The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Moore/Butts -- Is Jason Kenney Crying Wolf?

Episode Date: May 12, 2026

The former Alberta Premier wants Canadians to wake up and realize they have to speak out to show Albertans that being in Canada matters. Is he right and what does our past tell us about what needs to be done? 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 Moore-Buts conversation? It's coming right up. Hello there. Peter Mansbridge here, along with James Moore and Gerald Butts. We're going to talk a little bit about, well, let's see. How do we want to frame this? A year ago, we asked the question on a Moore-Buts conversation. What were the lessons from 95 in terms of a referendum? Is there in danger in waiting too long to get in the action?

And in a way, that's one of the things that Jason Kennedy, the former Alberta Premier, had to say in the last few days, that the Federalist side better get their act together because the other side, you can claim it strong or not, but at least they seem to have an act of some sort and they're playing it. But is Ottawa playing it? Or are the Federalist side playing it? Or are Canadians who were interested in the story and the possibility of referendum in Alberta? are they interested enough to be talking about it, to get involved?

So where are we on this? James, why don't you start for us on this? I still think we're in the early innings of the match, for lack of a better analogy. Like we know what the nine questions are. We know what the petitioners aspire to have, but we don't have full clarity on how things are actually going to be. People are declaring victory,

but we don't quite yet know. So to put your full sort of to marshal all of your resources and put them in the field for the battle is frankly a little bit early. Jason Kenney is called to action for more federalist voices to sort of stand up and make the case for Canada. I think it's apropos though. I do think there's an important caveat, though, that it should be Alberta voices.

Albertans talking to Albertans about Alberta's future and in Canada with Alberta is really important. I think a British Columbian and Nova Scotian and an Ontario or a Quebec are telling Albertans that they need to recognize the virtues of Canada is probably not the way to go. That I really think that it needs to be Alberta voices that come and speak to this. I also think it's important that people who are not Albertans need to recognize that a lot of this, well, it seems strange. A lot of this is, well, first of all, it is democratic.

Premier Smith has given people who are antagonists toward the status quo, the tools, to do all of this. They are playing by the rules that have been put in front of them. This is not a rogue element. This is not an effort out of a unilateral declaration of independence. This is not, you know, well, it's not helpful and I don't like it, and I wish it weren't happening. It is happening within the rules that have been put in front of us. There is sort of a deference and respect to the authorities that are currently in place. But also, tensions within confederation being expressed politically and democratically, there's nothing new about this. When Stephen Harper was Prime Minister, Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador,

who said, take down the flags and said that Canada doesn't work, and anybody, ABC, anybody but conservatives. And he was pretty robust and aggressive about it. Paul Wells, Clyde Wells had his moments as well. Ralph Klein wanted to tear up the Canada Health Act and tell Ottawa to go jump out of his province and get out of there on the biggest social program that exists in our country. You know, W.A.C. Bennett had his moments with the federal government. We've, you know, obviously Quebec has had two referendums and tensions.

for generations. There's nothing new about this. The form and style in which it's going to present itself from Alberta, structured as it is, it's going to feel different. It's going to look different. The language will be different. The aggressiveness will be different.

The fact that it's coming from the right is maybe a little bit different. But tensions within Confederation of people who are saying that the status quo doesn't work, there's nothing new about it. It comes frankly from the left. British Columbia. It comes from indigenous voices out here. It comes from the environmental movement out here who says that, you know, the attempt by, whether it's the Harper government or others, to try to bulldoze through and to push through existing title and political opinion shows a candidate that doesn't work. Like there, it comes in different forms. When there

was generally an informed consensus, elite opinion view that the Meach Lake Accord was good. And then Elijah Harper stood up with an eagle feather and then Manitoba legislature and stopped like saying no to the way that Canada works is kind of part of Canadian history and democracy. It will be uncomfortable and it is uncomfortable and it is unhelpful and it's not good to the country. But the tensions of Confederation do need to be expressed from time to time. And as much as I don't like it and I wish it wasn't happening, I think people need to recognize it's going to look and feel different because Alberta has a different culture than the rest of the country. and it'll express itself in ways that will feel abnormal and really unhealthy. But Albertans have a right to express themselves.

