support it. And you support the Thursday program in huge numbers too and that's because it's your turn. Now to today's program. Sorry for the long introduction. Today's program is the Moore-Butts conversation

number 19. Moore-Butts of course, James Moore, the former cabinet minister in the Brian Mulroney government. No, excuse me. I don't think James was even born during the Brian Mulroney government. Former cabinet minister in the Stephen Harper government. And Gerald Butts, the former principal secretary to Justin Trudeau when he became prime minister in 2015. Those are the two people on the more buds conversation and it's been great as I've, you know, this is the 19th.

They are very good at trying to keep their partisan nature out of the conversation, but to give us a sense of what's going on behind the scenes in government. How things operate. And the question this week is a really good one. We all know about government waste and we all know about the constant attempts to try and cut back on government waste. Usually they don't work. They're trying something different in the States right now. I'm not sure whether there's something we want to learn from it or not. There are not a lot of big fans for Elon Musk, but he's the guy who's running this Department of Government Efficiency where he's slashing and burning and getting rid of jobs, cutting

people loose, cutting back budgets in different things, all in an attempt to try and save money on cut back expenditures. Is it a good idea? Is it going to work? So that's our focus today in the Moore-Butts conversation number 19. So enough from me. Let's get at it and get this conversation going. Here we are. All right, James, I'm going to start with you. What is it that is so elusive for governments

about cutting government waste? Sometimes elusive, sometimes not, in 2025, I think governments are cautious about the unknown unknowns about budget cuts. I'll give you an example. In 2008, after the recession, Stephen Harper, our government, we put in place record spending at the time to try to protect the best elements and the riskiest elements of the Canadian economy from falling off the edge going into the global global recession. It was two years of deliberate deficit spending that was going to fall off after two years to get back to a balanced budget. Because we believed that going into 2011 and 2015, that if we spent, sorry,

if we got back to a balanced budget without raising taxes, that Canadians would think that we were really great and would reelect us. We'll leave how that went. But we believe that that was gonna be the formula. So, but what happened was, in order to get back to a balanced budget, we said that every crown, every agency, every department, every minister,

you had to do a 10% across the board cut in spending. And what happened was a lot of cabinet ministers decided, I'll just cut everybody 10% equally. I'll just use that blunt instrument and everybody will get to cut 10% equally. I think more engaged ministers put it that way, sort of looked at their portfolio of crowns, agencies, their department internally, all of their spending

and all of that. And they said, well, if I net 10% at least, then I will be contributing to the formula that gets us to a balanced budget that'll get us reelected. So within my portfolio, I think some things can be cut 23%. Some things can be cut 2%. Some things actually might need more money. But if I shift

the money around, do my homework, and use this crisis as an opportunity to be creative and governing, then net-net, we can find the savings and we can actually rebalance our portfolio and communicate really clearly why we're doing this, the things that we're doing. And some people did that and some people didn't. And then people who just did a blunt cut across the board ended up frankly falling on their faces with no communications exercise, because just saying we're gonna cut 10%

and everybody has to do their part. Yeah, but if you cut 10% on something that's already down to the bone, you're actually cutting into the bone and then the thing collapses. And so, different governments, when it comes to rationalizing spending down to where it needs to be, have different trial and error. And I think in order to do it well, you need to be very up on your files, very motivated, clearing your communications and explaining why you're

doing what you're doing. And when you don't do that, then even small cuts of $50,000, $100,000 in the grand scheme of things are small, but if they're very personal and easy to explain by your political enemies, it can blow up the entire enterprise of billions of dollars in savings that might overall be really important and really well done. But if you don't think it through,

you will blow up the process. Okay, Jerry, what's your opening argument on this? Well, I'll do something that may surprise both of you guys and also many of your viewers, and I'll start by quoting Preston Manning. Here, here. One of my favorite political quotes in Canada actually is something Preston Manning said at the end of his career. And he was asked, I won't get this exactly right, but I'll hopefully capture his sentiment. He was asked if he could leave one piece of advice behind for everyone who came after him. He thought about it for a second and he said, I would carve into the middle of

