The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Raj and Russo -- Back to the Future

Episode Date: December 2, 2025

What to make of Mark Carney's decision to reach back into the Trudeau cabinet to replace another minister who quit? That's the question to the Toronto Star's Althia Raj and The Economist's Rob Russo on this latest episode of Reporter's Notebook. Also, what our two correspondents are hearing about the ongoing competition between the U.S. F35 fighter jet and Sweden's Gripen. Billions are at stake and thousands of jobs. 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. Mark Carney brings back a Trudeau-era cabinet into his cabinet. What does that say? Raj Russo, joining us. Coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansprich here. Welcome to Tuesday, Tuesday of...

The first week of December, and as always, lots happening out there. And lots happening for Althea Raj and Rob Russo, who join us for this week's edition of Reporter's Notebook. Glad to have them with us. They'll be joining us in just a couple of minutes' time. It gives us an opportunity to remind you of the question of the week, and there have been lots of answers already to this in just day one of answer gathering times. The question this week is, would you want Canada to buy its next fighter jet from Sweden,

even if the planes are not as good in some ways, as the American option? So that's the Swedish Gripen or the American F-35. I think you know the background of this story. It's a really important one, and it involves not only Canada's economy, Canada's expenses But Canada's defenses and security They're all wrapped into this story So it wants your views on this

And we've already had a lot of letters So keep that in mind Keep it in mind that it has to be 75 words or fewer Your answer You send it to The Mansbridge Podcast At Gmail.com The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com You have until 6 p.m.

Eastern time tomorrow to get your answers in. And you have to remember to include your name and the location you're writing from. If you don't check all those boxes, it doesn't have a chance of making it to air on Thursday. Anyway, look forward to reading your answers. And once again, the time slot, 6 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow. Make sure your answers are in. The sooner you get them in, the better. All right.

We have a number of topics to go over, including that one, the fighter jet story with Rob Russo and Althea Raj. So why don't we stop wasting time, Masbridge, and get to the point. Here's our discussion with Rob and Althea. All right, you two. I want to try and understand what happened yesterday in the prime minister's cabinet appointment. If I'd had to bet that he was going to bring back a Trudeau-era cabinet minister,

I would not have taken that bet. I just didn't think that was possible at all. In fact, if anything, I thought he was still trying to clear house of Trudeau-era cabinet ministers. But he brings back Mark Miller, and it's not necessarily a reflection on Miller, but it is a reflection on the decision. So why did Mark Carney do that, Althea, What are you hearing? Well, I'm not in his head, but I suspect there are a few reasons.

First of all, actually, Stephen Giboo said on Khadzu Canada last night that he recommended Mark Miller replace him. Mark Miller, I would say, had a very good reputation as immigration minister. He's not just a good communicator, but he knows how to drive forward an agenda. And one of the things that has been very clear from Mr. Carney's tenure is that he wants to have change happen quickly. And so having an experienced hand who, you know, knows the machinery of government in order to deliver, I think is useful. I think basically it was almost going to be like hunger games, right? Like you have a white man opening in cabinet.

You have someone who's a Quebecer. It's important if you saw Mr. Giebu's performance. on Tumont-A-Pal that, you know, how important the cultural sector is to Quebecers, and so you have somebody in that role. I think that probably outweighed the concerns about bringing back Mark Miller as an image of the Trudeau-era government. He got a call on Sunday, actually. So it wasn't a decision that had been, you know, simmering since Mr. Giebu handed his resignation. and Mr. Miller on CBC yesterday said that he actually went to meet with the prime minister

to sit down and make sure that the two were aligned before saying yes. Rob, you got any thoughts on this? Yeah. I think that Mr. Miller was among those who was probably looking at the exit, particularly if he wasn't going to be in the bigger shuffle that everybody expects early in the year. He was a lawyer. He did very well as a lawyer. practice and has a lucrative career waiting for them outside of that.

So there are a number of people who were in cabinet before, including some of the people who were cabinet, as they call it, the election cabinet, who are waiting to see whether or not they're going to be in. In terms of Mr. Miller himself, he was quite critical of the Trudeau immigration record. Let's not forget, when he got the post, he said, this is a bit of a mess, and we're going have to clean it up. So I think that that probably won him some admirers among those around the prime minister.

