The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Moore-Butts: Do Advisory Councils Make A Difference Or Are They Just Show?

Episode Date: April 28, 2026

Amid much fanfare the government announced last week that it has established a new advisory council on trade with emphasis on the challenging situation with the United States. But do these work or are they just a gimmick? Former Harper cabinet minister James Moore and former Trudeau PMO adviser Gerald Butts have their thoughts.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Are you ready for the latest Moore Butts conversation? It's coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, along with Gerald Butts and James Moore, our tag team of great voices about the behind-the-scenes nature of Canadian politics. Jerry, of course, was former principal secretary of Justin Trudeau after the 2015 election, and James Moore was in a number of different Stephen Harper cabinets in the, I guess from what, 2006, right up to 2015. Well, just close your eyes and remember sort of the golden era in those years. That's right.

We all say that about our past jobs. Oh, yes. I was younger. I'll remember it. That's right. All the grass is green. All the grass is green. All the boys were handsome.

It was a good year, good time. I remember when I was a young reporter and used to hear the old guys talk about the golden era. and you go, give me a break. And now I'm the guy talking about it. Okay, here's the topic for this week. You know, last week with much fanfare, they announced an advisory board for the Canada-U.S. relationship in terms of upcoming negotiations, whether it's Kuzma or what have you.

Distinguished people, all of them, not taking any credit away from them, great careers in politics and business elsewhere. but the question becomes, you know, we've heard of advisory boards and advisory councils at different times through different governments over the past. And at a certain point, after the appointment of the members, you're left wondering, well, what do they actually do? Or what did they actually did? What happened?

Were they of any use? Or was this all about show and trying to look nonpartisan and that everybody's united on these things? So that's what I want to talk about. Because I know both of you have had experience either on or with advisory boards in the past. So James, Q James Moore, you start us, James. Yeah, well, I've been on some and I've created some when I was in minister. So keeping it within the context of trade, Jerry will know this because Jerry was part of the, obviously, Justin Trudeau's government where they invited me on the NAFTA board.

He can speak more to the background of that. But when you're, well, on the trade file, like going back to the summer of 2017 and Trump 45 in his first term as president, the reality is on the trade file, mostly Canada and the experience that we'd had was on international files, right? When Prime Minister Harper was in government, we did the Canada Europe free trade agreement with trans-Pacific partnership. Trans-Pacific partnership in terms of its broad strokes is basically NAFTA plus. It's NAFTA and structure, and then you add on, you bolt on the Asia-Pacific countries. And so it was kind of an expansionist agreement, not really massive rethink. It was complicated because there were different wins and losses in different regions of the world and all that. And that's actually where Ambassador Hillman, Christian Hillman cut her teeth and, you know, shocked, frankly, within the government of Canada for either the red team or the blue team and just super-started because she was so impressive on the substance of the trade files.

and then she added on the politics and the diplomatic stuff afterwards in her role as ambassador. But when the American file came around because Donald Trump was threatening to abrogate NAFTA and to create sort of this dynamic that we're still operating in a decade later, we didn't have a lot of muscle memory because we kind of have always gotten on with the Americans. And Donald Trump, we know he makes a lot of noise, but he's actually trying to do something significant and different. We didn't really know. So my view is when Prime Minister Trudeau put together,

what turned into the first NAFTA Council. I think part of it was trying to find our footing in terms of what this meant. And part of it was put some people with conservative traditions, Brian Taup from the NDP, Aboriginal leadership, some folks from dairy, some folks from the culture sector, regionally balanced east and west across the country. And so that you have this perception of a teen Canada of people of different backgrounds. And I think it was frankly mostly a political exercise in a positive way, not in a cynical way, to try to get a sense of filtering of what was going on in a good faith effort,

work with then Minister Freeland, who was in charge of the file, to make sure that the government was going forward in a way where they had their eyes wide open about what was going on. And if this was a big problem, let us know. And if you can be helpful, let us know. And the mandate was pretty circumscribed in the sense that be available. We had pretty regular meetings. We met, you know, every few weeks, sometimes in person,

sometimes online and give your thoughts on what you're hearing, what you're seeing through your networks, what's being helpful, what's not been good? What have you seen in the media that you think is going to be problematic? What are you hearing and seeing an American media that you think we should fly and know about? And give us your sense of what's going on in the world so that we're staying within the guardrails on policy, staying within the guardrails of maintaining momentum and political capital to make sure that we're serving Canada well.