the cabinet table. This is not your money. And I think that that is an incredibly important, simple, and almost always forgotten piece of advice. That while I do think that in some cases government waste is sort of the snuff-a-luff-a-gus of public policy, nobody's really seen it in the magnitude that people think it exists. It is true that having worked in the private sector and the charitable sector, which is a lot more disciplined because you're going out and raising that money every year, you just don't have the same natural checks on people's impulses to spend money in government.

That's just the way it is. And unless you have people around that table with an extraordinary sense of that value, you're always gonna end up spending too much money on things that people are not attached to because it's always easier to spend it when you're not having to raise it. Let me ask the question this way, because I think, you know, there's,

clearly governments have been focused for decades in this country and trying to deal with the deficit and as a result of the national debt. But there seems to me that there's a difference in the way you go about these things in terms of attacking the deficit and looking at programs that aren't necessarily needed anymore or working properly or what have you and attacking government waste I mean the public sees it Sees public where it sees government waste differently than they do Or at least I think they do differently than they do attacking the deficit

I you know in reducing certain programs or changing certain programs and it's that waste factor that That I assume well James, well James, you were door knocking, you must have heard that. You must have heard this waste argument. And that, I guess, is what I'm trying to get at. How elusive is it to get into the $900 hammers and all that kind of stuff? You know the stories I'm talking about. But it, but it's, uh, it can be, but I mean, departments, how do I say this? Um, people are very self-aware. Like when, when you, when you deal with the department of motor vehicles and British Columbia or ICBC,

if you deal with face to face with government, have you ever gotten gone to get a passport? You think, why am I filling this out in triplicate? Why is this so bureaucrat? Why is this so slow? Why do I have to navigate through the French and English? Like, what? Like, this is crazy. When I go to have any kind of transaction with the private sector, like I pick up my phone, I hit one button, and my grocery order from two weeks ago comes again,

why the hell can't the government do that? And just that layer of burden that you're faced with as a consequence of government. That's just waste, because the private sector has figured that out. And the government hasn't. And so they say, well, if that's what I'm seeing, then the machinery behind the scenes, my God, I can't even imagine what that looks like. And so there's this, because the private sector, certainly with digital technology has gone so far so fast and making things so seamless and so clean and simple and efficient, then you look at government, you just think, my God,

and you're standing around and we've all seen, you know, one guy shoveling the hole and four other people with, you know, high vis vests standing around looking at him, shoveling the hole and they just think, well, there you go, that's what happens with everything. And it just becomes endemic. I mean, how you confront it, I mean, it's a challenge because again, the, the, the, the dirty interface

between government and citizen is not as good as the private sector. And it frankly, probably never will be. You got a thought on that Jerry? Well, I look at your viewers are going to get, uh, tired of hearing me say this, but I kind of agree with James on that. I think it's just, it's a fundamentally different experience that you have when you're interfacing with government services and it's laden with all of the negative attributes of that brand that have been injected into it by

politics over a very long period of time. I think what we're living through now in Canada at least, you know, my formative experience in politics, a week after I started as Policy Director and then leader of the opposition, Dalton McGinty's office at Queens Park, Walkerton happened that May 24th weekend. And that sort of woke people up a lot about the Harris era of cost cutting in Ontario, at least. And I think it actually made a difference

in the rest of the country that people also know somewhere in their brains that what the government does, much of what the government does that they would never think about on a day-to-day basis is really important and it protects people's safety. It protects their health, it protects their lives. And if you indiscriminately cut those things in the way that James described,

but didn't endorse of course, then you're inevitably gonna hit some services that are gonna hurt people. And I think that has made governments really gun shy about these across the board cost cutting measures because nobody wants to be my carers at the Walkerton Inquiry explaining why a six month old child died because a couple of bozos took over the water system