The other thing that I think is important is that he was considered by indigenous leaders as a very good indigenous service or sort of I can't remember the exact title because it's indigenous services and also sort of the minister responsible for reconciliation and everything else. Indigenous leaders quite liked working with him, thought that he delivered. I think the word that they used for both Mr. Miller and

Mr. Trudeau was they walked a mile on our moccasins. They tried to understand where we have been and where we're trying to go. And I think that's really important for the second appointment that was made yesterday. Huge national

unity implications. Joel Lightbound is now the the Quebec lieutenant. Everybody is gearing up for a referendum in the province of Quebec. I think that this is all part of gearing up for the referendum in the province of Quebec. Mr. Miller will play an important role, I think, with indigenous leaders. They will have a much greater say in the unity of Canada over the next little while, particularly in Western Canada.

Mr. Miller's relationship with indigenous leaders, I think, will serve him well. Mr. Lightbound's sort of break with Mr. Trudeau, particularly on things like vaccine, the 21 campaign in particular, his knowledge of Quebec, he's seen as a pretty savvy political operator, and we're going to need them in the province of Quebec. Right now, the no side, if there was a campaign right now, would be led nominally by Pablo Rodriguez, who's in the middle of a scandal as leader of the Quebec Liberal Party. So Canada is going to need some very articulate, forceful, respected spokespeople

if there is a referendum, and there is going to be one of the PQs elected in the first term. So those two appointments are very important in the national unity context as well. Okay, well, let me just go at it from this angle for a moment. If one believes some of the things you hear about the initial decisions on a cabinet that Mark Carney made after the election.

It was that he wanted to move out all the former Trudeau ministers. He didn't want any Trudeau ministers at all in his cabinet. He was persuaded that that's probably not the right way to go at this moment. Now, he cleared out a lot, but he didn't take them all out. So here, in one of his first opportunities after that, what does he do, he brings one back in? So what's, what do you, if you believe step one, which was like right after the election, what would encourage him to do this now?

It's not like there aren't other potential cabinet ministers in that caucus. He decides to go after one. I don't want this to make it, I don't want to sound like that I'm disparaging Mark Miller in any way because I, in fact, I quite, quite like him. I agree with Althea and Rob about his past performances in a couple of portfolios. They weren't perfect. They didn't go without some criticism. But I felt especially in the indigenous file, he made a lot of good friends.

And he moved quickly on some of the water issues. They're still not completed, but he moved a lot in that direction. Anyway, so take me into Mark, if I didn't know, yeah, I'll see. Into his head again. I was going to say, I'll see it will say, I can't get into his head. But what's the thing? What do you think, what would you guess is the thinking there as to why he would do that? If, in fact, he believed earlier that he had to get, he had to get rid of the Trudeau taint out of that cabinet.

Okay, well, he didn't completely get. rid of the Trudeau taint from that cabinet because Stephen Giboo was recruited by Justin Trudeau to be basically the Environment Minister but was given heritage first and then environment. Melania Jolie remained in a very senior public role as well. And then there were all the people that he kind of convinced to come back into politics like Anita Anon and Sean Fraser

who also found themselves around the cabinet table, right? So it wasn't, he kept people that he thought were beneficial to him. And in that light, Stephen Giboo in Quebec is a very popular figure. I mean, you can just see from the media coverage over the last few days how much he's part of the culture, frankly, of the place. And so I think that they realized that they were kind of created, they had kind of created a Quebec problem that they needed to fix. And some of the chances, if you want to say it that way, that Mr. Carney made early in his first post-election cabinet, haven't necessarily panned out. They have not been the most performing of cabinet ministers. And this is not a permanent cabinet shuffle.

Everybody expects a larger shuffle is coming. So it's kind of like a Band-Aid solution. And I'm going to see what you do and what you can deliver. deliver for me. And maybe you will find yourself in cabinet or maybe you will find yourself like a few of the cabinet ministers in the pre-election Kearney cabinet who did not find themselves in the post-election Kearney cabinet. So I think for Mark Miller, he basically has to prove his worth as a voice that represents Quebec's interest, but also is able to deliver for the prime minister and offers him counsel that he feels is valuable.

