The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Pierre Poilievre -- The Interview

Episode Date: March 2, 2026

The opposition leader's first interview on The Bridge is a fascinating one to quote the Toronto Star. Done late last week we are happy to run it today. Tomorrow Janice Stein will give us her thoughts on the continuing story of the weekend attack on Iran. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Monday and today a special bridge. Our interview with Pierre Pollyev. Coming right up. And hello there. I know what some of you are saying. You're saying it's Monday.

Where's Janice? Where's Dr. Janice Stein? From the Monk School to University of Toronto. Well, she'll be here tomorrow. We interviewed Pierre Palliyev late last week and the promise was always it would air today. And so it is airing today. Now, obviously, I know there's a big story in the Middle East, one that Dr. Stein will be anxious to talk about, and she will do just that tomorrow. Things continue to reverberate around the Middle East. The dust is not settled on this story,

and so we look forward to talking about it tomorrow. But our interview with Pierre Poliev is coming up in a couple of minutes time. One other piece of housekeeping to move out of the way right now is the question of the week for this Thursday. Here it is. Do you think Canada's old relationship with the United States is over for good? Or can things go back to some semblance of what it used to be at some future date? All right?

That's the question of the week. And it kind of relates to some ways to what we talk about in this interview with Pierre Paulia. But there's your question. You have until Wednesday at 6 p.m. Eastern time to answer it. You write to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Keep it 75 words or fewer. And don't forget to include your name and the location you're writing from.

All right, that's the question. The other thing we're going to do today is we're going to move up the break so we don't interrupt the interview. So we'll take our break right now. And when we come back, we'll get right into the interview with Pierre Paulyev, which, as I said, was done late last week after he gave a speech in Toronto about his vision for Canada-US relations in the future. I think you're going to find this interview interesting. It's already received a lot of attention. In newspapers, the Globe wrote about it, the Star wrote about it, the CBC wrote about it.

But what do you think about it? You'll get an opportunity to think about that as you listen to the leader of the opposition, which will begin that interview as soon as we come back from this break. Mr. Palli, I appreciate you being here today. It's good to talk to you, and it was a big day for you, a big speech. Just, you know, we're literally doing this a few minutes after you gave your speech on your vision for the future of Canada-U.S. relations. There's a lot in the speech. I encourage Canadians to read it.

I just want to talk to you about one area of it, really. It's kind of in general terms. What separates your vision for the future of Canada-U.S. relations with Mark Carney's vision. Well, there's a couple things. One, I believe that we need to be stronger at home so that we have a leverage abroad. So what does that mean? We're dealing with a president, but ultimately a country. country that respects leverage. And we need to maximize what leverage we have going into any

reviewed discussion on KSMA. So what do we have as leverage? There's the obvious we're the second biggest customer for the Americans, but there's much more that makes us unique. One, we represent the biggest share of airspace in the hemisphere. We have 10 of the 12 NATO-defined critical minerals that would be necessary if God forbid the world went back to war. We have the fourth biggest supply of energy and we have the capacity to rebuild our military to the mutual prosperity of both of our countries. Now, how do we leverage that? Well, we need to unlock our resources.

I would repeal all the anti-development laws that the government has built up so that we can rapidly mine these minerals. and then I would set up a strategic mineral and energy reserve, access to which for the Americans would be dependent on their providing us tariff-free trade over our border. Second, I would say to the Americans that we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars buying armaments and military technology over the next several decades, and the amount we spend south of the border will be contingent on tariff-free access to the United States.

And finally, by unblocking our way to the coasts, we give ourselves the ability to sell our oil and gas and other resources overseas, which gives us optionality so that the Americans are no longer a captive supplier to the Americans. All those things will give us a leverage. And I would use that leverage to negotiate my singular objective, which is that we have tariff-free access to the states. while remaining a sovereign economy and country. And you think that leverage could do that, tariff-free? That's the goal. You start with the most ambitious possible goal. I don't know why the Carney government is conceding

or waving the right white flag in accepting that there will be permanent and unfair and unrecipricated American tariffs on Canadian goods. I would rather go to the United States and say, look, these are the things that you need that we have, and you're only getting them if we get what we want, which is we want to be able to sell our products into the biggest, most lucrative economy the world has ever seen.

