The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Raj-Russo -- The Liberals Debate Each Other on Iran

Episode Date: March 10, 2026

Monday night was debate night in Ottawa about the country's position on the Iran War. Rob Russo and Althia Raj talk about that and lots more in this week's Reporter's Notebook. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Are you ready for Raj Russo and their notebook? And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here with Althea Raj and Rob Russo. Their notebook is the reporter's notebook from Raj and Russo. There it is. Look at that. Look how thick that reporter's notebook is that Althea's got. She must have lots to say today. And let me concede this one point.

We're recording this on Monday night. So in other words, last night. You're airing it on Tuesday around lunchtime. And you see kind of out of focus in the background in Rob shot, the debate that's going on in the House of Commons on Monday night. And the debate is about Canada's position on the Iraq War, Iran War. Let's get the right place. Which is interesting after the last week because it really hasn't been,

well, all the parties have had worthwhile things to say about this. but the real debate seems to have been the one that's been going on inside the liberal party. After the prime minister's opening remarks on the first day of the war, that got some liberals upset, and there's been a back and forth ever since then. Some liberals currently in the House, some what they call former liberals, you know, like Lloyd Axworthy, former Foreign Affairs Minister, but others as well. So let's start off on that point.

was this debate in the House of Commons? Was it the opportunity for all the parties to say something, which they have been doing? Or was it really an opportunity for liberals to have an open discussion about their party and their country's position on the Iran war? Let's start with Althea. Why don't you start? Well, I'm not sure because we haven't seen it all. I'm told it's supposed to go all the way possibly like up until midnight. I would be surprised, and I say that because there was a caucus meeting last Friday, where Anina Anon was presenting to caucus,

and I'm told that they spent half of the caucus meeting telling MPs not to talk to journalist. So I really doubt that, yes, I know the irony that I'm reporting on this. I really doubt that we're going to hear a lot of fervent disagreement in large part because the government, itself seems to have changed its position. I listened to David McGinty on Monday night, lay out basically Canada's principled foreign policy. He talked about the principles that guide our actions. He talked about Canada choosing responsibility,

the promotion of peace, the protection of human life, choosing de-escalation. This is not the statement that Mark Carney issued, Prime Minister Carney issued on February 28th when he said that Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime for further threatening international peace and security. That statement had no mention of the principles that he had outlined in his Davos speech where he talked about principled pragmatism or values-based realism where he laid out that one of the conditions that was guiding the,

the King government's pragmatism was respect for the UN Charter. And we saw, and it was frankly mocked, if you might say, trolled by opposition leaders on Monday, for changing his position four times. So the government has settled on a new position, which you could say heavily influenced by Lloyd Axworthy or Will Graves, one of the MPs in Liberal Caucus who did speak up publicly, who also happens to be a political science professor at the University of Victoria who's on leave, so kind of knows what he's talking about. And now we have a very different position than what was originally intended,

which is giving the conservative space to carve out their own message. But it's also, I think, leading to a lot of confusion as to what exactly is guiding Canada's foreign policy. Is it trying to please Donald Trump at all cost, or is it really this values-based pragmatism that the Prime Minister was talking about? Well, I'm going to ask you to try and answer that question, but I want to hear from Rob, first of all, in terms of his sense of what this Monday night was all about.

I've sat in on a lot of these take note debates, and often they're devoid of any real insight, any real debate. I didn't feel like that was happening. from what I listened to. I thought that there were some worthwhile questions asked about Canada's preparation ahead of this, whether or not we were ready to get people out, whether or not we did enough to get people out. I thought both conservatives and liberals, I confess that I didn't hear Mr. Blanchett, made a good point, several good points about what we do have at stake.

We are not combatants. We will not be combatants. But we do have something at stake. Our standard of living depends on energy that flows through the Straits of Hormuz. Canada lost 55 Canadians when a Ukrainian airliner was brought down by the Revolutionary Guard in 2020. There was a Montreal named Zara Kazimi, who was brutally tortured in 2014, I believe. by the Iranians as well. We have things at stake.

