The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Reporter's Notebook -- Should AI-Created Characters Be Allowed in Canadian Political Ads?

Episode Date: June 16, 2026

What's with the Conservatives using AI-created Canadians in their latest ad campaign? Plus, in this final Raj-Russo Conversation before the summer break, Althia and Rob suggest what each of the main parties needs to do over the holidays. Also, the G7 meets; will it accomplish anything? 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 and Russo? It's a reporter's notebook coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, along with Althea Raj from the Toronto Star, Rob Russo from The Economist. This is our last reporter's notebook before the summer hiatus, so we've got quite a bit of ground to cover. And yes, I'm still in Scotland. It's cold here.

That's why I'm wearing a big sweater and a hat. And, you know, it's middle of June where this time last year, was mid-20s. They're all worried about droughts. Now it's cold. I haven't even been swimming in the North Sea yet. But I'm hoping to do that before I head back to Canada for the summer. All right.

Enough about me. Let's get to the topics. I'm kind of intrigued by this story that was in, actually, the thing it was in your paper. Althea was in somebody's paper. Justin Ling wrote it, who occasionally writes for the Toronto Star. And it's about this new conservative ad

where some of the participants in it are AI created. In other words, they're not real. They've been created through graphics and artificial intelligence. And so I'm thinking, is this just the way of the world these days? Or is this something that should bother me? Who wants to try that? Rob, why don't you tell me? I think we should be concerned about it.

Look, let's call it a new technology. It's going to be used. And like a lot of new technologies, it's coming primarily from the United States. And Americans have been pioneers in using new technology for political purpose. Franklin Roosevelt used radio very effectively. John F. Kennedy was a master at television. Barack Obama was very, very good at using digital information to reach voters to raise money, small amounts of money from a broad audience.

When it comes to advertising, nobody has pioneered negative advertising like the Americans have. So what is new about this? Well, what's new about this is the use of deep fakes. In effect, that's what we need to be concerned about. In the case of this ad, there is some real information there that I think Canadians need to be concerned about, some information about food banks. We all know that food bank usage is through the roof. We all know that mortgage renewals are happening at a rate that is concerning to all. I think it was the Royal Bank.

One of the banks reported last week that they don't expect 10% of Canadians to be able to be in a position to renew their mortgages. So there's some real information there. But we don't know the difference between what's real and what's not real in that ad. And I think at a minimum, at a minimum, it should be very explicit that auto-generated images. were used in the making of this ad. It's grim, and I think that the situation of Canadians reflects some of the grimness in the ads, but I have to say it was an unsettling thing to watch,

knowing that a lot of what we were seeing was synthetic media, auto-generated media, and it compels us to ask what's real and what's not real in that ad. I'll see it. What is your take on him? Justin Ling's point was basically that we shouldn't accept political ads that don't feature real people, especially when the ads claim to be about real people. And I think that that message resonates with me, and I think it probably resonates with other people, hence why you wanted to talk about it this morning.

I'm more troubled by where it leads us than this particular example. You can imagine a scenario where political parties, to use Rob's point, misrepresents things that their opponents are doing and then don't tell the listener that, you know, this image of Mark Kearney that we are showing in a MAGA hat meeting with Donald Trump, that that actually did not happen. or, you know, the reverse, the liberals doing, misrepresenting Pierre Paulyev's words. I think we and parliamentarians should be having a discussion of where the limits are. A few years ago, the Trudeau government brought in legislation that suggested that you couldn't lie about your political opponents during the election campaign. You can make untrue statements and claims about opponents. And so if this is something that we are uncomfortable with, like we, the citizens of Canada, that is something that we should tell our parliamentarians that we don't want to see in our politics.