And it was genuinely a good faith effort. It was well done. It was if memory serves, I think 12 or 14 of us is about, half the size of the current council that Prime Minister Carney appointed. So it wasn't unwieldy and there weren't too many personalities. Every once in a while, somebody would maybe do a little too much media and talk a little bit too much about things. But overall, I think it was a smart and thoughtful exercise.

And hopefully the best elements of that will carry forward in this current one. Okay, you've opened a number of doors for me. I want to go there. But first, some opening general thoughts from you, Jerry. Yeah, thanks, Peter. And I think this is one of those topics that may look boring to people, but is actually really fascinating because it reveals the way people think about how they approach politics, how they approach getting ready for an election, how they approach governing. And I think it's a really interesting, some of the best work that I've ever been around has been done by councils like this. And I would separate them into two groups and then a couple of subsets within each group. And the most important grouping is whether you're in opposition or in government when you call one. And for obvious reasons, we spend a lot of time thinking about the types of groups that governments appoint. But in my experience, I've probably been involved with, I don't know, 20 of these over the course of the time I spend in politics and government.

And by far the most productive ones were the opposition advisory groups. And that was because, excuse me, as in general, when you're in opposition, you're freer to think. outside the bounds of what is politically acceptable in any given day and start to think strategically about where you would want to take the country or in my case in the first part, my first go-round in government, the province. And it allows you to separate yourself from what has by definition been unsuccessful in the past for your party. Obviously, you're in the opposition benches. You couldn't have been too successful. So you need to make some strategic policy changes. And by far, most successful one I've been involved with was the process we put in place when I was policy

director for Dalton McGinty. We completely changed the policy backbone of the Ontario Liberal Party. The timing turned out to be right. We were in the third term of a conservative government. People were looking for change. But Dalton came out of the 1999 campaign having lost, not dissimilarly to the way that Poliav lost in this election, but he, came out of it with the determination that he wasn't just going to be the anti-Harris, Mike Harris, at that time guy. He was going to have his own platform for governing. So he brought a bunch of us in. We were all in our late 20s, early 30s, and he said, have at it. These are the things I want to do. I want the best ideas from public education around the world. I want the best ideas from public

health care. I want the best ideas from a subnational jurisdiction on economic development. And importantly, I want the best environment ideas. And that's where everything from the class size cap, the test score targets, the wait times reductions, the green belt that people still enjoy. It had some touch and go moments there a couple of years ago, but still enjoy in the GTA. And of course, most importantly, you have a bunch of kids who didn't get asthma because we don't have coal plants in Ontario anymore. So to me, the opposition was the most production. in my time. And we did a similar exercise for Trudeau. And it both gives you ideas, but it also recruits people, right? So I'll give you an example from the Trudeau era, which ended up in what I

think is the most effective and hopefully the most durable policy of Trudeau's time and office. And that's the Canada child benefit. That was really, excuse me, it had it had its lineage going back to the early 1970s in Canada. Different governments have tried different versions of it. The Harper government tried a version of it that was sort of a flat rate for everybody regardless of income. But there was this very modestly known economist at the University of Laval named Jean-Eve DuClo, who was working on various models of that.

And that's how both we got the idea and we got a pretty stable Quebec minister for what turned out to be a three-term government for. the Trudeau era. So when you're looking for new ideas and when you're looking for new people, my view has always been put those two things together and you never know what you come up with. On the government side, and I think James is right, in the best sense of the term, these are political management exercises. So, and again, I don't mean that cynically either. I think there are certain issues that become either too hot to deal with from solely the government benches. And that means you need to bring in a broader group of people, some who have been representative of the opposition

parties in the past. That's really important. But also the broader business community and civil society where you can close the door and say, look, I'm leaving my politics at the door here. I hope everybody else leaves their politics at the door here. Some things are bigger than the partisan cut and thrust on a day-to-day basis. And certainly the renegotiation of NAFTA and more broadly because we counted on James in that group for a lot more than just advice on what clause should go into the Kuzma agreement. It was more, can we build a stable cross-partisan political consensus for how we can deal with Trump? Because we saw that as a long-term structural change in the relationship with the United States and not just something that was idiosyncratic to Trump and that turned out to be right. Well, on that example, which is perhaps the best example for us to use, because it seems generally to being accepted as a really good thing, and we're talking about the one that James was on in terms of trade policy at the time now to turn to Kuzma.