And they're taking this opportunity as much as I wish it wasn't happening. Aside from everything else you said, Paul Wells is going to be really excited. You made it into your little opening on this. Jerry, what about you? Do you buy into everything that James just said here? A lot of what James said, especially the local aspect of it. I think from a practical perspective,

the way to defeat secessionist movements, and let's not be afraid to call this what it is. It's a small group of people who want to break up the country and leave it. And history will suggest that the way to defeat those movements is with local forces that articulate very clearly the benefits of the country that Alberta finds itself to be part of or whatever jurisdiction we're talking about at any given time. So I think the practicality of James' advice is not, can't be denied,

that if you want to be effective in countering this force, doing it locally is the best way to do that. And of course, I think there are a lot of consequential local actors who have not yet spoken. We talked a little bit in the warm-up about former Prime Minister Harper. I can imagine what he's thinking of all of this. And being the strategic person that he is, I suspect he's hanging back and waiting for the optimum moment to intervene in this.

I think what other Canadians outside of Alberta, and some of us are outside of Alberta, but have lots of family in Alberta. So we're only kind of partially outside of Alberta. We're watching what's happening to the Alberta members of our family. And I, for one, have many of them, many of whom have the same last name as I do, for instance. and would have had their information leaked to people who probably mean them are

just because of their association with me. So let's not underappreciate the stress and strain that this event has put regular people under in Alberta, knowing that someone who may, whether it's an abusive ex-spouse or a partner or someone whose political affiliations are frowned upon, There are lots of people in Alberta and the days after the data leak became a parent who are wondering if they're safe. And as Canadians in the rest of the country and hopefully Albanians within, Canadians within Alberta are reaching out to those people to comfort them to let them know that they live in a safe community. But I do think that James is right that we're in the early innings of this. I'm quite concerned about it.

And as you know, Peter, I've written about this extensively. the Quebec context over the past couple of years. But it's everything I said about Quebec is applicable to Alberta. And the one place where maybe I differ, James, is I do think there is something new about this. And the new part is that the country is under stress and strain from our neighbor, which has said publicly at the highest levels that it would prefer to absorb us into the Great Republic to the south of us and they're not afraid to put stresses and strains on our country

in the form of support either tacit or direct and I don't know if we will ever know the full extent to which the darkest forces in American politics are supporting this movement, both in Alberta and Quebec. But it would check out with behavior elsewhere that when you want to weaken and demoralize, that's ridiculous to say it this way, but an adversary, then what you do is you try and divide their camp internally. This is a strategy as old as the art of war. And in this case, we can't fully discount the, I would say even probability that countries outside of Canada are active in this debate, and that is not something that WAC Bennett or even René Leveque or Jean-Cretchen had to contend with.

It's the function of the openness of our communications environment. People don't know where their information is coming from. There was a story on CBC last week about how much of the AI slop and memes that are supportive of Alberta secession are coming from outside the country. So I guess my roundup in the opening comments, Peter, would be, I wish everybody would play by the rules that this is a local. contest to be decided by locals. I do not think that the forces looking pull apart the country are entirely within the country.

Well, see, this is why I'm a little bit confused in terms of both your kind of the way you opened up on this question. Because it sounded for a moment there like what you were suggesting was that Jason Kenny was like crying wolf. but you both ended up your comments making it sound like there's a reason to cry wolf right now. It's partly internal. It's partly external. But it's having an impact or could have an impact. Yeah, I think, I think sending up a flare into the night sky in the early part of the political battle and say, just so you know, those of you on the horizon, we might need you to join the battle. Like, just so you know, we, just so you know.

And, you know, and frankly, the energy sector and corporate Canada and some of whom are kind of quietly liking the destructive nature of this because it sort of, it sort of rattles the undrawn sword, as they say, about sovereignty or sovereignty association. You better do this. You better build a pipeline or like that, that sort of footsie with this stuff, that you need to, frankly, cut that shit out. Like, this matters. And there are people who are kind of sitting back and sort of grinning like Cheshire cats kind of thing and look at and see, this is going to be good.

This is going to be a, like this will be helpful to our, no, for a whole bunch of reasons, not only because if you fly too close to the sun, you can actually end up in the sun, be careful. Number one. Number two is, and I've used this analogy before, but, and I use it from time to time because I think it's appropriate. You know how you break a paper clip, right? You take it and you bend it and then you bend it back and you. You bend it and you bend it back. And then eventually it pops and it cracks. And you can't get it back together.

What was once a paperclip is now two pieces of metal that will never serve the purpose that it was before. And every time that you have a fracture of trust, a lie, a pipeline that doesn't get built, an environmental process that gets abandoned, sort of a slur against the way. Every time you bend that paper clip, you bend it and bend it. And eventually it will crack. and it's gone. And this is a massive bend.