Justin Ling, the columnist who wrote this piece, makes that comparison with the United States where there's all sorts of untrue statements and misrepresentation generated by political actors down south that has led to more division in the United States. particular video shows a scenario that you don't actually see. Yes, food banks are, or have seen a huge increase since 2019. But this image of like this dark vision of people spiraling across the building, waiting in line for the food bank with empty carts. And if we're going to talk about our problems in our society, perhaps we're we should actually represent what is happening. So when people are not getting angry about things that are not actually true, but are only portrayed as such. And this video, you know, most people I think who consume media on that platform recognized

it for being AI generated. But what if we can't? to me, that is the thing that troubles me most. Like, what if I don't know that, and I can't tell that this image that is presented to me is not actually a true fact that this did not actually happen? So am I getting angry? Am I, are my emotions being targeted for something that didn't truly exist? I think that is a scenario that we want to avoid.

So whether it's, as Rob says, putting a disclosure or just, batting the use of AI and political advertising. I don't know what the solution is, but I do think if we see more and more and more of this, it could lead to more division. It could lead to lack of trust. And what we want is actually the reverse. You know, I think you both hit on the reason that I brought this up.

Because what surprised me most about this is the issue they chose to use. you know, AI to try and bring to the forefront. I mean, the stats on food banks, homelessness, whatever the issue in along those lines are stark enough. You don't need to fake the participants. It's pretty compelling when you see those numbers. But this now kind of deflects the issue. Maybe we're helping deflect the issue by talking about that

instead of about the food bank numbers. But the worry is there that if they could do it on this and get caught out, they could probably do it on a lot of things and not get caught out because you wouldn't look beyond some of the stuff. So this idea of the parties trying to get together to come up with some kind of formal rules

sounds like the way to go. I don't think we're going to see it. for a number of reasons. Number one, actors have been portraying voters and ads for a long, long time. Sure. So that's not new. But usually they would say actor portrayal or something on there. In very small script, if at all, what I'm more concerned about is, like, I looked at some of the AI ads used in the Texas Senate race.

And it had Corbyn, the, the, the incumbent Republican who was being unseated, who was ultimately unseated by a MAGA-backed, a Trump-backed Republican candidate for Senate there, looking quite ridiculous. Realistically, in a hula skirt or sitting in the middle of a pool with a drink while people were suffering. It's the inability, and it is going to,

it's already very difficult to tell the difference between reality and deep fakes. It's the inability to discern, between the two. The problem with negative advertising remains the same. All of us complain about it, all of us watch it, because all the parties use it, and it's because it works. It pushes on an open door when it's done well. The fear here, though, is that we will not be able to distinguish between reality and what's unreal. We won't know the difference, and they won't tell us the difference. Whereas in the past, I think we, most voters could tell the difference between

actor portrayals and non-actor portrayals, even if they raise legitimate issues. We won't be able to tell unless they tell us in bold letters at the bottom, you know, this is a synthetic media in effect. And they won't want to do that. Well, okay, we got to move on to the next topic. But just as a final quick question on this, who cares? Like, what different? is it really make in the end, whether it's an AI-generated figure or it's an actor, or it's a real person pushing that card. If the issue is about food banks and they're, you know, increasing numbers, isn't that the issue?

Like, who cares who's being portrayed in there? Why is that important? The problem comes to where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line between what is real and what's real? Where do you draw the line between, you know, calling somebody a stormtrooper and whether or not that's a legitimate speech in public discourse or, you know, depicting somebody in a very compromising situation that's obviously untrue? the line becomes very fuzzy, very fast. And at some point, there have to be some sort of norms. And I suppose libel and slander laws come into effect.

But those are often forgotten after the ads have been brought down. We all know the impact of very brief ads that haven't run for very long. In Canada, it was the ad depicting Jean-Cretien as a, a man with a deformed face who was not intelligent. In the United States, there was a very famous ad in 1964 called the Daisy ad that had depicted Barry Goldwater as a nuclear mad candidate for president who couldn't be trusted with his finger on the button. Ran very briefly those ads had a huge impact.