in small town Ontario. Here's an analog of a real world example that happened under the Harper government that bled into the Trudeau government. Stephen Harper, we ran, we won a minority in 06, minority in 08, we didn't get our majority, got our majority in 2011. We did because we won a handful of seats right near Vancouver, including Vancouver South

and etc. We did well in the 416 in Toronto and all that and that was the margin between minority and majority. We did the cost cutting that I described in the beginning, 10% across the board. So the Department of Fisheries and Oceans said in part of their cost-cutting measures, they looked at their portfolio of their footprint at the Coast Guard and they said, the Kitsilano Coast Guard station doesn't make any sense in Vancouver. It just doesn't make sense. We have 293,000km of coastline around Canada, and Vancouver is well-served and we're good. And it's redundant and it doesn't make sense. So $850,000, that's for sure part of the 10% of the least efficiently spent money that we have. So they got rid of that. Well, of course, Vancouver and Kitsilano

and all of the area around there that they serve, that's where all the swing ridings are. This is West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Vancouver South, Vancouver Granville, all those swing ridings. And they said, yeah, but it doesn't make sense. And we had in the entirety of the nine years of Stephen Harper's government, by the way,

we never had a fisheries minister from the West Coast, always from the East Coast. And so the literacy of the sensitivity, like in Vancouver, people live, play, and invest heavily and they're heavily indebted because they want the privilege of living on the water. It's where they, whereas in Atlantic Canada, there is that, but there's also a much more economic relationship

with the water and it's much more transactional. But in British Columbia, it's more emotional. And so when you get rid of a Coast Guard station, people get their backs up and they say, wait a minute, you're the party of public safety. I thought you were like, what are you doing? And so there's a massive public outrage, but a minister did a blunt across the board cut at 10%. They found the 10% that was least efficient, which at the time kids Coast Guard was. And I remember we brought in the head of the Coast Guard to our British Columbia caucus meeting. And I said, if we were to reinstitute all the cuts and bring back 10% and you were to spend that 10%

of funding the most effectively and efficiently for the true benefit of the public safety and public interest. In other words, evidence-based governing that the liberals talked about, would the new 10% of spending go back to the Kits line of Coast Guard station? And they said, absolutely not. That is not the most efficient and most of, we have vulnerabilities elsewhere on spill response and public safety and,

and habitat protection. This is not the most efficient. We would not reinvest it there. And we got killed for it. We got clobbered by it because the, when people say governments should act like business, business would say don't spend that money at Kits Coast Guard. But the public and two out of three British Colombians live in and around the lower mainland. They want to feel extra safe. And you need that extra Coast Guard station because the public really wants it. And the incongruity of what is clearly demonstrably,

objectively not the best spend versus what the public really wants because it makes them feel better about where they live and being safe on the water, you have to spend that money. You have to find a way. So if you just sort of put in like a French Cartesian model of design of what the most efficient business like relationship of government to citizen would be, it would be don't spend on Kitsilano Coast Guard. We didn't. We followed that rule and it cost us seats all around the Lower Mainland. We lost West Vancouver, we lost North

Vancouver, we lost Vancouver South, we were seated in every single riding that touches the water. And as a matter of fact, we lost every single coastal riding in all of British Columbia except for one, Richmond, which has just a piece of the airport. Prior to that, which has just a piece of the airport. Prior to that, we had 90% of all the ridings in British Columbia that touched the coast. After that one decision for 850 grand, we had one rotting that touched coastal waters after the 2015 election. That's how big a bad decision can have, a big impact a bad decision can have.

