The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Mr. Carney Goes To Washington

Episode Date: May 5, 2025

The two government leaders meet for their first face to face since Mark Carney assumed office. There's a lot on the table but what is realistic to expect?

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. It's Monday. Dr. Janice Stein is here as Mr. Carney goes to Washington. That's coming right up. And hello there. Hope you had a great weekend. You know, these fall weekends can be so gorgeous

in so many parts of the country. So hope you're enjoying yours. This is the day that the prime minister flies to Washington for a meeting tomorrow with Donald Trump. What should we assume is going to happen at that meeting? What's the strategy? What are the thoughts? There's a lot of things going on in the background. And not just the trade deal.

So we'll talk about that with Dr. Janice Stein, as she is here for her regular Monday appearance. in our changing world is sort of loosely what we call our Monday discussions, and there's no doubt it is a changing world on so many levels. Before we get to it, our normal Monday house cleaning, in the sense that we announce our question of the week, which then becomes the basis of our Thursday program, which is your turn. It's your opportunity to say what you think about whatever the subject may be.

this week's subject well it's kind of obvious really i think we did this a version of this last year as well maybe maybe no maybe it was a couple of years ago whatever it is things have changed a lot in the last year and so so do i think what may be the answers that you provide to this question next weekend is long weekend it's thanksgiving weekend and Canada. And so, yes, that is the question. The question is, what this year are you giving thanks for? Because it may very well be different than what you might have thought last year or the year before. This has been a consequential year and the year coming up is consequential. A lot of things are happening. A lot of things are changing. So as you approach, thanks.

Thanksgiving weekend. What will you be giving thanks for? That's our question. The normal rules apply. 75 words or fewer. Have your answer in, back to our regular time this week, of 6 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday.

6 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. send your mail to The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Remember, your name and your location must be added to that letter. So those are all the conditions. You can say what you wish, but you've got to meet those conditions. and look forward to hearing your replies and think about it you know don't rush to judgment

and give i don't know i you know don't give the obvious answer think about it what are you giving thanks for this year look forward to hearing what your responses are to that question All right, having said all that, it's time that we get to our conversation with Dr. Janice Stein, the Monk School, University of Toronto. We love Mondays with Dr. Stein. So let's get started. So Janice, this time tomorrow,

Trump and Carney will be in the White House together, and talking. Now, if this was the traditional kind of session, certain things would have already been worked out already. Basically, already signed, sealed, and ready for delivery.

But this is Donald Trump we're talking about. So there's a bit of a gamble no matter what one assumes. What are you assuming is set already, if anything? You know, Peter, you nailed it.

There, this is not a traditional president. The neural processes don't work the way they're supposed to. Apparently, this meeting arose because the prime minister and the president bumped into each other in New York at the UN at the General Assembly meeting. And Trump said, come on down. And so if you're the prime minister of Canada, the circumstances, you just go. that means that there probably is not a whole set of deliverables that are agreed to, which is what we would normally expect.

And it is possible that the prime minister comes out of this with some general sounding language like we've made progress in understanding our mutual needs, but there isn't actually a major deliverable. for Canadians here. There's been an assumption by some and, you know, kind of selective leaking by people who either know or don't know what's really going on, that there is some possibility of arrangement on steel and aluminum tariffs. Now, I've been kind of cautioned off about that over the weekend to be careful what you assume.

So I'm, you know, I can see that cautioning happening if there is a deal and if there isn't a deal. So I don't know quite what to think on that. Yeah, I think the leakers who are, you know, always send up smoke signals before, in this case, are deliberately being as pessimistic as they can be. They are setting expectations very, very low. one because that's a good strategy and then you know the prime minister walks out

it's due to him and his cabinet ministers that they make progress but I think there's a deeper reason here Trump is just so unpredictable that it's so much safer to set the expectations lower

because you just don't know I think that's where the emphasis is on it's on aluminum and steel because that's how having the biggest negative impact right now on both sides, really, right? On both sides of the border. That's right. That's right.