Okay. All right. Let's move on. Gordy Halbridge, still not open. And it appears it's not open because friends of the Trump team and the president himself are the owners of the other bridge, the ambassador bridge. Right. And they're going to lose a lot of money when the Gordyhow Bridge opens.

That seems to be the reason, if you believe the reporting that you've seen in the New York Times and what people are saying. Whatever way you look at it, the new bridge paid for by Canada is not open. is ready to be opened. It could be cars, traffic, whatever, people crossing that bridge and, you know, putting money into the fund that helps pay back Canada for the bridge. So the suggestion now is that we're basically being held ransom. That's all tied to the, you know, the various issues between Canada and the U.S.

What do you make of it else? What's going to happen here? I think the bridge eventually will open. I think the Americans are playing hardball. I think that we are waiting them out. I think it's pretty simple. Yeah, I mean, but we're waiting them out and saying there's no drama here. In fact, there's a bit of drama here, isn't there not?

There's a lot of drama on the Canada U.S. file. And I think, you know, there's this July 1st time stamp that, um, political leaders are building towards. I think that there's a lot of posturing. I just view it as one negotiating tactic that the White House is using, because obviously once they decide to put immigration officials,

custom officials at the border, the border will open, I don't think it's that big a deal, frankly. And I think it's interesting that you have the mayor saying that he's fine with the bridge not opening, as long as it means that, you know, Canada gets a better deal in the end. And so it feels like, at least on this side of the border, we're all singing from the same songbook.

And unless it becomes a big, unless it doesn't get resolved before the midterms and becomes an election issue, I think this is just a temporary, temporary pause. I really don't think that, you know, we are going to be in the same situation a year from now. Okay. Well, you know, if Canadians are keeping their cool, some Michiganders are not. You know, Michigan's government, state government, is pissed about this.

They're not happening. So is Ohio. Right. Another reliably Republican state. I know Michigan went for Trump, but Ohio did as well. Look, when Donald Trump has asked what his favorite movie is, he often refers to the godfather, which I think is quite instruct. about Donald Trump because he, I think, sees himself as a would-be Mafia Don who prizes loyalty above all else and who employs a variety of thugs to sometimes do his dirty work.

And in this instance, this is what it is. It's a cross-border shape down is what it is. I know that Howard Lutnik is being cast as a Luke of Brazzi in this. I see him more as a guy named Snidly Whiplash. You guys don't know, remember who Snidly Whiplash is, but he was a typical kind of villain in the early part of the last century with the black hat and the mustache that he would twirl. And Howard Lutnik is the guy who met with the Maroon family who owns the Ambassador Bridge and solicited million.

and donations to MAGA Inc is what it's called, MAGA Inc, a sort of a fundraising arm for President Trump. And they pay protection money and they want value for their money. And so one way or another, the Maroon family is going to be compensated. I think the issue is who's going to pay the compensation? Where is that going to come from? Because they're going to lose revenue, a lot of revenue on the ambassador. Bridge. The Ambassador Bridge, if you've ever taken it, busiest crossing, one of the busiest trade crossings in the world, but once you get to Canada, there's no direct connection to the

401 to the big highway. You've got to go through some streets. The New Bridge, the Gordie Howe Bridge, will take you directly onto the highway. So the Maroon family is going to lose a lot of money. They want something in exchange for the dough that they've paid, the protection dough they've paid, to Donald Trump and the Mega Inc. And so somebody's going to have to end up compensating. That's what the Americans will say. And that's where the discussions are being held right now. You know, how did we ever get to this?

I mean, we've always known there's been corruption in government generally. There's always been that possibility. Some has been worse than others. But it's taken to kind of investigative reporting to find it. And now we kind of just, it's just, You hear about it every day. Like it's, you know, there's nothing hidden. I think you need to say in the United States.