Because when you have a referendum campaign for the next three to six months, people are going to say some things. Ugliness is going to be set up. Stuff that can't be unsaid will be said. Ugly things will be said about this country. Stuff online that people take the hard. Stuff will be posted. Means will get made.

To Jerry's point, outside actors, bad. All this sort of stuff. Kids going too far. AI generated nastiness. Personal stuff. Like this will happen. Family members will divide against each other. Like it will get ugly. And that paperclip is going to have bent and bent and bent. And those wounds don't go away.

This, like this, we talk about the permanent rupture between Canada, the United States. Is it Trump related? Yeah, of course. But there are a lot of Canadians who sit back and they say, wait, about 35 to 40 percent of Americans still like Donald Trump after what he said about us not sacrificing in Afghanistan. After what he's, we're not a real country. We're a joke. And we don't have anything. And like, really? And I know there are a lot of Canadians who will never go back to the United States. Even if Donald Trump has gone and we're three presidents away from him, they have this permanent sense of I can't trust Americans because one and three or almost half of them still like this guy after he said all that stuff.

There will be a version of that in Canada of people who say, I'm not going to go to Alberta. I don't want to go there. I don't want to. And that's really toxic. So what we're about to embark on is going to be really, really tragic, I think, in a lot of ways. And it's true. it'll be true. And by the way, it is a parallel part to all this is that

the Quebec election campaign is going to happen. Now, it's not a referendum campaign, but it's sometimes a proxy for one, because a lot of things will be talked about that won't just be who's the best to govern Quebec. But there'll be shadows of this because this will over, this will be happening at the same time as Quebecers

are choosing their provincial government. And so there'll be inferences between the two. And a lot of Albertans will say, well, wait a minute, we're doing what they've done and you're saying this about us. Why don't you say that about them? They have there, and there'll be some cross comparison. That's not helpful. It's going to happen because it's unavoidable, but that's unhelpful.

That's not good. So the bending of the paperclip analogy, I think, is what the country is going to go through for the next six months. And I just think it's really tragic that we are where we are. This is starting to sound pretty dark here all of a sudden. Jerry? I'm conservative. You know, I'm subscribed to the buttered side down toast of theory. Because the odds of a piece of toast landing buttered side.

down are directly proportionate to the value of the carpet. Well, I'm concerned about it, Peter, because when you look at examples in other parts of the world, and I do think that the most apt example, which is sort of the Democratic event, that small D, democratic event that kicked off our era was the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom. And what you saw there was once the hockey game started, the refs left the ice and everybody was swinging their sticks as hard as they could at each other's heads with no regard for whether you could recover for the next game or whether the rules would ever be enforced on you. And I think the lesson that malevolent actors toward democracies learned from the brain. exit referendum is that once one of these national rending of garments starts, then anything goes. And they're hard to police.

They're huge emotions on all sides. And anything can happen. And that's what worries me about it. Do I think that there's a majority of Albertans who want to separate from Canada? Absolutely not. can I envision a circumstance in which the referendum campaign takes on the form that James is so obviously and eloquently concerned about? Absolutely. And does the yes side to whatever question is invented to serve the purposes of the Smith government's negotiating strategy with the Kearney strategy?

Can that deliver results somewhere in the mid-30s? yeah absolutely and once that happens that changes the facts of life in canadian politics and the country as a whole is permanently weaker than at least permanently for the purposes of our lifetimes weaker because it's a fact on the ground it's a new fact on the ground that has to be accommodated in just about every every arrangement between Alberta and its neighboring provinces Alberta and all of the provinces and Alberta and the federal government. So I worry about it a lot. I think that I appreciate Premier Kenny doing former Premier Kenny doing what he's doing.

I would also say, and James probably doesn't want to say this, though I suspect he would agree with it. There are a lot of people on the yes side who'd be cheering on Jason Kenney's involvement in this referendum campaign because he is, at least in their view, part of the problem. It's not quite as if Justin Trudeau were leading the no side, but, you know, it's probably a quarter turn there. And their style of politics is to demonize people, make them seem like their public enemy number one, and then ride the negativity of that brand to build excitement for their own cause. And Jason, unfortunately, is an avatar of that on the ground in Alberta. So I really hope that people who are a little bit farther removed from daily politics

who command respect in all walks of life in Alberta, who are not necessarily former politicians. I named former Prime Minister Harper because he still enjoys such great standing amongst a broad swath of Albertans, and I suspect he'd be one of the few Canadians who could be persuasive to the Albertans who are on the fence. about this and every vote matters. If this referendum result comes in in the low 20s, then that's one fact on the ground.