For Mr. Lightbound, I think, actually, Mr. Gippo said that was another one of his suggestion, so clearly Mr. Kibu still has some weight around the prime ministers here. Mr. Lightbound is a kind of rising star. He's kind of like the future of the Liberal Party. And in that way, it's giving him space to operate. I don't, I think that it was a good thing that it didn't go, frankly, to a Trudeau-era cabinet minister because Mr. Carney can now put his own stamp on what that Quebec lieutenant should do and, you know, that person is the person that is going to go on all the talk show and basically

represent the Carney government. So it's really important. And I do think that they were so focused with the MOU on Alberta sovereignty and helping Danielle Smith with a problem in Alberta that they didn't really focus on what it meant for Quebec sovereignty and the problem that they were creating in Quebec. And now they're, you know, some might say they're over-correcting for that, but they're clearly correcting for that. And just to Rob's point,

I think it's important to note that, like, not only is Mark Miller perfectly bilingual, but he also speaks Mohawk. You know, like, if you're trying to find a perfect person to talk about canine identity, Mark Miller is probably a good person to put in that role. He has another language, too, isn't it? I think he speaks Swedish.

Swedish, yeah. Yeah, his wife is Swedish, yeah. So he'll be all over the jet fighter decision then, too. We'll get to that in a minute. The last point on this particular issue, Rob. Well, I was putting the other list of Trudeau error ministers just starting who have left. And now it's Gilbo, it's Freeland, it's Blair, it's Wilkinson,

Karina Gould. I'm sure there are others who've been left out. So he has made a start. it's just I don't know that a rookie prime minister or rookie politician could get rid of all of them and not flounder and flail away out there is some talent there I think that that's without a doubt

and I would tend to agree with you that in terms of the indigenous relationship in particular Mark Miller has talent and he has he has also the capacity of being quite blunt, which I think this Prime Minister appreciates. So he's made a start. He's not done.

It'll be interesting to see how long Mr. Miller stays. Again, it was my thought that he would be headed for the exits and a job in a prestigious law firm. He's already spent time working in law in New York. So let's see what happens in a month. or two when everybody is expecting another shuffle. If I can just add one last thing, I think what's interesting about these selections

is that they're both quite authentic people. Like they're not ministers or before they were ministers, MPs who are known for lying to the public or lying to reporters. Like they're quite genuine and authentic. And it's nice when, you know, nice people get elevated. You make it sound like that's so strange in politics. I'm sorry to say, but it kind of is.

Yeah. You know, which is unfortunate because that is the perception that most Canadians have, right? Well, you know, I don't know if you want to go here, but I think that's kind of the problem with the MOU with Alberta. You know, the liberals spent 20 years telling us the climate change was the most important thing and how the Harper Conservative government

was not taking climate change seriously. And then Justin Trudeau spent 10 years telling Canadians that we needed to sacrifice for the climate because this was an existential crisis and we really needed to do everything we could. And a lot of progressive voters believe that, still believe that. And then this MOU drops and it kind of tears away at everything

that Justin Trudeau spent political capital convincing Canadians of. And I think that that, is a problem that Mr. Carney needs to address. But didn't Justin Trudeau also, if not stumble, he failed on a lot of his own objectives. The parliamentary budget office came out with a report recently, which said that there was no way that they were going to attain their GHG reduction levels under the current regime. And that was true when Mr. Gilbo was environment.

Well, that's not quite accurate. So what happened is they actually introduced legislation and did they beefed up their targets. So they made them harder to achieve because they wanted to raise the scope of the ambition. And they argued that we need to be driving at something and we may not achieve those targets. But at least we will be making the effort to move in that direction. And so if they had kept the old policies, it would have been challenging to meet the 2030 targets. But like the Climate Institute suggests that, you know, there was a path. to meet them? Was there a pathway to meet the 45% reduction targets? That seems very hard.

But maybe there is something. Maybe you do need to, you know, raise the bar in order to achieve the initial target that you had set for yourself. I guess what I'm trying to say is it's not like they sat on their thumbs and they did nothing, right? Like they did try to make the case that the economy and the environment went together. You know, they did try to say, yes, Alberta, we agree with you. It is unfair that your resources are landlocked and we, you know, you deserve to have this rural royalty revenue and we want to help you and this is a Pan Canadian project and we're going to get the TMX pipeline built because we can't get it built otherwise. And when we're going to compensate and we're going to have a consumer carbon price and we're going to have an industrial

carbon price and we're going to, you know, have clean fuel standards and we're going to have clean electricity regulations and methane regulations and we're moving forward. And it's that infrastructure that is crumbling now, right? Because there's no political will to drive it forward. But in fairness, could anybody be surprised that some crumbling was going to take place when he was promising during a campaign that he was going to turn Canada into an energy superpower, Carney, I mean? And the other truth is we were on our way to becoming an energy superpower.