There is a reason why we should care about this. And I thought that was worthwhile. Those were worthwhile reminders. That being said, I don't think that the debate was as dramatic as the debate that probably took place inside the caucus room. And there was a debate that took place inside the caucus room. All you had to do is look at Will Graves. initial reaction to this online and his questioning of his boss, the prime minister,

and see how many liberals liked what he'd said. And there were several of them. I believe there was initially a cabinet minister who liked it and then unliked it subsequently because she was brought into the line. Well, we don't really know that, do we? Like we heard it was Marges-Hir-Michel that she blamed her staff for basically liking videos from all caucus members and then they realized what she had done.

I don't know what is true, but I don't want to assume that there was something. Nefarious. Heavy hand of the PMO coming down. Because the other race was not acting alone. There are clearly other people who supported his taking on the prime minister at a critical time. So I think that that debate probably had more tension in it

than the debate we saw tonight. One could make a very interesting or entertaining debate that Mark Carney might have with himself. Mark Carney from day one versus Mark Carney from day three from Mark Carney from day five. And therein, I think, lies the prime minister's problems. You know, I think that he looks really polished most of the time for a rookie prime minister.

But in this instance, he looked like a rookie prime minister. Okay, he wasn't by the way. He wasn't in that debate. Yes. Yes, he wasn't or yes, he was. He chose not to go. I think it's worth noting. I'm glad you did so.

Okay. Apparently he had some other event in Ottawa tonight, but nevertheless. After the past week. You can choose to go if you want to prioritize it, right? Like you can come after. meeting with community members, I think it may have been like a dinner with the Muslim community. Well, who knows, maybe by the end of tonight, you know, if it really does go along, this debate he might turn up in the house.

But, you know, all the dancing and maneuvering aside, at the end of the day, what's Canada's position on the war in Iran? Do we have, can we definitively say we have now a position? Yeah. Okay, go ahead. No, no, no, you go. It's okay. Well, Anita Anan called out for rapid de-escalization and a return to diplomacy.

And that is a far cry from where we began. But that is now a Canada's official position that they want the fighting to stop in a hurry. and for this to be settled by diplomacy. I'm not sure. You know, I've said this before, but when I was on the trip with the prime minister in, I think it was in Doha, he was asked about joining the Board of Peace.

And he said he was interested in it. And then he had to backtrack from that. That tells us in this instance, and in that instance, what is the common denominator? It's Donald Trump. Donald Trump asked him that time. Donald Trump was launching this war. There seems to be probably because of our trade situation and the delicacy and the enormous importance of our trade discussion with the United States, that in both instances, Prime Minister reacted and then had to backtrack that his initial reaction is for

an audience of one. In this instance, he was reminded that there is a domestic audience and there's also, he's the prime minister in a Westminster system. He can be undone by his caucus. And his caucus reminded him that he was a prime minister in the Westminster system this time. And I think Canadians would have reminded him that it is folly at this moment to put your trust in Donald Trump and Pete Hegessef when they launch a military adventure. So at the end of the day, was this past week, was it just a blip?

Or was it something serious? Does it tell us something about the way that this government, that caucus, is going to operate in the future? Were there lessons learned? Did something happen this week that makes a real difference? that you pinpoint on the calendar and say that was an important moment. I think a few things have been revealed. I'm going to say five.

Maybe I'll lose count. Will Graves, I spoke to him last week before the caucus was told. Not speak to journalists, just so I don't get him into trouble. And, you know, he said he, like, read the statement over coffee and basically almost, like, spat it out. because he was so stunned that this was the government's position and he felt like he needed to do something to kind of like save the liberal government from itself and that if he didn't say anything,

it would be like we would be going down like a worse path. And it kind of made me think a little bit of similar words or similar theme maybe that Stephen Gibo with the heritage minister also described when he came out against the MOU with Alberta. I do think that for some MPs who care very strongly about certain issues and they feel like their party is not reflecting like the tenets of the Liberal Party as they know it, you will start seeing a change. And there are, like on

the MOU stuff, I think there's been a few changes on the background, at least the government realizes that maybe it has some vulnerabilities on the environmental front around Mr. Kearney. I think this front, we've clearly seen a change happen. The other thing that we've seen we've seen this week is that there is, the opposition has tried for several weeks, probably months, to try to suggest that Carney says one thing to one group of people and another thing to different groups of people and he doesn't really have any values that he seeks to. And that fits in that frame. I don't know if their messaging is going to start getting traction. I mean, clearly polls suggest that it's not, but you can see that this fits the narrative that they're trying to create.