But if it comes in in the low to mid-30s, that's a whole other set of facts on the ground that we'll be dealing with in a most unproductive way at the worst possible time. And whenever, sorry, just to finish on that point, James, whenever you're about to engage in something that benefits your enemies, you always have to wonder about your enemy's involvement in bringing you to that point in the first place.

And I, for one, am not conspiratorially minded, but it would not surprise me at all. If in the hot wash, as the spooks would say, after this event is over, we find out that the MAGA movement was involved in this, the Russians were involved in this, the Chinese were involved in this, None of that would surprise me if we found out that they were amplifying the forces that would seek to break this great country apart. I was going to say about the J. I agree for sure in the last part, whether it's asymmetric or random actors or whatever, the digital world is what it is. About Jason, though, and his involvement, I think you're right for sure. And I think that's part of the reason why Jason has sort of had this call to action of saying other voices join the fight because there are people who will never listen to me because Jason is so stridently anti-Trump because Jason, you know, does represent the government that ended with unpopularity around vaccine mandates and other things that was, you know, inflamed a certain cohort of people who didn't agree with all. And I think that's part of the reason why he's inviting others to the table. I also think it's valuable to recognize now in the early part is that you never know what argument is going to have. purchased with what constituency of the province. Alberta is a, you know, the fourth largest province.

It's a large, sophisticated province of well-educated people who are very thoughtful and passionate about their politics. And for some people, the argument that's going to have purchase will be about staying within Canada because Mark Carney is getting progress on the MOU and just trust the process and we're going to get down the road and things will be better. Others, it might be a patriotic call to recognize the past and don't sacrifice the, you know, don't throw away the sacrifices the past and previous generations and it'll be an appeal to the heart. Other people, it'll be a tactical appeal. Other people will be popping the balloon of the fairy tale that you're going to become a 51st

state and have all the blessings of the upside of being an American state. Different arguments will find purchase with different people coming from different voices and articulated in different ways. There's nothing wrong in the early stages of sort of let all those arguments set flight. And with different people, different arguments will land. And there's nothing wrong with that. And for some people, when you get to, when you do exe interviews of people coming out of the ballot stations on referendum day when they come out and say, you know, how did you vote? And they'll say, well, why did you vote the way you did?

And he said, well, you know, I read this piece or somebody will say, I just don't think now is the time. Or somebody will say, because we have to. And I think it's fine to have different levels of volume. It's fine to have different generations of voices, different approaches to this because you don't know what will work with different people. And I think that part of that. And I think there's actually a lot of humility in what Jason is trying to do. He's high EQ. He recognizes that he doesn't connect with a lot of people.

But he wants other people who might connect with other people to stand up and find their voice and get in the game. Let me ask it this way. When we talked about this, whenever it was last year, you know, the possibility of a referendum in Alberta was still a distant question. the possibility of one in Quebec was likewise distant. We're now what could be five months away from one in Alberta. Five months is nothing. That'll go by in a flash. Especially when two of those months are in the summer.

Two of those months are in the summer. So, you know, in a perfect world, in your perfect world, what actually has to happen here? Does it stay local? Does it become more than local? Does the prime minister get involved? And I guess you could say he's got it right. He spent a good chunk of his early life in Alberta.

He was born in Northwest Territories, but he spent time in Edmonton, and he still very much feels that part of his Albertan roots. Does the prime minister have to get involved soon, or is that sort of a last-minute thing? like, you know, the crachian, the dress to the nation, all the land. Yeah, too, like, no matter how I have this saying,

again, as part of my sort of conservative DNA, right, which is no matter how bad things are, it's always possible for things to get worse. And, you know, it is possible that there are voices from outside of Alberta who say, I get the hell out of here. And enough of you. You know, the conservative movement

has been effectively led by Albertans for 30 years. You had Stephen Harper's prime minister for nine years. You can get momentum. People say, just go away. stop complaining. There was a version of that that happened with regard to Quebec, right? And there are a lot of people in the Reform Party movement who just said, yeah, vote yes. Get the hell out of here. That could come in a form that could be really ugly and gross, right? And that could be really, so it's possible things to get worse. So the more voices that come on to counteract all

that, as I said, I think is valuable. The prime minister has to be involved. He can't not be involved. He is the prime minister. He is the first minister. His job is to unify the country. His job is to be a champion. And it's not to come in and to give an I have a dream speech. It's not to come in with a cape and just say, you know, get on my back. I will, no, in my view, because A, I don't think that that's the nature of his presentation. I don't think that that's how he builds his credibility and why people who like him really like him. I think he does it by just daily demonstrations of competence and strength in the benefits of Canada. And it's the small things, it's the big things. It's the, you know, opening a new passport office. Yes, it's been progress.