Is advisory the right word to use, an advisory council or an advisory board, or is it more than advice? Are they directing? because there seemed to be in that one that the advice coming out of that council was more than just advice. Yeah, and the answer is yes, it was advisory council. And it wasn't really said, but it was, again, it was a small group. And Jerry can remind me, I think it was 12 or 14 people. So it wasn't a big group. And we got together and, you know, it's built down from the financial services sector.

Ron Ambrose and I, sort of from the blue team, Brian Top from the Orange team, as I said, you know, Aboriginal leaders, Hassan Yusuf from the labor. Like there was, so a lot of boxes were checked. And, you know, yes, it was, some of it was symbolic. Some of it was sort of signaling to Canadians who, again, going back in the context of, you know,

eight years ago, we didn't really know what Trump's intent was or how crazy this was going to get or how intense it was going to get or how sincere he was going to be and actually arriving in an agreement and what, what it knew, what we knew. So I think part of it was pedagogic in the sense that you're signaling to Canadians that we don't think we know everything. And we're inviting people in who don't vote for us, but understand that there's a grander purpose here of public service. So you may not trust us, but you may trust one or two or three of these people on this council. And you can trust that they're going to be yelling in our ear quietly, but not through the media. And so the benefit that they get is that they get close proximity.

In exchange for close proximity, they're going to chastise us and, criticize us in private as opposed to through the media, therefore making us stronger. So you may not like our government, but I think you like one of these people. They're going to be in the tent. And that's kind of the social contract that exists between these group of people who are working together for the country. And I think the back end of it, I think for the government, what they're hopeful for. But there's no agreement that it's necessarily going to land there because there's a risk associated for this for a government when you bring together a council of people, which is part of the thing that this new council, which is 25 or plus people, is that on the back end, if 24 of the 25

people on your council all think you've done a good job, but one of them says they completely ignored our sector, well, now you got a problem. And so you got to be careful about that because part of the agreement that's unspoken is that we're going to invite you in. You're going to be judicious in what you do in terms of free media and what you say online and social media and all that, because we're exposing you to our thinking on things and that there's value in that. and please don't trade on that and please don't be, you know, lack of solidarity with the mission here. But when this is all over, assuming we've arrived at a place that's reasonably within the confines that you're comfortable with, you know, if you could go out and advocate and say this has been a good process and a good outcome for the country, that'd be great.

So for the government, you're kind of recruiting people who will be third party validators so that when you get to the final resolution, they will go out and do informed media and be thoughtful and be helpful and be helpful. to the mission of saying, this is what it was in the beginning, this is where it was to the process. And in the end, what we've arrived at is something that's credible. And I think Kuzma is actually a perfect example of that because most sectors had to put a little bit of water in their wine, but not very much. What we arrived at was an agreement that's effectively NAFTA. Some people say plus a bit, minus a little bit. The biggest problems with the agreement are the termination clauses and the escape clauses and the renewal dynamic that we're now having to deal with. But overall,

substantively, it's a commercial trade agreement where we get access to the United States, New Mexico and vice versa, and massively that's accrued to the country. So anyway, so that works. But there's a risk associated with it that if you make your counsel too big, and frankly, I think this current one is too big, that you may not have everybody stay on message on the back end if things don't go perfectly well, because there's benefit to you to being, the government got it wrong, and here's how I would have gotten it right, and then you can trade on that into some other kind of momentum for yourself.

And you never know what people's private motives are, financial, to make themselves stronger in their organization or association. Maybe they want to run for office one day. Maybe they want to be seen as a strong man or a strong person in their region or for their industry that they really fought and did their best, that they just wouldn't listen. You know, you get my point. Jerry, you must have been involved in the recruiting of some of these people at that time. Yeah, for sure. And we deliberately made it a small group for all of the reasons that James described there, Peter, that. it was really important to us at the time that we depoliticize what could have been a very fractious issue in the country. Because by nature of the relationship with the United States, it means different things to different regions. And it certainly means different things to different

political parties. So there was, and I think one of the reasons, frankly, that it was seen as a successful exercise was because it was a large part of what ended up being a bigger successful exercise, which was we got out of that round of trade negotiations with the United States, with, as James said, an agreement that looked a lot like the one we went in with. That was not a foregone conclusion at the beginning of it. And I think on top of the knowledge and background and political affiliation that the people around that table brought, they also brought networks, right? The thing that I was most concerned about when Trump was elected was that there was an institutional architecture in Canada to support the most important relationship we had in the world, right?

