The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Raj and Russo: Will Pierre Poilievre Hold On To His Job?

Episode Date: January 27, 2026

It's a big week for Conservatives. On Friday night in Calgary Pierre Poilievre gets the verdict from his party membership -- a leadership review vote will determine his future. Rob Russo and Althia Raj have their thoughts on that. 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 Tuesday, Reporter's Notebook this week. Althea Raj, Rob Russo, coming right up. And hello, once again, Peter Mansbridge here. Crazy week in national politics, as you know. There have been lots happening in Ottawa. But there'll be lots happening in Calgary on Friday night

when Pierre Palliev tries to establish himself as the leader of the conservative party backed by a large percentage of that party's membership. We'll find out what happens on Friday night, but there's lots more to talk about as well. On this week's edition of Reporter's Notebook with Althea Raj and Rob Russo, a couple of reminders before we get started. Thursday's your turn is, in fact, another Ask Me Anything program, still going on the questions you sent in on the first week, three weeks ago. We'll do our final segment with Ask Me Anything,

with as many questions of yours that we can get in and the answers that go with it. Also, The Random Ranter will be here. Friday is good talk. Chantelle and Bruce will be here. I still haven't figured out of what to do tomorrow, but we'll get there. It may be an encore edition tomorrow.

Because it's been a crazy week. If for nothing else, then shoveling snow. Here in the dark corners of central. Canada, we've been huddling by the fireplace because it's so cold and bitterly cold. What accent is that? Anyway, that's as the week progresses.

Time now to get into what we got for this week with our good friend Althea Raj from the Toronto Star and Rob Russo from The Economist. So enjoy this. Here's our discussion for this week. You know, sometimes you wake up and everything seems to be upside down. You know, I look at the headlines today. Doug Ford praising the government's auto strategy. You have, you know, Pierre-Pololiev,

clearly seeming to try and find some common ground with the government on some issues. And then you have Scott Bassand, who's kind of a bit of a unguided missile at times as a Treasury Secretary for Donald Trump coming out and saying that basically Mark Carney walked back everything he said in Davos during a phone call with Donald Trump yesterday, that he was in the Oval Office and overheard. So you're left, you know, like what of this stuff do you really believe? And I'd kind of like to start on the last point, on the dissent thing, and see what you have to say. I mean, we're recording this at a time where there's been no response from the PMO, and there may never be. because they don't tend to put out printouts of phone calls between leaders. But nevertheless, if it's true, that seems like quite something to say a week after Davos.

What are you hearing, if anything else, you'll see you, why don't you start? Nothing, because the Prime Minister's Office, as we record this, is not responded, which I think speaks to a deeper problem on transparency, frankly, coming out of this P.A. M. Scott Bissette says a lot of things. Like last week he was talking about Alberta separatism

and basically cheering it on and suggesting that Alberta has a lot more in common with the United States than would be better off if it was joining the United States and that the United States should be cheering on and supporting the movement.

So I don't know. But I have heard from other sources that there was a phone call with Donald Trump, what was said between the two leaders unclear. But if we judged by the past, it's not uncommon for the prime minister when he was liberal leader, when he was campaigning during the election to use stronger words publicly than he was saying in that phone call, the details of which to emerge later on, almost nearly towards the end of the election campaign, that first fond call with Donald Trump,

his public meetings in the White House, the tone that he has taken with the president when he's with him in person. So I don't know, probably the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. Well, I don't know. The middle doesn't seem... Well, it would be a bit of a shock considering what happened in the last week. He could walk back everything, he said in Davos.

