The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Raj/Russo -- The King and I, Trump, Charles...and Canada.

Episode Date: April 7, 2026

Donald Trump has often said he's a fan of King Charles, and Charles, about to embark on a visit to the United States, clearly feels something for Trump. So how does Canada fit into this? A new book suggests Charles has had an impression on making Trump. If you buy that then you better listen to Raj and Russo today. 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? They're coming up in just a moment right after this. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, along with Rob Russo and Althea Raj. Glad to have you with us on this Tuesday. Lots to talk about, as always. You know, I can't take my eyes off. Rob calls it the train wreck in Washington, and it is a train wreck. Every day it's a train wreck. And yesterday kind of, well, the last couple of days have certainly made it that.

Right to the point of Donald Trump standing with a rabbit on the White House balcony talking about the war in Iran. I mean, it was unbelievable. But in the midst of all this, there's a Canadian angle. There's a new book coming out in Britain by a British author. That talks about the relationship between King Charles and Donald Trump. And it has an interview with Donald Trump. and it basically credits King Charles with talking Donald Trump

out of trying to annex Canada. Now, listen, we've heard a lot of things from the Trump White House over the years, but this one seems to take the cake a little bit, and I have a hard time believing it. But I want to check on two of the best reporters on Parliament Hill to see whether they're ear to the ground. They've heard anything remotely like this. And Rob Russo is going to start us off.

Well, I think it wasn't an accident that Mark Carney asked King Charles to come and open our parliament. I think that was done by design. It was done because, well, I know, we all know, I think it was done because they believed that that was a powerful signal, a potent signal. The signal was twofold, number one. It underscored the differences between us and the United States. And it was also a signal to that well-known monarchist, Donald Trump. So I think therein lies an important clue. I think it's true that Trump can be influenced by things like the monarchy.

He clearly had a great deal of admiration for Queen Elizabeth. but he clearly has a fondness for King Charles. Pity poor Charles, he and Donald Trump couldn't be more unlike. And yet, Charles is schooled in diplomacy. It's been added for decades. And he's the guy that is going to have to deal with Donald Trump on a myriad number of issues. I mean, we think we have a bad here. I mean, he's, he's, if he's, if he's,

hasn't called Kyrr Starrmer, the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, he's come right to the edge of that. And in the middle of this steps, Charles. And what do we want Charles to do when he goes to visit Donald Trump at the end of this month? Well, we actually have a brief for him, I'm pretty sure. I mean, we have to remember that Charles acts only on the advice of his first minister. And in this case, his first minister is in Canada, Mark So has Mark Carney given King Charles a brief? I'm sure he has given him a brief about Canada and how he can handle Trump. But he's not alone. We also know that First Nations in Alberta have also given King Charles a brief. They did that last month during a visit to Buckingham Palace. And they basically said to him, you cannot. allow for Alberta independence. And you should probably have a word with Donald Trump about stopping your encouragement of this.

So there is a lot writing on Charles. There is a lot writing on this visit for Canada. And I actually pity the king, particularly now. Donald Trump is pathological. he's at times tyrannical. He is wholly desperate is what he is at this moment. He's cornered. He has increasing inflation, increasing gasoline prices,

increasing political pressure, a war that's not going well, and desperate men do desperate things. And into this walks Charles having to deal with a bumpious, boorish and desperate Donald Trump. You know, the office. we're talking about is a fellow by the name of Robert Hardman. And he says that he was granted an interview by Trump to talk about Charles and that relationship. And, you know, I'm not surprised that he got that interview.

If you come up with something like that, you're probably going to get it in terms of the topic. And he says he found Trump astonished to discover that Charles was also the king of Canada. it. And this is supposedly when, you know, Trump decided to back off on the whole annex talk and the 51st date while he keeps talking about the 51st state. So I don't know whether to believe this stuff or not. I mean, it may sell a book. May not. Who knows who wants to buy that book. But I don't know. Althea, do you buy into any of this at all? Well, to be clear, I have done no recent reporting on this issue, so I have. no facts to spread to you.