The amount of oil that was exported from Canada, while Mr. Trudeau was prime minister, and while Mr. Gearbow was in the cabinet, was a gusher. There was a huge increase in oil exports, primarily because of TMX, but also because of increased capacity sent to the United States. So, you know, I don't doubt their objectives. I don't doubt the sincerity of them. I've said in the past that I believe that Canada and Canadians,

we like to consider ourselves the most virtuous virgins when it comes to the environment, but that isn't the case. Even in the province of Quebec, where EV pickup is higher than any other province in the nation, there is also the fact that they buy more SUVs than anywhere else in the nation as well. We have a difficult time in Canada reconciling the reality of our distances and our cold climate with our objectives. It's a hard, hard thing to do. And as we just saw from the carbon tax, which I thought made a lot of sense.

It was clear. Politically, it's just impossible to sell some of this stuff. It really is. And now we're put into a situation where there have been tectonic shifts in our relationship with the United States. In the market for energy, Europeans now need our desperate for our LNG in particular

because of the cutoff from Russia. And we need to find new markets, new jobs for our people. That shift is huge. It's seismic. And we're going to have to, it seems, Mr. Carney is recognized, not just become an energy superpower because we have all of these resources. We need the revenue. We need the jobs.

Okay. We've got to move on. But I know Elsie, I know Elsie. I know Elsie. Thea wants to make a couple of brief comments on that before we do. So go ahead. Well, first of all, I think during the election, progressive voters, and frankly, Mark Carney kind of said both things to all types of people, right?

And Quebecers heard, this is the guy that wrote values. This is the guy who said that the most important thing that governments around the world need to be focused on is on climate change. He wrote that. So they believed him when he said that, right? So I think that's a problem for him. and you had people like Stephen Gibble going on all the show is saying vote for Mark Carney, I trust him.

I believe he will work on the environment. On this idea of we are an energy superpower, I don't think anybody is saying they don't want Canada to be exploiting its resource. There are some people who are saying that. But I don't think that that's where a lot of people who are focused on climate are also focused on. It's not about we want to get no more LNG. I don't think everybody's on the Elizabeth May's

Green Party side of this but they kind of want things to be moving in parallel and that seems like that is the challenge I think with the MOU. And on the climate policies, look, the government did a horrible job, the Trudeau government did a horrible job of communicating the carbon price to consumers.

There are other issues. You know, Quebec, a reason people have a lot of electric vehicle is because energy is super cheap in Quebec. And big subsidies too. There were subsidies, but there used to be subsidies in Ontario too before Doug Ford got rid of them. And frankly, the federal government had subsidies

before it got rid of them. But also, there's an infrastructure that's been developed that the government of Quebec has spent resources developing that doesn't really exist in any of the other provinces except possibly for British Columbia. So, you know, you can have a policy agenda, but if you're not implementing all the parts of your policy agenda, then your policy is going to fail.

And that's why you need someone who believes in the agenda and is continuing to drive it forward. Okay. We're going to take a break. And then we'll come back. We're going to talk jet fighters for a minute, which is another story that I find fascinating to watch unfold in this.

In the past little while, and who knows where it's going to go in the future because it has so many issues tied to it. We'll do that. right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge for this Tuesday, and this Tuesday is reporter's notebook

with Althea Raj from the Toronto Star and the economist Rob Russo. Althea is in Ottawa. Rob today is in Spain. He and his wife just watched their son run his first marathon. So good for him. He did finish.

It was a little tricky. It was a tough day, but he finished, and that's what matters in a marathon, so good for him. Okay, you're listening on Sirius X-M, Channel 167, Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform. We made a little aside about Mark Miller's proficiency in the Swedish language, which is interesting right now, because we have a decision is going to be made at some point

on Canada's next fleet of jet fighters. We've already purchased 16 F-35s, which is the fancy American jet fighter. It's more than fancy. It's whatever they call it fifth generation or sixth generation. It's quite the machine. It's not gone without its problems over the 20 years or so that it's been on the drawing board. But nevertheless, we've purchased 16, and there's the option of buying as many as 88 of these fighters. cost billions and billions of dollars.

