The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Reporter's Notebook: Who's The Most Influential Minister in the Carney Cabinet?

Episode Date: September 23, 2025

There are more than two dozen members of Mark Carney's cabinet, but who, aside from Carney himself, is the most powerful, the most influential? That's one of the questions up for discussion this week on Reporter's Notebook with Althia Raj and Rob Russo. The upcoming budget and the PM's trip to the United Nations are also on the agenda. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Who is the most influential member of the Mark Carney Cabinet? That discussion. And a lot more coming up on Reporter's Notebook with Althea Raj and Rob Russo. Coming right up. there. Welcome to Tuesday. Welcome to Reporter's Notebook. Every second

Tuesday, alternating with the Moore-Buts conversations. Every second Tuesday, we have Althea Raj from the Toronto Star. Rob Russo from the Economist. Join us for discussions about national politics. Prime Minister is in New York.

As being at the UN, we'll talk about that. We'll talk about budget preparations. And we'll talk about this intriguing question of who, of This cabinet of more than a couple of dozen people, many of whom haven't been on the cabinet, lists before,

who of that group is the most influential, the most powerful? We'll get to that in a couple of minutes' time, but first of all, just a reminder about the question of the week, because you have to have your answers in by 6 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow. The question is this, Are you worried about the long-term future of the United States? Are you worried about the long-term future of the United States?

75 words or fewer is the major condition. You write to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. You include your name and the location you're writing from. okay you have to tick all those boxes and it works if you do no guarantee that you'll be on it's all in terms of the number of letters that come in and we sort of go through them all and figure out the ones are most representative of the opinions being expressed and a balance through the country we like to get as much of the country involved as possible But we read them all, and that's the main thing.

Okay? So are you worried about the long-term future of the United States? We've had much discussion about the long-term future of our country. Now we want your thoughts on the long-term future of our major trading partner and the one that has caused us, well, a degree of anxiety this year. Can we say that? So send along your thoughts on that. And once again, you have to have them in before 6 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow.

That'll be for Thursday's program, along with the Random Ranter. Look forward to that. So let's get to today's program. Once again, as I said, it is Althea Raj and Rob Russo. Althea with the Toronto Star. Rob Russo with The Economist. Here we go. Okay, you two.

I want to start by talking about the Prime Minister in New York, where he's been for the last couple of days, and we'll probably stretch that for one or two days more. Yesterday, he picks as one of his audiences. He did a number of things, but he picked the Council on Foreign Relations. I found it a, you know, a return to his kind of hinge moment type speeches where, you know, I'll read a couple of quotes. He said to this group when talking about the current era of political and economic turbulence around the world,

he said this is not a transition, this is a rupture, this is a sharp change in a short period of time driven by a variety of factors. We have a determination to rise up and meet this in Canada by building. building strength at home, pursuing a variable geography to defend our values and pursue our interests. None of these things he hasn't said before, but he chose to say them again to that particular audience. And I'm wondering, Rob, why don't you start? It says to, what was the thinking in that? What was you trying to get at talking to that group with this stuff? I think the notion that he's trying to reinforce, and it's one that he was doing to people in the investment community who were in that audience, an important target for him as he's trying to attract capital for a lot of the big projects that he hopes to get underway in the next, however much time he has in government, as well as to the foreign policy experts in that room. And it's been described to me as a shrink the oceans strategy because the argument that most people make is how do you resist the magnetic, the gravitational pull of 340 million of the richest people in the world accessible by rail and truck when it comes to business investment?

how do you resist the dangers as well that comes with a neighbor that's going through a tectonic shift south of you, who is also in large part responsible for the defense of your country? How do you deal with that? Everybody understands that they want to become closer to the Europeans, forge a new relationship with China along certain guard-railed sectors. But how do you do that? And it's been described to me as this notion that we have to shrink the oceans.