And by support, I don't mean people who just go out and boost and say, rah, rah, friends, partners, allies, or whatever the slogan was at the time. I mean people who get together have deep networks of business, family, third sector, sporting organizations, all of the things in the apt metaphor that James is used when we talked about this topic in the past, that these two countries are like trees growing on both sides of the fence where the crown and the roots meet. We needed an sort of ad hoc body that represented the full scope of those touch points. And we didn't have it. And, you know, it's funny in my current work afterward, I had several clients in the United States,

obviously, a Eurasia group. And one of them happened to be a senior official in the Bush administration, the W Bush administration. And he consulted on their side in the Trump administration in the same way that James did, frankly, with us in the NAFTA process, in the COSMA process. And he had been in the National Security Council when 9-11 happened. And he told me that the day after, he was sort of in charge of the Americas. And in the day it happened, he said, I need to talk to the Canada people. And people looked around like there are no Canada people. We're all Canada people because it's such a familiar relationship.

And he said that frankly terrified him because it meant that there weren't 50 of the smartest people at the State Department thinking about Canada 24 hours a day. And I found that to be the case in Ottawa when we got here too because the relationship was so taken for granted that we never built that kind of. of, as I said, that architecture to support it, to think about it. And we had to make it all up as we went along. And the advisory council was a huge part of that, not just in the way that they depoliticized the issue, but in the networks, they all brought to the table. James was at a multinational firm at the time still is, where they have deep relationships. Everybody else did.

Obviously, Ron Ambrose had deep ties in the conventional energy business on both sides of the border, everybody came with something to the table. And I think the challenge with a bigger group, and I'm not being critical of the, I think it's a bunch of distinguished people that were appointed last week by the government. The issue is it's kind of like cabinet, Peter, that, you know, the old adage about cabinet that you make 20 friends and 140 enemies. It's also true of these advisory councils that people who have leadership positions in business in the third sector in labor in other parties they all have you know substantial egos and when they see one of their competitors get appointed to these bodies and they don't it can cause a problem for the government so

there's always uh as is always the case in government when you choose one person you by definition don't choose 40 million people and that means you've got an issues management challenge on your hand politically does it cause friction? I mean, James, when you go out or pointed on that one and took an active role in it, one assumes somewhat similar to what, you know, maybe going through Aaron O'Toole's mind and, you know, Jean-Sheret and others, does it cause friction in the old home base? Can. It didn't really for me.

But, yeah, I can. You know, speaking candidly about it, I don't. I don't like the way in which this past week has gone in terms of the tension between Aaron O'Toole and Pierre Poliev, not just for the conservative family reasons, but actually I don't think it helps the mission. And the mission is Canada-U.S. relations and the long-term stability of the economic partnership for the benefit of Canada. Like that, that should be the North Star.

And so I don't think that's gone well. I think so my experience was very good. Some conservatives, you know, they wonder like, who did he? Is he gone liberal now? Like, what's going on? And I said, well, not. Especially these days. Right?

And I was like, well, no. But also I think context matters. There's a similarity of context. So you go back to summer 17 when the council was announced and the negotiations began in fall 17. That wasn't quite peak Trudeau. And the bloom wasn't off the rose. But he still had majority government momentum.

He's going to be prime minister for another two years anyway. The negotiations are going to be for a year or two. So as conservatives, you can not participate. sit back and just be, you know, just throw rocks at the government, or you can be in the tent and try to be helpful and try to put country first. And by the way, Stephen, and I would say this to my colleagues at the time and say, look, you know, because some people got, were upset that I'd been on this NAFTA council with Justin Trudeau. And I said, look, thank God Stephen Harper didn't have that attitude when we were in government, because he reached out to John Manley, who did the

Afghanistan panel when we were looking for answers on that. And thank God he didn't have that attitude when he tried to build sort of cross-partisan momentum, and he saw a really good talent in Gary Dewar, NDP Premier of Manitoba and put him to Washington. Thank God he didn't have that perspective when we didn't have any experienced cabinet ministers and people with business ties, and he reached out to David Emerson

and invited him to be in his cabinet. Like, you know, sometimes you kind of have to tools down a little bit and let your guard down and put the country first. And there are lots of good examples of that historically, including the conservative movement recently. with regard to what happened this past week with Aaron and Pierre, look, obviously there's some tension between the two, and it's what it is. But, you know, but Aaron should walk softly.