Well, Mark Carney decided during the election campaign, or just prior to it, actually, that we were going to re-look at the extension of F-35s and see whether there was something else that could compete with it. I don't think anybody took that too seriously at the time because there were certain commitments made on the F-35, but it certainly looked at much more seriously right now. The Swedes certainly have, the Saab manufacturer of the grip. and wants to sell their plane much cheaper with certain advantages to Canada. Not necessarily as good a plane as the F-35, but still a good aircraft.

Anyway, the decision here now intersects with all kinds of things, like the Canada-U.S. relationship, like the Carney-Trump relationship, like tariffs, like all kinds of things. And it seems to be now very much not a clear-cut decision in the way this thing is going, that anything might be possible here. So I want to get your opening thoughts on this, where we are on this jet fighter situation. And Rob, you start us on this round. Sure.

I think we've got to look at performance, first of all, in 2021. Department of National Defense conducted a study, Radio Canada, reported on this last week, that showed the F-35 was superior in every sense to the Gripin. So there is that. Now, I understand, I think most people understand, a couple of things. New contexts and perspectives have come into the decision. One of them is this notion of strategic autonomy. Do we want to be reliant on a United States, particularly the United States led by somebody like Donald Trump, for our military procurement when it comes to something as important

as the ability to defend our own skies? I'll come back to that in a second because I think it's important. The other important benefit, whenever you're discussing military procurement in Canada, are the industrial benefits. And it's clear that Saab is offering, in terms of industrial benefits a far better package. They're offering us the capacity to build planes in Canada, something that we haven't done, really, since Canada.

While Canada are still here, we're building some of them, but in terms of military planes, we haven't done it for a long, long time, more than half a century. There are costs. There are costs to both approaches. You know, one of them is we're going to have to pay more to maintain two fleets of airlines. I just heard the prime minister say

that if we're going to choose submarines, we're only going to choose one because it makes no sense in terms of cost to maintain two fleets of submarines. So does the same not hold for airplanes? I would suggest that it might, but again, strategic autonomy comes into play. There are increased costs to defending our Arctic

if we go with a plane that's less interoperable with that of the United States, I would imagine. And I think it might have an impact on our relationship with NORAD. Right now, NORAD is, you know, for all intents and purposes, it's hierarchical, but in terms of the way it's laid out, in fact, in terms of the agreement,

there's a dual command structure. Will that change if we go with another airplane? It just might. And then again, I come back to that performance issue. And the trade issue is the other one. Will Donald Trump be incensed? If we go with the other plane, yes, he will. Will it have an impact on the negotiations without a doubt?

But is that a cost worth paying? I think if you ask most Canadians right now, I think they'd say yes. I mean, you just look at the reaction to the Doug Ford ad. People said, we don't care. If it offends Mr. Trump, we're doing that. We don't care if it threatens our trade discussions with Mr. Trump. We're for it. I understand that, but there are costs.

There are all kinds of costs, military costs, fiscal costs, and operability costs, if we do that. Okay. Just one thing I'd say on the size of the fleet. I mean, the submarines were talking at most a dozen. right aircraft we could be talking 100 yes and there are there are European nations that maintain dual fleets yeah and so did we used to yeah when we actually had sizable fleets of fighters I'll see you what are you hearing on this it's like well I'm not going to argue with you but fleet sizes um I have been told that that actually could be a benefit if we have two different

kinds of aircraft. The concerns that have been raised around the cabinet table, I'm told, relate to security concerns. Basically, that the Americans could decide to withhold parts. The information that the plane gathers basically goes to the United States. That is the security risk that we're dependent on them, basically to keep the planes in the air. And that the Swedes would be a more reliant partner on that that the review, the evaluation that the partner of national defense did

that was published by the CBC Reds Ganada. It's been suggested to me by people who know that basically you know, it's no secret. D&D wants the F-35. They have wanted the F-35