You know, aluminum is biting in the United States because you need aluminum and steel to manage it. If you just think this one through, there should be progress. You need aluminum and steel to manufacture. That's at the core of Donald Trump's agenda to restore. manufacturing to the United States. So if that's your agenda, why would you push up the prices of manufacturing products that are made in the United States by raising tariffs on chain aluminum and steel? Now, there's some, you know, the U.S. aluminum communities, very divided. Some love the tariffs and some actually hate them because there's cross the border integrations in their manufacturing.

The auto sector is huge in these talks, once again, for both sides. And you hear that not only are the Canadian auto manufacturers, and that's everything from the making of the cars to the making of the dipsticks. You know, like, I mean, there's a huge manufacturing sector in here. But as much as you hear that the Canadian auto manufacturers are concerned about where they are, and they're more than concerned. They're terrified, actually. But so are the American auto manufacturers for similar reasons.

I mean, they've had a cooperative deal for, what, 50, 60 years because of AutoPact. It's impossible to describe, Peter, how integrated these two sectors are. You know, the Autopact started the integration of our two economies. But if you think of an automobile where parts can. across the border nine times. Nine times, how do you even think about putting tariffs on? And that's been part of it too. It's so complex.

But you can't manufacture a car in a large part of the U.S. sector without those Canadian parts or without those parts being machined in different ways in Canadian factories. So it's been so disruptive for them and they're putting pressure on the United States. It's not us. We're doing our best.

But the real advantage for us comes when these big three auto manufacturers and the aluminum industry, that part of the aluminum industry ramps up the pressure on the White House, which they're doing. I want to talk about this, this unpredictability of

Trump because in a way it seems to me he's so unpredictable that he's predictable yeah you don't know when he's what unpredictable Peter is the explosiveness

right that's the part that's so hard to deal with it's like if somebody who has a terrible anger management problem And you walk into the room and you don't know which word you're going to use that's going to trigger the rage and the explosion. And if that happens, all the hard work that people do goes, frankly, is blown up. That's what's really hard.

Do you buy into this theory that these two guys actually get along pretty well now? that they, you know, there's the sense that they talk more often than we're told by phone or text, and that there's a relationship has developed there. So I buy into the theory that Trump respects Mark Carney. For funny reason, for Trump, Mark Carney is a banker. We might think of him as a central banker. That's not how Trump thinks of him as a banker. And if you grow up in the real estate business in the state of New York and at Manhattan,

you need bankers more than you need anybody else. And bankers gave Trump a very hard time at different parts in his career. And frankly, looked down on him, thought he was unsophisticated. It wasn't part of the Manhattan elite. And here's a banker. The world respect. Because he hears that from his country, France. And the Saudis, they respect Mark Carney.

And they respect him because of what he did is a central banker and how he stabilized the global financial system. So Carney is respected. And Trump hears that. And he thinks, finally, I'm getting some respect from a banker. And so I really do believe that he, there is night and day difference in the way he thinks about Prime Minister Trudeau and the way he thinks about Karni. And I think it puts a lid to some degree on how rough he can be on Karni. So what about the relationship from the other direction?

I mean, is, you know, I want to be careful how I described this. But, I mean, you know that some of our listeners think you've been pushing the suck-up to Trump line over the last six months. So what's his, what is he seeing it? Well, look, your listeners are, our listeners are absolutely right. Then I, let's call it, let's call it out. You know, I don't think we can do without the United States, no matter how much we diversify. We can't do without the United States. And once we acknowledge that, you have to play to what you know, Donald Trump wants to hear in order to get these deals across the line.

And I think the prime minister is very, very well aware of that. And he's skilled at this. He's an experienced negotiator. What I think they're taking into the White House today, and it's actually curious because what I think they're taking into the White House today is a bigger deal, not formally because the Canadians are worried about calling it. But it's defensive security on the table as well as trade, Peter. And we know that.

And how do we know it? because Trump himself said, well, they called two weeks ago and said they want to be part of Golden Dome, which is this big air missile defense shield over the whole of North America. And he then went back to the 51st state when he talked about that. But there's a whole set of defense issues and security issues around the table. So that talks about, in a funny way, a bigger partnership than a more integrated. partnership or what we do in defense and security, our spending in NATO, what we do on the border, what we do in continental air defense, what we do in the Arctic, what we do with ice

breakers. These are all pieces. You look at the delegation that's going to Washington. It's our Minister of Industry. It's our Minister of Foreign Affairs. Prime Minister. Minister of Defense is not there. That struck me as a curious omission, frankly, even what's on the table. and what they're talking about. The reason I think there may not be a big deliverable coming out of this, this is complicated. Is what? Sorry.

