The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Moore-Butts: Is This An Audition For The Hockey Night Panel?

Episode Date: May 26, 2026

To be clear, both James Moore and Gerald Butts are die-hard hockey fans - James for the Canucks, Gerry for the Habs. Like hockey fans across the country, they are following the Stanley Cup finals very closely - does that make Montreal, Canada's team? 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 another Moore Butts conversation? It's coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, along with James Moore, Gerald Butts. It's a Moore-Buts conversation. And we're actually going to try and be like Ron McLean and Kelly Rudy and company. We're going to do a little hockey talk, first of all. Because I find what's been going on. You know, every time there's a Stanley Cup playoffs, we get into this thing about, well, yeah, but who's the Canadian team in there?

And will there even be a Canadian team? Well, there's always a Canadian team. Most of these teams are majority Canadian players. But I get it. It's about which city they come from. And this time we're in the, you know, the semifinals. There are only four teams left, and one of them is Canadian. So are we all cheering for the Montreal Canadians?

Or is there some of those old biases held back against whether it's Montreal or Toronto? there usually is some bias against those teams. But who wants to start on this? Let's start with Jerry, because Jerry's actually been to one of the, was in one of the Carolina games, went down there to watch it all. Talk to me about this,

because it seems to me anyway, this time around, there is more of a kind of, let's get behind Montreal all feeling, as opposed to what we've seen in the past. Maybe it's because it's been so long since a Canadian city has been in. What are your thoughts on this?

Yeah, I agree with that, Peter, and it's as a diehard Montreal Canadiens fan, I'm obviously thrilled to have all of you Leafs and Canucks and other Canadian teams fans on board. Although I will say, I think the most recalcitrant are the Leafs. That'll change, of course, if it's a Montreal, Vegas final, because the Leafs will be, Leaves fans will be reacting in horror to the prospect of Mitch Marner, winning the Kahn-Smife and holding up the Stanley Connought. That'll be in horror the possibility of either side winning

those two teams. Yeah. Yeah, and we talked a little bit about this during the Olympics and we'll say no more about that, but it's great to see the whole country get behind something and rib each other about it and joke about it and put aside our petty differences about our teams to all get behind one team. And I think Montreal being Montreal, it's hard to explain to people who don't live in Montreal

what that city is like when the Canadians are on a deep playoff run. The last one was super weird because it was during COVID when they made the final. But I'm dating myself here as usual. But I was a lowly undergraduate university student the last time the Montreal Canadians won the Stanley Cup. And I remember experiencing what Montreal was like in the spring of 1993 thinking this must be the happiest place in the universe, right? That nobody thinks ill of anybody else for any reason whatsoever. And of course, within 18 months, we were in the middle of a referendum where we almost lost the country. So things can change very quickly and there's a good lesson there.

But I do think the whole country is behind the Canadians right now. And with the historical issues we've had on linguistic. politics and Quebec versus the rest of the country. I think it's just great for the country. It was one of what I thought was the maybe it's a function of my day job these days. But when I saw Emmanuel Macron holding up a Texier jersey with the premier, the new premier of Quebec, I thought it was, you know, that's a great moment because even when you think of our historical issues with Quebec and France, he has to hold, the president of France has to hold up a jersey where the team name is the Canadians.

So it all kind of works out in the end. And I will say I was in Carolina for the game on Saturday with my daughter. And it's a very positive festive atmosphere down there as well. They're very welcoming of people we were proudly wearing our Habs jerseys at the game. It's probably 5, 10% of the crowd were wearing Habs jerseys. And they were, you know, they were fighting, but they were doing it politely. It was great. It was really good. All right, James.

Bring us to reality here. No, I, among the things that I like about, like, I'm hoping for Montreal Canadiens Colorado Avalanche Final, not to overly analyze the things because I want Nathan McKinnon and Kail McCarr to have their moment that they didn't have the Olympics and all that. So it's kind of a win-win final. And Colorado has been so good for the year to the year. However, you know, certainly the Montreal Canadiens,

if you're a hockey fan, it's a phenomenal story because it's not just that they're having a good run. It's that they went into the valley and now they're coming back out and they've got sort of they had a plan. They have a coach. They have a young core of players. They play exciting hockey. They seem to be properly built and structured.

And there are so many narratives within the narrative that are, that's really, really fun to watch. And I say that, because I have bruises on this file. When I was heritage minister back in 2010, you may have forgotten this story, but I'm going to hold something up, maybe it'll zoom in for the for the online crew. Oh, yeah. In 2010, yeah, Jerry, you know this because you're a Habs fan. Back in 2010, coming out of the 2010 Olympics and, you know, the success of the team Canada and those Olympics, there were two Canadian teams that were coming in the second round of the playoffs,

the Montreal Canadians and the Vancouver Canucks. And I'm joking, and you can't joke on Twitter, but I hadn't learned that yet. So I joked on Twitter and I said the Canucks are Canada's team in these Stanley Cup playoffs. They're Canada's team. And they've got those handsome blue and green uniforms in those Canadian Alliance colors. Oh. And I was just trying to poke a little fun, whatever.