Yes. Okay. Yeah, no, you're correct in the U.S. And it's certainly with this president. And it seems to be happening and nobody says anything about it. You know, there'll be the occasional report and isn't it outrageous and blah, blah, blah, and then move on to the next thing. It's not like it's stopped or somebody is.

impeached or thrown in jail or whatever. None of that happens. It just sort of goes on. We are numb to the outrage because there is a sea of outrage. The sea is jammed, packed with all kinds of detritus, plastic, waste, all this stuff. We're choking on it. And so we have become numb to it, not immune to it necessarily, but numb to it because it's there every single day. Whether it's a $400 million airport, that airplane that Qatar wants to give to Donald Trump for his personal use, to the Trump family trying to build golf courses in Albania and build resorts there and the corruption.

At least the Albanians, they rose up and they protested against it. But inside the United States, it's just seen as, you know, yeah, he's rough around the edges. But my 401k is flush. I don't think we're numb to the end. I don't think we are numb. I don't think the Americans are numb. I think Americans feel powerless. I do think it's getting covered.

but if you don't have elected representatives, Congress, who is willing to do their job and put their own skin on the line, you realize at what point the norms and the laws that govern us as a society are toothless unless people are willing to use them. Do you think there'll be a reckoning here? There always is. American history is replete with this sort of thing where there is excess and then there is there is a reaction to the excess. The whole no-nothing movement in the 1800s reminds me a lot of the

nativism that we see in the United States now. It's all been there before and then there's a snapback. We have to remember that the Americans are a revolutionary people. They brought vital at authority and then they settle down and get to work. So yes, there will be a reaction to this. And I think that's part of what Canada's strategy is to wait some of this out to see if Trumpism actually survives beyond Trump. But I can guarantee you that America, which in Americans, I live there for eight years, they are relentless in searching for the next frontier.

They're the most dynamic entrepreneurial people in the world. They will come back to their senses. Well, we'll hold you to that. And we'll mark that down and I'll keep that tape. We'll see if that happens in my lifetime. Okay, quickly, G7 is, you know, from what you've seen so far, and things basically just started. these things often tend to be kind of showboat moments, a lot of photo ops.

Usually there's a communicate worked out before it even happens, but in this case, there sounds like there's not even going to be a communique. What do we make of this? Give me the snapshot answer on G7. Althea. Well, they have a lot to talk about Iran first and foremost, and it seems like, especially Britain and France are willing to help America get out of its own troubles. Ukraine, obviously.

And then there's, I think, an interesting chat about AI and social media and immigration. And so we'll see what they come up with. I think the most interesting thing, and you kind of hit on it, is that there's a recognition that they actually can't come to an agreement with Donald Trump around the table. And so there won't be a joint communicate because there is no point in trying to negotiate. one and have him blow up the whole thing like we saw in Canada, for example, most famously when Justin Trudeau was still Brown Minister. And so there's going to be a series of statements that are released, which may or may not have everybody's signature approval on the documents. At the end of the

day, the G7 is really just a forum of discussion for the world's most powerful leaders. And so it's important to have that venue, especially important for Canada, have a seat at that table. But I don't think, you know, anything they come up with is going to rock our world, for example. Rob. Trump set out to make them less meaningful and he, I think, has succeeded for now. How did he do that? Well, he wouldn't even stay. It won't even stay at them beyond a day or two.

We all know he left Charlevoire early and then caused a huge stink afterwards. Last year, he left very early as well. I think you only stayed a day. Macron, knowing that he could do this again, is trying to bribe him with a dinner at Versailles. Because he understands that Trump likes the trappings of royalty, and it'll be interesting to see if he sticks around. I think he's agreed to stick around,

but that's the only way you can get him to stick around. But let's not forget that Trump postponed the beginning of this so that he could celebrate his 80th birthday, not with the other leaders of the free world, but so that he could sit there and watch a mixed martial arts fight on the lawn of the White House. Look, it's important for Canada, though. And I would say it's a representation that despite Trump trying to make these things meaningless, the United States remains the indispensable nation. They all want him to stick around.