I find it remarkable that that would be the case. The U.S. president was a big fan of Her Majesty. She is on our money. So that seems a little odd to me that he would not have clued those two things together. I don't pity King Charles, unlike my colleague here. I pity a lot of people the monarch is not one of them I do think there was

I'm not sure it was a conscious decision to have King Charles come and read the speech from the throne as a message to Donald Trump I think it was a break between the Justin Trudeau era and the Mark Kearney era you know the Trudeau era where the conservators made a big deal about this was previous Trudeau comments

in which he talked about like this was a post-national state. I think the current government was trying to harken back to symbols of Canadian history. And this just happens to be a nice side benefit. But I think what it does show is that we have this new card to play. And we could, if we choose to exercise it, you know, there's a new diplomatic angle that perhaps the government was underestimating the value of. That's what I would say. I find it interesting that at a time when in Britain it is a real debate whether or not Charles should be going to the United States. The tensions between Starmor, as Rob said, and Trump have been clear and obvious to everyone, especially ever since the Iran thing started. But, you know, right now going there, given everything that's happening, seems a bit odd.

Or really useful, no? Yeah. Isn't that what diplomacy is about? Yeah. Jha, jaw, jaw is always better than war, war, war. Look, the NATO alliance is unraveling as we speak. And it seems that nobody disappointed Donald Trump more in the NATO alliance than Kier-Starmer did. and that's an important objective worth trying to safeguard.

And if putting Charles in the middle of that helps advancing that goal, advancing that objective, it's a worthwhile initiative. That's interesting. Interesting take on a crazy situation because given everything else is happening around the White House, this war with Iran, plopping the king in the middle of this. I mean, who knows where it'll be by the end of this month when Charles arrives in the U.S. But there's no, I don't know, I don't see an immediate end to this, no matter what you hear about in terms of talking of possible ceasefires, this out and the other thing. Okay, let's, I can see how, you know, excited you are both to talk about.

No. I feel like you have more to say about it. Do you want to share your thoughts, Peter? I think Charles has missed the boat totally on the relationship with the United States. I don't care what his relationship is. with Trump or what Trump thinks about him. I mean, I don't think Trump thinks that he's anything more than a figurehead. I mean, I'm sure he likes to travel to Britain to see what kind of touches are around the Buckingham Palace

that he can introduce in the Oval Office somehow with all the crap that he's got hanging on the walls there. I just think that the whole Charles thing has been, I don't think it's played to Canada. as benefit. If it has in this particular issue, that'll be interesting to see. I don't see that he's pulled away from his feelings about Canada. He hasn't like dropped the tariffs. He hasn't stopped talking about the 51st state. He hasn't stopped talking about Carney as a governor. In fact, he's reintroduced all of those things of late. So I'm, you know, I wish this guy luck in selling his book. It's not easy to sell books these days. And, you know, like perhaps he'll do well with this part that they've leaked out in terms of what's in the book. We'll see.

Okay, let's move on. Clearly, as Althea says, she hasn't spent more than the last three minutes working on that particular story. So we won't pursue that any further. But she has spent a lot of time on a couple of different issues, which I want to get into now. And the first one is this situation with the Conservative Party and the instructions coming from the leaders' office to basically have MPs, conservative MPs, justify their existence on the hill and in Parliament, which seems like a, well, it seems like an interesting thing to say the least in terms of where the leader's office is in relationship to the caucus right now. Althea, explain what you heard and the reaction it's getting from within the conservative

caucus. Yeah, I think it kind of shows that they're a little tone deaf to what's going on. So basically, I think what they were trying to do, so they sent the shadow ministers and the conservative leader has almost like doubled the amount of cabinet ministers that Mark Kearney has. Everybody gets a prize when you're in opposition so you can try to get people on board. But to be mindful to the taxpayer, these are not paid positions, okay? The opposition doesn't have paid positions. Basically asking them, you know, tell us about how basically how effective you are in your role. So tell us about your best performing social media posts. And this is interesting because in caucus quite often they have like prizes for like who has the most reach and things