So I said that and I think in a scratch, I can't remember where I said it, but I said it. And then the prime ministers are, I was the Canadian Heritage Minister, by the way, when I said that. Like the Canucks were Canada's team in the playoffs and the cabs were still in the playoffs with us. So I'm walking home and I get a,

phone call from my director of communications. And they said, the prime minister's office wants to know exactly what did you say about the Montreal Canadians. And I said, what? I was just joking about the playoffs. They said, no, this is a problem. And I said, what's a

problem? And they said that you asserted what you asserted. I said, there's two Canadian teams in the playoffs. You can't. And I had not understood this firestorm that I'd kicked off. So of course, the Canucks lost that round. And of course, the Canadians won that round. It went on to the next round.

So, of course, I had to do the Canadian thing and stand up in the Parliament of Canada, wearing a Montreal Canadiens jersey to say, now we're all Canadians. So I was, so I perfectly made myself out to look like an idiot. And then I had to eat it. And, and there you are. And I remember, I was standing up in the house and I was reading a statement as the heritage minister. We're all united behind the Montreal Canadians. And here we go. And the Canucks lost. And I didn't have said what I said. And I remember looking across and Thomas Mulcair, and I think a camera who else is there for Montreal

they're looking and they're like, what is Moore doing? Like what is going on? I was going on. Yes, I've jumped on the grenade that I from the pin of which I pulled myself. But no, we're all Habs fans, I think, now. And because it also, by the way, you know, that moment where somebody would walk into Donald Trump's office and say, who won the Stanley Cup?

The Canadians. Yeah. Which ones? The Canadians. That's kind of a cool moment. what I think. Yeah. And I think the point you're making about the organizational development is a good one, right?

Because even if you're not a hockey fan, you have to admire what they did as someone who's definitely a big Canadians fan. I've been excited about these young players for a long time since they were drafted. I think last year, I think this is right. I'm sure I'll be corrected by

the many fans if I'm wrong, but I think last year Montreal was the youngest team to ever make the Stanley Cup playoffs. And this year, they're also the youngest team to ever make the Stanley Cup playoffs. They're a little bit younger than they were last year. So when you think of that young Yvonne Damadoff, who's 20 years old, watching him get late in a tied playoff game minutes because Marty San Luis trusts him so much.

And Slavkovsky, obviously, you know, Nick Suzuki's kind of the veteran of the team and he's what, 26, 27. And they've all been signed. They've done their backroom homework. So they've all been signed to seven, eight-year contracts with the exception of DEMEDAv. So the hockey gods willing, if this team stays healthy and together, we're in for a really good decade of hockey in Montreal. Talk about a name dropper, right?

I mean, he really, he's really gunning for a spot on that hockey night in Canada, you know, in between periods table. Yeah. I don't want to do. That would be the apex of my career. For all of us, eh? All of us. got on there.

I don't want to dwell too much on this. So I just really have one other question. Is it saying anything in particular about the country right now, about, you know, whether it's the whole, you know, Trump versus Canada stuff, that we have got seemingly, you know, I don't want to overstate this, but it just seems to me that we have been more caught up than with this and usual. Maybe it's just because it's been a while since there was a Canadian team approaching the possibility, being in the finals.

But are we making too much of this, James? No, I think it's a conflict around hockey specifically. I think it's a confluence of a bunch of things. First of all, it's been a long season, right? And coming out of last year, you know, Donald Trump gets elected president, says we're not a real country. We should be the 51st state. We have nothing to be proud of as a country.

Then we go into the four nations instead of the Stanley Cup, instead of the usual All-Star break. And then we had the Olympics this year where we had the disappointment. And by the way, it's been really good hockey, all of it. Four Nations is great. Obviously the Olympics was great. The whole season has been really good. So there's sort of this compounding thing about it.

And I also think that Canadians are looking for a distraction. You know, it's been a rough year. It's been a rough few years in a lot of ways. Cost of living crisis, inflation, lots of things going on and a lot of stress in people's lives. And so I think this is a nice escape. But a separate story about, but still about hockey. In the nine and a half years that Stephen Harper was prime minister, there were four occasions that a Canadian team went to the Stanley Cup final. Calgary once, Edmonton once, Montreal once, Vancouver once.