I doubt he walked back that middle powers should be working together so that, you know, we're not running towards the lowest common denominator and kind of screwing everybody else and ourselves. But I think he was probably trying to explain to the U.S. administration who seemed either willfully blind, uninformed, or was trying to make a bigger issue out of this trade agreement, the trade MOU, tariffs, whatever you want to call them, recorrections with China.

that this was not, you know, Ottawa sitting down and wanting to have a, the type of trade relationship they have with the United States. Like, that's what I mean by, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Okay. What do you make of it, Rob? I think Lthia makes an important point at the beginning when she said, we don't know what's happened because the prime minister's office hasn't given us a readout. And that is an important point, not because reporters bellyache when they don't know what's going. on. We do. But in this instance, the mushroom cloud from Mount Marilago is going to billow out for a long time in an instance like this. And you have to be in a position to control the fallout.

And if the White House or Scott Besant in this instance is putting out their version of events, you're going to be forced to react and it's going to put you in an unflattering light. particularly when we're dealing with a president who is very much like a toddler and cannot be seen to be bested at any particular time. So what do we know for sure since we don't have a readout from our side? Well, we know that yesterday, it seems the prime minister, as well as the trade minister, or the minister responsible for U.S. trade trade, were both on the phone. Dominic LeBlanc was on the phone with Jameson Greer, the U.S. trade representative as well. And so that suggested there was a full court press to deal with something in the threat of the 100% tariff. That tells me that they were taking that threat very seriously if there's a full court press going on like that.

Despite the prime minister's sanguine public posture, they were they were clearly, clearly worried about it. In terms of Scott Besson, he was the guy who was initially seen by many in this government as the kind of rational. governor on people like Peter Navarro and others who were irrational actors when it came to tariffs and trade. But I don't think that that can be said anymore. I think you can actually accuse Scott Besson of sanewashing the president on a number of occasions. He's the guy who said that there was make-believe in the Bureau of Labor Statistics when everybody knew that politicizing things like labor statistics and inflation data was going on. to be bad for for the economy he also called inflation in effect or affordability a mirage and said that

he seemed to intimate that inflation was more prevalent in democratic states than it was in republican states when the president suddenly developed cancels he he insisted that uh trump was a kind of guy who could leap greenland in one single tall bound so he's he's kind of strayed from the rational actor into the guy that in a sense kind of polishes Trump whenever he gets rough and rough and rough. So it's hard to take Besson seriously. I don't think we should take his version seriously. But I do think, I do think it's evident that the Canadian government was alarmed by the

100% threat and went into a full scale response to defend what Mr. Carney had said. Now, I wasn't Davos. I can tell you, except for a couple of phrases, initially it didn't seem that shocking to me, with the exception of two phrases. Because everything that Mr. Carney had said in Davos, he'd said beginning, I think, April 3rd of 2025, when he said in a speech that if the United States wasn't prepared to lead,

that Canada would. And since then, since last April, he's been evolving that position. So none of this should have come as a surprise. I just think that it was the context. I can tell you that was different. Being in Europe at a time when the Europeans felt like the Supreme Commander of NATO was going to attack a fellow European country, there was fear there. There was certainly panic.

And the European leader seemed supine. I think that Mr. Carney's cry came as a kind of inspirational jolt to them. And the other contextual thing that was different was Trump was going to show up the next day and was going to have to answer to someone who had actually stood up to him when the European leaders seemed cowed by him. So I think that's the difference. And I think that Mr. Trump and the administration smarted from that, that mushroom cloud continues to billow out.

Yesterday, I think we saw the beginning, or it seems we saw the beginning of Canada trying to contain that fallout. I still find it a bit I still find it a bit odd I mean it must it must suggest if you're if you're right Rob and I want Althea to respond on this too if you're right it sounds like we were kind of naive

or at least the Canadian delegation was kind of naive when they when they said what they said and the way they said it last week if they didn't expect this kind of blowback they must have expected there was going to be back? I think they did expect it. I think that they were probably surprised. I know that they were surprised that the reaction, initial reaction, was as mild as it was. I think they clearly preconditioned the Trump administration on the deal with China. So I would share their befuddlement if all of a

sudden they're confusing that with a free trade deal. That makes me think that that they're trying to pick up a twig and use it as a billy club in this because they knew that this was not a free trade deal they knew that this was not going to be an abrogation of the of the kuzma they they they were bested on on a grand stage and they don't like that particularly the president doesn't like that but did did did mr carney underestimate the reaction that i'm not sure but i think that they were surprised initially that it was as mild as it was Okay. You know, Carney wasn't born yesterday. He's been in things like this basically all his life. So he must have realized what was going to come as a result of what he said. Althea? I'm obviously not in the prime minister's head, but I would say not just realize what was going to come, but want what was going to come.