We have to get over the idea that just because there are an ocean away, we can't become closer to them, bring them closer to us. So how do you do that? Well, you do it by beginning to form free. trade blocks with your European allies, the declaration on Palestine, that's a really interesting foreign policy manifestation of that. In the old days, Canada would move lockstep with the United States and Israel to a large extent on these kinds of things. We became part of an effort that was led by Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, to try and do something different.

to break away from the traditional stances on the Middle East, led by the United States, and that was a manifestation of that. So we're trying to shrink the oceans when it comes to our diplomacy. We're trying to shrink the oceans when it comes to our economy. We're trying to shrink the oceans when it comes to our defense. We're considering a submarine purchase from a consortium of German and Norwegians and Koreans. Again, something we normally never, ever would have considered. We'd have gone right to Washington.

We'd have gone right to Lockheed Martin. We would have gone, we never would have gone to Tiss and Croup. We never would have done that. And that's what we're seeing. It's a shrink the ocean's policy, and it's rooted in a belief, unlike what a lot of people believe, we just need to kind of blow through the Trump's, or get through the blow hard section of the Trump's storm.

The storm will blow itself out. The people around Mark Carney, do not believe that. They believe that this is something that is going to endure beyond Trump. That U.S. isolationism is something that began with Barack Obama deciding he wasn't going to react and the way he said he was going to react when Crimea was stolen from Ukraine. So something that's going to, that has been going on for some time and something that's going to last for a lot longer than a lot of Canadians probably realize. Okay, I like your shrink the ocean's phrase, although it comes at the same time the water levels are rising.

So we've got a clash here on those two things, but nevertheless, two different issues. But Alcy, give us your take on this. Okay, so a few things. Prime Minister going to the Council of Foreign Relations is not new. It's actually kind of like one of the stops that you're supposed to do on the on the Ungah Trail. week. So I don't read too much into that. I remember once with Stephen Harper, Carolyn Stewarter was his press secretary or directive communications at the time told reporters that they weren't allowed to ask questions because she didn't want the media to be quizzing the prime minister

in front of that audience. But it is open to the public and, well, open to members and the media and you can get quizzed about anything. And obviously Mark Carney was very comfortable with that audience. I don't think he actually said anything new. On the shrinking of the oceans, or ocean, I guess we should say, because the ocean, specific oceans part, we haven't seen what that trade diversification strategy will be and how sustain they will be about focusing on Asia. It's interesting because I guess we will have a better indication in the budget of where foreign affairs priorities lie because they will also have to find 7.5%. of savings in the next calendar year. Will that mean missions being closed abroad? I think the prime minister is very focused on Europe and the UK

because of his own personal interests. And we see him really engaging on a multiple fronts, whether it's the Palestine resolution and the pressure with Macron or all the trips he's going to Europe or just this weekend. And we had the finance minister, François-Ferip Champagne, go to the EU finance minister's meeting or this security economic deal that the prime minister signed in June that we were not really sure of what's actually in it yet. It doesn't seem like the government itself is completely sure whether it has fleshed out. I don't know that we wouldn't have gotten there. I guess on the Palestine resolution, this is the thing.

Maybe I disagree with you a little bit, Rob. If you look back over the last 15-ish years, we have started to change our votes at the UN. I think it even started under Paul Martin. So we have not been in lockstep with the United States on this issue. And I think European leaders are facing the same pressure that any leader in Canada would face, especially a liberal leader who has been elected with so much support.

from a diaspora community and those who are quite sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians feeling like they need to address that and what can you do to address that? And so I, you know, this is a an effort that is tied with lots of other conditions. The ground was set earlier in the summer

when the government announced that this was going to be a shift in Canada's position. I'm not sure that that is entirely just to shrink the oceans. I think some of it really is driven by electoral considerations at home and then kind of loop back to the Council of Foreign Relations speech. I think a lot of what he said was also kind of laying the groundwork for what we're going to see in the budget, whether that's cuts, whether that's investments, however he wants to spin that budget.