Did I get that right? No, Ottawa once. Ottawa, Ottawa, Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver. In 2011, you know, we win the gold medal in 2010, 2011, Vancouver Canucks go to the Stanley Cup final. Stephen Harper calls in Canadian, VanCenects win game one decisively, win game two decisively. Stephen Harper says, it looks like the Canucks are going to sweep. Of course,

none of you said it out loud, right? And so it's like the Canucks might sweep. So we're going to go to Boston. You know, this is my fourth time. The Canadian team could win the Stanley Cup. We're going to go to Boston and be in the lower bowl in case the Connucks sweep and win the Stanley Cup.

I said, yeah. And so I paid for my ticket. I said, yeah, I'm going to go. So we have paid for my ticket, paid for my airfare.

We went down on the challenger, but we had, you know, thing. Not a, you know, so anyway, so I had to read it, were checked for the receiver general for a couple thousand dollar, whatever. But we went down, went to, um, to Boston Garden or Fleet Center, whatever it's called now.

And, and we went in, met Cam Neely before the game. He was my boyhood idol as a Vancouver boy, former Kinnock as well, GM of the, of Boston. Canucks turned out they lost game three. So we weren't going to win in game four. We decided to go anyway. That was the most incredible hockey environment next to the game, uh, the gold winning game of the, um, the, the gold winning game of the Olympics for Team Canada in Boston.

That crowd, a steep rake of the stadiums. It was really steep, really aggressive, really loud, but still a quarter of the people in the arena were Vancouver Canucks fans who had made the trip, who had come out. So it's really a galvanizing thing. And you see now in Montreal the energy in the streets and the pride in the team, the narrative that we've talked about, you know, as churches are attendants is down, volunteerism is down. The singing of the national anthem,

happens at hockey games and in sports arenas in ways that doesn't happen. It's the kind of the new town hall. It's the new village square in a lot of ways for a lot of people where people have different backgrounds come together. A lot of working class people come together and they enjoy hockey and they stand in a room and they all cheer for something that they have in common. That's not politics. It's not sport or not religion. It's sports. It's something that doesn't matter, but it does matter. It's a sense of pride. It's a sense of identity and it draws people together. You sing the national anthem and it's kind of the new village square. And there's something very special about that and very unifying about that in good times and in bad times. So it is a special

thing. And hockey is our thing. And so I think it is really, really important that it gets understood as a cultural moment, not just a sporting moment. Because we've had a lot of those. And this is one of them. That was really good. But Jerry, did you notice how he kind of slipped in the fact that there been more Stanley Cup appearances by Canadian teams under a conservative government in this is right than liberal government's interesting that got close and lost that sounds hard for the course well by the way in 1993 i believe the conservatives progressive conservatives conservatives were a stewarding government when we won that cup so yeah we'll take that for another few months you mean you mean 93 right not 83 that's what i said i think 93 yeah but but by the

the politics side of it's i think i think i think i I said this in a previous pod, but it's worth repeating, by the way. So, again, I happened to be ministered for the 2010 Olympics. I remember talking to Brian Mulrooney-era cabinet ministers during the 88, who were there, of course, during the 88 Olympics. And I said, tell me about the 88 Olympics and what it meant, like, politically and culturally at the time in 88 and what we might think about in terms of 2010. And he said, well, you know, the infrastructure legacies are good.

The memory legacies are obviously good. The sporting legacies are important and all that. The economic bump is good, but it's typically overstated, and it kind of comes and goes, but whatever. He said, but one of the things that it did for the city of Calgary is that it separated the winners from the winers. It brought to the surface the people who had a can-do attitude and we can host the world that we could do something big and make not only Calgary and Alberta, but make the country proud. It can bring us together and show that we can do good big things. And Boyd-Bad Vancouver need that in 2010. Coming out of Expoly-86, we had, you know, a sag, bad economy.

all that. And then we needed the shot in the arm. And Vancouver has lived off that pride for a long time. And the country got a real shot in the arm. So people said there's a political, and there are people in the Marooning government who said that the 88 Olympics were probably worth about three or four, maybe five points in the polls nationally

as a consequence of people feeling good about the country. I don't know what the politics of that was for 2011 was, for Harper and 10 and all that. But for sure, coming out of the global recession, 2010 was really important for the country and the city of Vancouver. Will that be the same thing with Montreal, Canadians. I don't know, but it feels pretty damn good, I think, for Montrealers.

To come at a time when politics is, you know, going into a provincial campaign, very divisive, Trump, all that, to have people come together and to put on La Chande, to Palisatolle de Céthéthéin, to talk about hockey and to talk, all that. It's a brilliant distraction from a lot of really ugly, sticky stuff out there. Okay, Jerry, you get the last word on this before we move on. Go Habsko, that's my last word. Three of them. You probably have a lot of agreement in that right now. Okay, we're going to take our break and come back and we'll talk not hockey.