Complicated. There is a lot of moving parts here. It's submarines. It's missile shield. It's border. All of these are issues that Trump cares about, as well as trade. Yeah. You know, I hadn't thought of it from that angle of no McGinty, no defense minister in the room.

And I'm trying to think through that now as, why would that be? Would that be because they're too far apart on things like the F-35, you know, submarines made in, you know, Korea or Germany or Sweden or wherever they're going to be made? or is it that they're actually close to something? They have an understanding on things at the moment. You know, I think if they were close to something, McGinty would be there. So I think that we're a little farther back on those. Although we have said we want to be part of Golden Dome,

that's on a small concession. You know, we said no. In the 90s, we're saying, yes, now the technology is far from proven. The price tag is huge and $61 billion. But why we can say yes to this, Peter, it's way down the road. It's way down the road. We need to get through the next three years. It must be the calculus.

and by then there'll be newer technology. This will be changed. So whatever we agree to now on continental missile defense will be so different that it won't matter much. So let's just say yes, that's the tone of it, I think. And the way things are moving on the technology front, I mean, you might have a golden dome in your laptop in three years time. Exactly.

But let me ask you a related defense question. because this has started to come up more often in the last little while. I noticed it on, you know, on listeners to this program who were writing in last week about, you know, questions in terms of the future of the country and the future of the relationship. And, you know, and it was all about gun control. And a couple of the people who wrote in talked about, hey, I need my guns in case the Americans come across the border. Yeah.

You know? We've seen, but it's not just people like that. It's also people who are writing, you know, columns and articles in different, you know, publications suggesting, you know, we should stop kidding around about this. this is a real possibility considering some of the rhetoric that Trump has used and Trump's people have used about, whether it's 51st state or more. Yeah. For sure.

You know, like, you know, are we ready? Well, of course, we're not ready. We've got, you know, the longest undefended border in the world, even in spite of the changes that have been made in the last few months. How should we take this kind of stuff? Let me just say that our military, the Canadian forces, right, our Department of National Defense takes this seriously. They have to take this seriously. As you just said, Peter.

So they've been doing scenarios. You know, what would this look like? What would it mean if Trump actually ordered the annexation of Canada and, you know, the American military, which is so closely integrated with ours. I don't mean formally. But one of the most striking things is our military, train with the U.S. military, you know the U.S. military, grown up with them. They're buddies. They will, they're friends, especially at the more senior level of command because they've done operations together.

But they're the first ones to tell you that if the U.S. president orders any kind of operation, the U.S. military would be. created to do it. And so it's, it's, you know, we would be remiss in our country if our military didn't plan for this. So they're doing scenarios. But here's where it gets harder. What would the U.S. actually do if they wanted to annex Canada? It's hard to believe that they're going to send, you know, ground forces across the border up through. Upper New York State or any other adjacent state in the West to cross the border into Canada. It's huge, Canadian border to reach, it's huge, Peter. And they don't have an army at this point that would march across a large number of numbers, frankly.

It's very difficult to make that one a believable one. So what would they do? Blockade the Great Lakes. well that's a huge shipping area for both countries and by the way the water levels really matter to both countries and we have a treaty on the Great Lake that's a hard one to believe because it would hurt them just as much as it would hurt us

so where are the areas of vulnerability could you see a U.S. presence seizing the port of Vancouver because fentanyl was coming through that port you know but that's the kind of scenario building they have to do in the military so the question then becomes

well what would we do if the if the U.S. seize the port of Vancouver and obviously the Arctic where it's undefended it is we all know we have we're very late to the game in the Arctic we don't have the kind of

military assets when our military talks about the Arctic, they're focused on Russia, which has been involved in a huge military spent in the Russian Arctic. They spend more than all the other Arctic countries combined by a factor of 10. So it's astonishing. The U.S. Arctic, not much there. They haven't spent much either. They have fewer icebreakers right.

now than we do, although we're both getting more. They have one, we have two. Okay, we're right, we're both going to have four and they may get, you know, once the Americans ramp up, they really get going to six conceivably. But again, when you think about this, as much planning, which we have to do, it's hard to come up with a credible, military strategy for the U.S. to annex. I can think of some political strategies. That's different. You know, they could probe into Canadian areas.