Well, and I think that's the example of the other category where politicians touch an electric fence without knowing it, Peter, and that is the first one I talked about was very safety oriented health practical issues, but they're also symbols, right? Not many people would know this, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as James just described, has to manage three oceans, three coastlines. They're all very, they're each very different places. I certainly agree with what James said that on the West Coast, this is a bit reductive, I get some salmon fishermen, friends of mine are going to be angry at me for saying this, but the on the West Coast, the ocean is nature, it's a playground. And on the East Coast, it's a

workplace, right? So they're just looked at very, very differently as someone who grew up about, you know, 200 meters from the Atlantic Ocean. And I remember, you know, I remember the event we did in the middle of the 2015 campaign, promising to reopen the Kitsilano Coast Guard, if we were allowed. And the reason we were able to do that was because we had people

around from British Columbia who understood the symbolism of it. Right. And I do believe that the public is always right at the end of the day. And they were certainly right about that because it was all about the government of Canada and Canada's presence on the West West coast. And it was something that just not only made people feel more secure, but made them feel part of the country. It did gall me I could tell you in person Prime Minister Trudeau. Great event. Let me get my revenge ten years later. Liberals would come out and they'd say we've got to get rid of

Stephen Harper because he doesn't believe in evidence-based governing. We believe in evidence-based governing. Let's bring back the Kitts Card and Kittsland coast guard station. Well, but that said, to your point, right? That it does show that if you don't tend to your needing, if you're not very careful, if you don't think it's true, if you don't have a comms plan, comms plan that leans on our genuine understanding

of stakeholder relationships, then you're gonna get into all kinds of problems. And so, you know, we'll maybe pivot the conversation to Elon Musk and what's happening in the United States. I want to make one more BC point. What preceded the reopening, I'll never forget this, what preceded the reopening announcement of the Kitsilano Coast Guard in the 2015 campaign was conservative headquarters did a kind of mini BC platform and they put out this social media post that had a poster on it with a salmon and maybe this is my Atlantic

background or my WWF days I remember clearly taking one look at that poster and saying that's a goddamn Atlantic salmon and it's indicative of the kind of symbolism that James was just talking about. If you don't have deep roots in the soil that you're trying to represent, you're going to make huge and embarrassing mistakes. You know, we are going to move to the Musk example now of how to deal with waste. We're going to take our break, but before we do that, James mentioned as he began that story that it had been quite some time before the last previous conservative fisheries minister.

Do either of you remember who that was? Herb Dullywall. Was he fisheries? Oh, conservative. Oh, conservative. John Fraser. That's right. And we know what happened to him.

Yeah. Because, you know, he was a West coast fisheries minister who got trapped in an East coast fishing problem, the Tunagate problem, right? Yes, of course. And it cost him his job. It brings back memories from my childhood, Peter. I remember Tunagate very well.

Yeah. Yeah, so do I. I remember that. I mean, that was the first cabinet, I think it was the first cabinet loss for Mulroney was the first cabinet, I think it was the first cabinet loss for Mulroney. I think it was before Robert Coats. Yeah, I think most of British Columbia voted majority seats to conservatives in 84. In 88, the majority of the seats went to New Democrats. British Columbia's were ahead of the curve and

not supporting Mulroney in 88 over free trade actually. And even to this day, less than half of British Columbia's trade is with the United States. So, so that the importance of that relationship, as opposed to our importance of domestic spend and all that, but yeah, John Fraser, he, uh, he was vulnerable for a long time because a lot of those fights. Um, all right. We remember John Fraser for a moment, who was also a great speaker. That was a comment.

And then finally a really good guy, a really good gentleman. All right. We're going to take our break and we come back and we talk about Musk and does he have the solution to dealing with government waste? In some ways, James pointed to examples between the private sector and the government sector on how to deal with cost cutting when it comes to waste. This is supposedly what they're trying to do in the States right now. And we'll talk about that right after this. And welcome back.