It kind of sounds like it and feels like at some point, but we're going to talk Alberta coming back right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Tuesday episode of More Butts conversation. We talked hockey for a few minutes. They're pretty good hockey people. our friend Jerry Butts and James Moore. Okay, we're getting into politics now

and I'm trying to understand what exactly is going on in Alberta. First of all, you're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform or you're watching us on our YouTube channel. Glad to have you with us. Okay, James, you start us off on this round. I mean, the dust has, to some degree, settled,

but in many ways people are puzzled by the decisions of the Alberta Premier and what appears to be going on in Alberta in terms of a referendum and a referendum and God knows how many other referendums there may be. But what's your sense after a few days of this and watching the back and forth that's been taking place on the part of Alberta politicians and politicians from outside the province as well? what's your feeling on this? Albertans have rightly complained that their place in Confederation has been challenged by the disorder

and the disorganism and the messiness of confederation itself, by the nature of the structure of our constitution, that they want to get their products to global markets, that their voice isn't heard in Ottawa, and there's lots of uncertainty. You know, why is it that a province of 900,000 people has 10 senators in New Brunswick, and we only have six? Like, why is it that, you know, we consistently don't vote for the, party that wins three out of four elections, but they don't seem to ever listen to our voice. Well, like, the racking up and all that. And then now we're in a circumstance where you have the

official opposition leader, Pierre Poliav, who's a son of Alberta, who's now a member of parliament from Alberta, who's the official leader of the official opposition, who is absolutely fighting for Alberta's interest. You have a prime minister who is, who has stood down a lot of the antagonisms of Justin Trudeau on carbon taxes and pipelines. He signed an MOU with Daniel Smith. He's ready to work on things. We've gone from a government that was led by Justin Trudeau and all those antagonisms propped up by Jugmeet Singh to know a Mark Carney government that's being pushed to the right by Pierre Poliab and the Indy Pier, nowhere to be seen. So there's a pathway here for six to 12 months for Alberta to get real progress. And they do this. It's just it's puzzling,

I think, for a lot of Canadians who are outside of Alberta, the thing like, like you have a moment here. You know, Mark Carney could be your Nixon goes to China moment where you can actually push the ball down the field in a really significant way. to get some real wins for the province of Alberta economically that you've been dying for for a long time. And it's a liberal prime minister working with a conservative premier from Alberta in concert with other provinces in order to get things done for your province. And now we're going to have a three to six months distraction

where you're going to tear family against family, neighbor against neighbor street against street, to talk about whether or not the country works. You really want to do this now. This is when you want to do this. When you were given an out by the courts to say that we're going to have a review process, we're going to have an appeal to this ruling by the courts over this. You could have had this window of opportunity between now and the end of the year,

maybe now and next spring to move the ball forward in a significant way, maybe find a private sector proponent for something that matters for Alberta. And now we're going to talk about this. Interesting choice. Very bizarre choice. So you're right, the dust has settled in the sense that we now know what's in front of us and what's in front of us is a mess. Daniel Smith is, by the way, not won an election campaign.

She would, but she hasn't been elected. She certainly never proposed. is to do this when she ran for the leadership of the United Conservative Party. And here we are dealing with this. I think it's a really awful moment for Albertans who were hoping for a renewal of the conversation between Alberta and the rest of the country that has been gaining some progress. They have had some wins under prime minister. There's some things that Mark Carney will never do because he's a liberal that will therefore

never satisfy big cohorts of the Alberta populace. And that's fine. But on some big wins for a liberal government, they're right there on the doorstep. and you could possibly get some real progress on some big things. And you're throwing it away. And I think that's really unfortunate. And I think that the damage of this is now you're going to throw uncertainty into the investment climate in Alberta and you're going to divide the population.

And the scars of this last a really long time. These are not things that go away overnight. And I think it's really unfortunate. Okay. Well, that obviously leads to the why question. But before we get to it, Jerry, your opening thoughts on it. Well, look, I think that in some ways, And there's very few positives to come out of this, Peter,

but I try and be an optimist and look for them in every dark cloud. I think that this is a clarifying moment for a lot of people within Alberta, especially and first and foremost, but also people in the rest of the country, that there is a small minority of people in Alberta, as there is in Quebec, who would prefer to see the country broken into pieces so they can go their own way.