Don't strut. You're a part of it. And so I think he's been a little bit too out there and a little bit too like that. And I just think make your contributions humbly and substantively and thoughtfully. and whatever back end there is in terms of reputational equity will come and let that be what it's going to be. But getting out there and being a little bit too out there is, I think, unhelpful. And I think you see the blowback on some social media stuff that's probably not super comfortable and all that. And it's caused Pierre to get his backup a little bit.

And Pierre's been a little bit more, he's gone from, frankly, being on the Joe Rogan podcast and saying country first, we're in an economic war. And just like a real hot war, an economic war is a time for a country first. going to criticize Carney. And then this past week, he got really aggressive against the prime minister. I don't think that strengthens the country. I don't think that's a good look. And I think when you're going to be contesting for the prime ministership in 28 or 29, being a statesman in 26 will be accretive to you in 28, 29, just be a good guy now. You don't have to throw a rock. You don't have to be always on the attack. You don't always have to be forward leaning and attacking the government. So I think Aaron should have been more circumscribed and less braggadocious, frankly.

And I think Pierre should stay in the statesman lane on this stuff and say we're going to work with it. You have plenty of stuff to talk about with regard to cost of living, property rights in British Columbia. There's lots of red meat on the table that are really good policy things to be talking with. Immigrations and other one. Lots of good policy stuff to talk about where you can be really critical of the government. Be aligned on Trump. That's just the political safe ground and it's just good statesmanship. I only have one challenge to what you said.

you said that Stephen Harper reached out to David Emerson. I thought it was actually the other way around. Didn't David Emerson reach out to Stephen Harper and say, I could be in there. David Emerson, good friend, I was his parliamentary secretary when he joined the Congress. I know David quite well.

David is not a political animal. And he didn't actually see the weaknesses and the risks associated with what he was doing. But don't forget, he was elected in 04 under Peak Paul Martin, was re-elected in 06, when Paul Martin was successful. So he had government and then, sorry,

was reelected in his seat, but Paul Martin lost no six. And so he was a second term MP and Stephen Harper really respected him and liked him. And he asked him to join his cabinet. Didn't actually ask him to cross the floor, but Emerson thought it would be weird to be a member of cabinet and not in the caucus because of the tensions

and I need to fix all that. And he didn't, he didn't frankly anticipate the bullback. I don't think he was going to run again in 08. And so let 08 be 08 and the next election be the next election, but I have an opportunity. The prime minister of the country asks you for your help. Asks you for help.

You answer the call. Like that's his public service break because he was a senior bureaucrat before he was a politician. And the brain is whether I'm serving red team, blue team, orange team, the prime minister of the premier calls you and says, I need your help and your thoughtful advice on some big policy stuff. And we'll figure out the politics later. You answer the call. And that's, there's risk with that.

And he didn't run again. But he served the country. well. Okay, I stand corrected. It was Stephen Harper who worked behind everyone's back in a dirty backroom deal. Exactly. I'm glad you clarified. That was the Liberals with Belinda Stronick. That was liberals with Belinda Strzdenk. Listen, the point James, the point James makes, and it's, it's a cliche about politics that it's a people business, but it definitely is a people business. And sometimes feelings get in the way of strategy. And there is certainly all, there are certainly a lot of feelings between Pierre Pauliev and Aaron O'Toole.

And I get why. I absolutely get why. But you got to dial that stuff down. I think James gives wise counsel there and extra points for the use of the word braggadocious. All right. We're going to take our break and switch topics. I've got one.

I'm going to throw at you. I don't think I even warn you, but I'll tell you about it in a moment. We'll be right back after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Tuesday episode. This Tuesday, it's a Moore-Buts conversation with Gerald Butts, James Moore. We talked about advisory councils. We're going to talk about something different in a moment.