Something else, I think, is worth noting, which you just said, is that Prime Minister Carney did not go to the House for this debate. And this has been causing him problems for the past week. And he chose not to come. He also chose not to come to question period. When he's on Ottawa, he often does not come to question period. He does not value the legislature, even though, you know, I certainly criticize Justin Trudeau for not going to question period all the time. but, you know, Mr. Carney has been to question period four times this year since the house came back in January. But doesn't he, when he does that, does he not, like, basically take all the questions?

No, he does not. Justin Trudeau did that. Mr. Carney does not do that. He does not. Okay. No. So, like, you know, he's in Ottawa. Like, when the shooting in Tumblr Ridge happened, he came down to address the House of Commons,

but he had not been in question period that day. But he's in the building. So I do think that there is kind of a lack of respect for the institution of parliament, and you hear it from MPs, especially opposition MPs and senators who feel like the government is railroading legislation through that through, I mean, we've talked about C5 and C15 in these bills, but I do think that that is another kind of like sub-theme from what has happened this week. Now I feel I've spoke too much, and there were two other points, and I don't remember what they are, but I'm sure we'll come back to it.

Okay, well, let me ask Rob the question this way, because I can tell you, whenever we do a thing like this, and the same with the good talk crowd on Fridays, if it comes across like its criticism of Mark Carney, the letters pour in. Yeah, people don't like it. People don't like it. They don't want to hear that Mark Carney has made a stumble or a misstep

because they reflect, what the polls are reflecting. There's a lot of respect. There's a lot of like for Mark Carney, more so than necessarily his government. They really like him. And they don't want to hear anybody putting them down. So this is interesting,

because I know the mail will come in again, you know, tomorrow, later today and tomorrow, from those who feel that way. And some of them will write and say, you know, I never voted liberal until Carney. And here you guys are dumping on them already. What do you say to that? I mean, obviously, you guys have a job to do.

You're covering parliament. You're covering what's happening in the corridors. And that's what's happening. But what do you say to the viewers like that? We're write letters like that. Our job is not to wave pom-poms. Our job is not to cheer. for any particular politician, any particular prime minister,

any particular party leader, our job is to call balls and strikes. And when we don't do that, that's when we get into trouble. I think the prime minister, obviously a very intelligent man, if he was asked, he would say, yes, I spoke too soon. I moved too quickly. Politicians are loath to admit that they made a mistake. I think Carney has shown a few times since he's been prime minister in the last, it's now 11 months, almost a year, that he is quick to acknowledge when he made a mistake.

I would be interested in hearing him on whether or not he acknowledges that he moved too quickly. I'm reminded of Stephen Harper, who was very quick in 2003 to support George W. Bush's invasion. of Iraq on the pretext of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. I think if you asked Stephen Harper that question now, he would admit that that was a mistake. Jean-Cretchen gets a lot of credit for saying no, because the United Nations didn't sanction Iraq. A lot of people don't bring up the fact that Jean-Cretzian said yes to Afghanistan, where we lost 155 Canadians, and where we just ended up turning it back to the Taliban after a really bitter, deadly war that cost us blood and treasure. I can't imagine how many billions.

I would be interested in whether or not John Ketan now regrets whether or not that was a just war as well. Yeah, so, you know, Afghanistan was a little different. First of all, it was 159 Canadians, including the public servant who died there. But that was a NATO mission, right? Yeah. NATO signed on, everybody went. The United States had been attacked. Yeah, yeah, and so everybody went.

Iraq was a different situation. But in terms of Stephen Harper, I can remember asking him in 2011, I asked each of the party leaders during that campaign, what was one thing that they did that they regretted? in their political life. And you're right. That's exactly what Harper said. He said he regretted buying into the intelligence in 2003 about Iraq.

And he was sorry, done that. And in this case, you're buying into the, you're buying in Pete Higgs at the Donald Trump's war. That should give any potential leader pause. Well, you know, I watched Trump this evening, Monday evening. as we're recording this. He sounds like he's ready to declare victory and get out, which is exactly what Janice Stein said earlier today on the bridge.