And that group has, through political organizing taken over the governing party of the government of Alberta. And I think that for the vast majority of fair-minded people who are looking at the legitimate beefs that Alberta or any other province

have with the way they are being treated by the central government in Ottawa. And God knows when I was working in the Ontario government, there were lots of beefs. And we certainly made our voice. is known about that, you have to draw the conclusion that there's a certain small group of people that are just

strategically unpleasable, that there's absolutely nothing that Mark Carney or any other prime minister could do of any political stripe that would please the people who've now revealed themselves in public to be secessionists or sepies, as they've started calling them in Alberta, which is kind of a funny term. And I think that's clarifying for people, because it's hard to do politics when people are pretending to be something they're not, when they're pretending to share your values when they really don't. So I think that if we're looking for a silver lining here,

I think we've exposed a bunch of people who, first and foremost, have exposed them to their fellow Albertans as people who don't share their values and don't want to remain part of Canada and to play the central role that the prime minister described that Alberta should be playing in that he hopes they will. be playing and they should be playing in the future of shaping Canada. But I think the, you know, that the second point here, and this is something we've talked about repeatedly on the podcast,

I worry about at a moment when we are in real, we are under real siege by the president of the United States, that we are creating an avenue for him to wreak havoc within our own country. and if you're looking to distract a prime minister with a strong mandate who would like to negotiate with that mandate from very strong political footing, the easiest way to do that is to create a domestic crisis that absorbs his attention. And whether or not they're in cahoots, and I have my real questions about the small minority of Albertans who are trying to make this happen, a hook or crook against all democratic norms. They are certainly doing the work of Donald Trump in Canada by dividing Canadians against one another

and making us an easier and weaker target to negotiate with. So I think that both of those things, one slightly positive and one extremely negative, have to be kept in mind as we're thinking about where this issue goes. You know, you both, and you're not alone in doing this, describe those who are in favor of, separation as a small minority in Alberta. That's basically what the polls show when polling is done,

and there's been a lot of polling. You know, you can get fooled somewhat by the petition numbers, but if, in fact, you're right that it's a small minority, why are we in this situation? Why would she have, Daniel Smith, have caved to that group, if you want to describe it that way, in outlining the referendum process as she has had done. Well, I think there's an easy answer to that, Peter,

is she's made the same mistake that David Cameron made in the United Kingdom, that he was looking for, with a promise to hold a Brexit referendum, he was looking for a way to glue together a constituency on the right that had a fundamental difference on a basic question. And I think Daniel Smith is trying to do the same thing. And you saw it with her press conference, which to me was it was like watching a bear that's had their foot caught in a trap try and gnaw their own leg off to get out of the trap.

Only in this case she set the trap for herself. So I think that she thought that she could manage both sides of this question within her own party. And let's remember the recent history of the Alberta Conservative movement at the provincial level is that they lost their first election in many generations because the movement split into two parties. That Rachel Notley won in 2015 only because there were two conservative options on the ballot. And as soon as they were reconciledated under one political party, they won a majority under Jason Kenney.

And she does not want to see that happen again. So she has a very direct interest in making sure that no issue comes along to divide her coalition because she knows if it does, she'll lose the next election. So she is putting the interests of her own immediate political future. and the interests of keeping her party together ahead of keeping the country together. And she thought those two things would never come to ahead, but they sure did come to ahead last week. And I think you saw it in her press conference that it's very difficult to reconcile the irreconcilable. I know of Jerry's right in the sense.

Like I know conservative politicians, I'll say that from the province of Alberta, who are incumbent members from Alberta, who have said to me, he said, yeah, I know this is bad. I know this looks bad and it's going to be really a problem. But if she doesn't do this, then she's going to become premier. Okay. So that's if that, well, then, and there's so much that you deconstruct about that, that's problematic, but okay. But then that shows the weakness of your argument and that's, that's another problem.

But Jerry's right that she has, she came to office as a result of corraling an audience that was angry with Jason Kenny, who hated the vaccine mandates, who hated what happened in the policies of COVID, who, by the way, also hated the condescension that came along with, COVID. So they weren't wrong in terms of the tone around the COVID mandates and all that and all that. But she saw the group that was there. Jason Kenney became vulnerable. She saw the group that was most angry. She said, I'm your, I'm your candidate. They took out Jason Kenny. She became premier. And now that audience wants some new, they have a new focus. And this is

their focus. I think it's wrong to say that this is this is a minority of a minority, et cetera. This is a sizable minority. This is not a small minority. This is a big chunk of all. Bertons who are not happy. Maybe it's 20%, maybe it's 35%, I don't know, but it's a large cohort of Albertans who are very unhappy with the status quo, who are very angry with things. Maybe they're misdirected, maybe they're wrong, maybe there's, you know, but also that group, let's say it's 30% of Albertans who are unhappy. There's a portion, 10%, 15%, I don't know, who want to plant a flag and just start being a

country, and they don't really care, but they're just focused on that. That's not a group that you can do a lot with, but there are a lot of people who are going to lend themselves to have movement in order to flex some muscles and make some noise and have a process here that they think will have a good outcome. I was trying to think about how Daniel Smith got to this point and what the proxy was for this and where did she come up with this. The David Cameron example is the cautionary tale and it's what people keep flagging because it smells like and looks like that that's what's about to happen to the United Conservative Party. I don't know that they'll get to Brexit, but that's what it looks like is happening.

but the asking Albertans if you can ask Albertans a question. That formula is where I think that is drawn from is actually Stephen Harper. When Stephen Harper in a different way, but when Stephen Harper became leader of the Conservative Party back in 2003, 2004, the dominant social issue of the time that social conservatives were really anxious about was the issue of same-sex marriage. Stephen Harper didn't run for office talking about same-sex marriage. He didn't care about like the issue. the base of the party cared about the issue a lot.