But first, a reminder about what our question of the week is this week, and it's an easy one. It's an Ask Me Anything week. It's the last week of April. Can you believe it? We're into May next week. Ask me anything. It literally means that you can ask me anything about the, about the program, how we put it together,

what some of the issues are, whatever you want. Ask me anything. So have your answers or your questions for me. In by 6 p.m. Eastern Time tomorrow. Keep it 75 words or fewer. Include your name and the location you're writing from and the address you write to is the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com.

Okay, got it. Ask me anything this week. If you wrote, we've had lots of questions on me anything weeks. We still have lots left over from the last two months. So if you wrote before and it wasn't on, you don't need to write again. We still have it. We may use it. Anyway, new questions are welcome, of course. All right. Here's my next question. It's a result of a number of people who've asked me in the last couple of weeks, really, and especially so in the last couple of days because of things that he has said. I'm talking about Wob Canoe, the Premier of Manitoba,

kind of a no-holds-barred approach to dealing with Donald Trump. What did he say the other day? We'll give up certain things if you release the Epstein files. I mean, that was a good one. Anyway, the questions that have been asked of me is, why is he considered the most popular first minister, if not the most popular politician in the country, the Manitoba Premier?

The data shows in polling that in fact he is the most popular Premier and not by a little bit. And it's not a honeymoon thing. I mean, he's been there, what, almost three years? Honeymoons, certainly in politics, don't last that long. But he's still doing extremely well. So what is the secret of Wob Canoe? Both of you have been observers of this guy.

You perhaps both know him. I know him. I mean, he used to work for the CBC. What is it about Wob Canoe that's so successful? Jerry, I've waffled a bit here for the last few minutes to give you time to think about an answer. Thank you. I appreciate it. Although in this case, I know what I think. think it's that Wob talks like people talk. He says things that everybody can understand in a way

they can understand it. And he seems to mean it when he says it. So he not only has that kind of authenticity, which is an overuse term of communications, but he's willing to try new things, right? Like I, I for one, we've talked about AI and technology on this podcast many times. I love this idea he's come up with to ban algorithmic pricing in Manitoba. I think it's a great idea. I don't know whether it works like all frontier policies. It's probably going to have to be tried and adjusted and retuned and that sort of thing. But I think in an era where a lot of people have grave questions about the advent of technology

and what it means for their basic standard of living and their rights and freedoms. He seems at least to be willing to give an honest effort to try and help people. And I think that's what's working for him. And, you know, I'll confess, I tried to get Wab Kudu to run for us in 2015, and he wasn't ready to enter public life. Turns out he's a new Democrat. I think that one of the best things about this country is partisan adhesion is not very strong. So who knows what happens. I certainly didn't know he was going to run for the new Democratic Party in Manitoba and wouldn't have cared anyway. But he just seemed to be. to be a real dude, you know, he seems like a real guy and a real, uh, person who says what he thinks

and backs it up with actions. Uh, politics is not rocket science at the end of the day. You know, there's a, yeah, go ahead, James. Was it, there is a permanent government, right, in the sense that, uh, and I don't mean that, like, in the deep state stuff that Trump talks about, like, but there's a permanent government. There's a, there's a core of deputy ministers, there's heads of crown corporations, there's heads of agencies and all that that exists, the federal government, provincial governments and all that. And when you get elected into government, the public thinks that your job is to go into the provincial capital or the national capital and to stare down the permanent government and defend

them and sort of, you know, cross the moat, get into the castle to make sure that those who are in that permanent government is reflecting your values and to sort of turn the ship in that way. There comes a point, though, of course, that you own the castle and you own them all and you've replaced the deputy ministers and the heads of the crown corporations and the boards of directors and all that of all these agencies and et cetera, where now you own it. And then you, but you still have to have this tension of we're going to go in and we're going to change things and then we're going to own the town and then we have to sort defend what it is that we're doing, but recognize that we're not always on the public

side and then we have to fix things and then re-reflect it back. And maybe we rename things or reprofile things or cut things or add things or reshape things or do advisory councils and to get a fresh perspective on things. But there's this thing, right? Wom Keneu has managed, I think, what a lot of people haven't. I think it's instructive to look at his contemporary counterpart of the same political family, David Eby. He's managed to do what David Eby has manifestly failed to do, which is to maintain the rhetorical footing of being the person who goes into the capital and represents real people to the permanent government, such of the permanent government, will be on the side of taxpayers as best as possible and to serve their purpose. And David Eby, I was on a panel in Vancouver not long ago.