But he's looking for that excuse. I mean, he hasn't got victory yet, but you can declare victory and say I'm done. I mean, he didn't do that, but he came awfully close to doing that tonight, so we'll see where the week leads. Okay, let's get back on track here. before I take a break

You know in the past couple of weeks We've seen both the prime minister And the opposition leader on the road out of the country Making big speeches in different places I can't remember the last time that happened Where both the number one and the number two figure in Canadian politics We're both in foreign capitals and non-insificant ones with major speeches.

Is there any thought about that? Is there anything you want to say about that? Althea? Not particularly. I really enjoy when they give long speeches to international audiences because they tend to pick venues where they're more comfortable.

And the conversation, I don't know, it feels like they let their guard down and they're more revealing. Like in the conversation in India, for example, we heard from Mark Carney that he and Donald Trump had talked about the possibility of Iran. And he's never since mentioned it. In fact, now the government says they were absolutely not consulted. But that this could be a possibility, he said, in that sit down with the journalist in Mumbai.

In Australia, he talked about how he. the war basically was spreading across the region and that was entirely predictable. I got a little upset on an ad issue last week because I thought if you knew it was predictable, then maybe you should tell Canadians to get out of the region. That would be the wise thing to do while there's still commercial flights. But I find, so I enjoy that. What to make of Pierre Puehliev and Mark Carney speaking to different audiences at the same time? Nothing.

I don't find it particularly insightful, but I do think Pierre Puelev is trying to kind of rebrand himself a little bit. I think his interview with you did more for that, though, than his trip to Germany or London. Rob, what did you make of it? Well, we're in a point in our history where we are compelled to go abroad. What's interesting about the prime minister's fortunes and going abroad was he has been launched in a higher earth orbit, according to the polls, because of his Davos speech.

And I think that that prompted Mr. Polyev to go abroad as well. He needed, I think he felt like he needed the patina of that sort of stature, of being somebody that was a consultant to listen to that would have things to say on the international stage. It's rare in Canada that foreign policy plays a part in our politics. Clearly it has in this case. Going back to your interview with Mr. Puelev, you asked him why not Washington, I believe, because he chose to go to London, chose to go to Germany.

There was a recent poll by Abakas, just a few days that came out recently. And it showed that Mr. Carney was favored over Mr. Puelev in handling relations with the United States underdog. Donald Trump by 55 to 17. So there's no way Mr. Poliyev could go to Washington. He's not seen as trustworthy on Washington. He needed to build trust abroad.

But Washington was never going to be on his agenda, and I think those numbers explain why. Okay, we're going to take our break. I was going to wait to the end of the show to say this, but I'll say it now because you both mentioned the interview I did with Pauliev. There's one thing I didn't share with the audience about that that I should have shared in terms of, straight up transparency.

At one point during that interview, I asked Mr. Poliev, we were talking about defense contracting, I said, you know, I said the F-35 or the Grippen fighter jet. He said, I'm not going to get into that. Right now, we're too early in the process.

I said, okay, German submarine or Korean submarine? And he basically gave the same answer. So that was it. We moved on. What I didn't share with you, and I should have, is that in my life outside of podcasting, which involves a lot of different things, as many of you know,

as I've talked about in the past, I'm actually doing some contract work for the Korean submarine manufacturer. And I probably should have mentioned that. Not probably, I should have. I should have been more transparent about that. Not that the answer got us anywhere. but nevertheless that was that and I mention it now out of that question of transparency.

I should have done that. Okay, we're going to take a break. We'll be right back right after this. And welcome back here listening to the Bridge, the Tuesday episode. It's the Raj Russo Reporter's Notebook. Althea Raj from the Toronto Star, Rob Russo from The Economist. Now, Rob, we've mentioned on one side of his screen as television is watching the debate. going on in House of Commons,

that's recorded this on a Monday night. If you look hard at the rest of the screen, you can probably tell he's in a hotel room. No laundry, I hope. The laundry's clean, I'm sure. Room service is knocking at the door there. And where is he? He's in Alberta again.

And quite frankly, a lot of us have been going to Alberta already this year. I've been, Althea's been a couple of times, I think. Chantelle, I know, has been a couple of times. This is Rob's second or third trip there in the last year. And this is interesting.

It shows that the spotlight is in many ways on Alberta for a lot of different reasons, but perhaps primarily one reason. It's all related to oil, pipelines, referendum, and they're all kind of knit together. Tell us about this focus on Alberta. I mean, you're there for the economist, Rob. and not the first time for the economist in the last few months. So why? What's the interest?