Now, there's another area that you made pretty clear in your speech that you fundamentally disagree with Mark Carney, and that's over China. What is the issue there? What is the problem? Carney says there's a rupture in the relationship with the U.S. part of the way of making up for that is opening the doors to China. You don't agree with that. Why not?

It's not that I object to opening the doors to talking trade and diplomacy with China. We should be talking with everybody. The Chinese make up a magnificent civilization and there's a lot that we can benefit from each other. but there's just no way that we should proceed with a permanent rupture with our biggest customer that buys three quarters of our exports and our closest neighbor in favor of what Mr. Carney calls a strategic partnership for a new world order with Beijing, a regime that Mr. Carney himself said

was the biggest threat to Canada only a year ago. So if we have to choose, we have to, our bigger customer, we sell 20 times more to the Americans than we sell to China. And that is not going to radically change overnight. So we cannot sacrifice our relationship with our biggest customer in favor of a tenuous and risky partnership for a new world order with the regime in Beijing. You reject that term, the new world order in today's world.

Well, I think that the world is always in a state of change, but there are some things that will remain the same. We can't get a realtor and move to another part of the world. America will always be our next door neighbor. And the United States has by far the biggest economy and military the world has ever seen, and they buy three times as much of our goods as the rest of the world combined. The other thing that happily will not change is that Americans like us, the average American, according to the polling data, by abacus data, a Canadian polling output, two-thirds of Americans have a very strong and positive view of Canada.

So as I said in my speech, whether it's the minor in West Virginia or the farmer in Montana, the engineer in California, they actually like Canada. They want to buy our stuff and they want to work with us. And they're going to be around a lot longer than anyone president. So let's not make short-term decisions to rupture that partnership because, of what we hope will be a short-term dispute. Okay. We'll probably get to a little bit of that in a moment in terms of Trump himself.

But the fact is, those same people, though you just listed off, are many of the same people who elected him for a second time to the presidency, knowing what he was thinking on tariffs and other things. But let me put it this way, this question. There seems to be a fundamental difference between the way you look at the path forward with the negotiations with the U.S. and the way Carney looks at the path forward.

Should there be a new election in the country to determine whose vision is the one that Canadians agree with? That, you know, you should or he should have a new mandate to go into these negotiations. Well, Mr. Carney was elected on exactly that mandate last time. he said that the reason he was calling the election 10 months ago was to get a mandate to negotiate a deal with the Americans. But certain things have changed since then. It has been a year.

You're much stronger as of today on your position on this and the way you're detailing it. And I'm just wondering whether you think an election is necessary at this point before the heavy lifting goes on in these negotiations. I don't. I do think that we should work together as parties. And that's why I've made the offer to Mr. Carney, that we would set up an all-party committee that would create a united effort on behalf of the whole country to fight for Canada in the United States and in any other market.

I think that being united will be a real force going forward. We have disagreements, but I think all parties agree that we want tariff-free access to the United States. there might be disagreements about how likely it is to achieve them or how to go about it. But on that core fact, there is an agreement. We also agree on the sacrosanct nature of the Canadian sovereignty, that we need to protect our country and its distinctiveness. The disagreement right now is on getting it done.

And my criticism, my main criticism of Mr. Carney is that in 10 months he hasn't really done very much. There's been lots of announcements and papers signed and ceremonies held, but not actual results. And I think it would be better for us to see some results for him than to spend a half a billion dollars on an election less than a year after the last one. Do you respect Mr. Carney? Oh, yes, I do.