They all want access to him. Mark Carney needs access to him to have a face-to-face to begin talking about the steel, auto, aluminum, forest, tariffs that are really kind of hobbling our economy still. He has said, sorry to interrupt you, he has said that he's not going to discuss Kuzma or the tariffs at the Jesus. Oh, is that right? Yeah, but just the fact that we were going to, we were desperate to have this face-to-face with him, that the year of.

Europeans are desperate to get face time with them on things like Ukraine, underscore that despite Trump trying to do everything he can to stiff arm these guys, he insults them, all of them. You know, we bristle at the notion that he calls us the 51st state. I mean, he is brutal, he's been brutal to Macron. He's been brutal to Starmor. His favorite Maloney in Italy is now dismissed as having no courage. they all line up to see him because the United States remains indispensable to their future prosperity and security.

And the guys just had his worst four months of his presidency. And yet they're still sucking up to him and lined up waiting for him, which tells its own story. Okay, we're going to take our break. Come back. We're going to try and forecast what's ahead or what should be ahead for the three parties. We'll just deal with the conservatives, the NDP, and the liberals. when we come back. What's ahead for them this summer? Or what should be ahead for them this summer?

We'll do that right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Tuesday edition this week. And it's the final reporter's notebook with Althea Raj and Rob Russo before we take our summer hiatus. So I was glad to have them with us and you with us, whether you're on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform, or you're watching us on our YouTube channel. We're glad to have you with us. Okay, let's do a kind of sense of where you think or what you think.

Each of the three parties has to do this summer to use this opportunity before they come back to Parliament in the fall. Let's work from the bottom up, so to speak, in terms of representation in the House. And that's the fourth party in the House. That's the NDP. Althea, you start us. What do the NDP have to do this summer? Well, it's pretty easy for the NDP because they're already at the bottom, so there's nowhere really for them to go.

They have a new leader, Avi Lewis. Abby Lewis needs to get out there and starts coloring the line and defining himself. It's interesting that no political party has spent any time actually trying to define Avi Lewis, at least not after the second day of him being selected as NDP leader. So I think that's what he needs to do. Who is he? What is the NDP underneath his leadership? How does he kind of tow that line between energy and climate,

especially when you think about the provinces like Saskatchewan, where the NDP is actually a force and possibly challenging for government? So he doesn't not want to hurt his provincial cousins. but he has a huge opportunity now to grab progressive voters on the left and center left. And he has a summer ahead to define himself and fundraise, frankly, because the party's broke. And does the summer ahead, he appears pretty clear that he doesn't want to run in any by-elections. Do you think he'll reconsider that or should he reconsider that over the summer? There's nothing easy for him to win.

So I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. Okay, Rob, on the NDP. Yeah, the New Democratic Party for the last little while, really since Jack Layton, has lost the connection it had to working people in Canada. Under a leader like Avi Lewis, born and raised in Toronto, grew up or became an adult, really, in, in Vancouver. I don't, I don't think it's a slag to say that he's a salon socialist, right? He's a, he's a guy who has probably not spent a lot of time in working among, among places where people work with their hands or get things out of the ground.

So this rural, urban working kind of white collar, blue collar split that's happened in the NDP has to be repaired somehow. If it isn't, then they're doomed to irrelevance. Their challenge, and it's the challenge I also think for conservatives to a lesser extent, is that Donald Trump remains the president of the United States and that he scares working people away from what some believe is the luxury of voting for the third party. Their opportunity is that there is a wide open field when it comes to policy, it seems. As the Liberal Party, in particular, moves towards the center, if not the center right, in many instances,

wide open opportunity for them to appeal to people who feel like they've been left behind. All right. The Conservatives. And Rob, you can start on the Conservatives. What should be they be doing this summer? What should Pierre Pelliev be doing this summer? Yeah. Yeah. Like the question is almost huge and metaphysical almost. Can humans evolve? You know, can Pierre Poiliev actually evolve? He, he, and it's not just, you know, pointy-headed political prognosticators or the members of the punditocracy who are asking this question. It's conservatives who are asking this question. Conservatives who are asking this question. Conservatives who have felt the lash of his tongue or the lash of those around him.