I think he was laying the groundwork for big spending kind of the monumental shifts that the government says that we should expect. All right. I want to get to the budget because I think there's a lot in there to talk about at this point, even though we don't know for sure what's in it, but we have a good sense, at least in terms of what you just hinted at in terms of big spending. But staying on New York for a moment, the general assembly of the United Nations starts today. And it's an annual thing. And it's an opportunity for leaders from various

parts of the world to come to New York, stand in front of that green marble background, and give a big speech. This would be Mark Carney's first opportunity to do that. It's a big deal. but it appears at this moment, unless I'm wrong, that he's not taking it. He's not going to give that speech. He gave a couple of big speeches yesterday, but not this one. What do we make of that, or do we make anything of that? Who wants to give it a go, start? Why don't you, Rob?

I think that they decided, well, they have decided, that it was important to send this. signal that they are forging European alliances, and the recognition of Palestine was part of that effort. He did go in front of that green marble to do it. He did have his pictures taken there. So they wanted to underscore it in that sense, in that setting. I think the other reality is that in case anyone didn't know it already, the United Nations has become largely irrelevant when it comes to international development.

They convene, they hold meetings, they strike resolutions, and then they're universally ignored. I talked about U.S. isolationism in my last answer to your question, and it has been manifest there. again, because I've been around a little while, I remember Brian Mulroney calling the United States under Ronald Reagan deadbeats at the UN because they weren't paying their dues. And now it's beginning to happen to a certain extent with China as well. They're behind on their payments. But at the same time, other countries like China, like Russia, are filling the diplomatic void at the UN as the UN,

As the U.S. withdraws from the United Nations and largely ignores it, those countries and countries that don't always have great records when it comes to human rights find themselves with more and more influence. I want to go back to that shrinking the oceans thing. I do believe it is an ocean. I believe it's more than one. You'll see very soon an announcement from Carney that he's going to Asia. In November, he's going to spend a long time in Asia. And he's not going to go to China, but while he is in New York, he is going to meet with the Chinese Premier. And they, I think, this is the highest level meeting that there has been between Canada and China in a long, long time, certainly since among Longzhou rupture.

And I think that you're going to see him begin to lay down the guardrails of where that relationship is going to go. And where it's going to go is that they will cooperate on things like. Our natural resources, energy, our farm, agricultural products, fertilizer, we will not cooperate in areas of high-tech, of refined mechanization, industrialization. But it is an important meeting. It's an important opening that way. I also want to address the Palestinian resolution in the terms that Althea are. I think there is an obvious political calculus here. I had conservatives say to me, even though that they objected to what the liberals were doing

on the Palestinian resolution, recognition, they see it as a very smart move politically. Why do you just have to look at the numbers? There are 350,000 Jewish votes in Canada, and that number is either stable or getting smaller, and there are now 2 million Muslim votes in Canada, and that number is getting larger, and that was determinant in some of those ridings outside and around major cities like Toronto and Vancouver as well. Okay, two things before I give it back to Althea. On the, just a sec, on the China-Canada thing, Karni also, in the last couple of days, talked not glowingly, but admirably about China's position on climate

and suggested the Americans are behind the Chinese on that front and that Canada could learn from the Chinese on climate. The other thing is about the relevance of the UN, which brings us back to why he's not giving that speech. I heard the other day someone was asked, about their pick for you and ambassador to replace Bob Ray. It's going to be David Lamede, but this was before a choice was made. And the answer was, who cares?

The job's irrelevant now. It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean as much as it did, even when Bob Ray first got the position, whenever that was four or five years ago. I found that interesting. Anyway, Elsie, I know you're anxious to get going here on this. Well, I think to your point on the UN, it's about, you know, governing is about priorities. And one of the things to know about the way the UN schedule works is, well, first of all, it doesn't, it kind of comes out late.