And I think he respects me as well. We have a very respectful relationship. We actually traveled to, tragically, we traveled to Tumblr Ridge together and got to know each other a little bit better. And I thought he performed. very admirably as a prime minister on that trip. And we had a funny,

funny near collision. I was out with my kids on a bicycle ride on a path in Ottawa. And my little girl never does anything in a straight line. And so she was zinging and zagging. And this teenage or 20-year-old girl came along and almost collided with my daughter, but very skillfully negotiated around. And as I looked at her,

I thought, I think that's Mark Carney's daughter. And so I talked to him the next time. I said, it's your daughter almost. collide with my daughter on the pathways of Ottawa. He said, you know, she did mention that. And it made me think of, you know, we're both, we disagree on our politics, but we're both fatherers, we're both proud Canadians. And in that sense, I think there's a mutual respect.

So this talk about cooperation is real. You think they could really be something there? Well, listen, I think we already have on some things where we agreed. Like the prime minister said he wanted to have extraordinary power. to approve projects that I've been calling for it to be built for many years. So I encourage my caucus to pass his proposed bill C5. And under a week, he adopted some of my tax proposals. And I think we adopted those in the House of Commons in a matter of 10 or 11 days.

So my message is very much in line with what Lincoln said. Abraham Lincoln said, I stand with a man when he stands right and I stand against him when he stands wrong. Fair enough. I want to talk about Donald Trump for a moment. Have you considered it all going to Washington? I know you're off to what, London and Berlin over the next couple of days. Why not Washington? Isn't Washington where we've got to be doing the talking right now? I've always believed in the rule of one prime minister at a time. And what I wanted to allow was for the government of the day to have enough room to operate and negotiate on behalf of Canada. And I never wanted our country to be divided. And I didn't want any foreign regime of any kind to say, look, we've got two different powers coming to negotiate.

And I'm going to play one off the other. So that's the reason why I've left that space to the governing prime ministers. it's been Trudeau and Carney. I told Prime Minister Carney that if there's anyone he wants me to meet with, I'd be happy to do it. And at the appropriate time, I will do that. And he did express some openness to it. But we've got to make sure that we put the country first.

Has Washington as the White House invited you to come down? I don't think I've ever received any formal invitation to go down to the White House. What do you think of Donald Trump? and I ask that, you know, as you well know, and you've referred to it, as many Canadians are, they're more than just angry with him. They don't trust him. They think a lot of things about him. Words I won't repeat here.

What do you think of him? Look, I can't stand his talk about 51st state. I don't like his tariffs. I don't like the way he's treated my country, bluntly speaking. And various times I've been upset by the words he utters and the things he does just like everyone else. But as I age, I become more stoic in focusing on what I can control. And Mark Carney actually said something that I think is quite wise.

He said nobody can control what President Trump does. So we have to focus on what we can control. And that means strengthening ourselves here at home so that we have unbreakable leverage when we negotiate with him or his successors. So, you know, Prime Minister Harper had a lot of wisdom as well. He said we cannot focus on how the United States makes us feel. We have to focus on what we have to do to adapt. And that's my focus.

You know, you're well aware that some people in your party. You know, I think of the former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, Jamie Watt, who I'm sure you know, as a kind of backroom organizer over many years. with the Conservative Party. And some of your MPs who have spoken out, not necessarily publicly, but they've made their feelings known,

that you need to be stronger on the Trump issue. And I'm just wondering if this last week has actually shown you moving towards that. Even some of the things you've said here in this interview, that you're not shy about issuing the word Donald Trump. I think Jamie Watt was the one who said, you'll never be prime minister until you can say the word Donald Trump

well I've been saying it for the last two years I mean I gave a I gave a speech a very aggressive speech aimed at the president last February February of 2025 and in which I very directly went at him and criticized him very aggressively in fact I I criticized him on Greenland on his comments about Canadian and other NATO soldiers before Prime Minister Carney did. So I think that anyone who says that has just not been keeping up.