Well, I think a lot of our international readers are surprised to learn that one-third of the world's oil reserves are in Alberta. And that's not true. It's the third largest reserves, proven reserves in the world are in Alberta. That is a huge, huge resource. It's particularly important and germane. now. The other thing that my readers are surprised by is the level of discontent in Alberta. I would say frustration. I'm careful, careful not to exaggerate the support for independence or separatism. I went to a pop-up petition signing in sort of the north of Calgary.

and watch people come by to sign up. I have to say that there wasn't a lot of activity there and that for everybody that turned up to sign during the hour and a half I was there, there were also people who slowed down, rolled down their windows and hurled sulfurous epithets at the people collecting signatures as well.

I was surprised by that. I was surprised at the vociferous, the sort of passion and the meanness, quite frankly, of those taking on the people gathering signatures for independence. So there's real passion here. What else am I surprised? I'm surprised at the evolution in the stand of some of the supporters, some of the leaders of the independence movement here.

Some of them now say it was a mistake for us to go to Washington, which surprised me. Then there are others who have their position has clearly evolved. There's a word that's very much in vogue. Lots of people, you know, were saying some of them that we have a few options. One of them is to be a U.S. territory. One of them is to be a U.S. state. Those are part of, well, they cannot run faster and farther away from Donald Trump than they have been laid. lately. And why? Because Donald Trump is a loser. So those are the things that I come back and I've

seen since I've been here that are kind of new developments. And I've also been surprised at the shyness, the reticence of a lot of federalist potential leaders to get out there and get in the game. The business community is talking about it. They talk about it a great deal amongst themselves. Don't want to talk publicly about it. They don't. So there's passion on the street, reticence to talk about it in the boardrooms, some reticence to talk about it amongst federal leaders as well. So I've always found the province heartbreakingly beautiful, fascinating politics, and this story is evolving in ways that are very, very interesting as well.

Just before I get to Elthia, what was it they were hurling? Sulfur's epithets. So what they would, they'd call them traitors. with some spiky profanity around the word traders. The people collecting signatures were invited to go to the United States and jump into Donald Trump's lap, that sort of thing. Okay. Althea, you've been to Alberta a number of times too,

and tell me about your thoughts on that. This focus that we have, that the Eastern media, or Central Canadian media, call them whatever you want, have determined that Alberta should be a place we not only report on, but report from. I think there's a few things. First of all, this calendar year, like 2026, I've only been to Alberta because of the conservative convention. But yes, I do spend a fair bit of time in Alberta, but I have family in Alberta, too. I think part of it is Daniel Smith, if we go back a little bit before.

You know, she introduced a number of pieces of legislation that were quite controversial using the notwithstanding clause. The sovereignty movement, obviously, in Alberta has, we're always interested in sovereignty movements, whether they're in Quebec or in Alberta is an interesting story. And I think we felt like we didn't really quite understand how deep and how wide it was and what to make of it. I think that's what brought a lot of people out, especially last year. And then, of course, the MOU kind of changes the conversation. The federal government is spending a lot more attention thinking about Alberta, going to Alberta, and therefore our attention as well is focused on Alberta.

And now there's a lot of things on the to-do list between the federal government and the Alberta government to get that MOU kind of across the line. There's several things that have an April 1st deadline, whether it's the methane regulations or getting the clean electricity regulations, some finding emissions that would be comparable through the tier system. I think there's something else that has an April 1st deadline on that. Oh, the provincial assessments, where we're already seeing the federal government, the Alberta government,

basically open consultations to say Ottawa just wants to have one assessment, thinking about, you know, can Ottawa trust, basically Alberta to do that job. And so there's usually the other way around. It's a can Alberta trust Ottawa on whatever the issue is. In this case, they're like, well, Prime Minister Kearney has said that he wants one review for one project, not two reviews.

Federal government is behind the scenes changing the environment, the assessment process, going from in practice five to what they aim forward to. they don't need to change a law to do that. But there are people who are raising concerns that the assessment process in Alberta is not as stringent, if you will, than the federal system. Anyways, they're in consultation. They will decide what to do with that. I don't think I asked Julie DeBruce in this last week, the Environment Minister, if they were going to meet that April 1st deadline on the clean electricity regulations, the equivalency.