Like you don't write a speech like that, poking the bear, expecting that there is no. response whatsoever. And politically, frankly, it doesn't hurt the liberals to be engaging in rhetoric that way. I don't know that they anticipated the international response. Like, we all consume a lot of American news on this panel. Very rarely do some of the shows that I listen to talk about Canada. And I was surprised by the framing, like in the New York Times, in the Washington Post. full panels on PBS involving Canada. Like Canada never figures in anything.

And then all of a sudden, people started saying, hey, not just is Donald Trump, Donald Trump, but he's doing lasting damage to America. Problems is that we may not be able to fix once he's gone. And so I think that that is part of the reason that it caused the reaction that we saw in the United States. and I'm only following the kind of Ford, Ronald Reagan ad playbook from the fall, where at first, president doesn't seem that concern with it.

Like, even his jab at Davos about, you know, like Canada lives because of the United States, remember that mark. You know, that's kind of mild for Donald Trump. But then the story starts percolating, like the ads start getting traction and people start talking about them. And now, like, people, the president cares seem to have responded. And I think that that seems to be what has happened. And then the president threatens a 10% tariff, which I think we should all remember. He never actually enacted. And here the president threatens a 100% tariff, which is insane. So I have no expectation that the White House would

follow through. I think that. I think, like Pete Hochstra, the U.S. ambassador's comments on the F-35, I think a lot of this is posturing for the Kuzma negotiations and reminding Canadians that they're negotiating from a place of weakness and like don't get too big for yourself, you know? Like let's remember that you need this more than we do. I think it does demonstrate a reality, though, that Canada needs to be mindful of. And the government needs to be mindful of.

I spoke to Francis Donald for a piece for the magazine this week. And she says, like, Canada is in a position. They're like firemen. They've got a fire they've got to put out, big fire, at the same time that they're trying to renovate the fire station. It's very difficult to do both simultaneously. And that's where we're in. We've got a huge fire going on south of the border. We need a trade agreement with the United States. It's going to take years, years. Not just to diversify our trade strategy. We're doing that already. He's going to be in India in the first week of March. You know, that seems to be happening. But the truth is, we can't get our goods

to those markets right now in a very effective way, in a huge way, the way that Mr. Carney would like before we build the infrastructure, before we build the roads, before we build the ports, and the airports, and Churchill, that's five to ten years. In the interim, we need the United States. In the interim, we also need the United States to defend great swaths of our North because we can't do it. And we'll need the F-35 to do that. And if we don't have it, they've got it. And as I keep saying, the Chinese weather balloon was a perfect example of that. Three years ago, when we couldn't shoot it out of the sky, we had bring in an F-22 from the United States to do it. You know, yesterday, Janice Stein was on the program, as she always is, on Mondays.

And, you know, this is somebody who last year was against the strategy of going after Trump. She believed in the suck-up strategy, basically, because not of who he was, but of who they were in terms of the states and how much we need them. She has changed. And she changed, she was leading to change, and she certainly changed. last week because she was 100% on on the Carney speech as it was delivered in Davos. But she warned yesterday, she said, what Carney has done is he's bet the house. He's put all his chips into the middle of the table on this plan. And when you do that, you've got to be prepared.

You've got to be prepared for everything or you'll lose everything. So she was trying to warn not just the government, but Canadians in general, that this is a very precarious position that the country finds itself in right now. And so every little step of the way in this last one, whether percent said what he said or twisted it a bit for impact, we'll have to watch and see how it plays out through the day and the following days. Well, let me move on to the other, one of the other things I mentioned, because I found this almost as fascinating.