progress on the MOU. But I just think it's daily demonstrations of competence and confidence in the country. And you show, you see that in the underlying polling data, Mark Carney's personal popularity, the relative popularity of the Liberal Party of the province of Alberta right now in spite of all these forces against it. But yeah, he's the prime minister of the country. And no prime minister is going to want to have this as a as a pockmark on their time as prime minister. So he has to be one of the leaving faces of this. But I think with humility, And he can't. And another thing too is what has to be washed away from the federalist side of all this is condescension.

Condescension has to go away. Just as Newfoundlanders have had, just as Quebecers have had, just as British Columbians have had, just as indigenous Canadians have had. There's a reason why we are where we are. And it's not all the conspiracy theory and skull dougary and nonsense and Daniel Smith misplaining our hand and inviting them in and giving them too many tools. There's a body of evidence that there's a large constituency in Alberta who does not like Canada as it is right now structurally and the way things have been going certainly for the past 10 years or more. And they're trying to find solutions. Separation is the wrong answer to the right question, which is why do they feel so distrustful and broken about the way in which Canada is? And that's a much more complicated thing to solve over time.

but there's a reason why people are angry. It's sort of like a marriage. There's a reason why people can't get along. And we really have to find a way to talk about. You have to find your language. You have to find your way to get it out there and to talk about it. Otherwise, you're not going to get there. And condescension has to go away.

These are not a bunch of robs who are just in love with Donald Trump. Yeah, there are people who, but that's the surface. There's a structural failing here. And that needs to be talked about. out and triaged. Jerry. Yeah, I think you really do have to be careful in the attitude you convey. And there's nothing that the forces that want to tear the country apart would prefer to see

more than a negatively emotional Mark Carney get involved in this. And I think he has done, you would expect, our listeners would expect me to say this, Peter, but I think he's done a very good job of resisting those. those forces since he's been prime minister. I also think his um the way he conducts himself in office is the opposite of what the secessionistcessionists in Alberta or anywhere else would prefer to see from a prime minister. They would like to see a Canadian prime minister that feels remote and distant and out of touch and uncaring about what people are feeling on the ground. And I think Prime Minister Carney has done an admirable job of not giving them that caricature to campaign against,

which is why Ottawa is the problem in the eyes of the movement in Alberta and not Prime Minister Carney. And having that generalized and not personalized in the person who happens to have the privilege of holding the office at any given moment, I think is really productive and helpful. As for your direct question, will the prime minister get involved? I think the prime minister is already involved. And you could see this in the question he got asked when he was installing our new governor general, or at least announcing the imminent installation of our new governor general. He was asked about this topic in general,

and he talked about how there are laws that govern this kind of thing in the country and that we agreed to pass those laws as a parliament together, what, 30 years ago now, so that we wouldn't face the chaos we almost faced in the aftermath of the Quebec vote in 1995. So there are laws. And I think the duty of the federal government in this, certainly in these early stages, is to remind people that the country is worth fighting for, that there's a positive vision of the future of the country. We talked about this a couple of years ago.

This is why I thought that rhetoric about Canada being broken was so dangerous because if you've got a bunch of federal politicians who are basically agreeing with the diagnosis of the problem being propagated by the promulgated by the secessionist movement, then it's hard to disagree with them on the remedies for that. Right. And while I do agree, as a very proud Nova Scotian, I understand regional alienation in this country.

every every province that does not begin and end with oh has this feeling from time to time and it's some of it is based on real stuff some of it is based on political culture and the reality that serves the interests of the people who happen to be in power in those provinces and i always remind my alberton family when they're highly critical of Ottawa or things that happen from Ottawa that Alberta has been governed for all intents and purposes by one party for a century. And that party should take responsibility for some of the problems that they are governing. Don't you like how Jerry is now basically claimed ownership? I'd like the way he's claimed ownership from just about all parts of the countries.