for the past 20 years and they we you know there is a way to this is what was suggested to me if you're trying to drive at a certain outcome you kind of fix the contest so that it looks like the plane that you want to get is the one that is going to be recommended whether or not that's true i cannot tell you but uh there is a suggestion within the government that some of the information they're getting from the department is not necessarily the most unbiased and neutral um they have the government has been driving this economic benefit argument. Now we've heard Menendia, the industry minister, give it, that we did not

get enough economic benefits from the F-35. We could get more economic benefits from this new deal with the Swedes. How does that fit in Mark Carney's vision of Canada kind of as a military defense power when we are trying to also reorient ourselves closer to Europe? Does that fit in the prime measures objectives. I would say probably. The other question is they are so much cheaper. They are so, so, so much cheaper. And it's possible that the government will just decide that the cost and the

economic benefits, the skills trade, especially when we're thinking that, you know, is possible that there will be tens of thousands of auto workers who find themselves without jobs that will be looking for new employment, that this is something that we could be investing in. And as far as the Donald Trump angle, you know, we are now in a deep freeze with the White House, it seems. The trade negotiations are not happening. There is a feeling that the tide has shifted

and that buying time actually plays in Canada's favor and that the prime minister is, pardon me, the president is probably not going to pull out of the USMCA Kuzma right before the midterms. I mean, it's not that that's not going to hurt us because if we go on a kind of year-by-year thing, it is still the uncertainty still reigns over Canada and that still will be cooling to business income. But it's kind of hard to negotiate when you're already at zero. And the Americans increasingly kind of treat us like there's some sort of drug lord or mafia boss over us, constantly demanding more and more

and, you know, Prime Minister Carney has given on the digital service tax. He has given on the retaliatory tariffs and, you know, what has Canada gotten in return? So I don't know that that is a convincing argument to the public. Okay, a couple of points on all that. Cheaper is not necessarily better, as we all know,

on a lot of things. But what cheaper does do is it gives you, it gives you another pot of money that you can do something else. with on the defense side. And more and more people are saying, why are we dealing on jet fighters? We should be dealing on drones

and building our own drone industry. And some of that money that could be left over if we went Grypins could be used for that. Just saying, let me tell you something else that I've just noticed this week. You know, here at the bridge, we do a question of the week each week. And it's quite revealing because I think the, you know, the audience for the bridges of sharp, it's smart, it's thoughtful, it throws out all kinds of possibilities when we ask the question of the week.

And this week's question of the week is basically comes down to F-35 or Grippin, where's your head on this? And I would have thought it would probably be fairly, even if not tilting towards the F-35, given the Defense Department. study that was done and the fact they've got a very strong lobby group but so to the Swedes at least we've seen in the last couple of weeks with the King and Queen coming to Canada and saying all kinds

of good things about their products anyway so that was the question and there have been you know this is hardly scientific this is not a poll or research of that nature but it is thoughtful answers it's not just sort of yes or no it's why do you feel

this way and the answers that have come in are tilted in favor, I'd say heavily in favor at this point, there's still a couple of days to go, in favor of the Gripin, the Swedish aircraft.

And why? Cost is one reason. But the overwhelming reason is we can't trust the Americans anymore. We just can't trust them to Althea's point about some of the concern around the cabinet table. And all these issues about what they could do with data that we bring in through the Canadian F-35s

that has to go through the U.S. before it even gets to us and that they can push some magic button somewhere and make all the F-35s in Canada, inoperable. I don't know whether that's true or not. But nevertheless, that's some of the feeling out there. And it's quite deep. I mean, we all know about some of the anti-American feelings of the Canadians have decided on this year.

But this, in these letters, I've found quite something. It's very firm and it's overwhelming in the letters so far, as I said, so far. What do you make of that, Rob? Well, I don't think it's a surprise. I mean, Donald Trump has said that Canada doesn't make sense as a country and that it would make more sense. if we became the 51st state and he's going to charge us a lot more to

well he's used the word coercion he's going to use economic coercion to make us come to that realization so it's not a surprise it shouldn't be a surprise that Canadians feel that way that being said I think there is a mutual interest in Canada

in the United States in defending the continent. The United States realizes that Canada's north is no longer the empty attic of North America, that if we don't fill it with something to defend the continent, then the Chinese and the Russians will be there. The other reality is when we make a decision like something like Rippin v. F-35,