like that. Tell us about the media interviews you've been doing. Tell us about the other public facing things you've been doing. Tell us if you want to continue in your role. And there's kind of like three different camps, I would say. There are some people who got this and thought, oh, this is a regular performance evaluation. It's annoying, but okay, whatever. And there are others who were really irritated that, first of all, they're being asked to measure their accomplishments in ways that they were not allowed to do. So there's only up until recently, and still at the moment, some people who get clearance to do media interviews. and a lot of people who don't.

And so to be told, you know, tell us about your best performing TV interviews and you've been asking me to go on TV and they have said, no, you can't go on TV because we don't trust you to carry the opposition's message. That irked a lot of people. But I thought there were others who were just like, you know, you lost the election, you lost your writing. You had to run in another, like the safest seat in the country.

And here you are asking me to tell you how good I'm doing at my job. Like, why don't you tell us? how good you're doing it, your job. So there were a lot of people who were unhappy. Can I ask you, when you say a lot of people, what are we talking about here? Enough people that you could have a leadership review within the conservative caucus, but I did not speak to all of the conservative caucus. I don't know of Pierre Puella.

So to be clear to the listener, the conservatives have adopted the principles of the Reform Act, whereas the liberal caucus has not. And this was a bill championed by Michael Chong that is now law. But the parties have to decide if they impose these rules upon themselves. And it gives caucus a lot of power, the power to eject somebody from caucus, the power to call for leadership review. You need a bit 20% of the caucus to call for a leadership review. I believe going off the top of my head here, I think, the Conservative Caucus, that's 141 MPs at the moment.

So I think the number is about 29 MPs that is required to sign a letter. And then you would have a leadership vote. This is what caused Arrow and O'Toole to be injected as leader of the conservative guy. He decided not to fight. So like this would just call for a leadership review. Pierpaulov could say, sure, bring it on. And he would like fight back for his job if he wanted it.

I don't know. Just hold on. they just had a leadership review, right? A couple of months ago. Yes, they had a leadership review through the party membership and a delegated convention. Okay, but so let me ask. This could still happen like, could happen this week. I'm not saying it could.

It will. I'm just saying it could. There's no time limit on this. No, the report hack principles apply regardless of what happened in January. Okay. In fact, some MPs do not believe that Pierre Puelle have legitimately received 87% in the delegated convention. So they find that incredibly hard to believe. Now, that's probably because of the people that they are around and that they speak to.

I mean, I think that the conservative party tried to give Mr. Pueleyev as strong as possible a mandate. I mean, we know that they picked delegates that would support him in a vote. But there were a lot of people still at that convention who did not. plan to vote for Pierre Puehliev. And usually, you know, we hear from the loudest voices, right? Like the people who are happy don't run to the microphone of the media to say, I'm just so delirously happy at the moment, unless, you know, their names are like Andrew Scherer and Melissa Lansman. Um, but. Or diehard loyalists. Exactly. So, um, yes, the, the caucus process is the caucus process.

So as long as like even, I guess you could assume that even the summer caucus could call an emergency meeting and continue in this direction if they wanted it. So basically, Pierre Puelev has over his head the possibility that caucus could get rid of them. But they're unlikely to do that, I will say, because of the membership vote, because there's also nobody really loudly waiting in the wings is how it described it in my column. But you hear names, you hear people who seem to be showing interest, but no one is actually. actively organizing. So you have this like handful of malcontents, but they're more than a handful. You have this substantial group of people who are unhappy and do not believe that Pierre Paulyev can lead them to victory. And they now think that Mark Carney is going to have a majority government and they're stuck here for another three years in opposition. And they'll

probably have to run another election that they may lose their own writings or even if they don't lose. They're probably going to be in opposition again. But there's nobody like, Savior is coming in for them to be saved. So there you have a lot of people who are even engaging with the Kearney government. There will be more floor crossers. I have absolutely no doubt. Like, you know, maybe it will happen today. Maybe we'll happen tomorrow.