It was a Paul Wells does his roadshow thing. And David Eby was on for about 20 minutes, half an hour and like a one-on-one with Paul talking about public policy. And then I went up on a panel afterwards and sort of responded to it and give my thoughts on BC politics. And I hadn't seen David Eby in a long-form interview like that in person. And he just looked really weak. He sounded like a bureaucrat who had been captured.

And, you know, while we're trying, but it's hard. And you need to understand that there's these. perspectives and we're working on it. The first time we tried, you know, this, it didn't quite work. And, you know, we're going to take another look at it, but it's really hard. And whereas Wab Knew just speaks in a plain spoken way, it's part of the formula that works for Doug Ford. It's part of the formula that work for Ralph Klein.

There's a populist instinct about things. Don't over-explain. Be blunt. Be clear. Be clear about your purpose. Be clear about what your intent is. Be clear about where you've gotten it wrong. Be clear about how you're going to take another run at it.

And I think that sells and that works because it's how people speak. It's how normal people talk. It's actually the origin story of Joe Biden and his original come up in politics. That's what he was like as the plain spoken guy from Delaware who took the train to Washington. And I think that works and it's effective for Wab Knoe. It runs out of steam at some point because you have to show deliverables and you have to show that your plain spoken and tough guy, you know, blunt talk is getting blunt clear benefits for the voters. But it's worked for him so far. Clearly it's worked for him so far.

And I think it's also worth saying as well. Does anybody know who the leader of the Manitoba Conservative Party is? Former Winnipeg Blue Bomber. Yeah, I know. I know. Mr. Khan is an impressive person, yes. But everything is relative to your opposition and relative to the profile. And, Bob can you, I mean, he's good.

The Manitoba Conservatives have a good leader now who's trying to get momentum and all that. But they've been a mess for a long time. And so he's had a bit of an open field in front of them, to be fair. that he's he's he is graded against a curve for sure you got to be careful about an open field though because it can turn so quickly right i mean things can change in a hurry i mean the thing that always used to impress me about wab canoe as a journalist a documentary producer which is really where he made his name um is he had strong beliefs but he listened to people like you truly listened to people didn't agree with everything they might be saying.

But he was able to mel those two things together. And I think he's been trying to do the same thing in politics, which is part of the success as he listens. He's a good listener. Somebody once said, and I think I've said it on this podcast before, Peter, where somebody once said, and maybe it's overstatement,

but they said, half of politics is, I just don't like that guy. I just don't like that guy. But there's obviously an inverse to that, which is, he's just, he's got something. He's just little something there. You know, you know, Obama had the upside of that.

Some people have the downside of that. But it's just, I like that. John Hogan had that. Ralph Klein had his version of that where you just kind of, I just kind of like that guy. Jean Choray has gone through a long political career of ups and downs. And for enough of a cohort of a lot of people in politics, it's just, I like that guy.

He's substantive and impressive. And, yeah, Wab Knew for sure has that. What's the lesson for, you know, You know, we're constantly asked by all three of us, even though we're, you know, different generations, different age groups. We're constantly asked by younger people, why should I get into politics? Or I want to get into politics, but really, do I really want to get into politics? What do they take away from somebody like Wob Canoe about why they could make a difference in politics?

Well, because, you know, we're still a country. We're still the country that the United States. United States sometimes you used to pretend to be, which is that you can be from anywhere and end up Premier of Ontario or Premier of Manitoba or Prime Minister of Canada. And if you want to change things, there's still no better avenue to do it. I think the advice I always give people is when you do get into politics, and Wob's a great example of this, the Premier is a great example of this. You better know who you are when you get in because you're sure going to find out afterward. And you don't want to be the last person to know. And I think Wobb, he knows who he is. And he sounds like

what he's saying comes from a deep set of convictions and not something his staff read to him that they heard in a focus group last night. And I think that that is, that's the key to success in politics. And if, if you don't have that deep conviction and if you don't have something you want to accomplish and a way you want to talk about it, then it is. for you. And we've talked about this many times on this podcast. The advice I got from my aunt, sister Peggy way back in the day that there are two, this, this aphorism has been so become so popular. I've seen many people claim credit for it. But I know she said it to me when I was in my 20s asking her about Dalton McGinty. She said, there are two kinds of people in politics,

people who want to be something and people who want to do something. And if he's one of the latter, then he deserves your help. And if he's one of the former, he doesn't. And I think there's no, there's no substitute for that. Wob has a very clear idea of what he wants to do. I think in, James is probably right. It's got a shelf life. But I can tell you from my experience, that shelf life will be longer,

the deeper to your conviction is. Yeah, a piece of advice I would give is, especially if you're, like if you're aspiring to be a city councilor or an MLA or an MP, it's different. We're aspiring to leadership. I mean, there are two things that I think are important. One is if the answer, if you're asked the question, should you run for leader, the answer is not yes or no.