He's talking about his Alberta roots. He talks about his Cape Breton roots. lives in Ottawa. And he shows his true allegiance, right? Yeah, by the way, just what, two things. I'll agree with Jerry and one disagree. That shot fired there at the end about Albertans that have been governed by a conservative.

Yes, but Albertans are very satisfied with being governed by conservatives provincially. They're not satisfied with the limits of the authorities that their provincial government is able to govern over within a Canada that seems to stifle their best aspirations. That's their perspective. So you're right, Jerry, that they've been governed by, you know, nine out of ten times conservative governments,

and they seem to be dissatisfied with Canada. But they seem to be really satisfied with the governments that they elect and reelect and reelect again. What they're not satisfied with are the governments that they don't elect, which is the federal government. They were very happy under Stephen Harper. There wasn't a separatist movement under Stephen Harper, but they seem to be very unhappy right now after the past decade.

there and that. By the way, with regard to, you know, you see this Team Canada movement with regard to trade. The one thing I will say is that I do believe that Prime Minister Carney who saw Brexit up close and personal and the consequences of Brexit up close and personal. And somebody who's learned about Canadian history, this Team Canada approach to trade with the United States, I think you'll see that times 10 with regard to these challenges because he is somebody who genuinely understands what sovereignist movements can do in terms of rapidly caused in the disintegration of families and countries.

And I think that he will genuinely try to find help and advice from people who are very thoughtful beyond the normal silos of sort of the liberal universe. And I think that's something Canadians should be comforted by. I've got to move on. We need to take our break as well. But the other thing that puzzles me, and you kind of touched on it earlier, is where's the business community on this and why? Why do they not appear to be saying anything directly about this?

Because obviously, nobody's going to be making big investments from the private sector while this questions are kind of hanging in the air and nobody really knows what's going to happen in Alberta. Well, I think in part because I think, well, it's never really going to happen so we can have some fun over here. But to my point is, I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think a referendum will be successful. I don't think there's a pathway for Alberta to leave Confederation. You can't have a unilateral declaration of independence. there's no, you know, it's not going to, I don't think it can actually happen.

But that doesn't mean there can be, can't be a ton of destruction along the way. And as I said, that things will be said that can't be unsaid, then that neighborhoods will be broken against each other. The urban rural divide in Alberta, which is already really problematic in terms of governing the province, let alone the country, that's going to get exacerbated, be made worse. So there are problems with this. So I think there's a foolhardiness about, well, we can sort of play games with this. and sort of see if it'll move the needle on some of the projects and things that we really

care about. I think it's really irresponsible citizenship. Jerry, you have a last word on that. Well, I mean, look, the business community has never to be diplomatic about it up front about these divisive issues because, as one of my favorite quotes on this, Michael Jordan was once asked why he isn't more outspoken about racial politics in the United States and he said that Republicans buy sneakers too. And I think that that's true in the business community writ large. They don't like to be front and center. And I understand why.

They don't because they have customers on both sides and their employees and employees and their responsibilities ultimately to the commercial health of their enterprise, their shareholders, they're able to make the payroll. So the business community will never ride in and save the country in moments like this. It certainly hasn't in the past Quebec, and it won't in this case either and while I do I take the slight admonishment from my British Columbia and friend here about what I said about the Alberta domestic political situation but you can't and this is where you have to be really careful because the facts about how Alberta has prospered this century over the last 25 years the beginning of this century the country the

country produced about two million barrels of oil a day and now we produce six. There's no other country other than the United States in the world that has increased its production either in real terms or as a percentage of its own production at the beginning of the century. That in an ideal world where we had a federation where frankly people in Ottawa were proud and prouder of it and there was more cooperation between local forces on the ground in Alberta and in Ottawa across the political spectrum. That would be a huge success story from one perspective. A lot of my friends in the climate community would not see it as a huge success story, but it is by any objective measure a stunning engineering and economic achievement that Canada has gone from two million barrels

a day to six in 25 years. And you don't hear that anywhere. In fact, most Canadians don't even know that happened. And the reason they don't know what happened is because it serves the politics of everybody involved to not talk about it. And now we're at the end of a long period where we wish there was a more common shared understanding of what has actually happened in that industry over the past 25 years. Okay. We're going to take a quick pause. We'll be right back after this.