is Canada has, for the first or the last 125 years, I'd say, been an expeditionary force. We go overseas a lot of the time. World War is when it started, and then First World War, Second World War, Korea kept going. Well, I think Mr. Carney and others have now come to the realization that we cannot adequately defend up to 40% of our own territory. And in order to do that,

we have to become more of a force that can defend ourselves. And that makes us no longer an expeditionary, force, but a force that spends more time at home. We see it already in things like disaster relief and other things, that the forces are required more at home now on this issue of sovereignty. We're going to have to be able to stay here and defend ourselves. Right now, what I call this period of peril between the time that Mr. Carney can achieve his economic objectives and the time when he can diversify,

we are reliant on the United States economically and for our security. There is a, I think, joint logic in the two countries working together to defend North America for threats coming over the horizon. I think Mr. Carney is recognizing this when he talks about involvement in something like Golden Dome as well. One last thing on the App 35, it's not just the flyboys who think that that's the better plane. civilians at D&D also believe that it's the better plane. You speak to some senior public servants there who are dispassionate, and they say that it makes sense that the government is using this discussion to leverage more out of the United States,

either bring down the price or more industrial benefits. It doesn't make sense to buy the Gripin over the F-35. I'll see you get the last word, Elsie is. If you can point it towards... As usual. Yeah. If you can point it towards the Trump-Karney meeting, such as it's going to be later this week at the FIFA, you know, soccer ball,

toss-up whatever it is that they're going to be doing down there in Washington or New York or wherever it is. Okay, so two things. One, it's interesting to note that there is debate, even within the senior ministers in charge of the file. So to Rob's point, the advice that David McGinty, the defense minister has been given, like others before him, is that they have 35 is the plan that they want. And this is a very, very important issue, it seems, for the department.

And political leaders who have come before and have not done what the department wanted have found themselves to be the subject of a very embarrassing leaks. And so I'm sure that that does not weigh behind his motivations in the back of his head. But I will say that Steve Fior, who's like the procurement junior minister, is adamantly opposed to an F-35. And that's the reason he got into politics. So it's, and he used to be a fighter jet pilot.

So there is a very live debate even between the two about what should be the plane that we end up getting. it is absolutely imperative it makes total sense that we are playing both sides against each other as we should in a negotiation the fact that we had the king and queen of Sweden come to Ottawa in a full press court to try to get this plane obviously did not go a notice in Washington and so I don't know where we're going to end up But the fact that we would be trying to extract the most concession when we're, you know, you're being courted on both sides is the right strategy. With regards to Mark Carney and Donald Trump's visit, well, I'm told that they, and I believe actually the prime minister said this publicly, they're still texting.

So they may not be in negotiations, but they're talking and it's at least civil and they're joking around with each other. And so I don't expect that we will have a breakthrough in terms of lifting. a steel terrace, for example, this week. But at least they're in communications, and I don't expect that there will be a ton of news coming out of that. But I wait to be surprised. At least they're not playing golf together.

Does Kearney golf, Rob? I don't know. He does not, but he is a big soccer fan. Loves tears for team called Everton in the Premier League and believes that his FIFA. responsibility to go to this draw later on this week. Well, he should go.

Aren't we co-hosting? He plays tennis, doesn't he? Yeah, and he's a runner. Every morning. And he's a goalie. Hockey as well. Hockey goalie. He's doing less of a skating on the ice

these days. Okay, listen, good discussion. Thank you. Thank you both. And we'll see you in two weeks just before the Christmas holiday season break. So we look forward to that discussion as well. Rob Russo, Althea Raj. Take care.

Thank you. There you go. The reporter's notebook for this Tuesday, Raj and Rousseau, Althea Raj, Rob Russo, joining us as they do every second Tuesday. Next week, it'll be more butts conversation number 29, I believe it is. get these numbers wrong and then

Althea Raj and Rob will be back the following week the last one before the break okay that's going to wrap it up for today remember tomorrow

I did say we're going to do an encore edition tomorrow but you know I changed my mind Mark Bulgut sent me some great ideas for end bits so I've got some some in bits for you for tomorrow and we'll do

that as a Wednesday special, end bits. And Thursday, we're back with your turn. The answers on your thoughts on the Gippin versus the F-35, plus the random ranter. And Friday, of course, is a good talk with Chantel and Bruce. That's it for this week. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening.

Talk to you again in less than 24 hours. Thank you.