Maybe it will happen next week. But there are people who are just looking at the future and think, like, why am I here? Okay. We'll get to floor crossers in a minute. But let me finish this one. Rob, what do you make? of all this? What are you hearing in terms of this relationship between the caucus and the leader? Yeah, I think Althea is right. There are people who are quite content and supporters of Mr.

Poyleb. But I think that, and there are always going to be people who are opposed to anybody's leadership. And that's true of Mark Carney. There are people who are very uncomfortable with the direction. Mark Carney is taking the party and in the liberal caucus. And you might not see a lot of that in Montreal when they get together over the weekend. But believe me, They're there. But I think it's fair to say that conservative MPs, even those who aren't opposed to Mr. Polyev's leadership, were unnerved by this letter email.

First of all, it didn't go out under Mr. Polyev's signature. It was Aaron Wadrick, the director of policy that sent it out. C-Ced to Ian Todd, who's his chief staff, I believe. And so that was kind of unnerving. and there was a sense that they were cavalier about how MPs felt about their jobs. In essence, the last bullet point was if you're not happy in your role as shadow cabinet minister, you can quit, tell us, and you can quit. And it seemed to be dismissive.

They felt like they were dismissed. Althea's right that MPs still represent a threat to Mr. Paulyev. I think the more immediate threat, though, is the by-elections that are coming. And whether or not that definitely seems to lock in the fact that Mr. Paulyev will be the leader until the rest for the rest of this decade. And that's when I think we might see more people who have been playing footsie with the liberals make the trek across the aisle if they're going to. But this letter, this note, is part of their. thinking. It's part of their calculus. It's had that kind of effect. And it's come at a time when a lot of

people were actually, in the caucus, were giving Mr. Puehliev credit for turning things around. He did another podcast appearance. He did yours. He did Joe Rogan's and he did the diary of a CEO last week. And he won't plot it again for the way he handled that. And this all seems to be going in the opposite direction. He also won Flottitz for his intervention on gasoline prices, which I think we're going to come to later on as being smart and timely politics. But this really stuck in the craw, not of the persistent grumblers, but people who are kind of saying, is this really, really what we're about still? Is it really, like, have they not got it, have the people around the leader of the opposition, do they not understand that?

that he's actually walking along a knife's edge. And it's not going to be comfortable for him if he keeps walking in this direction. So it was upsetting to people, but it was also befuddling to people who were waiting for him to complete this turnaround and become more serious in terms of how he treats people inside of his own caucus room.

You know, you mentioned the by-election. Does anybody, you know, does anybody think that the conservatives have a chance? in any of those three by-elections? I mean, it doesn't seem to me that his future may be on the line because of by-elections. Nobody expects them to win them. No, but if the liberals do particularly well, it's a signal of a lot of things. If the liberals do well on Monday night and Tehrban in particular,

it's a sign that the independence movement is also feeling the pressure in the province. of Quebec. The Leger poll that came out last week showed a significant advantage for the liberals in the province of Quebec. We see Quebec liberals coming up, the provincial liberals, and a lot of people believe that is just an echo of Mr. Carney's popularity, despite his labored French, despite his stumbling and bumbling speech at the Citadel about his interpretation of how happy francophones are about the conquest. Mr. Carney is very popular, it seems, in the province of Quebec. That will unnerve, I think, as well as Quebec sovereignists, it will unnerve Quebec Conservatives as well. And yes, nobody expects the Conservatives to win in Tebrun. They won 19% of the vote,

but that was almost the doubling of what they'd won earlier. So Mr. Poliyev did have an impact. there. The question I would ask conservatives are, you know you're going to lose, are you going to vote for the block candidate to keep the liberal from winning there and giving Mr. Carney a working majority? Okay, we've got to take a break, but last