Doug Ford standing there in some kind of pizza joint with Carney, they seem to like to snack together, and basically saying that he was, he thought it was a great auto strategy. This is the same guy who last week on the China EVs was very upset. He was breathing fire. How do we explain that? Who wants to take a run at that else? You want to start on that?

I think Doug Ford does one thing really well, which is defend and champion his own interest. And I don't know if they did not pre-position him for what their ultimate goal was. But when you have the union representing the auto worker, decrying the move and saying how outrageous this is, I don't think the Premier had much of a choice, but to be that loud voice.

And you find that that happens a lot when key politicians feel like they've been left out. I thought it was interesting, though, because part of the technical briefing and the lead-up to the trip that Rob just went on did talk about the auto strategy. So Melanie Jolie, this is work. told it's going to be released publicly, but this is what we've been told, is heavily courting

like Hyundai, Volkswagen, one or two Chinese manufacturers to build through joint ventures, possibly to build cars here and to develop a Canadian supply chain, like a return to the auto pact of years ago, because the feeling is that it's quite likely that the Detroit Big Three will decide that they don't want to build cars in Canada. And how do you adjust for that? And so what Mr. Carney brought Melaneseal to that meeting was Ford yesterday. And I think he realized that this is the best plan that he's got, and that's perhaps the only plan he's got.

And so he's getting behind it. And it clearly means I think a lot of federal money, possibly some provincial money behind it too. You know, I've had talks with some of Ford's people over the past few months, too, and this topic of, you know, the possibility of maybe the Chinese and the Koreans with Hyundai and others, taking over some of these plants if the Americans leave them and having them, you know, fixed up so they could do their cars. And that would be, you know, lots of jobs. And in many cases, lots of really good cars.

that are going to sell. They're going to sell in Canada, those cars. Price points one thing and the performance is another. Rob, you watched that yesterday. What was your take on it? I want to take us back again to last week and to China. I think for the Prime Minister to begin this arrangement is an acknowledgement of what a lot of people in Ontario fear. And that is the decline of the off. auto industry in Ontario.

You know, when I was a kid growing up in Scarborough, lots of people in my neighborhood whose parents worked on the lines in Ajax, in Oshawa, Whitby, and those jobs are now gone. The auto industry in Ontario is already about half of what it was when I was a kid. So it's an acknowledgement, I think,

from the Carney government that, as Althea said, the big three are being induced, coerced into leaving Canada and shifting production to the United States. Now, we've seen in Canada already this happened where foreign manufacturers were allowed a greater slice of the market with lower tariffs, and what did they do? They came to Canada, came to areas of the country

where you live, Peter, in southwestern Ontario, and they set up manufacturing and assembly plants there. And there was resentment about that. There was fear in places. like Ashwan Windsor, and it turned out that it was a pretty good thing for southwestern Ontario and a good thing for Canada. Now, those Toyota and Honda, those people have access to the U.S. market. A lot of the Ravort and others things that are being manufactured Canada are destined for the U.S.

market. There's a question as to whether or not that is going to happen. The other thing about the initial part of the Chinese EVs that are coming, they're not Chinese EVs. They're going to be Tesla's and Polestar's, Volvo cars, EVs, that are manufactured in China and brought here. So nobody should expect that they're going to see a BYD on the road at a low tariff very soon. That's not going to happen. That could happen if China decides that they are going to go ahead and open manufacturing or assembly plants in Ontario. And part of the, I think, intriguing thing about all of this is I think the government wants to see Canada be that spot where they're

manufactured and assembled here and then transferred on to these other middle powers that have decided to go around the Trump tariffs onto Europe and other places as well. So we're going to be a way station, not into the United States, but perhaps into Europe for some of these manufactured cars in Canada that are Chinese. But that's three to five years down the road. And that's an intriguing thing. Okay. We're going to move on.