You know, like there's been a long time disagreement between Canada and the United States over the Northwest Passage. Yes. And not just the U.S. You know, other countries feel the same way that that's really... Personally, everybody else. Yeah, that it's an international. waterway and anybody should have access to it without having to go through a whole process.

Canada does not agree to that and will argue strongly the other way. However, I suppose that's one area. They could just push into the Northwest Passage without asking for permission, just do it. You know, Franklin Griffiths had a really interesting call this past weekend about the United States sending a worship through the Northwest Passage. Well, that's entirely credible. That could happen. But first of all, what would that do?

Canadian opinion would be outraged. And they'd be even more annoyed at somebody like me. We'll keep saying, well, we have to do it. But the worship would go into the Northwest Passage, Peter, and then it would go out. How is that a credible prelude to end? next thing, right? You can only annex it in two ways, frankly. You can use overwhelming military force.

That's what the Germans did to Austria, 1938. They walked in. Or we can have a province that says, we've had it with you, Canada. We'd like to join the United States. That's a wholly different scenario. That's probably the most credible. We should be, you know, and I'm sure we have our eyes wide open. The Russians are watching very closely what's going on in the Arctic.

Our Arctic, they're kind of further ahead in their Arctic. The Northeast Passage is, you know, well positioned, well organized, well-supplied. We've got real seaports along the northeast passage. But they're watching what's going on, certainly defense-wise. Yes, they are. Canada's Arctic and the discussions that have been going on between Canada and the U.S. about how to better that situation. So, I mean, we kind of have our eyes wide open about that in terms of what's going on, who's watching, and who wants.

I mean, there's future minerals are at stake and oil and gas and, you name it. Well, there's a lot. You know, there's a lot of sake, Peter, and that's, by the way, what's driving the purchase of submarines. Because when you push our most thoughtful senior naval leaders on what we're going to do with the sufferings, the answer comes back with we, they will be, they will surface show points. Nobody will be able to get into our article without our knowing that they're in our article, right? And the question, but let's ask the next question then. That's right. They could absolutely do that. But we could know what's in our Arctic through

underwater submersible vehicles too and sensors, satellites. There's lots of ways we know what's in our Arctic. So the question becomes, what would we ever conceivably do if an American warship went through the Northwest Passage? And we had some ways. Is it credible that we would fire on an American Worship? Well, I can be sure that would not go without response. I mean, that's what I've said. You know, it's taking it to the next step, right? Let's have these assets and then asking yourself,

what would you do with it? And I'm reminded, and we know this from our archives, because we did have some ratings in the 50s, you know, that ran up and down the length of our coast. and there were sightings, but of course we were focused on Russia entirely. There were sightings of Russian submarines that would often be quite close off our coast

and either going down to the U.S. coast or coming up. And what did we do with our Canadian submarines? What do we do when we saw a Russian submarine? We phoned Washington to tell us. them. And what did they do? Nobody ever fires at each other. Nobody used to any missiles to take out each other's, to think of Russian submarines that were just off our coast. So I have to say, you can hear us. I don't believe we would ever fire at a U.S. asset. I'm not sure we would ever fire a Russian asset, but I'm convinced we would never fire in the U.S. asset.

Our Arctic areas being a lot more vulnerable than we tend to do, you know, except over time. I mean, even before the Russian subs were there in the 50s, you know, there were Nazi U-boats in the Arctic, setting up little, little stations on, you know, desolate areas of Baffin Island or elsewhere. And we never knew about it until after the war when we found this stuff. Yeah, that was amazing. That was amazing.