And it doesn't, I don't think that's going to happen. I think somebody is going to have to announce that. to that process is being punted a few weeks or months down the line. The government is seemingly committed to getting this pipeline through. The natural resource minister also said that. I think he was at West last week where he said the government is working to get the pipeline done. So again, you know, pipeline politics, good story for us. There's a lot of tension, people who don't want it, two provinces fighting,

indigenous groups wanting to claim their rights. There's a lot happening in the West Coast. There's something else that's happening. That's interesting as well, Peter. Kathleen Petty, our friend did this on her podcast last week. Mark Carney is suddenly very popular in Alberta. Yeah. The numbers for the liberals are surprisingly high.

Now, again, are they ephemeral? Are they enduring? But we're seeing the kinds of numbers that we haven't seen for a federal, liberal party, really, maybe since Lurie, for God's sake. No, Alberta wasn't a province when L'Orya was not. 68. You know, Pierre Trudeau did well there in 68. Yeah. Didn't win the province, but he did well.

He won for a number of seats. But there's surprising support and patience among Albertans for Mark. Carney. If you're not a hardcore separatist, you want to give the guide chance. Some people are saying that among those that I've spoken to here as well. It's, it's an interesting phenomenon. It's funny because one of the questions about Canadian politics right now is how real is it? How real is it? How real is it? How this potential breakthrough in Alberta and Saskatchewan? The numbers in Saskatchewan haven't been bad as well. And on Pierre-Pollev, how real is it? I mean, you talked about the interview, but the, you know, the things as well in the last couple of weeks where he seems to have, is it a new Polyev or not?

Or is it real? Or is it just an act? So we're asking that question, interestingly, about Canadians themselves and how real is it what they're saying to pollsters? How real is it about Polyev? And can Carney operate in spite of missteps, which seems to have been the case so far with polling? And you, polling is only so good. It's only interesting to me, I mean, we talk about it all the time, but it's really only interesting during election campaign.

Right. And there really is something, you know, as Brian Maroonie used to say, elections are like a hanging. They focus the mind, right? I don't know where I was going with this great piece of thought here. You see, I think there's a lot of hope. I think the referendum question is ultimately. going to be, does Canada still work as a country for Albertans? And that's the answer, like that's the challenge for Mark Carney.

He needs to show Albertans, frustrated Albertans, that the country still works for Alberta. And that's no small challenge. He's got a formidable task ahead of him, and it's an important one. Because there are lots of people who are considering saying yes to the referendum so that they can pressure the federal government. That adds more leverage to the discussions with the federal government. Having covered referendums in Quebec, that's a dangerous road. It is a very dangerous.

It's a dangerous road that Canada could go down. Yeah. Okay, we've only got a few minutes left. I want to touch on the by-elections because they've been called, what are there, three of them? and everybody knows that three more seats, if the liberals won all three, would mean actual majority government

in terms of numbers, whether it would actually play out that way or not and not sure. But tell me about by-elections, Althea. You've been following the three that are coming up. Well, there's three by-elections, two in Toronto, Scarborough Southwest, which the liberals poached

the provincial NDP deputy leader. to run in that seat, a big coup for them. University Rosebell, where the liberals poached Daniel Martin. I say poached because there were rumors that she was going to be running provincially, and so they've managed to convince her to run federally. Both of these women are strong, centered left credential candidates. One easily assumes that Daniel Martin could find her way in a McCarney cabinet. Terbonne is the wild card.

Basically, this is a riding to the northeast of Montreal. that the liberals won by literally one vote in the last election. The Bluqueque has been elected in that writing for many, many years. And they think that they have a good shot of winning it back. And the liberals also acknowledge that the Bluquequequeur has a good shot of winning it back. And so it's not necessarily a done deal to get that one seat. And when you talk to liberals, especially those in the executive charged with the agenda,

they will tell you that a majority of one is not really a great gift because you have to make sure that everyone is in their seats, that nobody's sick, that no one is at the bathroom, that no one has a family emergency. It would help on committees where they feel like they have most of their problems because they need to court the support of the block or the conservators because the NDP don't have seats there, and neither does Elizabeth May. And so they could reset Parliament and have a majority on committees that would help them.