So the Canadian mission at the UN would probably know just a few weeks ago where the canvas lotting spot would be. and it goes in order of precedent so heads of state and Prime Minister Carney is not the head of state he's the head of government, head of states go first and then heads of governments so our speaking slot was pretty late and what the government tells me

is that they had already committed the prime minister will be going on another foreign trip which would probably be announced later this week that he would be gone that day that being said if you feel that going to the UN and addressing the General Assembly is important, much like Prime Minister Trudeau felt it was important, you can change your schedule around. And I think that's

the takeaway. The takeaway is Mark Carney is much more focused on building relationships with Europe and the United Kingdom than he has with working with the United Nations. We do not here, and maybe this is a continuation of the trying to separate this government from the Trudeau government, we don't hear Mr. Carney talk that much about multilateralism. I cannot recall him ever talking about peacekeeping missions. The focus that Trudeau brought, the Canada is back, let's go get a UN Security Council seat, that is missing completely from the Mark Carney liberal government. So I think that that is an important marker of differentiation between the two. On the China part, I think what's important, he's right about climate. I mean, that those are

facts. China's well ahead of us and well ahead of the United States. And I'm sure that that is a direction that he believes Canada should be moving in. The guardrails, to use Rob's word, frankly, has to be, how do you engage with China without annoying, sacrificing, jeopardizing Canada's relationship with the U.S. How do you do that without Donald Trump saying, don't do this? How do you do that without not affecting the potential renegotiations with regards to the free trade agreement? With that, if I was sitting in the prime minister's office,

that is what would concern me because so much, like we were kind of like this country squeezed between these two powers at the moment when you think about the canola tariffs and the EV tariffs that we've placed on China. Like, we're in a retaliation war with these two giants. How do you court rapprochement with one so that it's not economically a disaster for your own country without sacrificing a relationship that, frankly,

is even more important to you? So it's a tough dance. You know, just a little last point on the China thing. I mentioned that, and I'm glad you both have talked. about it as well because I think most Canadians, well, maybe not most, but a lot of Canadians think China is the backwater of the climate story because they're still using coal. They still open coal plants. But these are interesting statistics that you can see now where China is making headway on the climate story. The other point is for listeners who are wondering,

why is Althea know so much about the UN? We probably should tell them before her reporting days or in between her reporting days there was a break she took and she worked at the UN. I worked at the Canadian Mission to the United Nation in an internship between leaving the house on CBC Radio

and coming back to work for CTB. And you enjoyed that. The CTV approached me when I was in New York. Right, but you enjoyed that time. You saw it as I did. I learned a lot. It was very interesting. It was during the Harper government Maxine Bernier was the Foreign Affairs Minister. Yeah.

So when does Antonio Gutera's time come up as Secretary General of the UN? And do we have the next candidate? Yes. Secretary General. We should absolutely nominate Althea. Okay. All right. We're going to move on.

I want to talk about the budget. But this might be as good a point as any to take our break. We'll take it right now and be back in a moment. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge for this Tuesday. Althea Raj, Rob Russo, Reporter's Notebook. That's our topic for this Tuesday.

You're listening on Series XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform, and we welcome you from wherever you are. Okay, budget. What is the date, November 4th? Is that the date they've decided on? And, you know, rumors have swirled for some time already, and we're going to hear nothing but rumors for the next month

and some strategically placed leaks, I'm sure. What is the latest we're hearing that you're hearing in terms of the talk in the corridors of power, as we say, about the budget, Althea? Do you mean the substance of the budget? What do you mean? It's a politics. You can pick the roots you want to take, keeping in mind that it is a minority government and budgets have caused the falling of minority governments in the past.

So we're keeping in mind that. So there really is a politics wing to this and a substance wing to it as well. So you choose whichever path you wish. All right. So on the substance of the budget, there's going to be a really big deficit. And we have heard a lot about cuts. The prime minister himself described the budget as an austerity budget. But my understanding is there will also be new spending that hasn't been announced yet.

So there may be things to kind of help by NDP support or by Black Kibiquist support. It may not be as dark and austere as the prime minister suggested earlier. this month. That being said, I think we need to look at the budget timing, which, as you said, is November 4th. The other time peg that's important in the month of November is the Great Cup. And I say this not because I'm a huge CFL fan, but because the prime minister has said that that is when the second tranche of national interest projects that the update, the updated list will be released. And the Premier of Alberta, Daniel Smith, seemed convinced that there will be a pipeline on that list.