When you hear him talk about 51st state or use the term governor, which he did again just a week or so ago talking about the prime minister, do you think he's joking or do you think he's serious? I hope that he's joking because it's such a ridiculous idea and it would obviously never happen. So I've denounced it again and again. we're never going to be a part of the United States of America. We're a neighbor. We're a traditional ally and friend,

but we're just never going to be part of the United States of America. And I hope that he understands that. You know, liberal ministers have said that it's a joke. I don't know because I've never been in the room with him, so I don't know. But I would hope that he understands that we are always going to be sovereign and self-reliant. Do you talk to anybody in Washington? Do you talk to senators or? congressional members or governors of states.

Have you talked to any of them in the last year? From time to time, you know, and my message is always, and you know, by the way, most of them say that they think that Canada's great. They want us to have, they have respect our sovereignty. None of them have repeated the silly, ridiculous talk about 51st statehood. And most of them say they don't support the tariffs. Now we have to see as them take action on that. Yeah, well, I guess we're going to find out in the next little while.

Right. I want to switch topics now to your caucus and the issue of caucus management, and you know what's coming here, because some of it relates to just what we've been talking about, the relationship with the U.S. The Giovanni factor, your MP, who went to the states, went to Washington for a visit with friends and some people in high office.

and I, you know, I'm still a little unclear. Did he ask for and get permission from you to do that trip? Or did he even need to? So what I gave my entire caucus permission to do was engage with the U.S. in a way that would support Canada's position of accessing the country, tariff-free, protecting our sovereignty, rebuilding the relationship. And Mr. Giovanni has a personal relationship that connected him to the White House, and he went there and basically made the case for his constituents.

He's in an Oshawa area riding, so they've been hit very hard by the auto tariffs in particular. And so I understand why he's very frustrated with the jobs that have hemorrhaged in his community. He believed that he could do something about that, and that's why he went. And I know that he also gave the government clear information on what do you. was doing and and received a briefing beforehand from dominic leblanc's office so we'll hope that it helps so you were cool with it you didn't have any problems with it well you know when i when i looked at all the meetings he said he had him from what i've what i've seen i wasn't in the meetings but from what i've seen his objective was to fight for canadian jobs and that's what we all need to be doing

so i take that from to mean that you didn't have a problem with it Well, based on what I know, I believe that all our MPs should be fighting for jobs in their communities and across the country. And that's what he tells me that he was doing. Okay. Let's move it to the other situation in caucus and for caucus management. And that's the issue of the floor crossers. There have been three in the past year. And out of your caucus of 140 or so, I mean, three doesn't sound like much, but it is a monocrosser.

know where to government and we all know how that number can be looked at. You've called it dirty backroom deals that were made by the Prime Minister, who you respect. You really believe that? It was a dirty backroom deal? I mean, it's not like it was the first time it's happened in the country. In fact, your party did the same thing in, what, 2011 with David Emerson. And there have been, you know, countless examples of this going on in the past. Were those really dirty backroom deals?

I think I don't take back my words on that. These members were elected on a conservative platform with me as their conservative leader. And nothing has changed about our agenda since that time. So I think that, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about them. I think there's been too much time, frankly. And I think this is one of the problems I have with Ottawa and the entire political discourse in Ottawa is that it is absolutely fixated. on the inside baseball machinations in the halls of power and not at all focused on the real lives of people. Like, you know, we've got people out there who are living 200 bucks away from losing their homes.

You've got two and a well over two million lined up at food banks. We've got a problem with malnutrition because people can't pay their bill the first time in a generation, and of any generation that our young people cannot afford homes at all, our Brampton and Surrey are being torn apart by extortion. And we've talked more in Ottawa about three MPs than all of those issues combined. So that's where my focus is on. My focus is on the lives of people here at home in Canada. Well, I can understand that,

but I can also understand that the discussion does come up to that. I mean, they were three MPs who were elected just in the last year, who chose to leave. And it wasn't just leaving your party. It was leaving you. And they talked about you. Well, they knew who I was when they ran and won under my leadership. So that is the reality.