And welcome back. You're listening to the latest of the Moore-Buts conversations, James Moore, Gerald Butz with us. I'm Peter Mansbridge. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform, or you are watching us on our YouTube channel. Glad to have you with us. topic two, and we don't have long for this one, because that was really quite good. The first half of this program, the first three quarters of this program. We'll get letters. We'll get letters. Oh, yeah.

We always get letters. The question is about Europe and Canada, Europe connection. The prime minister was again in Europe, the front part of last week. And I'm sure he'll be going back again, and there's more and more talk of whether or not Canada should be joining the European Union, what those ties should be between Canada and Europe, which have always been significant.

I mean, let's face it. It didn't suddenly happen in the last year or so. There have always been significant ties in terms of our history with Europe. But this looks like it could be much more, certainly as a result of the situation between Canada and the United States. do you see this happening? Is it a good thing? What are the risks?

What are the pitfalls? What are the bonuses of something like this? So Jerry, why don't you start us in? Keep in mind we don't have a long time for this. Yeah, really quickly, Peter, I think it is a positive sign. I think the prime minister was elected to deal with Donald Trump, which is very different from make a deal with Donald Trump, which is what his political opponents want to narrowly constrain his mandate to

be, those are very different things. And part of dealing with Donald Trump is opening up other options for the country. And that includes trade options, of course. It includes mutual security and intelligence sharing and gathering. It includes working together on huge issues that are going to have a material impact on the pocketbooks and the daily lives of regular Canadians. And I think when you look around the world at mature markets, rich markets, that could use more of our stuff and more of our participation,

the European Union for a variety of really obvious reasons, some of which you alluded to our shared cultural history and the fact that so many Canadians can trace their lineage back to different parts of Europe all the way up to the advantageous geography. The Atlantic Ocean is a third the size of the Pacific Ocean, and Europe's a lot closer than Asia. and if you consider Europe one market, then it's depending on your metric, the second or largest, second or third largest market in the world.

So all of those things point toward telling, giving the prime minister signals that he should keep doing what he's doing. I think the danger long term is that it looks like we're trading, putting all of our eggs in one basket for putting all of our eggs in another basket. And he's got a guard against that. and to make sure he's got a hedge with the countries he's been doing work with in Asia and in the Middle East and to make sure that you keep all of those things in balance. But look, I don't see anything but upside in greater, closer ties with Europe from just about every dimension.

I agree. I don't know that there's a lot of pushing towards market access, frankly, the cultural barriers and the supply chain barriers and all that. That's a lot of spade work. There's 44 European countries, 27 of whom are members of the EU. We have a free trade agreement that Stephen Harper negotiated that the previous government solidified and actioned. So there's a cross-party consensus. This is a big opportunity.

It's true. But I do think there's a little bit of sort of myth-making about, you know, what the potential is here, in part because, like, there are sort of two, there's oversimplification, but there are two broad Canadian economies, right? There's the commodity economy that's actually been paying the bills for the past century. Jared just articulately talked about going from two to six million barrels and how that matters. And a lot of Canada's prosperity has been hitched to that. And there's also the, you know, one third of Canadians live in Ontario,

but Ontario is 40% of the Canadian economy. The backbone of the Ontario economy is manufacturing. And the backbone of that is the auto sector and steel and aluminum. And that is all related to trade with the United States. the energy sector, agricultural exports, all that is the United States. It's not Europe. It's not going to go to Europe. So while it's good to expand, I mean, we already have a military alliance. We have NATO.

And an attack against one is an attack against all, where European countries seem to be for now, I mean, hopefully for the foreseeable future, seem to be aligned to that. Well, that's about as ironclad of commitment as you can get, you know, an attack against Jerry's and attack against me and attack against Peter's and attack against Jerry. Like, that's about as good alliance and a sort of military, brotherhood as it gets. And it's and it's a commitment that's been reaffirmed for a very long time. And we have a free trade agreement. Like what's, other than sort of building the lines of business on a transactional way and getting sort of cultural alignment about doing business in a more

thoughtful way and a proactive way and differing port capacity and all that, like a lot of work is to be done. But none of that stuff, frankly, at least for the next five years, 10 years, 20 years is going to transplant the century, more than a century's worth of infrastructural north-south opportunity that we have with the United States. So it's good. It's important. It is what's, and a part of this too is political, right? Is Donald Trump doesn't want us? Well, we don't want him and we're going to find other people to sell our stuff to. Yes, for sure. Of course. But let's not be unrealistic and overstate what those shifts are going to be and how long it's going to take to realize them.

