The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - SMT -- How To Deal With The Trump Factor In A Campaign

Episode Date: March 11, 2025

Bruce Anderson and Fred Delorey drop by for a Smoke Mirrors and the Truth episode that deals with what is now a daily issue -- how to deal with the Trump Factor in A Campaign? 

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, it's Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth, Fred Delorey, Bruce Anderson, coming right up. And hello there, welcome to Tuesday, welcome to the bridge, welcome to Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth, Bruce Anderson, Fred Delorey, both here with us. You know, both you guys in the last, well, the last week or so have been working on campaigns, but have both been very successful. Bruce on the Mark Carney campaign, Fred on the Doug Ford campaign in Ontario. So the Liberals, the Conservatives, both winners in those two individual campaigns. And I'm wondering, because both you guys have been involved in campaigns at different times in your lives, what was different about these? Or more specifically, what did you learn about politics and about Canadian voters in these two races that was perhaps new to you, something new that you learned. Bruce, why don't you start?

Gosh, asking me if there's something new I learned after this many years, that's a hard question. I think probably the thing that remains really new to me is the dramatic impact of this Trump phenomena, the Trump threat to Canada. It is not the only thing that is creating a much different political dynamic in Canada, but it is an overwhelming force. It's causing people to almost completely ignore a lot of the day-to-day things that happen in politics that normally become, you know, a bit sticky or have some impact on public opinion. And I kind of feel like this is true for Fred's campaign in Ontario as well. That, you know, if I think back to the things that people were saying about the Carney campaign, that he wouldn't have any political chops,

that his launch was flat, that he made some sort of gaffe in the French debate, that he's just like Justin, he's carbon tax Carney, he's, yeah, ethical issues, Brookfield this, Brookfield that. As far as I can tell, the public is way more focused on the big picture, way more focused on what the giant issues of the day are. And they want to hear about those things. And they want to make a choice based on those things.

Now, I think there have been elections where that has happened in the past. But it isn't always the case. It isn't always the case that things fluctuate. It isn't always the case that the small ball stuff doesn't matter. But I think that's the world that we're living in now. So, yeah, it's relatively new. And the dimensions of the Trump threat that Canadians feel, that's bigger than anything that I've surveyed on or worked around in my lifetime. Fred? Yeah, just on Bruce's point about

Trump, this is a game changer we haven't seen since while there was the pandemic, and then I'd say World War II. These are catastrophic major issues that will galvanize an electorate in a certain way. Trump's

first presidency was you know, he was, Canadians didn't like him, we were unsure about him, we didn't quite know what he was going to do. This presidency, he's made it very clear, he, what he, well, I shouldn't say clear, because he's all, every day he seems to change his mind, or adjust, but he's made it known that he wants us to become the 51st state, or at least destroy us economically so they can absorb us in some way. That has, of course, changed the electorate. And that's put the entire focus on Trump and to Bruce's points about how, you know, I would say Carney isn't being vetted or

hasn't been vetted in other leadership campaigns that you may see. There is the questionable stuff he said about Brookfield, whether he was chair or not when the decision was to move. And he's given, it seems like he's getting a pass on that stuff right now, because everyone's just so focused, who can take on Trump, who can deal with Trump. So I think that's an interesting dynamic that we're going to be living in. But to your question, Peter, about, you know, what I learned in the Ontario PC campaign that I worked on, I think one of the biggest surprises coming out of that campaign was the, the NDP held so many of their seats.

You know, if you recall, they were their official opposition for the last two parliaments. But they, they were distant third place in the polls. They had lost half their support. And you would think that would usually mean you'd lose half your seats or more. They only lost one, if I recall. So good constituency work still matters when it comes to protecting protecting uh certain incumbents and in your party so it was interesting to see that and that was the big takeaway for me out of the Ontario campaign

um I want to just focus on this Trump issue for a for a moment because you know the the irony is the success of Trump in politics has been, you know, the shiny ball. It lasts for a day or two and then you move on to something else. And he keeps moving that, moving the issues around that work in his favor. Yet on this one in this country, in Canada, the issue has sat there for a couple of months now. And there's no indication that that's going to change anytime soon um that it that it seems to be a constant uh and as opposed to watching what happens in the states where the issue changes every couple of days on this one it doesn't

appear that anything else at least in the short term could knock it off uh off the front pages that it is the issue it's a constant it could remain for quite some time it's already remained for a couple of months could remain longer which could be the length of a campaign is it a constant is this the kind of issue issue that is just going to sit there and stay there and is going to be front and center on people's minds? Who wants to try that? Yeah, I think it will. I think there's a combination of reasons for that.