I want to talk about Pollyev and at least what we witnessed in the first day of parliament in this session yesterday. But we've got to take our first break first and we'll do that back right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Tuesday episode. and this Tuesday it's a reporter's notebook, Raj Russo, Althea Raj from the Toronto Star, Rob Russo from The Economist, with us today to talk about all things,

well, all things national politics. Any other year, any other week, the biggest story would be coming up on Friday night in Calgary when conservatives determine the future, I guess, of Pierre Polyev as leader. It's a leadership review. So it was interesting to watch him yesterday in the stance he's taking on the national political scene and his own scene. So I want to get both of your, nobody seems to say, man, he's going to go down in flames.

He can't even get 50%. That's not going to happen. Most people feel. So what are you two? What are you assuming for this Friday night vote, which apparently is going to take all the night? to count. By hand. By hand.

I mean, it's very weird. Anyway, Rob, on this round, you can start. I don't think we're going to be surprised. I think nobody seems to believe he's going to get under 80%. If he does, then he's going to be in trouble. If there's a seven in front of the percentage count that he has, that's when he's in trouble. If not, he should be okay.

It's not a one member one vote thing. It's a delegated convention. And Mr. Polyev and his board have. You should explain that. Yeah. In other words, people are chosen by at the writing association level to go to the convention. And who controls that process? Well, usually it's controlled by the party when it's a delegated convention.

and Mr. Poityev has an absolute lock on the party. So it would be a surprise, a real surprise. There is no organized opposition. There is no one or even two people who might be interested that are kind of circling out there that other people's... Like there is opposition to Mr. Poityev. I think there's some dismay, but nobody is sort of coalescing around one other candidate.

What I'm looking for is whether or not he continues an evolution that began with a letter that he sent to Prime Minister Carney over the weekend, which seems to suggest that he has developed a capacity for a little bit more statesmanship. That seems to suggest that he realizes that if he's going to be prime minister, he has to strike the posture of a prime minister in waiting and has to begin to assemble what would be a government in waiting. and you see it in some of the elements of the letter. Yes, the first few paragraphs are kind of boilerplate about how you liberals have screwed everything up.

But there is specific items of cooperation that they listed. They want to go ahead and do stuff on the UK into the Trans-Pacific trade agreement. Canada, Indonesia, a free trade agreement? We need that. You want our support. We have some people like Jamal Giovanni. He doesn't mention Jamal Giovanni, but he says, we can help you by sending joint delegations to the United States,

and we can work together on trying to come up with a reasonable solution. All of this suggests not a pivot, but an evolution and a realization that you cannot be a fire-breathing, wild-eyed attack dog of the entire time, and be considered. by people outside of your 30 to 40% base as a prime minister in waiting. I'm waiting to see whether or not that Paulyev appears at the convention. I'd be surprised because I think conservative bolsters have said about one third of the party supports what Trump is doing, but whether or not this tone of statesmanship actually endures beyond the convention if Mr. Paulyev prevails.

Chavani, by the way, for those who don't know it is. You know, a conservative MP is also a friend, former classmate, roommate, I think, of J.D. Vance. That's right. And he's he's contacted the prime minister's office directly to say, I'm willing to help an offer that has been, I think, resolutely ignored so far. Althea.

I'm not sure that I wouldn't call it a pivot rather than an evolution. when you read Pierre Poliyev's letter in response to Mark Carney's speech at Davos, he talked about, Peter mentioned it off the top, a well-crafted and eloquently delivered speech and he wanted to offer, quote, praise of his own. I cannot imagine Pierre Paulyev ever saying that about Justin Trudeau. And some of the criticisms that he levied against Justin Trudeau a year and change ago, those reasons exist with the Mark Cunning government. The Mark Cunning government is spending more money than Justin Trudeau,

and yet Pierre Pueleev was ready to light the place on fire and saying that out of control, inflationary spending was the reason why we needed to have an election just in the fall of 2024. So I do think that it's a remarkably different tone. On the what's going to happen on Friday, obviously I'm not a fortune teller, but I reserved the right to be surprised. I did not think that Thomas Mulcair

at the NDP convention in Eminton following the 2015 election was going to get such a low level of support. Pierre Pueleev only received, and at the time we thought it was a pretty fantastic and large mandate, just shy of 71% in the last leadership campaign. Some conservatives believe that that number on Friday will start with the seven.