And the way that budget votes work is that the budget will be announced, and then there's a break week, and all the cabinet ministers will go and sell all the goodies in the budget and tell Canadians how great the budget is, and then we'll come back and there will be a vote. If we come back and there's a vote in the context of a pipeline being announced, I cannot see how the Black Quebec or the NDP would support such a budget. And then who do you rely on? The conservatives who will have to defend a multi-billion dollar deficit, Pierre Paulyev does not want to have an election.

He has a leadership review in January. If we go in an election and he loses, two strikes and you're out usually is what we think in politics. So there's a lot of chatter about who's going to support the budget. And a lot of opposition MPs believe, frankly, that, and not just opposition MPs, but a lot of liberal MPs believe, now is a better time to go because, you know, the economy's heading south, the trade negotiations may not go the way that the prime minister would like. So now is the best time. Maybe the spring is also a good time. So I don't know.

I don't know who the dance partner is. And it seems like nobody in the halls of Ottawa knows either. If there's a pipeline in the budget and Premier On the list Like it won't necessarily be in Yeah sorry pipeline on the list And Premier Smith is You know pretty excited and happy about that

How is Alberta MP Pierre Palliev going to vote against A budget that would help a pipeline Interesting question Anyway Rob What's your take on what you're here A couple of things on the date, they originally were telling people, many of us, that the date was going to be

in early November or October. They've moved it back a month. I think the reason they've moved it back is because they continue to hope for some sort of relief on the sectoral tariffs with the United States. Because if they get that relief, that means they're going to have to spend a lot less in terms of industrial support for people in the steel, the aluminum, the auto industry, and other communities forestry as well. As it stands now, the numbers will be staggering. So what are they doing to prepare us for staggering numbers when it comes to spending? The theme of this government

in its first six months to a year, whether it's communications theme or budgeting theme is that we are seeing a generational change, that the spending that we're seeing, it will be spending that will set us up for several generations afterwards. You listen to what Francois-Philippe Champagne says in his interviews about what's happening for those who are wondering. Yeah, he is saying, he is saying in effect, yes, the numbers are going to be huge. But he's trying to say, I'm C.D. Howe. It's 1946. We've just come out of a large conflict. In this case, we're in the middle, I suppose, of a trade war that the government is trying to attenuate with the negotiated settlement on things like aluminum tariffs in particular. That's their closest prize, they believe. And we need to prepare for this new reality. And so we need to spend on ourselves because we're not going to get what we got from the United States for the last 40 years.

So I think that's why there's been a shift in the date. You know, it'll be interesting to see if there are other non-fiscal measures, budgetary measures in the announcement that comes with the budget. for instance, the end of the emissions cap. Is that something that they're going to put in there as a kind of non-fiscal measure to signal that they will approve an oil pipeline? Everybody believes that that's probably going to happen, the rationale being that we already have the industrial carbon tax

so you don't need an emissions cap and that frees them to a certain extent to go ahead and say yes to a pipeline that has a proponent. Up until now, there is still no proponent. I see once again, the TC Energy, formerly TransCanada Energy, the CEO of TC Energy was saying,

we're spending our money in the United States. We're not spending it in Canada. On the emissions cap, it's interesting that you bring that up because that is the conservative's opposition motion and the buzz around Ottawa is that the liberals have already agreed that they've decided to get rid of the cap. And so it will be interesting to see, now that the conservators are forcing them to communicate what their plans are, how they dance their way out of that. How do they get this past a budget, Rob?

You know, we heard Althea and her various theories on this. What are you hearing? Does the leader of the Block, Quebec, go back to what he was saying before, which was, we're going to allow the government to survive for a year? Does he do that? Okay, but can I just say, he didn't say a blanket. He said if he wanted everybody with the partisan aside and he would negotiate with them. He didn't say, I'll give them a year. Yeah.