And the reality is also that their constituents voted for our plan on affordability, on crime, on housing, on fiscal responsibility. And now they're part of a government that is doubled the deficit. that's overseen a drop in home building that hasn't changed a single word of the criminal code to stop crime. So basically the opposite of all the things they were elected on. Has there been any self-reflection on your part? There is every day in every way,

no matter what the circumstances are. But at the end of the day, I have to focus on the people who voted for us and the ones we need next time. We had $8.3 million, a record number for our party. And those people, like when I bump into them on the streets, they're not talking to me about party membership on Parliament Hill.

They're talking to me where their next meal is going to come from or whether they're going to be safe when they walk out the front door under their streets or whether their job is secured. And I think Ottawa, I think the political scene in Ottawa would be much better, much more served if it would focus on the daily lives of people. rather than on the political machinations of Parliament Hill. You know, it's been almost a year, how time flies, right, since the election. And I'm just wondering, in that year, have you changed?

Has Pierre Palliav changed in the way he operates, the tone he uses, the discussions he has, the interviews he gives, all of that? I'm just, I'm wondering why, because people say they watch, they watch you. They watch you to, the speech you just gave in Toronto. And they say, that's a, that's a different kind of Pierre Polyev than I saw a year ago. Not necessarily in what you were saying, but how you were saying it. How you interacted with others. I mean, you're not, you're not holding an apple here with me.

I should be. But you know what I mean. I still love apples. Yeah. Well, a couple of things I'd go over. One on you mean interviews that I gave, well, this is my first time on your show. I made a decision on interviews that I'm going to go everywhere and talk to everyone.

And, you know, that means people talking to people with whom I disagree or who tip might cater to an audience of voters who are in different parties. I think in order to grow, we have to reach out and talk to people who have different viewpoints than And so I went from having a very focused strategy of talking to, you know, using social media and reaching out to, in a very controlled way, to specific outlets. Whereas now I think I'm just going to talk to everybody, go as far and wide as I can, reach as many people everywhere possible. I think temperamentally I've become more stoic.

You know, as I mentioned, I did quote quote some of the stoics in my speech today. on Kennedy-U.S. relations, but I think it's true in politics as in life that the only way you can get through all of the drama of life is by focusing on the things that are in your control and letting go of the things that are not. And that has been the single biggest thing to make political life more enjoyable, frankly. So you have changed then. I mean, I'd like to think that I'm improving all the time. I like to think that I'm improving all the time. But a person is like a river.

You can't tip your toe in it twice. It's always changing. Okay. Where are you going to run on the next election whenever that might happen? Well, you'll have to stay tuned. I represent the great people of Battle River Crowfoot. And I want my focus to be as a member of parliament to be on them right now. and I've been very blessed to,

it's a big riding to represent 60,000 square kilometers, 60 communities, military base, energy workers, farmers, ranchers, the best people. And I want to serve them well. And when the time is right, you'll know my next step. Well, let's talk about that writing for a moment

because, you know, you're one big in there, your predecessor, one big in there. how does that writing feel about the debate surrounding a possible referendum on separation? So I would say there are very patriotic people in Battle River Crowfoot. They love Canada, but they are very frustrated with the way Ottawa has treated them, and they're right to be frustrated. And there are whole towns where the storefronts are boarded up because the oil and gas sector has been under attack. Yes, they are farming communities, but a lot of the employment

and then the secondary employment did come from oil and gas. And as government has made it more and more difficult to develop our resources, a lot of incredible people who were earning six-figure salaries doing great work as pipe fitters and welders and industrial carpenters ended up without jobs. And it's not unusual to find a couple of 50-year-old guys who have had to move in together because they have no way of paying their bills. And they're saying, why is it that our own country, our own government is doing that to us? They're frustrated that we don't have pipelines

and that we're then giving our resources to the Americans at enormous discounts. There are much smaller irritants that accumulate, you know, like confiscating hunting rifles and pop-can guns that are used on farms, banning rodenticides that are now, necessary to protect tens of thousands of dollars of your crop against rodents. Now, we might think that's a minor issue, but if you're a farmer who's just had a $20,000