In 2003, there was the BC Superior Court that said that gays and lesbian couples should not be denied marriage licenses. And so the federal policy had to align. Martin Koshone was then the Justice Minister brought out a white paper talking about the options for the future of marriage. So the issue of same-sex marriage was stirred up. And right about that time, the conservative parties came together. Canadian Alliance progressive conservatives created the new conservative party.

And the leadership race was upon us. And social conservatives were very exercised and said, who's our candidate? And Stephen Harper said, I will, I believe in the traditional. definition of marriage. Linda Strontic, his opponent said she believed in, she believed in same-sex marriage. So that was the choice. Stephen Harper won the leadership. He didn't win the leadership only on that issue, but that was a dominant issue.

Fast forward, he becomes prime minister then in 2006. The issue is still lingering on the horizon for social conservatives. Other issues came up, sponsorship, overall issues and all that. 2004 comes and goes. 2006 comes and goes. Stephen Harper runs, becomes prime minister wins a minority. Social conservatives want, they want their receipts now. They want to see some action on an issue that they can.

care about. What are you going to do on this? Stephen Harper, knowing that this is a losing issue with the broad swath of the Canadian public, said, well, we need to address this issue because we said we would. So what are we going to do? Well, we eventually arrived at the position that if I become prime minister, we will ask Canadians whether or not they want to revisit the issue. That was what was proposed. And so we put a free vote to Parliament, not to open the issue of same sex marriage, but to ask Parliament if we want to ask Canadians if we want to reopen issue. And Parliament in a minority, a minority parliament, all the opposition parties stood up and said, no, we don't want to do that. A lot of conservatives, I was among them who said, we don't want

to do that. A lot of conservatives who were against gay marriage said, this issue is now closed and it's time to move on, said like Michael Chong, who voted against same sex marriage, but by 2006 and seven said, this issue is closed and it's time to move on. So we moved on. So to me, it seems the formula that Daniel Smith has arrived at is actually bored from Stephen Harper on same text marriage, which is let's ask if we should ask. And it would work for Stephen Harper. He was able to get out of it. Daniel Smith will probably get out of it as well.

How? Well, the question will go forward. Do you want to have a referendum? And I think as a result of all this and the dust storm that's been sort of blown up, people will say, you know what, this is not worth it. And there's no actual path to separation that is going to be better for Alberta. This doesn't make a lot of sense. I imagine that the voices of federalism,

Canadian, the Alberta-Canadian partnership being the best pathway forward for Roberts. In my view, that argument will win out. And Daniel Smith will probably be able to stand down having a flat-out referendum question. Now, 10 or 20 percent of Albertans will still continue the fight, but they'll do it without her. Her political problem will endure, which is why this is not a solution for her politically. but on the issue of separatism, it probably will buy the province time to get away from this.

Did she take an active role in the campaign, even on that question about should we have a question? Does she take an active? Does she become Mrs. Canada? Does she the champion of the Canadian flag in this debate? Or does she sit on the sidelines? Jerry. I have views, but Jerry, it's your turn. Well, I mean, if the David Cameron, Orrin, I think this is a really interesting analysis. I hadn't thought about that, James.

In the Stephen Harper example, you don't, right? You don't take a position. And I think that a lot of leaders imposed the Charlottetown Accord in Canadian history look at leaders of governments taking strong positions on one side or the other of a referendum and realize it can be political suicide. It's difficult political management to maintain neutrality. And, of course, Cameron, he didn't campaign aggressively for the no side. of the Brexit referendum, but he resigned immediately, the next day when the Brexit referendum passed,

and everybody knew he was against it, whether that was responsible political leadership or not. He can leave up to the history books to decide. But one thing we know is that it created a mess in the UK that they haven't recovered from since. and I think for the interests of everybody in Alberta, that's the real issue here. And it's the dynamic you described at the outset. I would quibble with some of your characterizations, as you'd imagine, James, but that doesn't really matter. The issue is you've got a prime minister who's from the province, who's favorably disposed to the province's historical grievances, who wants a concrete action plan to ameliorate those that can be ameliorated, and to make progress together

and put all this division and rancor behind us. And the response from the coalition, one half of the coalition that the Premier is leading is to kick sand in his face. So I wonder what happens to that, as I call them, those strategically unpleasable people, they're not going to go away if they lose this referendum. The United States is not going to lose interest

in issues that could make Canada less united and strong if this referendum doesn't go through, they'll just move on to the next thing. And I think we've now opened a wound that, or they have successfully opened a wound, that we're going to have to decisively close sometime. I mean, if it were a clear, as the, if Chantale-A-Bara were here,

she would say a clear, if it were a clear response to a clear question, it would set it to bed. And I thought the point she made on your Friday show, Peter, that Lucian Bouchard has counseled against having these. referendum because every time you lose you lose something, let's hope they lose and lose something here. And the something they lose is it's just not cricket to advocate for breaking up your country.