are asking the question because he clearly offered policy. The Conservatives clearly offered policy that was appealing to a large number of Canadians probably more than enough to get elected. If you judge by the increase in their vote and if you judge by the light-fingered larceny with which the liberals stole much of it, so the question then becomes,

can Pierre Paulyev become the kind person who can appeal to members of his own caucus who now control his own fate and to Canadians who seem to find him, find antipathy towards him. So can he reverse that or does he need to wait for the prime minister and the liberals to stumble? All of the laws of political gravity would suggest that the liberals will come back to earth. It's not a question of if it's a question. of when when that happens will they turn to mr. Poitiev can he make himself appealing to to people who who find in him reasons not to vote for the conservative party this is the question that he has to ask I think his opportunity

is clearly on the national unity question it's in Alberta and he'll spend a lot of time on that I think it's an excellent opportunity for him I disagree with a lot of my colleagues who think that he made a hash of it last week in Alberta, I think that he showed signs that he can actually play a role there that might help him in the rest of the country. All right. Alcia. I'm going to take a slightly different tack, but it's similar to Rob.

Like, I am not sure that Pierre Pueleev is all in. And I think he needs to reflect on that over the summer. but I think he's actually already done that. I think the real question is with conservative MPs. Do they think that they can win under Pierre Puehliev? I think that's the question they need to ask themselves. And then what are they willing to do about it? And so far for most people, it's little.

But watching the debates in the House of Commons, there is some really interesting critiques of the liberal government coming from MPs, from their local constituencies, from government, from government cuts that the liberals are making, you know, you kind of hear arguments that actually sound like the liberals used to make with regards to Stephen Harper in terms of the liberals being anti-democratic. Do the liberals believe in science? They're cutting all these agricultural science programs across the country. And at the moment, these MPs in the House of Commons are just repeating the lines and the slogans that are being fed to them by Pierre

Puello's office. And whether or not they're willing to stick the knife in their leaders back, I really don't think most of them are there. I think they need to ask themselves, what are they willing to do to save their own seats and their own skin and their connection with their voters? And maybe that's making legitimate criticisms of the liberal government, pardon me, in the House of Commons, finding their own voice.

Maybe it's not sharing those AI-generated videos that you talked about. at the beginning of the show. Because they're the only ones that can potentially save their bacon if Prime Minister Carney decides to call a stamp election. And I think that's the reckoning that a lot of them will do, especially in the barbecue circuit when connecting with constituents this summer. When you said the beginning of your remarks, you weren't sure that Pollyette was all in on his own leadership.

What are you based on that? Yeah. What are you thinking? Like where's that coming from when you say it? He has taken a different, like we've seen his positioning change. And I think we need to look at it at post-Calgary leadership because I think a lot of things were done in the lead-up to the vote in Calgary to secure the leadership. And I think he was definitely all in it after that vote. I feel like the fire is gone from his belly.

and we saw him take a kind of a more national unity, and I'm not talking about Alberta, but I mean vis-a-vis the United States rhetoric. And then we've seen him kind of fall back in his old speech using some of the same words that he used in the conservative leadership race, talking about the government being big and bossy and kind of the kind of divisive rhetoric that we heard from him in the very early moments.

I think that that, and maybe that's, where Rob you were going in terms of like that maybe that's his default. Can he learn? But maybe he also doesn't want to learn. Maybe this is like who he is, who he's comfortable with. And I don't know. You hear all sorts of stories. I just, I am not convinced that Pierre Pueh Playa of himself thinks that he is going

to be the leader of the Conservatives in the last election. That's interesting. Okay. The liberals. You know, listen, they're the government. They won the election. They have a new leader. He seems to be quite popular.