a quick word on this before we move on topic-wise, I'll see you. I don't think the conservatives have any thoughts about what's going to happen in the by-election. There is zero expectation that they're going to win. I think think with regards to Terbonne, Trump remains a threat. Like, it's the same scenario as it was 12 months ago. If it signals anything, it's perhaps that people are more antsy. I agree with Rob about

the Quebec separation. You know, the Black Quebecois is very tied to the Paxe Quebecois. Are they saying, like, now is not the time to talk about this? There are other issues at play. And Pierre Puehliev still remains, you know, kind of even less of a threat. So, but the prime numbers are quite high in the province. So I don't think there's, I still think it's a, Charbonne is a toss-up, but I don't think the concern they're going to take any signal from that. I think what they're really concerned about, frankly,

is losing more caucus members to Mark Carney and how to change the conversation away from Donald Trump and the 51st state and threats about economic anxiety to more bread and butter issues. And we're seeing them now launch TV ad to talk about, you know, like, has your life gotten better? since Mark Carney became prime minister, even the liberals limit the answer to that question is no. And that's what the conservatives need to be hammering on.

And that's what a lot of conservative caucus members wish the leader of the opposition was hammering on. That tired old question, is your life any better than it was at the time of the last election? That still works. It's proven not only in Canada, but literally around the world is one of the great questions that is put forward by the opposition parties. We're going to take our break. A reminder that the by-elections are Monday night. There are three of them. The other two, we keep mentioning Tehrbonne in Quebec,

which is an interesting race, and it still could tilt either way between the liberals or the block. The other two races are in Ontario, and they're both regarded as safe liberal seats. We'll see what happens when the people actually vote. Okay, we're going to take this quick break, back right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge,

the Tuesday episode, the Raj Russo episode this Tuesday. Rob Russo from The Economist and Althea Raj from the Toronto Star. Great to have both of you with us. As always, you're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform, or you're watching us on our YouTube channel. Glad to have you with us. Okay.

We've mentioned floor crossers a number of times, and I was astonished to see one of our friends from La Press talking on Vasi Kapalisa show the other day, saying there are as many as 10 potential floor crossers coming out of the conservative party, just the conservative party, not from the NDP, not from the block. Ten. Do either of you hear that kind of a number as the potential out there, not necessarily you're going to do it, but the ones who are thinking about doing it

and the ones who have talked, it seems, to the Liberal Party at different times. Anybody hearing anything like that? I don't expect 10 will cross. Have 10 names been floated? Yeah, I think there's actually more than 10. There's more than 10 conservative MPs who've been approached by liberal,

I would say, like emissaries. Like a lot of liberal MPs have taken. taken upon themselves to kind of go try to find conservative caucus members to like bring them to the PMO and be like, here, Braden Cayley, who's the deputy chief of staff, talk to this person, talk to this person. Is that the way it's happening, though, the liberals are going to conservatives, or is it going the other way around? Both.

Okay. Yeah. I don't think we should underestimate the role Carney, the prime minister, is playing as well. you know, he can be friendly and chatty. People will come up to him from across the aisle and ask him about a project. And there are conservatives who are admiring some of his ability, some of his ability to nimbly step into the role of a politician and prime minister. And gentle jibes become conversations about issues.

and the next thing you know, the prime minister is saying, if you feel that way, you should join us. You should come and work for us. And he says that, he might say it with that kind of sly grin on his face, but he's serious about it. And nobody should underestimate how serious he is about it.

He's involved in these things, and often very early. And then he'll step away and get a, other people to get into the details of the discussion, but he often initiates it. Yeah, but I don't know that I, my reporting is somewhat different than Rob's, because, you know, the prime ministry came in not knowing who these people were. So the relationships that have been forged between a lot of caucus members have been forged on parliamentary trips, you know, where I think we've talked about this before, but where caucus members

kind of just complain about their own leaders and realize that they have a lot more in common with each other. And I don't dismiss the fact that there are those conversations that Rob was talking about happening. But I think there's more intel coming from caucus about who is in a writing that could be one as a liberal, because they were malcon. that, you know, you can't see winning their seats as a liberal. But who is right for the picking? Who's unhappy? I think Pierre Puelev is a huge driver of a lot of conservative MPs

who are just really unhappy in their own caucus. And they like what Mark Carney is doing and how he's governing, basically, as a progressive conservative, even as a conservative. You know, a lot of the stuff that he has introduced are things you could easily you should imagine that Prime Minister Harper would have introduced. It's interesting that you mentioned Stephen Harper because I think that's where he does know them. Let's not forget that he was in the Department of Finance and he was the Governor of the Bank of Canada when Stephen Harper was there.