hole dug in his field, because Ottawa's banned him from dealing with gophers, you might feel differently. So I believe we need to make this country unbreakable and absolutely united. I am a firm Canadian federalist. I said that in the by-election. I've said it my whole life as a born and bred Albertan. And the way to unite this country is the same way we make it affordable and make us autonomous. And that is to unlock and unblock our resources,

allow the people of Western Canada to fulfill their full potential. And Peter, if we did that, nobody would be talking about separation. Just like nobody was talking about separation before this liberal government was elected. Do you feel that your entire Alberta caucus in the federal party,

I see you said in the last week or so that they're all against separation. You have no doubt about that? I haven't heard any, I haven't had, I haven't asked directly one by one, but I haven't had a single one of them suggest that otherwise. My caucus is fiercely patriotic. We love Canada and we will be united.

And while I hope there is no referendum, if there is one, I will be strongly supporting a united Canada, as will our caucus. Are there consequences if a caucus member takes a different approach? Well, first of all, I'm not aware of anybody taking that approach, so I don't think we need to utter threats against people who haven't done anything other than be patriotic Canadians. So that's where we stand.

We love Canada. We're here to unite it and make it stronger, here at home and abroad. Okay, I've got, you remember the old reach for the top program? Actually, you're probably too young to remember the original reach for the top. but they had this section called short snappers. And these are kind of short snappers. All right. All right.

F-35 or Gripen. You're big on, you know, bolstering defense forces and clearly spending on an awful lot of money. This is going to be one of the big ticket items. F-35 or Gripen. Where are you on? Well, there's no debate right now about having some F-35s. The debate is whether we have a single or a dual fleet. And what I would say, Peter, is I want to say, I will be saying to the United States, the degree to which we spend money, our very large and growing defense budget on American-made or partly American-made armaments will depend on our ability to have terror-free access to the U.S.

So this is all part of the same discussion. And I said in my speech today, whether it's drones, armaments, ammunition, or anything else. If we cannot make it here, obviously we'll have to import some things from abroad. And the extent to which we buy from the U.S. will depend on the whether or not they're willing to give us what I want, which is tariff-free access to their markets. You're always being somebody, not unlike many members of other parties as well, who've been focused at times on the deficit. And we can't let it get out of hand. it's getting out of hand and will continue to do so with the kind of military expenditures that we're looking at. You don't have a problem with that?

I have a big problem with that because I don't think that the deficit is, first of all, it's driving inflation. It's an undeniable fact that deficits create more demand than supply, which drives up prices. It increases the money in circulation, which bids up the goods we buy. That's why Canadians can't afford homes and food. I believe that the military buildup needs to be done in a way that maximizes the reach of each dollar. So this is one of the areas where I think a lot of the international community has got the measurement wrong. They're saying, well, we just have to measure how much you spend. Well, no, I want to measure how strong we can get.

Look at the Ukrainians. Look how strong they have gotten with very low-cost investments in modern technology. some of the drones they're buying are $300 to $1,000 a pop made in garages. Now, we're not going to be making our armaments in garages, but the point is that they measure their success by the fact that 80% of the casualties they carry out on the Russians are now done with these drones, low-cost drones made with 3D printers, often by civilian suppliers. So we don't necessarily need to spend all of our money on the most expensive, exquisite 15-year

defense industrial complex systems that break the back of the taxpayer. We should be spending, we should be narrowly targeting the money to the things that increase our power and security at the minimal cost of the taxpayer. Did you say you were in favor of two fleet fighters? Or did you kind of... I didn't, I didn't, I think this is something that we need to talk about with our American friends. I think the, look, the bottom line is that a single fleet,

is more efficient. But we have to say to, in the negotiations, in the review of Kazma, that the degree to which we rely on American-supplied military equipment in arms is dependent on our tariff-free access to their economy. So it's all part of the leverage. Leverage, leverage, leverage. European or Korean subs? That's a good question.