There's a lot of more business-minded conservatives who don't like where Pierre Puelev has taken the party, who could easily see themselves voting for Mark Kearney and the direction that Mark Kearney is taking the country. There's also people in the right who are dismayed with Pierre Pueleev who feel that He did not act on his two chances to defeat the government in the fall when some conservative MPs were hiding behind the curtains. And they are also disappointed. Behind all of this is, you know, the Alberta separatist camp had a recruitment drive on Monday in Calgary. There are social media influencers peddling Alberta separatism. saying how dismayed they are with Pierre Pueleev.

So I don't know. It could, maybe the number will not be a high number that starts with an eight, a low number that starts with an eight, a number that starts with a seven. If it's less than a seven, that will be trouble for Pierre Pueleev. But frankly, I think it may also be trouble for the people who might want his job. At the moment, everybody seems quite content to let Pierre Puelef be the leader of the official opposition while Mr. Carney enjoys, you know, kind of the Justin Trudeau's, 2015 level of support in Canada and globally.

And, you know, he's warming up the seat and whether it's a campaign that many of these individuals believe will defeat Pierre Puelev or, you know, internal revolt will remove the conservative leader from his position when the time is right for a new leader of the party. So I think that's why we haven't also seen some of the voices come out and openly challenge him for the job. What about the potential floor crossers? Because everybody seems to think there are a couple of them still around

and that they're waiting to see what that number is on Friday night before they make a decision one way or the other about what they're going to do. Is that the general belief out there? I think there's something to it. And I think not just the number, but they're also waiting to see that, listen to the tenor of what Mr. Polyev has to say that night and afterwards, if we're talking about conservatives. But another trend that's emerging among conservatives who care about their party is the concern that if Mr. Polyev doesn't win, that the party will atomize, that he is perhaps among

all of the other people who are out there who might be able to succeed him, the only guy who can hold together this, this. element of sort of younger and frustrated group of voters, particularly men, and who can appeal to work in Canadians the way he has, and to hang on to the people who are in favor of what Mr. Trump is doing, walking that very delicately. He's the only guy who can hold that together with what's left of what was once the Progressive Conservative Party. There are real fears out there If Mr. Poliev doesn't win, the people who might succeed him are all in one way or another anathema to some of the newer elements that have been grafted onto the Conservative Party in the last few years.

And there's that real fear. Go through the names. Jason Kenney has been scorching on social media in terms of his taking on Trump. To a lot of people in the Conservative Party, that plus what? what he did during the pandemic and his support for vaccines, his support for science, has disqualified him in the eyes of a lot of the elements of the Conservative Party now. You know, name some other people, they all seem to have some reason why they might not be able to appeal to the current coalition that makes up 40% of the vote, if you look at the last election, that supported the

conservative party the last time. So real concern about an atomizing of what Stephen Hart were put together so carefully two decades ago. Stephen Harper's a name that I find interesting this moment because it's not like I'm hearing him saying what conservatives should be doing this Friday in Calgary or am I missing something? Has he said anything? In fact, the last time I think we saw Stephen Harper speak, he was basically saying that Mark Carney was doing a good job and the liberal government had consulted him and he thought that Mr. Carney was on the right path.

and that he advised him to go in this direction. So no, it's also telling that nobody expects Stephen Harper to show up on Friday. Mr. Harper has a party of his own next week to celebrate his time in office with a black tie optional gala in Ottawa. But to your question about the floor crossers, yes, that is still a very live possibility. one that I understand the leader of the official opposition is aware and that's why he has been working the phones throughout the holiday season.