And from 2008 to 2013, he worked closely with a lot of conservatives as governor of the Bank of Canada. And so he does know them. He knows conservatives, but this House of Commons does not have a lot of, those conservatives left. Yeah, yeah. But he knows them. They know him. They try to recruit him. And his connections to the conservative party are alive in some ways. I think it's up, maybe we're talking about two different things. Like I'm talking about the members of parliament in the House of Commons. Most of those MPs were not around when Mark Carney was in Ottawa. But there is like an elite group of people who are like senior cadre officials. A lot of those

people are in the Senate at the moment, or some of these people are in the Senate at the moment. You know, there's like an elite group of Ottawa people who know Mark Carney very well and love the way he is governing and want to support him and encourage him. And a lot of those people have conservative tentacles that also reach to conservative MPs in the House of Commons. Yeah. Okay, so here's what I don't get. I mean, this has been happening for, oh, almost a year now. Like, there's a thing about dithering in politics, you know, like, am I, will I, am I going to cross that bridge?

Am I not going to cross and I climb that fence or I'm not going to climb it? I mean, what happened? Like, you know, why is it taking so long for these people to make up their mind? Well, I think a few things. First, we were in a real minority government where, you know, the prospect of an election could happen at any moment. Then the membership vote in the Conservative Party happened in January. Then there was 338 had, which is a website with like polling. And about a month and a half ago, it kind of showed that there was an election at this moment,

where like the liberals were kind of floating idea that might happen, a lot of conservatives in Ontario would lose their seat. And a lot of people started getting really afraid that, why am I sitting in this caucus when I could go across the aisle to support policies I agree with in a leader that I'd like more than my leader? And if I don't do that, I could lose my seat. And I think that that prompted conversations for some of them. Well, you know, I, listen, if there's anything like upwards of 10, we're ready to cross the floor or thinking about crossing the floor, there's not going to be an election in this country for at least three years.

Yes. You know, and so there's a certain safety in that. You rebrains yourself. You make your name. You do whatever you do. And you, you know, try to solidify this government. So, you know, it's funny. this is the dithering issue. Remember Paul Martin who had the potential to be one of the great prime

ministers based on his, you know, time as finance minister and the accomplishments he'd made. But there was always one knock against him even when he was in finance. And then it showed again when he was PM that he took too long to make decisions. He was a ditherer. Even he talked about it at times. And I don't know, I look at these people and I, go, like, what is taking so long? It just says, yes or no, I'm in or I'm out. It just seems, you know, is it, is it, is it the, is it simply the times that we're living in, the kind of politics that, that exists in the country right now?

Well, there is a certain amount of tumult, but I think there is a certain amount of of weight and sea as well. You know, if you're a Quebec conservative, You want to make sure that Mark Carney's appeal is enduring if you're going to make the leap and join the Liberal Party. You're going to want to make sure that before you turn your back on decades of association with a political party, that the decisions being made in the leader's office or by the leader are irrevocable and there's no going back.