But in terms of actual votes, it could get tricky. I think there's a possibility that we actually have an election call the day before the by-election. This is a general election. A general election call. You're still pushing that story, are you? I, the one seat, I think in Quebec, they have a better shot of winning. but the seat hasn't been vacated yet is Alexandre Bouloges. He has the NDP seat,

which is just north, actually, of Stephen Giboo's writing, Rosemont. And that's kind of like a hipster francophone writing, and you can see with the kind of center-left liberal candidate that that is a much better shot than Therbonne. But Mr. Bouloges would have to actually leave his seat which he has not done so yet. Let me ask you, Rob, about Ter Bond.

Should we expect to see Mark Carney in there campaigning for Tarbonne, or would he be best to stay away? He's already been there. He's already gone in with the... No, but since the by-lection was called. Not before the election called. That's right. Yeah.

They're... Not after. I think the weekend before the elect, the by-election, there's going to be the convention in Montreal, the liberal convention. They're all going to be there. You can bet that anybody who has any kind of horsepower is going to be there ahead of time and knocking on doors and pounding on pavement.

They need it if they have a hope to win. It was a real aberration for the liberals to win that. This is a writing that except for 2011 during the Orange Wave has been solidly blocked. It's a riding the East End of Montreal, that part of Montreal, historically biggest, supported the parts Quebec Gua for ever and ever and ever. It's a BQ writing is what it is. It's not a liberal riding. It's nothing but a block riding.

Why did they vote for the liberals last time? Well, you can bet that the argument the bloc is going to make is we voted, you guys voted for the liberals last time because you were afraid that it was going to be Puehliev instead of Mark Carney taking on Donald Trump. While you're going to get Mark Carney no matter what taking on Donald Trump, you can safely vote for the bloc-Kibéqua this time. And so that's going to be their argument. The argument that the liberals are going to make,

I'll be interested to see if they actually make this, is you want stability. Polls show that the Parts Kebecuan, Quebec is coming down because people fear the instability of a referendum while Donald Trump is there. The liberal argument is going to be, if you want stability, give us this vote, give us this majority,

and then we can really turn our attentions, keep both hands on the wheel, turn our attention to what's, going on south of the border. Do you, are you at all on Althea's side on this possibility of a general election? No, I thought that the quick call of the by-elections, short campaign periods, suggests that that option has been put aside, but boy, oh boy, there are lots of liberals who are left a job print in the carpet because they so badly wanted an election.

You know, these are like trained political animals. And the idea is that you try to stay in power for as long as you can because it's hard to get things done if you don't have a long runway ahead of you, particularly on some of the projects that Prime Minister Carney is talking about. So there are a lot of people who thought they're never, ever going to get another shot like this. that it's very unusual for a party to be more popular a year after. That's unusual. But to have that to continue to go up, to be maintained, would be difficult.

So there are a lot of liberals to think we're giving away a shot at getting that extra year, that extra runway to do some of the things that are going to take time. Okay. You got 30 seconds if you wanted, Elthia, if you want to rebut on election call. I don't know. Time will tell whether that happens or not. And nobody's like more concerned about that than the conservatives who are all worried that they're going to lose their seats, notably in Ontario. I thought the Alberta thing was interesting because I think one thing worth noting from the polling that we've seen over the last week is how many conservative say they approve of the job that Mark Kearney is doing. It's like 25% plus I saw a survey earlier today that said 37. But I'm going to go with the legé number. who people 20 like a quarter of the people who go to for pier pauliev really approve of the way mark kearney is doing his job that has to be really concerning for the torres can i give you a prediction peter for talking predictions sure but now that i'm in albara i ask people who is going to lead

the the federalist side here in albara who should it be because nobody's really stepping forward and somebody suggested a prominent person here in albara that pierre poolev would be the person to do it. He's not going to run in Alberta probably next time. And it would be a way of him turning into a national statesman the way Jean Chetetay became a national statesman during the 95 referendum. An interesting prediction there. It is an interesting prediction. And we'll hold you to it. You're not recording this, are you? Thank you both. Rob Russo, Eltheiraj, the reporter's notebook for this week. Tomorrow, it is, what will it be?

It'll be an N-Bid special tomorrow, and we've got some really good end-bits for tomorrow. So, uh, join us then. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you again in less than 24 hours.