And I think, you know, I wish we were in a world where federalist parties did not have as part of their coalition people who don't want Canada to exist. I know that sounds like a pretty straightforward thing, but it's pretty remarkable that we've gotten to the point where there are, a bunch of interests who would like to break up the country who are governing the fourth largest province in the country. And we should be thinking about that going forward and the way we scrutinize how people come to power and how the nuts and bolts of party construction is, happens in this country because it's kind of, you know, it's a very strange situation we're in here. Does there need to be somebody who champions the cause for Canada that seems to be at the head of the campaign for that outcome?

Does there need to be somebody like that? I mean, should it be the prime minister? Should it be somebody from Alberta? Like, like who's always in Alberta? I'd love to see it be Stephen Harper. We'll see, I mean, look, we'll see how it unfolds. I don't think if this can, it's conceivable that this goes forward and turns into a fart. But I think that would be wishful thinking.

But it's more likely this is going to go forward and it'll turn into a big cultural moment for Alberta, which maybe it already is. It'll be impossible for any Albertan of significant weight to avoid having a say in this and having hand in this. Stephen Harper, Pierre, Paul, everybody, everybody's going to have to have to say. And again, I have to come out clarity. Clearly, not only how they're going to vote, but why they're going to vote, how they're going to vote. And I think it's a really important moment for Alberta. It's like the country is now going to push pause for three to six. months and you're going to have your conversation. This is an Alberta, I'm a British

Colombian. It's an Alberta conversation. You guys have your thing. And it's really important that you talk to each other about this and that you air everything out and you talk about what this means and where you, and by the way, if the ballot question is unsuccessful, what does it mean for the future of the Sovereignty Act and the ability to continue to have these in perpetuity? You know, are you going to amend that? Are you going to deal with the, the indigenous question and the consultation piece that was flagged by the courts that is now under appeal? Imagine that the appeal to that is, successful and that the legislation still stands as is. And then we're going to have this keep recurring for every 300,000 people who gather a signature and we're going to have these things

in perpetuity. What does that do with the investment climate? What does that do? So I think there are a lot of questions here's not just about the question over whether or not to have a question, but about how often do we want to keep revisiting this? And what's the trigger for this? And if it is unsuccessful, Daniel Smith, does she lose her leadership? Because she's had this, she's forced this massive distraction on the province. And the real separatists who control half the party at least, who control a big chunk of the caucus, who control riding associations, are they going to get rid of her? Because she asked an inverted question compared to what they really wanted, which was a pro-Alberta, pro-independence question. And we didn't really get. And that happened, by the way, with Stephen Harper on same-sex marriage.

There were people who said, because I was challenged for not my nomination and I had to win it. I was challenged a member of my board resigned because I voted in favor of same-sex marriage, who challenged me in an election campaign as an independent who said that I wasn't a real conservative because I believe in equality. odd that, but there you are. And so I had to deal with it politically in my writing for years afterwards. There will be a consequence of this in a lot of ways. And will the hardliners, will they assert themselves, take over the party, depose Daniel Smith and install a real separatist with who is, who will ask a positive pro-separatist question?

And then what does that do to the caucus and the governing party? And then do you split off and create a new federalist party? like what's been unleashed here is is really unpredictable but the only thing that you can you can assume is that it's going to be chaotic for a while you know and i'd say sorry peter and what what happens to the federal parties in alberta over this is going to be really consequential too right i think um you'd expect me to say this but i think one of the most articulate pro-canada spokespeople has been cori hogan i think he's been terrific on this topic and he's reached out across the aisle, as the Americans say, to speak, to do events with Jason Kenny and people

from the other side. And I like to thank James that in a small way, we try and do this on this podcast. This is a cautionary tale. And if it's to be a positive in the grand scheme of our history, it's that we should not let what happened to the United States happen to us. You know, let's not get tribal about our politics. Let's all agree that we have a country, that we're proud of and needs improvement. We may approach that improvement from different ways, but at the end of the day, we're all Canadians, and we work together to build a better country,

no matter who happens to be in office at whatever period of time in our history. And I think the dynamic that those who would break up the country are counting on is that they can recreate the poisonous political, tribal, divisive dynamic that has happened and has taken hold. and has come to define American politics for the better part of this century, frankly. And hopefully this is an air clearing like a late afternoon thunderstorm in Georgian Bay, Peter,