Across the land, there are issues sometimes within his own caucus, as we've certainly heard in the last few weeks. He has a majority government. What do they have to think about this summer? What do they have to be either concerned about or what do they have to polish? Okay, on this one, Althea, you start and then robble close. I think they, I mean, so there's lots of agenda items, obviously, they need to think about

Kizma, sectoral tariff relief 232, the Alberta pipeline, the proposal that's supposed to come in in July, the impact that might have on the Quebec election. But I think really what the government needs to focus on is to remember people and to bring people along in their plans. And communicate clear to people about what's going to happen.

I was struck listening to Michael Sabia at the Eurasia RBC Canada U.S. summit last week. I mentioned who he is. Oh, Michael Sabia is the clerk of the privy council. Basically, he's like the deputy minister of the prime minister's office. So he's the guy who is in charge of the public service in the implementation of the government's agenda. And usually Mark Carney of the prime minister goes to this event, closing event. But in this case, he was swapped in. He was heading to Europe and he was swapped in for Michael Sabia.

And Sabia, probably to some viewers and listeners, was familiar because he was also the deputy minister at finance when Christy Freeland was there. And business leader has basically done every job in this country. He said they pull, no, Canada, all everything. He's run everything in Canada. But in that speech, he talked about, you know, what the government is. planning to do and it's kind of this strategy which is like obviously build Canada strong and what they're focused on in terms of using natural resources to diversify the Canadian economy more broadly, double electricity production, focus on AI adoption, commercialization in Canada

to help productivity, trying to be a stronger economic partner to help with their leverage with the United States, strengthen the United States, the relationship with the United States, focus on the North, he talked about a package of regulatory reforms. So these are changes that the government planned to introduce in the fall that would speed things up in a dramatic way. And I think to a lot of business people, this message resonated and sounded like, well, this sounds like a super great plan. I think of like boomers who are looking for stability. Yes, you know, somebody who's economically focused, hand on the tiller, this is great. But when you think about young people, for example, who don't feel any connection to the government or feel like the government is not focused on the things that they care about, affordability, finding secure employment, how to pay the rent, it feels like the government is kind of allowing itself to be vulnerable in terms of being portrayed as a government that cares about making rich people richer and not about, you know, selling off, for example, selling off public infrastructure.

you know, this government has talked about ports and airports selling them off, talked about impact assessment changes that affect environmental rules. I think the government and the Liberal Party specifically is at risk of losing the Yellow Coral Coalition that they spent 10 years building. And some liberals will tell you that this is a grand strategic plan, that they know this and that they believe that there are other voters that they can replace the progressive voters that they will lose. but I think more importantly as a country,

if you want to keep national cohesion, you need to be able to speak to people about what you're doing and why you're doing it and how you're responsive to the different parts of the kind of Canadian family. And I think that is the challenge of the summer is to connect back to actual people. Okay.

Rob, you got the last word? I went to the Prime Minister's Garden Party for the first time and long time. I don't go to these things much anymore. I went to one for Justin Trudeau, and this was, I went to one for Mark Carney. There were a couple of things that everybody was talking about. One of them was Althea's excellent story from the week before, where she talked about disquiet among the liberal caucus, first-class journalism, Althea. But when I spoke to cabinet ministers there, I was struck by how they all talked about the angst, the anxiety, the wariness across the country, even where people do have money, even where people are doing very, very well.

All of them noted that there is a real feeling of concern about the future of the country. And I think this is something that the liberals need to get at, that the question of, are we going to be okay as a country? Do we still work as a country with secessionist movements gaining steam in Alberta and in Quebec and with Donald Trump lurking? I think that an enormous amount of faith and trust has been placed in Mark. Carney's hands. He, he, they hope, they hope that he can pull this off, but they're not sure. And I think the government has to show that the country can still work. You know, one of them said that there are still millions of people around the world every

day who want to come to Canada, who think about how they can get to Canada, but that the people who are here are really worried about the country. and we've got to try and connect what those people outside of Canada see in Canada to the people who are here and try to connect those dreams and make them real again. And they haven't been real. And people are worried about it. They are worried about it. So I think that the liberals need to address that.