You're listening to the latest of the Moore-Butts conversations. James Moore, former conservative cabinet minister, and Jerry Butts, the former principal secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau. With this once again, and I forget which number this is, I think this is number 19 of the Moore-Butts conversations, we've certainly had a lot of success with them. The topic this day is how to deal with government waste and we're talking about this because it's always an issue on the one hand and on the other hand quite apart from everything else that's going on in the United States and

their relationship with Canada we are watching closely how this Department of Government efficiency that that Elon Musk has been asked to contribute to in terms of cost cutting and going after waste. I mean, the Americans have a problem in terms of a deficit. There's no question about that and they're dead. It's whatever it is now, $37 trillion or some unbelievable number. And so he's slashing and burning in a way we've never seen before. So I want to get some sense from the two of you as to what you make of that and is this is this idea something this idea of bringing in somebody from outside government to basically establish in some ways a government department to,

to, to slash and burn. Is this something that we could end up looking at here in Canada or should end up looking at here in Canada? Jerry, why don't you start this time? Well, I'll start with, I mean, I think like so much of what Elon Musk does with his fortune. It's kind of a dishonest joke on the public, what's happening in the United States. And there are a lot of terrifying things

going on in the world these days. The one that terrifies me most is this actually, because I think the United States government, the people who elected Donald Trump think the United States government doesn't do anything worthwhile. And so he can rely on a deep well of people cheering on whatever it is he cuts. But the United States does all kinds of things that are really important not just to the United

States but if they're done badly can affect everybody else and I'm thinking here in particular of this week we learned that they fired 400 nuclear scientists in the Department of Energy who are responsible for securing the United States of America's nuclear arsenal. And they didn't realize until after they fired them what these people did for a living. Now they're busily trying to get them all back and half of them are like, screw you guys, I'm not doing this anymore. So I think that, you know, he, when he did that very,

very strange press conference in the White House with his child and Trump just sort of sitting there silently for half an hour, he said, when someone asked him about mistakes, he said something like, well, nobody bats a thousand. Well, you know who does bat a thousand nuclear scientists, bat a thousand, because if they didn't bet, you know, the half life of plutonium 239 is 24,000 years. So that's how long we're dealing with mistakes

on planet earth if these people make them so they don't make them. And that really worries me. The general point, I think it's always good to get people who are not creatures of government in looking at government. Unfortunately, there's been a professionalization of that function, if I can be diplomatic about it, Peter.

And you have consulting firms that make a fortune, present decks that they present to every government they've ever done that for, and nothing ever comes of it, except that the public gets more cynical about the whole exercise, because I'm not gonna name them because they're all hardworking people, but consultancy acts gets paid $10 million to give government advice that is either unworkable,

unimplementable, or ends up, the whole exercise ends up costing more money than it saves. And I think that cycle the public is onto and there's gotta be a better way of doing it. But I do think it's always helpful to get the private sector to look at government. James, I appreciate your cynicism on deliverology. That's not the opposite of deliverology.

Yeah. But I will do things that public servants should be doing and could probably do better. Yeah. I mean, there's a, to your point, Peter, about bringing in outside brains. Um, Paul Martin did this when he brought in David Emerson, uh, right. But he brought him in, we put him in a relative safe liberal riding, Vancouver Kings, we brought him into cabinet, did all that.

Um, and David Emerson, I think had far more wins than losses to the point where Stephen Harper invited him, um, to come into cabinet, um, and, um, you know, to help with that guy from poor Moody. Um, but there you are. That's me, by the way. But no, but David, I learned a lot from David. He was a real mentor of mine as a cabinet minister when I was first elected into government

and learning a lot about him and how he assesses things in terms of value add. Then when Stephen Harper, we also brought in Gwyn Morgan, you may remember, to look at government appointments and how we can do them more effectively and efficiently. And we tried to make that work, it didn't work. But I think the effort was there to gain the public's confidence into the private sectors.