I don't have an answer for you right now. I know the government is doing a very careful analysis of the various capabilities and costs. And I would have to do some more like the government. I'm not ready to make a decision on that one. But we do need submarines, absolutely, a very powerful fleet, particularly to secure the Arctic. One last one on this security issue, and it affects, definitely affects the Arctic, which I know you're concerned about, and so is the government. So we're a lot of Canadians.

Canada and U.S. have a common interest in continental defense, obviously. Would you pay to get to be a part of Golden Dome? We don't know what it is, what it does, or what it costs. So, again, we'd have to know all of those things first. And these are one of the idea, the concept of it. Do you have a problem with that? The concept of blocking intercontinental ballistic missiles that might be flying towards Canada?

I mean, I think even the prime minister has said that he doesn't have a problem with that. And I can't argue with him on that point. But we need to know, does this actually do that? How much does it cost? What are we expected to contribute? And are we going to have tariff-free access to the United States of America? Those are all things we need to consider in the same conversation. And you actually think that tariff-free access is possible,

given all the things that Donald Trump has said? Well, first of all, he has three years left in his term. Second of all, we have to start with our goal. I mean, if we walk in waving the white flag, then we're going to end up with the worst possible outcome. I think that, you know, the liberal government has already admitted that they're not going to be able to negotiate terror-free access before they even get to the table. I don't know why you would make that concession unilaterally. That's not how you negotiate. I really feel like one of the mistakes Mr. Carney has made is making a whole series of,

unilateral concessions without getting anything in return. And then he starts from a maximal position of weakness. My approach is the opposite. Let's build up our leverage and demand the most in return for that leverage in the hopes of getting the best outcome for our people. See, that's where, and we've only got a minute or so left here, but that's where I have this issue with the fundamental differences in your approaches. and, you know, either you've got to convince the prime minister come closer to your position, or you're going to have to go closer to his position, or Canadians are going to have to determine who has their mandate to go into these negotiations.

And you're sort of flat out saying, no go on an election. We've got to work this out between us. Well, we've got, we've got a food price emergency in this country. Why don't we get busy and solve that? We've got a crime crisis because the criminal code is turning loose the worst 4,000 offenders on our streets. Let's fix that. We've got an immigration crisis with 2 million people here whose permits are going to aspire over the next several months. And we don't know how we're going to deal with some of the refusals to leave.

And what that means for housing, health care, and jobs. These emergencies are before us. They were all created by the liberal government. now let's put aside who caused them and focus on solving them that's what I've been trying to do ever since the last election so let's focus on that when you talk to your caucus about that are they all with you there on that

I mean there's some pretty deep feelings about the liberals in that caucus and you're standing in front of them saying we got to we got to work together here well listen I said to them the very first week after the last election, we're not necessarily, we're not supporting the liberals. It's, we'll support policies that we think are good for the country and we'll oppose policies that are bad for the country. So, you know, we, you know, if Mark Carney came forward tomorrow and said he was going to lower taxes on Canadians, I would support that. But, you know,

he came forward with a bill that would, that censors religious worship. Well, we oppose that because we don't believe in censorship. We believe in the separation of church and state. So if you, if you look at what we've done in the house, we've very carefully and surgically opposed to the things we are against and supported the things we're for. And I think that's what Canadians expect. Last point. When I first watched you arriving on Parliament Hill all those years ago, what, more than 20 years now, you look like a guy really enjoyed the cut and thrust of politics. you enjoyed getting up in the house, you enjoyed going after liberals especially,

and you've continued on that way. I'm just hearing like a different kind of guy following your experiences of the last year. I don't know how long that'll last. Maybe you'll be back at it, the way you used to be, but you seem to be a different guy. So I've always been a fighter,

but that's because some things are worth fighting for. And you believe in something you fight hard for it. And I believe in what I'm doing. It is sure the cut and thrust is fun, but I actually have underlying convictions, belief systems that I want to advance. I really want this to be the country that gave me the opportunity

to be available to the other young people. You know, I started off, very humble beginning. I was adopted by school teachers. They gave me my start and I was able to get this far. I really want this to be that country again, where anybody who works hard gets a chance. And sometimes that's involved being very aggressive and fighting those who are standing in the way of that objective,

but sometimes serving the objective is about working with others to get it done. So you have to adapt to the circumstance, but the purpose is the same throughout. Fascinating conversation. I appreciate you taking the time to do it, and it's good to talk to you. Hopefully we'll do it.