They need to show that Canada can still work as a country that we're all going to be okay. Number one, we're going to stay together and that we can thrive as a country. But there are interesting challenges. Sure. The pipeline decision does pit, you know, whatever that ends up looking like, and hopefully it's pretty fleshed out. It could potentially give ammunition to the PQ heading into the fall election. And so there are interesting needles that the government will have to thread in order to not aggravate

the cleavages that the other parties will try, and provincial parties will try to accentuate. I think there's a lot of hurdles, especially in the fall and in August for the government. But to go back to Michael Saphew's point, where you talked about the one thing the government had that was a rare commodity was trust. And I guess this is to Rob's point.

Like the government needs to maintain that trust. I don't, I think they, they think they probably have more trust than they actually do have because of, because of Trump and because of whateyev. Like, I think a lot of vote is parked in, in the liberal camp. It's not because of blind trust that Canadians have, like, have given Mark Carney. I think it's like, it's there in the same way that the vote was, was parked there for Pierre Puehliev when, in the, like, waning years with the Trudeau government. Like, it wasn't, I, I'm in love with Pierre Puele of vote.

And I don't think that at the moment, I think people see him as the best of, you know, the majority of can you see him as the best of the options. But it's not, you can't go to the bank with that regardless of what else you do. So I think that that trust is still vulnerable and they have to safeguard that. Okay. I've got less than a minute left. I didn't warn you of this, but I'll try it out anyway. Make one bold prediction for the summer.

on the political spectrum, anything. It can be anything about anyone, about any party, about any government. Make one prediction. I'll say that despite repeated assurances that there's no threat to Kuzma, that there's no cliff, that Donald Trump will at some point during the summer or shortly thereafter, once the midterm campaign season begins in earnest, will make a threat to, and signal that he's going to withdraw from Kuzma. I don't think he's going to do it, but he has the right to do it with six months notice.

He'll do it in order to enhance his campaign chances in the midterms in swing states, like Wisconsin, like Michigan, like Ohio, those places there. So we need to get ready for that. And yes, secessionist movements are on the rise, but that threat will be the kind of thing that will blunt their momentum. I'll see it. I am not good at predictions. I'm not at clairvoyant. I just hope that we all stay safe, that there's no terrible forest fires.

And that MPs all take well-deserved vacation after the last year. And everybody comes back rested in that we all get along. It's kumbaya. Kumbaya is right. Geez, I can see you at the campfire. already.

You know, I'll say one thing for MPs. You know, we get the public has this impression that, okay, the Parliament's not sitting, they're not back till whenever it is late September, October, that they've kind of checked out

in its party time. Actually, for some MPs, the hardest time is breaks like this because they've got to go home and face their constituents, who are, you know, many of them are upset about any variety of different things.

and they meet with their constituents and who aren't shy about being very direct with them. So, you know, it's not, you know, we spent a lot of time dumping on MPs and politicians and sometimes there's a good reason to be doing that. But it's also worth remembering that it's not the easiest job in the world. So we'll wish them a happy summer. And they're part of our audience.

I can't tell you since I started during the podcast, how many of them come up and say they listen and they listen attentively. I'm sure they agree with everything that Althea says. But other than that, they are, they tune in and they let me know. It's quite something. That's good. All right, you too. Have a great summer.

I know you'll be working. I know you'll be working. Both of you. The eagle never sleeps. But we will see you on the links, Rob. And until then, you both take care. And out there, listeners, thanks for joining us throughout this year. It's been great to do this program.

We always enjoy talking. So we'll see you in the fall. Bye for now.