So I understand the torment some of these people could go. And I think that there are new Democrats who are probably taking a hard look. It's not just conservatives after the election of Avery Lewis's leader as to whether or not they want to go ahead. It's interesting to watch as a kind of observer of politics from the liberal side as well. This is a very unusual majority that's being fashioned. I know people talk about backroom deals. I've likened it more to putting together an IKEA majority. It's like one befuddled and mysterious piece after another you're trying to put together

and you don't know where they're coming from and how they all work, but somehow you're going to get a table that's going to be upright. So it's a fascinating thing to watch. I understand why there's not haste and why some people might make this decision to stare at a go rather carefully. I think there's a few things. First of all, like the first floor crosser, Chris Dantromo, his hand was kind of forced for him. Remember, like, he made an offhanded comment to a journalist thinking that it was on background or off the record it would be used later. And then it kind of like precipitated the conversation.

Now people are thinking if Mark Carney gets a majority, then even if I'm not sure I'm going to win my seat as a liberal, it's safer for me to go because then you get three years in government. Some of these people, I think most of them, have never served in government. So the idea of joining a governing party, possibly becoming a cabinet minister, is very attractive. For others, they know that they are not going to win their seat as a liberal. So are they ready to retire after this mandate is over. And the other thing I think we cannot underestimate, and I agree with Rob on this, like the family ties, the connection, like when you've spent, you know, a decade, two decades, three decades longer, with one political party,

those people are your family. You think about your writing association, your volunteers, your staff. Those are important considerations. And your friends in caucus, the betrayal people will feel. That's hard. And then the other thing is like, maybe Mark Carney seems to reflect your values at the moment, but does he really? And a lot of conservatives are conservatives because of ideological positions. I don't want to be mean to liberals, but liberals seem a bit more flexible with how they feel about their policy intentions at the moment. But when you're on the right and the left side of the political spectrum, you usually have pretty firm ideas of what you think the role of government to be and what public policies you support.

And then like, is this, this guy really somebody that you can stand up and vote and defend, even though you've spent like so many years in parliament saying the opposite of a liberal? So I think those are why the one-on-one conversations with the prime minister when they're like just about to announce a really crucial because then it's like not just as Mark Carney seeing, you know, does this person a right fit? but that person is also seeing, like, is this a guy that I trust, really? So those conversations are really hard. And I think that's why, you know, I'm sure Rob and you, you know, have heard that, you know,

many names floated around that, like, seemed like, oh, they're about to, they're not going to. They're about to. They're not going to. And I think a lot of that, there are a lot of feelings at the moment. And I think perhaps once Mark Carney actually gets a majority, there may be more people who actually decide to come. And that's, that's a blessing for Pierre Pueleev in a way, because he needs the time to rebrand himself, to rebuild his team, to build like a real shadow cabinet that could be a team to contrast against Mark Carney, to recruit new people to the party. Like, he needs to play for time. And so in a way, it's great for Mark Carney to get a majority because it's easier to govern.

It's great for Pierre Pueleave that Mark Garnie gets a majority too. Okay. Well, that's going to make the next week or so, a week or 10 days. Interesting. I would have thought if you'd thrown me the question, I would have said, well, if you're going to go, this is the week to go before the by-elections, because you can probably make a better deal for yourself and your future if you cut the deal now to push them across the line to a majority. Next week, you're just another person joining the big tent. No, I disagree with that, Peter. I actually think when you have a narrow, narrow majority, backbench MPs get a lot more power.

all of a sudden their power will be increased when it's just two or three seats on either side and I think I think we saw that in terms of Will Graves' reaction to the Iran War. The Liberal Caucus, there are members of the Liberal Caucus who are arrested and they're not always being paid heed and they were paid heed in that instance. And that will not disappear if they get two or three more. MPs. That caucus room will still have elements of power in it that the Prime Minister is going to have to take into account.