it again sometime. Thank you very much, Mr. Mansbridge. You can call me, Peter. Well, I would have, but you called me Mr. Polyev, so I didn't want to be presumptuous. You're the leader of the opposition. His Majesty's loyal opposition. It's the worst damn job in the country.

You should be calling me by my first name. I'm a mere commoner, after all. Well, speaking of that, seeing as you've opened the door, what about a security clearance? I get a lot of emails from people say, why doesn't he have one? Why doesn't he have one especially now?

When the country's under threat and there must be things that he should see. I've had a security clearance when I was in government and the reality is that when the Prime Minister Trudeau approached me on it, the reality is we take this clear to clear briefings, then you become very restricted about what you can say on the subject, even if you would have been able to find out the information without the briefing in the first place.

And so I don't want my tongue to be tied by a process that prevents me from speaking openly and clearly about issues that are highly important and on which I as a leader of the opposition have to be very present. And that's why a prior leader of the opposition, Thomas Mulcair said that I was right in taking the stance that I took because when he was in that position, he said he would never have wanted to be restricted

in his ability to speak. And so my job is to hold the government to account and to be relentlessly focused on that without fearing that if I say the wrong word that I could be charged criminally for speaking. Does Mark Carney offered to give you security clearance? Well, I don't. You think the liberals have been hectoring on this for a long time,

but the reality is that I'm not going to let anybody tie my tongue or hold me quiet on subjects on which it is my job and my duty to hold the government accountable. We'll leave it at that. Thank you, sir. All right. Thanks a lot. Bye. Well, there you go.

Pierre Paulyev with, you know, an intro, let's put it this way. It's an interesting interview. And you take from it as you wish. But clearly, a different tone than it would have been if we'd done that interview a year ago or two years ago. or two years ago. So I found it interesting, and that probably is the reason why it's been getting so much coverage in the last couple of days.

Okay, we thank Mr. Polyev and his staff for arranging that. We're glad to have done it. Okay, a word about tomorrow. Dr. Janice Stein will be with us tomorrow, as she usually is on Monday. She will be here with us tomorrow, and lots to talk about obviously as a result of the attack by the United States. and Israel on Iran over the weekend,

and the fallout from that is still going on now and for who knows for how long. So that will be Tuesday's program. Wednesday will be what we had originally scheduled for Tuesday. Wednesday will be the Moore-Buds conversation. And it is, you know, we're really hopping around the topics this week. today on Mr. Pauliyev tomorrow on the Iran story

and Wednesday Warren Butts wanted to talk about sports and politics as a result of, you know, partly as a result of the kerfuffle around the U.S. Canada gold medal hockey game and everything that came after that. But some of the, we don't want to talk about those issues in particular, but the overall issues of politics, in sports, sports in politics.

And it should be an interesting discussion with James Moore and Jerry Butts on the Moore-Buts conversation for this week. That's on Wednesday. Thursday will be a question of the week, and you heard what it was. We asked you to get your answers in. The question basically is simple.

It's do you think that the Canada-U.S. relationship has changed forever or that it may at some point get back to the way, at least some semblance of the way it used to be. That's Thursday's question of the week, along with the random ranter. So we look forward to hearing your thoughts on that. Get your answers in before 6 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday. The Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. Less than 75 words, fewer than 75 words, sorry.

Your name and your location. our prerequisites for all of that. Okay, I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening today. It's been a good show. We'll talk again in less than 24 hours.