But some of it is about the capacity to actually fix government and make it better. But I think a lot of it as well is to draw in the public, say we have confidence in this. So Elon Musk, in spite of all the conflicts is to draw in the public say we have confidence in this. So Elon Musk, in spite of all the conflicts of interest, in spite of the imperfections, in spite of the bluntness and the bravado

around which he's doing it, and these sort of half dozen 23 year old incels that are into some office somewhere trying to figure out how the government of the United States works and just taking a hatchet to things, in spite all of that, you know, I think for a lot of people who are who believe the government of the United States is grossly inefficient, grossly overstaffed and grossly under delivering, having somebody come in and sort of grab it by its ankles and shake it upside down, I

think will maybe reconstitute some confidence in the government of the United States going forward that maybe they have been made as efficient as possible. So therefore what we've got is what we've got. It would be better figure out a way to pay for it or vote to not do certain things and actually have an honest conversation now. So I think there could be some pedagogy in the crazy appearing dysfunction of things

that could result in some people having more confidence in the US government than they otherwise might not have had. So that could be a benefit of this in sort of my most rose-colored analysis. The magnitude of the issue in the United States is very poorly understood here in Canada. Like you hear lots of people even in the business community cheering on US economic policy. Well, the United States is running a federal deficit that's about seven and a half percent of GDP, which is roughly the size of the Canadian economy. Deficit.

And to the point, so people wonder why President Trump is bringing in tariffs because he believes that tariffs are a tax that foreigners pay for domestic priorities. Well, no, it's not, but it's what he believes. But the reason why he wants to do that, of course, as you said at the beginning, Peter, is the US, the debt in the United States is about 37 to $40 trillion. When George W. Bush was president of the United States, the US national debt was $5 trillion. And that was a lot. Now the U.S. adds $1 trillion in new debt every 100 days. The ski jump of debt in the United States is massive and unsustainable. And that's before President Trump does his tax cut.

So if he thinks he's going to offset that with tariffs and, of course, tariffs will get you a bunch of money early. But then the return on tariffs slides over time because people in the United States will adjust their spending. And then they realize what's being tariffed and what's not, what's more expensive than what's not. And just as we'll have buy Canada programs and approaches,

Americans will have buy USA. So anything that's coming in from the States will not be bought and therefore not tariffed and therefore no revenue. So at a certain point, these lines in a graph are gonna collide. And it's it's a similar problem in Canada. But in the United States, I might have my figures slightly off here, Peter, but I think it's something like two thirds of federal spending is either entitlement programs like Social Security or defense. Right. So if you're trying to solve

So if you're trying to solve a 7.5% of GDP problem by looking at 30 to 35% of the federal budget, you're going to have a huge problem. And I think that's similar to the problem we have in Canada, right? Like the federal government, having run a premier's office and a prime minister's office, the premiers, and I feel for them all, especially in this economic environment, they pay for real services, right? They pay for schools, they pay for hospitals, they pay for road repair, they pay for all the things that people think of as quote unquote government. direct spending on the military and important programs for indigenous people. What the federal government really tries to do is to use the weight of the federal purse to convince other people to do things. That's what the federal government does. It transfers money from the government of Canada to

either provinces or other actors within the economy to try to make things happen. That's super difficult But once you start once you open up those veins, it's very difficult to close them. You know, I was interesting Was either yesterday or the day before yesterday the Americans and Trump in particular said that in his conversations with Vladimir Putin he Sort of ventured the idea that they both cut their defense spending in half.