True, true enough. But as a party leader who is trying to get closer to the Barcy, Quebec as they head into what looks like a successful election next year in Quebec, he's going to have to be very, very careful. Something like the eliminations of the emissions cap. would be, I don't know if it's a red line, but it would be something that he would be perturbed about. Spending of the kind that the government's talking about, particularly when it comes to the Port of Montreal, might be something that would entice Mr. Blanchet

and the bloc to vote for the budget. I suspect that at a minimum, we're going to see sudden strains of the diplomatic flu breakout, and a few people won't show up for the vote. Whereas the liberals are going to have to do everything they can to get people out. And the last time they did that, it was to bring down a government on a budget.

I remember they were getting people out of hospital stretchers in 1979 in order to get people to show up for a vote to defeat the Joe Clark budget. They might have to pull out all the strings that way as well. You know, I wonder if we're going to get to this later on. We were talking about talking about ministers that Carney has faith in. And Steve McKinnon is one of those ministers that he has faith in.

He's now been given the transport ministry as well as other duties. And one of those big duties is counting noses. He's very good at it. And I'm pretty sure that if he can, he will make sure everybody gets out, but he will make sure that if necessary, some people stay home so that the government passes this budget test. They are a fine line between minority and majority. but nevertheless that line has to be met on a budget vote,

and so it is a trick, as we've learned from the past. Okay, well, we've got a couple of minutes left, so let me throw this one at you because you kind of hinted at it there. I want to know from each of you who you think is the most, different ways of describing this, the most influential cabinet minister in the Carney Cabinet or the most powerful minister in the Carney Cabinet. And we all agree Carney is the PM and he's obviously more influence and more power than

every. He's the CEO. But after that, you get one choice. Not, well, it's, you know, it's this or that. I want one choice. Who wants to wait into this first? I don't see any hands up. Look, I'm going to give you the name of somebody who isn't a cabinet minister who is acting in a way that I think is unusual and interesting. And that's Michael Sabia. I have never seen a clerk of the Privy Council so involved in the vital negotiations. He is spending as much time in Washington as he is in Ottawa these days. And it's unusual.

It's unusual. I think I don't remember. I remember Paul Telly being a critical linchpin in the Mulroney governments. But I don't remember another clerk of the Privy Council who seems to be as involved before things are organized. You know, the role of the clerk is always an important one. It takes the prime minister's policy and it hitches that policy to the workings of government, the public service. They've had huge influence in terms of developing some of that policy without a doubt, but we haven't seen that for a long time. because the prime ministers of late haven't always had the confidence in their clerks that past prime

ministers have had. Clearly, Prime Minister Carney has that confidence in Michael Sabia. And I find the role that he's playing interesting and outsized in terms of the influence he a normal clerk would have in a government, particularly in the last 20 years. You know, I was, I happened to be on a fishing trip this summer with Paul Tellier and a number of other people. But Mr. Tellier and I had a number of conversations and he's a big fan of Michael Sabia and clearly has been talking to him as well. So that would be interesting whether any of that was behind that approach. Okay. So Rob bent the rules and didn't even pick anyone from cabinet.

He did say Steve McKinnon, who now has two portfolios, which I don't think is sustainable in a minority government, so cabinet shuffle sometimes soon. I think what's interesting is that no real star comes to mind right away. So really, Mark Carney is cabinet, and then there are some secondary grouping of ministers who have influence, I should say, like Tim Hodgians, the natural resource minister has a lot of influence on terms of government policy. It looks like Dominic LeBlanc and the prime minister get along very well. And on paper, Dominic Leblah has a lot of influence. That bill, C5, that basically gives Minister LeBlanc the power to decide what conditions

to put on projects. That's an enormous amount of power. But then you hear a stories in cabinet about the way the prime district can be quite dismissive about people that he seems to give the floor to and listen to, but you hear a lot more stories about how dismissive he is, how he doesn't value a lot of the people whose opinion he has chosen to surround himself with. So that, to me, is quite telling me. I think it's Tim Hodgson. and I say that, you know, for a couple of reasons. One, he's not in the public eye, rarely. I mean, occasionally he makes a speech that gets heavily reported,