You see, that's where I think Canadians should be. Absolutely backing our Navy that says we need to know what's happening under our waters, on our waters, on land. And we can do that today. And we can do it because there's such elaborate, integrate. And we're really good at this, Peter, and manufacturing and making advanced sensors that talk to space. So we should know everything. But let's just think through one more scenario. What if Americans set up some stations in our article without our permission?

What will we do? Exactly. I mean, the Germans did it during the World War. We didn't know. What if the Americans did it? I suspect there would be a lot of conversation that went on, and a lot of it reached. I'd still think there are real constraints on what any government of Canada would, using any kind of force against any American asset.

Okay. We're going to take our break and come back and switch continents. We'll deal with what's going on in Egypt today in terms of the latest discussions on the Gaza situation. We'll do that right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to the Monday Good Talk, which of course is Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School, the University of Toronto. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167 Canada Talks, are on your favorite podcast. podcast platform. Glad to have you with us.

Okay, Janice, there's, you know, we've been through a day of talks, apparently, in Egypt, between all the, all the interested parties, not necessarily in the room at the same time, but they're kind of talking. That's story of each other. Yeah, which is. Same hotel. Same motel, which, you know, the Americans are there, the Israelis are there, Hamas is there, Qatar is there, the Egyptians are there, and there's more. There's a lot of people sitting around trying to finalize the Trump peace plan. And Trump has even sent his son-in-law there as well,

who handle a lot of this kind of stuff, excuse me, in his first term. I'm trying to understand where we are on this. I mean, we've seen lots of deadlines. over the last couple of years on this issue and we've seen lots in the last week and they keep getting extended because, well basically because Hamas keeps either changing their position

or accepting some things, not accepting others where Trump says it's all in or all out basically. How do you read where we are at the moment? So I think there's two phases to this, Peter, and they're all focused on this first phase right now and pushed down the road, everything else. They're focused on an exchange of all the hostages, dead and alive, for a group of Palestinian prisoners who are absent since their life

because they've been convicted in attacks against Israelis, you know, where Israelis died. That's the agenda. So it's these, this group of above, anywhere from 150 plus is the group that Israel's least willing to resist over all these past negotiations. And in the middle of that group is one man, Marwan Barguti, who was sentenced to five life sentences. And Hamas has asked for him before every time there's been. exchange. Hamas just asked for him and the Israelis have said, absolutely not. He is the government in waiting, despite everything that we've talked about and everything he heard. He's the government

in maybe. He's one of maybe one or two, but he commands enormous respect in the Palestinian street. He kind of, it's really interesting. He's, you know, he's able to send messages. Um, have people meet with him in and out of jail. I think he's got special conditions attached so that he is able to hold meetings and send messages out. He's on that list of muskets for Hamas, and that will be for Netanyahu,

the single toughest thing to agree in this face. that's what they're talking about right now everything else all the things that we know are going to be disarming whether Hamas is going to disarm or not that's something really has already where the Israeli line is how far back they're going to withdraw

in Gaza because while this is going on all of that is secondary to get to getting the details of the details of this prisoner exchange done. You know, I find it really striking because Mohammed Seymour, who started all this, it was literally two years ago on October the 7th,

the oath he gave, because he was in an Israeli prisoner, that's where he learned Hebrew, that's where he, you know, started, that's where he began a detailed study of Israeli, politics and had these conversations with Israeli jailers that would go on for hours. The one oath he took when he was freed in one of these exchanges was, to his brothers, I will get you out. That was more than anything, the motivation for what happened two years ago for the attacks

that he launched on October 7. in an ironic way we're back at the beginning almost, Peter, that is Christian exchange. Am I optimistic? Yes, I think we will get the prison exchange done. I think we will because Trump now

feels free to exercise any kind of lever Joe and Nathaniel. He doesn't ask, he just tells him. And we saw that. And of course, the anniversary of October 7th is tomorrow. Tomorrow. Yeah. Here's what I find fascinating in a way about these talks that are going on in Egypt.

Representing Hamas in these talks is the guy was the target of Israel's attack in Cutter a few weeks ago, a month ago or so. He escaped that attack. Others didn't, including his

son, who was killed. Who was killed in the attack. And you go, how can that guy sit there and negotiate? Knowing he was a target of the person who's sitting in the next room.