I think some people could have crossed before the vote. I'm not sure the vote is the definitive aspect. I think it's more about what tone Pierre Puellev decides to take in the spring. Is he going to be constructive? And I think the letter that he released public

that he had written to the Prime Minister on Saturday where he talks about issues where they're, you know, like they'll fast-track the trade deals that Rob talked about that have already been negotiating, that they're willing to fast-track the bail reform. And we kind of saw that yesterday in the House of Commons, like issues where there are, you know, we will not be obstructionist. Basically, Pierre Paulyev is telling the government, do not use this as an excuse to call an election. The conservatives are very fearful of an election, which they think will deliver Mark Carney and majority government. I believe some of the people who haven't yet crossed the floor are basically deciding whether or not they want to run again. You know, it's this their last term because many of them are

basically, some of them are in seats the liberals could win, others or not. And do they think that there's a place for them around the Mark Carney cabinet table? You know, a lot of people have been waiting on the back bench in the opposition for a while and they just want to do something. They want to serve their country and feel like they're contributing. And they have never been comfortable with Pierre Paulyev's tactics, but that, you know, the frat-boy criticism that Chris D'Hanel levied against the government when he crossed the floor in November, you can see that Pierre Paulyev's camp is making very strong attempts to not be branded that way and to show a different version, that kind of PM and waning, constructive

partner in the House of Commons. And so we will see. But I would not be surprised if it happens in the coming weeks. Just one last quick point on the conservatives. Clearly yesterday seemed to signal a new degree of cooperation from the opposition party. I don't want to go overboard on that, but certainly a degree of cooperation. No matter what happens on Friday, do you expect that will still be the same next Monday? For me, yes.

I think it's going to endure as long as the threat of an election is held over their heads. I was surprised to see the Prime Minister take it off the table as I think with the alacrity that he did. I think what he could have said is before the holidays, the Conservatives and the Block Quebec, while we're thwarting the attempts of the Canadian government to deal with what is some critical challenges, challenges to our economy, challenges to our prosperity, challenges to our national unity. He could have made those kinds of remarks. He took it off the table because there are lots of liberals who are saying that's what was happening. You know, polls are going to come out in the next few days that are going to show, I think, a bump for the liberals and a significant bump for

Mr. Carney in terms of his personal approval ratings. And those are the kinds of things that that I think would strike fear into the heart of an opposition leader who might be faced with the rug being pulled out from under him. I think that is one of the reasons why there's a change of tone or an evolution of tone from Mr. Poilliev as well. Two quick. Yeah, go ahead. Two things. One, the math in the House of Commons means that they basically only have the conservatives to dance with.

And the conservatives know this because they mainly needed the Bluque, and the NDP doesn't sit on committees. So if the conservatives want to be constructive, they're the only party basically the government can dance with at this point. But the other thing I think is worth noting, the prime minister did not come out and say definitively, I do not want an election, we're going to try not to have an election. It took him three tries answering the question before he said,

of course he doesn't want an election. But also, of course, that is what the prime minister has to say. Sure. Because otherwise, people will punish, or they fear people will punish the Liberal Party. So there are definitely people around the prime minister who believe there should be an election and it's the right time to go. There are also lots of other people who think that the party would lose a bunch of seats in BC and in Quebec. And that may not make up for the wins that they would get in places like Ontario. I agree with all of that.

He said what he had to say in response eventually to those questions yesterday. But there's also no doubt that there are those around him. And some liberals in general who just think, let's go, pull the plug now. And you can argue, some would make the argument, we need a proper mandate here right now. If the country's in crisis, we have a plan. They have a mandate. It would be the same election.

we had last year. Yeah, if they, they would need a mandate. You know what I mean, a majority mandate. If Trump said, if Trump said we're pulling out of Kuzma, we're giving six months notice, and we're pulling out of Kuzma, I think at that point, there would be a legitimate call for an election. But I ask people who know, like the Tom Pitfields of the world, the people who are looking at data, looking at possibilities.