but he's, A, he's close to Carney, right? They go back a long way and through a number of different jobs. He's a former CEO. He knows how to wield power, and he knows how to get things done. And my impression of him and I don't, know him never met him but my impression of him is this is a guy who's not in it for the politics he doesn't see this as a long-term career he's not he doesn't want to be prime minister

one day or any of that he's just in it because he actually thinks he can make a change make things better yeah if there is a cd how it's in terms of style it's certainly hodgson it is and and there is a sort of I wouldn't call it brusqueness but but certainly the sense that he wants to blast away all of the if I can say it the BS of politics to get at what needs to be gotten at in order to make the country more prosperous there's BS there's BS there's BS in politics? You're kidding. Yeah. There's a reason why we all have shovels in the background here. You're right. This is not a guy who's got his eye on the electoral calendar or the political horizon. And he's very, very much at home. I went to his first speech in Calgary.

I was there for that. And I spoke to him after he was in Berlin, a couple of weeks ago. And he's very, very much at home in discussions with people in that community, much, much less comfortable around the politics and what you need to do to get through things through a house in a Westminster system. But therein lies of danger. They're in lies of danger for the government and also for the prime minister. They have to remember that they have a caucus. They have to remember that they are in a minority situation, and they've got to be mindful of that. They do need their political versions of white canes around them because they're blind to certain things. Okay.

Althea, I'm going to give you the last word. I mean, you're the first to raise Tim Hodgson in this discussion today, but you don't look that convinced on what Rod and I have just both said. I just, you know, when you look at, there was a video of Mark Kearney and Tim Hodgson's meeting and McEnfrey, the chief of staff was in the room to think there's some other people, with Premier Smith and how, like, jubilant they were all to be in each other's presence. Like, I'm not sure that Danielle Smith would be as enthused if it wasn't for Tim Hodgson's contributions. I think the other way you can see his influence is how everything that's too large. Many of the things that Mark Carney previously spent his time talking about

that kind of defined his candidacy on climate change seemed to have completely vanish and been replaced with an agenda that Tim Hodgson is supporting. And so that is another way of seeing his influence. I do think, and Rob spoke to this, maybe he doesn't care about politics, but they are politicians and they cannot forget who voted for them. And the people who voted for them did not vote for the agenda that Tim Hodgson seems to be supporting. So that is going to be an interesting, tricky thing. I think the government, the liberal government, is blessed by having an opposition leader

that polls suggest most Canadians vehemently dislike. But that may not always be the case. And so it's an interesting moment in time. And I don't think, especially in a minority government, three-seat shive and majority, you can ignore political calculations. All right. Good point to leave it on.

Another great discussion. Thank you, Rob. Thank you, Althea. We'll talk to you in two weeks time. Thank you, guys. Thanks. Althea Raj. Rob Russo, Reporter's Notebook for this week.

Next Tuesday, that'll be the Moore-Buts conversation, the next one. And we'll see what that one's about. So these two alternate weeks, right? Alternate Tuesdays. Reporters' notebook, more-butts conversations. And that'll do it for today. Tomorrow we have an actual special program. It's Wednesday, normally, Wednesdays are an encore edition.

And I know while some of you like that, others don't. You want new stuff every week? Well, you're not going to get it every week, but you will get it some weeks. And tomorrow is one of them. I'm going to have two authors on the program, first-time authors, former colleagues of mine, two great books. I predict they'll both be on the best-sellers list. They're just coming out as part of the kind of fall rush of new books

in Canada and we'll talk to each of them about their book and leave you with the thought of I should go out and get that book. That's tomorrow right here on the bridge special Wednesday episode. I'm Peter Mansperch. Thanks so much for listening today. We'll talk to you again in less than 24 hours. Thank you.