Well, let me think about that for a minute. If they actually did, the Americans cut their defense spending in half, it's running around 3, 3.5% right now. If they cut it in half, it would be basically the same kind of percentage that Canada has. It would also take a lot of money out of the American economy because that's mostly procurement, right? That's jobs. So I don't know, every time you think these things through or look at the different angles to them, you see potential problems. So I get it, this whole idea of trying to cut back spending, it's tough, there's all kinds of angles to it. Let me ask this as a, in a way, a kind of concluding thought. And, you know, perhaps I'm

wrong on the assumptions based on here, but it seems that most people feel that government only grows. It never reduces in numbers, whether it's in the people who are employed by government or the amount of money that's spent by government. Is it true and is there any way around that or is that just life in a growing in countries that are expanding and more people, more programs, et cetera, et cetera? Generally, yes, but you couldn't argue that the Canadian military has grown. You couldn't argue, like there's certain parts,

but we have an aging population. And as you get older, we need to take care of each other. As the body fails and the mind fails and our social systems fail, people, we rely on each other. Like we do. And in a system where we we believe in, you know, an ethic of common provision when it comes to health care and social services and being decent to each other in our in our sunset years, then yeah, government's gonna get gonna

get bigger, you can reprioritize and reprofile things. But you know, as we go from 30 million Canadians to 40 to 42 million Canadians, government will get bigger. The question is, does it get bigger proportionally? And does it get efficient and effective with that spend? And I think that's what people are looking for. And in a lot of ways, you know, that example that I gave of the private sector, where you can just sort of click on your phone and everything gets delivered to your house and all that,

that's overall, that's a good pressure. It's a good pressure on everything. Good pressure on governments to try to figure out ways to get it better. And a lot of ways the government has figured out ways in order to get it better. And a lot of ways that government has figured out ways in order to make it better. But where, if government is sort of overall getting bigger and it's not efficient, you know,

going back to the Elon Musk example is that the public starts to get very despondent and they start being tolerant of people who want to come in and take a hatch into the overall enterprise of government. Because the people who voted for Donald Trump, those Bernie Sanders to Trump switch voters, those Midwestern people, they have real problems. They have real challenges in their lives, whether it's a you know a spouse who has succumbed to the fentanyl crisis or it's not finding jobs, not being like frankly being too old to retool all their skills

or learn a new capacity, the ability to buy a home and debt in a student debt. They have real problems and real challenges. If it's all been being treated as this big game by Elon Musk and the government, as opposed to finding ways to make government more effective to serve you, then I think they get equally as despondent with a government that is too big and too cumbersome to help them, as they are with a government that is too big and too cumbersome to help them, as they are with a government that and actors who are being, who are treating government as sort of this play thing that they can just kind of make more

efficient, it is almost like a you know an exercise of intellectual curiosity as opposed to making things better for you. And those people who voted for Trump expecting government will make their lives better, are they're gonna be really dissatisfied by the end of this process if it doesn't result in a better life for them? Jerry? Yeah, look, I think that's a great note to end on, Peter. I think the debate about government waste

in the United States is really a poor stand-in for what people really feel, which is that national institutions have failed them dramatically this century. I think that we are, and this would be a fun topic to get into as James and I are both armchair American historians, but this century, if you put yourself in the shoes of a regular American, it started with 9-11, which was

responded to with a pointless war that killed tens of thousands of Americans, cost several trillion dollars, left families all over the country with people missing around the dinner table or coming back, not themselves. And then when the great financial crisis happened, the Obama administration bailed out the wealthiest and allowed regular Americans to lose their homes by the tens of thousands. And I think that those two things together have a very long tail that we're still living with

in the way that the United States is currently at war with itself. And that Donald Trump being elected right after those two things happened the first time is not an accident at all. I think regular Americans feel that their country has failed them and that that is embodied in the national institutions that no longer enjoy the support of the majority of Americans to be, to, to understate the point dramatically. Uh, and Elon Musk is sort of taken advantage of that sentiment and he's dismantling institutions in the federal government, uh,

in order to enrich himself and his, uh, business partners. Did something have to be tried though? I mean, you know, it just, it's a very depressing picture of your painting here in terms of where we could be heading. I'm very worried, Peter. I think I've said this in the, in the past, you know, what I do for a living these days, we kind of worry about these things professionally. So maybe it's the old story that if you've been fighting crime long enough,