and afterwards the air is sparkling and we realize how lucky we have it. Well, that certainly describes what happens on Georgian Bay well because that's exactly what happens. Let me just leave it on this note, which is the... brings it back to the Stephen Harper question. Does Stephen Harper, as a former prime minister, former conservative party leader, does he take an active role in this? And if he does, does that then overshadow,

you know, we mentioned Pollyev a little earlier. Does that overshadow a situation, a position that Pierre Pollyev would be making at the same time? James, you know all these people well. How do you see that unfolding? I think this moment is sort of separate from normal electoral politics. The next federal election isn't going to be until 28, 29, I imagine. And so whatever happens in the next three to six months will be divorced from that decision that's

in the future. And I think conservatives should sort of see it that way. If there's a Mount Rushmore of Great Alberts of all time from Confederation through until today, I don't know who all the four faces are on it, but I know that one of them is going to be Stephen Harper. I don't know that he can't avoid having a significant role in this. even if he doesn't, you know, he's not out there stumping and campaigning and, you know, doing the whole, all that sort of ritualistic stuff. But asserting his opinion on this, I think will be unavoidable.

I hope that he does. I think his voice carries a lot of weight. He is somebody who founded the Reform Party with the message of the West once in. He was a reform MP, Canadian Alliance MP, Canadian Alliance leader, conservative leader, prime minister for almost a decade, ran five times, always fought for Alberta's interests, etc. her, he can't not have a significant voice. What's more important than just coming out and saying how you're going to vote again is saying why you're voting the way that you are. You have to believe in the country, not just in the country if it happens to serve

your political ideological interests. You have to. You have to. You have to. You have to. And Canadians need to sort of wake up from that. I gather that you've had a string of disappointments. But a lot of people have also had string of disappointments when, you know, Alberta,

and conservative interests have gotten their way as well. A lot of Canadians were really frustrated when Stephen Harper got rid of the gun registry, and we said no to the Kyoto Protocol. And we said, you know, yes to a lot of projects. Like a lot of Canadians who disagreed with us didn't like us. You know what? They organized and they defeated us. That's all right.

Conservatives, we need to organize and put forward a leadership and a campaign that'll defeat the stuff that Justin Trudeau. And by the way, Mark Carney has done some of that, but we can go further. Good. Go further. And you have Pierre Paulyev, who is the leader of the opposition, who is in Alberta, who believes in all this stuff, who will fight sincerely for all this stuff. Make him prime minister. you're not that far away.

Makes Pierre probably of the prime minister of the country and get what you want to get done. Like you're that far away from doing it. Focus your energy on that. Focus your energy on getting things done proactively and positively instead of destructively in a way that'll only hurt Alberta. Like, let's go, let's go. And I think that will be part of the message. That'll be the narrative.

Build. It's always easier to destroy than it is to build. But building is the only way to move forward. And again, if you say the country only works if the country happens to work for me, well, then that's a culture. language that does not pretend good things because eventually you will be in government for a while and the people who don't agree with you will take your exact argument, throw it in your face and be destructive. You have to defeat the concept of the argument, not just the argument itself.

The country has to survive what you want to have the country do. Okay. You tie the knot on this, Jerry, and then we're going to wrap it up. I agree with everything James said. I did not stop being a proud Canadian for the decade that Stephen Harper was prime minister. And I'd know very, very, very few liberals who did. I think that what is happening now is testing the patience and the outer bounds of what is considered acceptable politics in a country like ours. But to state it more positively, we should be able to, look, we are so lucky to live in this

country. And we enjoy the legacy of so many good people, of different political persuasions, who have worked hard together against all odds to build this awesome place. we are lucky enough to call home. And I'm one who has always believed that the people who would break that up, who would rob our children of the legacy we got from our parents and our grandparents should be confronted and defeated. And if you believe in this country, that's what you should be working toward whatever your

political stripe. And I would close with Peter, the central, the cancer that is killing the United States of America 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. We cannot let that happen to Canada. And we can't let it happen in Alberta, Quebec, wherever. There has to be a Paris is the capital of France level of argument that we all agree on in this country and our politics. And that has to be that it's a great country that can be better.

Okay. We're going to leave it at that. Good discussion. As always, with Warren Butts. A reminder, folks, just before we sign off, that this week's your turn isn't asked me anything,

and so you can ask me anything. Send the question to the Mancers podcast at gmail.com. Keep it under 75 words. Include your name in the location you're writing from. And I think those are all the words or all the rules.

the of the game. So looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks, James. Thanks, Jerry. Go Habs. We'll see what happens. Ville canada. Vive la Canada.

Louis Sybil. Bye-bye for now.