I think you're both saying two things that are complementary with each other. I think if you're a conservative MP and you're thinking of crossing the floor, I think Peter is right. Better to go now. Then you go to convention. You're fated as like the person that gave the liberals their majority. And then, but within caucus, there will start to be, especially. especially as the prime minister moves the party more towards the center right and the right on some issues,

you have like the kind of like the climate group that is like kind of vocal and the human rights group that gets to be a bit more vocal to Rob's point. Like I think that that is a dynamic that is going to happen. But liberals seem to fall in line more easily than conservative peace in part because I think their party is used to governing. So they're used to putting a lot more water in their wine. Winning tends to quell a lot of this stuff. Okay. I've only got a minute left, which is cheating this subject. But I want to understand because we see it play out in the states,

the politics of gas prices. And we're seeing the issue was just as big here as it is anywhere in terms of looking at the numbers crawling up the scoreboard on every gas station you pass. But the politics of gas prices. Does it play in this country as much as we're witnessing at play in the U.S., in the U.K., and elsewhere? Rob, and I, once again, I only have a minute, and I've used most of it in just simply asking the question. So give me your answer. Look, all we have to do is think of four cents a liter.

Overnight, gasoline prices can change 10 cents a liter, but four cents a leader undid Joe Clark in his government in 1979. Okay, that was 18 cents a gallon at the time, four cents a liter. I said Mr. Poliev had been a right in calling for the removal of federal gasoline taxes. And I noted the prime minister's reaction, which was essentially not to say no. We have a spurring economic update coming soon. I would be shocked if there wasn't some sort of relief for Canadians because gasoline prices defeat governments. They defeated Jimmy Carter. they defeated Joe Clark.

And I think Donald Trump is now feeling the hot breath of angry people at the pumps. And I don't think Mark Carney wants to feel that hot breath on the back of his neck as well. You got a final word on this, Alcia? Well, he already got rid of the consumer carbon price last year for political reasons after defending it vehemently. So I would not be surprised. To Rob's point, I also took note that he didn't say. know. I think what is interesting is now you have conservative MPs. Aaron Gunn was on social media suggesting that we should really do something about the price and we should build more

pipelines. But building more pipelines is not going to make the price cheaper. And what he was suggesting basically is that we nationalize the oil industry. So they might want to have a discussion internally about their message track on that one. But sometimes I wish I could say something. snarky on social media and then I see other people do it and then I feel better that I didn't I didn't write that that tweet. It stayed in my dress but Jim Stanford noted that um Aaron Gunn wasn't proposing what he thinks he was proposing well snarky tweets haven't heard anybody else I mean look look at Trump I mean my God the stuff he says more than snarky no no it's just like he is the derange sultan of snark yeah anyways that's probably the kind of

thing one could say about him these days. Thank you. Thank you both. You know, if Mark Carney steals another one of Pierre Pauliev's ideas, he should probably, Pahliav should probably consider joining the liberals. I mean, he would be bound to get a good, a good one.

Yeah. You know what? You go to question period, you learn a lot. And if you watch those two guys before question period starts, there is some real conversation happening between the two of them on issues. There are jokes. There's banter. It's the kind of thing Stephen Harper never used to do with anybody across the aisle.

It's interesting to watch. There's a dynamic, a personal dynamic there that bears watching. I used to, you know, this clearly dates me, but I used to watch Trudeau, Pierre Trudeau, and John Diefenbaker do the same kind of thing. before and after question period. There was always banter between those two guys and, you know, a sense of respect and laughter that didn't exist during question period,

but certainly did an opposite end of it. But it'll be interesting to see how that plays out and how long that continues. Clearly there is something there in terms of the relationship between those two. Okay, thank you both, a reminder to listeners and viewers that are a question of the week this week for Thursday's your turn

is what do you make of Canada's involvement in space? It's been an incredible week of pictures and moments, another incredible moment yesterday that Jeremy Hanson was forefront on in terms of naming that crater on the moon after

the wife who passed away of the commander of the current spaceship. But what do you make of Canada's involvement in space? Is it worth the risk? Is it worth the money? you tell me, I've been surprised at the answers that have come in so far. There's been quite a few, but there's room for a few more.

You can write to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. You've got until tomorrow at 6 p.m. Eastern to get your answers in. Keep it under 75 words, include your name and the location you're writing from. All that's coming up Thursday. We'll be back tomorrow with another edition at the bridge. Thanks to Rob. Thanks to Elthea. Talk to you all again in 24 hours. Oh