you see everybody's criminality. But I think that we are in a very dangerous moment with the United States right now, both its proximate neighbors and erstwhile friends and allies. But the United States is no longer a dependable dance partner for anything. Well, the thing about domestic spend in the United States, the biggest terrorist attacks since Pearl Harbor happens on 9-11. So Americans consent to all the spend go to war is four or five

trillion dollars was spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. And it comes out of in the public, generally speaking, the United States think both of those were a waste of time, treasure and soil and blood rather, and all that. Then the 08 recession comes and there's all this massive spin. As Jerry said, they bailed out all the bigs, all the banks were made whole. And every day Americans were left, you know, losing their 401ks, losing their real estate assets and being really despondent about their economic future.

Well, then as a response to that, Donald Trump's going to come in and bring in Elon Musk and sort of right the ship and all that. If this fails, what else is there? Right. We, we tried the big spend. We tried all that. We tried that. And then we brought in a guy, the richest man in the world has built

space X has built at Tesla. It was built the boring guy. He's built all these things, neural link and all that. And he's going to come in. Well, if he can't fix, nobody can fix it. He's not going to fix it. So then where are we at? Then where are we at in terms of, and because the Elon Musk approach is laced with all

kinds of conflicts of interest. He's one of the biggest in his company has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of government spending military procurement. How is he going to properly assess NASA relative to the competitor of SpaceX? How is he actually going to when it comes to spending in the auto sector, and the you know, the greenfield investments that have been made in Tennessee and across the Midwest of the United States and South Carolina to make the federal government investing in

competitors to Elon Musk. He's going to put, well, like it's just, it's laced with self-evident problems of confidence that the public can have in this process. So if you can't trust Obama and you can't trust George W. Bush, you can't trust Donald Trump and you can't trust Elon Musk, you can't, then forget it. Forget it. And you throw your hands up and you say, none of this works. And I'm still worse off. And part of this is, frankly, part of this is what in some

ways makes me a lot of ways a small-c conservative is that maybe I have the luxury of being able to say this, but like, you know, if you're dependent on politicians and governments and electoral outcomes in order to determine your health, safety and security in life, then you're never going to be satisfied because they will never satisfy you. And again, I'm privileged to be able to say that, but people who aren't in that spot, yeah, they're going to get really, really angry. And I don't know how you sort of bring them back to the table to say, no, vote in the next election to elect the next crew of people who will fix it.

And they're like, we tried George W. Bush, we tried Barack Obama, we tried Donald Trump, none of it seems to work and I'm not better off. Like, then where does that leave you in terms of people thinking what the solution is? And I don't know the answer to that, but it leads one to think dark things. What a place to leave it. But that is where we've left it. Another fascinating conversation, another fascinating more butts conversation. Thank you both gentlemen. We'll talk again in the future.

If it is our 19th, James and I, our conversations are now of drinking age, so we can have a beer. Always a pleasure to bring darkness across the land. Take care to both of you. We'll talk soon. And yes, that was Moore Buts conversation number 19. It goes back, we try to do them once every six weeks or so. And I know from your letters that you find them really interesting. And I think for the most part, you can go back to any one of those 19. And you will learn something about how government works, how political parties work in the system. And that was the whole idea behind getting James

Warren and Gerald Butts together on these conversations. Because I think as you see from that one, the partisan nature of what these people normally do does not come up. They really have taken this seriously in trying to give you a sense of what it's really like to be behind the scenes. And this one was equally interesting in terms of trying to understand how governments deal with cutting and finding waste

and dealing with that. At a time when governments are growing, population is expanding, extra services are needed. It's all, you know, it's a constant challenge. But certainly dark horizons, if you believe those two guys, in terms of what we may be looking at as we move on into the future. And that was another from our summer of 2025 repeat series of our programs from 2024, the fall,

and the winter and the spring of 2025. I'm Peter Mansbridge. I hope you're enjoying the summer. We'll talk to you again soon. We'll talk to you again soon.