Yeah. And know that, how can you sit there and negotiate with the people who killed your son. Right. Right. And by the way, that incident broke the law of charge, that attack by Israel, on Hamas leaders, in Doha. That's what pushed Trump to bring the hammer down, frankly. And why is that?

because he had given his word to the Qataris that this would not happen. But underneath that relationship between the Emir of Qatar and Donald Trump is a very elaborate set of business relationships, that is other son Donald Trump has. And the cryptocurrency, they are building this massive cryptocurrency business together. And with Donald Trump, it's always the two. he was impuriated. And we all saw that video in the Oval Office last Monday

where he forced Netanyahu, and he held the phone. As Netanyahu wrote, delivered a scripted apology to the Prime Minister of Carter. When you see that, you know that Netanyahu has lost his capacity to say no to Donald Trump. And, you know, Donald Trump gave a, I think it was, it was it, it was an interview with, it was actually, it wasn't with Fox News, it was with somebody else in which he said, oh, Nathaniel is fine with this. He has to be fine with things with me. That's where it's at. And Hamas, under huge pressure, how can he sit there? How could he sit there?

because the whole Arab world, the whole Arab world, plus Turkey, plus Pakistan, plus Indonesia have said openly, Hamas, you disarm, you return those prisoners, you're not part of the future of gas. Last question. The Jared Kushner presence in these talks, did you just sort of kind of touch on why he's really there, It's all about the personal Trump business connections on that part of the world? There is no question that that's what finally, you know, let. Look, everybody's been waiting for Trump to put his thumb on the scale here and say enough. He finally did that, and there's no question.

The way either the glass half full or the glass half empty, Peter left, let me put it both ways. Those business connections built relationships between the principles between Donald Trump's son-in-law and son, which knitted the families of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates together so that when it's time to use leverage and say to Hamas, enough and saving it to Yahu enough. They were able to do that in a way that Joe Biden and Jake Sullivan and

Anthony Blinken were never able to do it. That's the glass half full, the glass half empty. It's because of these very enriching business relationships that the Trump

family has always developed a long with the business of state in ways that we never seen before. And some things happen and others don't. Well, two big stories that we've talked about today, both of which we'll be looking back on a week from now and wondering what happened and what difference has been made as a result of the two of them.

So we'll see. Great conversation, as always. Thanks, Janice. We'll talk in seven days. See you in a week. Dr. Janice Stein from the Mug School of the University of Toronto and as always so appreciative of the fact she drops in with us once a week to put her take on things

and as I said two big stories happening basically in the next 24 hours and perhaps we're better prepared now for them after listening to all that Reminders of things to come. The question of the week is what are you grateful for? What are you thankful for as we approach Thanksgiving weekend, the long weekend? Want you to think about that? Send in your answers to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. Keep it below 75 words, fewer than 75 words.

Your name and your location are really important as well. And have things in by 6 p.m. Your answers in by 6 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. Tomorrow it's, well, every second Tuesday, it's the reporter's notebook with Altheiraj and Rob Russo. We'll be talking to them tomorrow. Probably right around the same time as Trump and Carney are in the White House talking. So we'll get the latest from them on what they're expecting.

to come out of that meeting and various other things as they relate to what's going on in Ottawa as we get closer to that key budget day in early November. That's tomorrow's program. Wednesday, normally our Encore edition, we're going to do another one of our Wednesday,

or at least that's the plan at the moment. Another one of our Wednesday in-bit special. I've got a bunch of end bits for you, and we'll talk those through on Wednesday and have a bit of fun with them, I hope. Thursday is your turn, along with the random ranter, on what to be thankful for. Friday is a good talk with Chantelli Bear and Bruce Anderson. They'll be joining us to kind of wrap up the weekend, point us ahead into next week. It is the Thanksgiving weekend coming up next Monday, being a national holiday.

an encore edition of the bridge. So we'll be giving Janice the weekend off unless some kind of earth-shattering thing happens. And, of course, both Janice and I will give up our weekends and do a new show. But the plan at this moment will be for an encore edition next Monday. That's it for this day.

Hope you enjoy the program. I really appreciate you listening in. We'll be back again in less than 24 hours. Thank you.