It's yes or hell yes. And you need to be hell yes. You have to be prepared, recognize the storm that's coming and be prepared to take it in. And when you're asked questions, where are you going to do about fundraising? Well, we've got this and this. We're going to do that and that. Where are you going to do about your family? Where we're going to do this and this. We're going to do that and that. And you have to have really thought through all the inbound arrows and how traumatic it's going to be. So it's not yes or no. It's yes or hell yes. second thing is to Jerry's point is I would phrase it this way now I'd say don't fake anything you won't get away with it don't think don't

pretend to be smarter than you are you will not get away with it part of the advisory council thing that we talked about don't fake anything you know people people have their phones and they can say stare at them this close and like we you know we've all watched either you know one-on-one interviews with Vasi Capellos or with you back in the day

Peter or podcast or whatever we kind of go close the camera you go oh he doesn't know what he's talking about yeah yeah like you they said that a lot for me they always said that no no but i mean i'm talking about the subject not the not the interview but you get you get my point is that don't go into politics thinking that you know i will achieve this stature and people will respect no people people people have low esteem of political leaders anyway so so come in have a sense of purpose jerry's right frankly have a sense of timeline of when you should accomplish things and have a sense of of what an exit looks like it's really important

to have an exit plan of how you would deem your time in office to have been a success. Don't expect there to be some glorious exit. Very few politicians leave, you know, on a pathway of rose petals. Like it does not work that way. So don't fake anything. Recognize your weaknesses. Recognize what you are, what you're not. If you're a good communicator, great.

And use that. If you're not, don't try to fake it. Don't try to be cooler than you are, smarter than you are. And surround yourself with staff and capacity that will buttress and support the parts that you're not that great at. and build a battleship with different component parts that'll get you through a storm. It's a tough thing to do. I'll say, Peter, that I just resisted the urge to cheaply triple your viewership by picking up my dog,

who just came into the cutest dog in the world. But no, I listen, I agree with all that. But if all that was true, how does Donald Trump still be president? Well, he's an interesting case study, though, right? I remember having dinner with John Podesta, who was chair of Hillary Clinton's campaign toward the end of September in the 2016 election period. We were in New York for the UN General Assembly. And he was, you know, the strategy they pursued, and I don't think John ultimately agreed with it

because he chaired the campaign. He wasn't the director. I think it was foolhardy because they thought they could teach the American people something they didn't know already about Donald Trump. And say what you want about Trump. He's unapologetically Trump. And there's never been anybody like him. And there's probably, hopefully, cross your fingers, never going to be anyone like him again. So I think that authenticity, that's why I checked myself when I said it the first time, Peter, because it's not an unalloyed good.

Right. Some people are authentically bad people. and if they can energize that kind of, if they can create some energy around that brand, they can get elected. And that doesn't necessarily mean they should be elected. Well, you get the government you deserve is what my father always used to tell me.

So we'll keep that in mind as well. Thank you both. And, you know, Cherry's had a good couple of weeks. He got a promotion with Eurasia Group. He's now the chair of the Eurasia Group. which is good for you and good for the clients that Eurasia Group serves because they'll be getting good advice. But he's also still wearing that hat.

So that means... I'm going to wear this hat until they lose. I'm telling you that. This is not... They keep looking good. They keep looking good. And who are James and I connects and leaves to say... It looks like the form ghosts finally moved over to the Bell Center

that I'm sure most of our viewers are hockey fans, that overtime goal from Lane Hudson. As a gole, a lifelong goalie, I still don't know how that puck made it through that, those pylons of people. Destiny, destiny is how much. Destiny James. I love the way to talk about you.

All right, gang, thanks so much for this. We'll talk to you again in a couple of weeks. Bye for now.