So we have a military commitment. We have a military alignment. We have a prime minister who's sophisticated in those markets and understands where those choice opportunities are in the immediate term, medium term and long term. All that is to the benefit of the country, for sure. But the real benefit of this country is still the fact that the United States is our neighbor and we can do business with them.

And we have an agreement. We have Kuzma. Kuzma's not going anywhere. No matter what Donald Trump says about the coming renegotiations or reevaluations of the agreement. We still have a binding agreement that is deeply popular in the United States and in Canada and is massively accretive to our economy. So let's let's not overstate the opportunity. Are we overstating it, Terry?

I mean, is it the way James putting it the realistic way of looking at this opening, if we can even call it that, between Canada and Europe? Yeah, I think it is the realism view of Canada that the most important shield. political fact on the ground for Canada has, is and always will be, has been is and always will be our 8,000 kilometer porter with the United States. And if you've, if you don't manage that relationship well, you will be a failure as a government. And if you manage it well, you're well on your way to success. I think that's, that's, that's, that's, um, as close to a basic truth in Canadian life as there is. I will, however, say,

as a bit of a qualifier, and to use those two to six million barrels as an example, in the United States over the same time period, they went from about three and a half million barrels to about 14, right? And I often say this to our Eurasia group clients, one of the most underappreciated things

that has happened in the 21st century anywhere, is the United States becoming the world's largest exporter of oil and gas for the first time since the 1940s, right? And we should be thinking about our own resource development in that context, because the truth is, and we saw it live last week, we're having this debate about which, or maybe we build both, but which pipeline we should prioritize,

a second one to the West Coast, or should we re-disinter KXL the Keystone Pipeline and try and make that happen? Well, there's a limited amount of capital, energy, labor, etc., that can go into projects of that size. And if you're thinking about the national interest of the country, should you prioritize another pipeline to the United States or one to markets in Asia? I think that that is an honest and open debate that we probably should be having. And to draw the two topics of conversation together, Peter, is a lot harder to have if one of the provinces that's most affected by that decision is threatening to leave the country. So it gets really difficult if the argument on the other side is do what I say or I will shoot the country. We have time for a last weird, James, from you if you want it.

I do think that there is also, by the way, on this file, as is often the case, I think there is also an east-west divide about the benefits of Europe. You know, Quebecers understand it for a whole bunch of reasons that are nearer to the heart, but also to the wallet. Ontarians, I think, do understand it. Atlantic Canadians certainly do understand it for a bunch of reasons that are articulated. But in the West, like in British Columbia, we're not shipping wood to Europe. Like there's no, there's no sense that we're going to be doing that.

All the mining projects, all those benefits are all to the Asia Pacific and some to the United States. Alberta, like they all the conversation for now a generation has been about either, you know, a pipeline to the north, a pipeline to the south, the pipeline to the West. Energy East has been blockaded by Quebec. And there's no sense that that's really ever going to happen. and it's almost kind of a political inflection point to sort of demonstrate that Canada doesn't work as opposed to a real solution. So everything in the West is about further West

and Asia Pacific and Europe kind of seems like this, frankly, a Mark Carney elitist play as opposed to a practical solution to practical problems. I think successive government, Stephen Harper, there's a reason why he put Gordon Campbell in London as High Commissioner there is to try to actually to bridge that conversation, a pro-business pragmatic premier from British Columbia in London to try to tell British

Colombians that there are opportunities here. John Horgan succeeded. He was in Germany. I think part of that was to try to build the bridges between the bigger economies of Europe with the West Coast of Canada. I think that's... And Ralph Goodale as well. Yeah, so there you go, right?

So I think some of that needs to happen. But I don't think it's credible for the Western Canadians where we do have a ball. as we talked about the first part of the show, I don't think many British Columbians, Albertans, others think that the European solution is going to help them with their daily lives. It's a nice to have, but not a need to have. America is a need to have.

We're going to leave it at that for this week. Good conversation. Thanks to both of you, Terry, and to James. Both who are on the west coast of our continent this week. And we won't go further than that in describing where they are. or Jerry will have his passport checked. Yes. We'll leave it at that.

Thank you, gentlemen. It's been great to talk to you, and we'll talk again in a couple of weeks' time. I'm Peter Mansbridge for Cheryl Butts, James Moore. Have a great evening afternoon. Gohabs. Gohabs. They're going pretty good, I've got to admit.

But that'll do it for today. We'll talk again tomorrow, right here. on the bridge.