And they said they're, apparently, that Mr. Pitfield is not that enthused about going right now. It's not a sure bet. They're always ready to go. But it would be jumpball in the minds of a lot of people. But you take Trump as an actor, particularly if he's threatening to pull out of Kuzma, that changes the game. Well, the other thing is the government wants to make sure that the opposition knows that it is ready to go and it is not afraid of an election so that they can pass their legislation. unamended the way they want.

And so all of this, you know, is just, just plays right into exactly the strategy that they want, regardless of whether or not they actually intend to go to the polls. Well, they don't forget 2021 when they thought they could win a majority. Yep. Post-cold. Exactly. And it backfired on them. Okay.

We've got time for a couple of thoughts about Kirstie Duncan. A former MP dies at 59 years old after a long struggle with cancer. A lot of people saying quite wonderful things about her yesterday around the House of Commons, both current and former members of Parliament. You both covered her. Give me your thoughts before we leave for today. She was one of the nicest people, if not the, MPU with the sunniest of disposition I've ever encountered on Parliament Hill.

And she was always full of compliments, really thankful. Like, this woman had such a big heart. And it's like she met, you know, toxic partisanship with this, like, a Mr. Rogers' neighborhood defense. And, like, I was, I wasn't surprised, but I was really touched by Michelle Rumpel, who talked about when she was, in Stephen Harper's cabinet, Christy Duncan was her critic and how she kept sending her really complimentary notes and encouraging notes.

And that's the kind of person. Like she's supposed to be battling with the minister. And she's like giving her like encouraging words and supporting her and, you know, wanting her to do well as a person, not just in her role. And that's the kind of person she was. It's really, really tragic.

Yeah. There was a wide-eyed joy to Kirsty Duncan that was unique on the hill and compassion. But the joy was unique and you could see it because she was almost bewildered when she was attacked in a partisan way. To her, it was befuddling. How could this actually be happening? We're supposed to be nice to each other. And that was unique. You know, Hubert Humphrey was called the Happy Warrior of politics.

she was like a happy warrior. And people on the Hill were delighted when she found love in the company of a fellow liberal MP, Sven Spengerman. And so our heart goes out to Mr. Spangerman as well. That's got to be a huge void in his life. I'm sure. Thank you both for those memories and your thoughts on some of the issues facing the country right now.

We should advise viewers that our listeners today, that they will also be potential viewers next week because next week we start our Tuesdays on YouTube. So the first one up, the first Tuesday up will be more butts. And then Rob and Althea will join us two weeks from today with their first YouTube for The Bridge. And we're looking forward to that and hope you are too. Thank you both.

We'll talk again well in two weeks' time. Thanks, Peter. Thanks, Rob. guys. And that'll do it for Rob Russo for this week. Well, before we go, as we expected, there has

been since we recorded our conversation, the prime minister's office has now given its reaction to what Scott Bassant said at the U.S. Treasury Secretary. And it's basically I'm not going to read the whole statement,

but basically it's Mark Carney saying the president called him yesterday, and they had a good conversation, wide-ranging, where he went over basically what the Canadian position is, saying that he meant everything he said in Davos. He wasn't changing anything.

But there was a good conversation, and that was that. So we'll see these things tend to have different spins on them, depending on which capital is talking. And that's what the Canadian government is saying through the statement out of the prime minister's office just a little while ago. Okay, that's going to do it for today. Tomorrow, it will be a, it'll be an NBit special. Some people love NBits, others not so sure.

I enjoy doing them. And we've got some nice little pieces for tomorrow. News you can use. That's coming up tomorrow. on our Wednesday in-bit special. Thursday, of course, is your turn. Ask Me Anything, the final one of the trio of Ask Me Anythings that we've done. And Friday, good talk with Bruce and Chantel.

Of course, on Thursday, The Random Ranter, you'll be here as well. That's it for now. I'm Peter Mansperch. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again in less than 24 hours.