I mean, for people who care about financial markets, which isn't everybody, but it's a fair number of people, you can't help but see what's been happening in financial markets as a reaction to either the tariffs or the sense of perpetual uncertainty that Trump is creating because he's back and forth on these tariffs all the time because he's creating geopolitical disruptions in his relationships with countries around the world. And so investors are spooked. And yesterday when president Trump said, you know, we might have to take a recession, the market tanked again.

And it tanked because he never told people when he was running that that's what was going to happen, that that's what he was prepared to do. He said, this is, you're going to be so rich. You know, you'll never have experienced anything as good as that. Well, that's not the experience now. So to your point about does that go on forever, I don't know that it does. I do think that if he decides at some point that he's going to stop constantly talking about all the tariffs that he's going to put on everybody in the world. It'll be because people around him are hearing from enough angry voters and business people and rich people in particular, that they're tired of watching their money go up in smoke.

And I don't know how far we are from that. But yesterday I did watch a little bit of CNBC, which is that cable channel that covers market activity. And it was wall to wall people on there who are analysts who are probably Republican voters who are saying this tariff stuff, it's killing us. And we don't think it makes any sense. They weren't buying into this idea that, you know, give it 10 years and the U.S. economy will be stronger. These are people who want their money now. They don't want the 10-year outlook, and they don't believe that shrinking the relationship between America and the rest of the world is the way to improve their financial performance. I also think that Trump is, he's going to be that guy who shocks Canadians, maybe more than Americans. Maybe Americans are a little bit inured to the shock value of the things that he puts on social media, but I don't think Canadians have ever gotten to the point where they look at

the things that he writes and aren't kind of shocked and appalled. So I think that's going to continue. And I think the other thing, and I'll finish on this point, is that as it relates to the Canadian context, the difference between the role that traditional media have and social media have is getting larger and larger every day. It is. If I were in the Polyev campaign, I'd be very worried about the fact that Alex Jones and Elon Musk and J.D. Vance, and on some days it sounds like Donald Trump, too, all want Pierre Polyev to win. And they're all putting that message out on social media. And it's reaching many, many, many, many people more often than any news organization would ever cover that. And Peter, if you think about how often might a CBC or a CTV or a Global or a Star would ever do a story saying,

hey, did you know that Alex Jones and Elon Musk are both four square behind Pierre Pauliev? They're not going to do that. Maybe they'll do that story once. But that story is out every day on social media. And it makes its way around the body politic. And it does have an impact. And I don't think it's an impact that Pierre Pauliev can be happy about. But I don't know if he knows how to stop it. All right, Fred, how do you counter that? Well, I think that is going to be one of the issues conservatives have to deal with is the comparisons to Trump. There's an ad the Liberals have, I believe it is, that shows a comparison that I know a lot of people, it does strike a chord. And I think a part of the messaging problem the Conservatives have right now is they are fixating,

like the Brookfield thing in normal days is something to push out. But right now it feels like they're off track, their narrative. And it feels like they need to get on to the right path, back to the path they were on before about affordability and tying that to Trump and where they are and how over the last nine years, their argument that the liberals have failed and not gotten our products to market, they need to get back to that story and tell that story.

Instead, it feels like they're off message right now on it and that is a problem. To your question, to your original question, Peter, about how this will impact Canada and how we're so tied into it, I think it's not just... I'm glad you're doing this, by the way, because I completely lost this question, and I just went off on my rant, so it's good that you're coming back to it. So strange that. I had an answer on my rant. So you're coming back to it. So strange. So strange that it never really ever had an answer in my head. And it didn't really matter what you were going to say.

You just, you just couldn't answer it. It totally, totally baffles. Like his discussion. And I'm like, you can pick up the microphone again, but I was feeling about the conservative messaging now.

Like I feel when I'm in a sand trap and you see me in a sand trap i'm terrible i swing like i'll swing 20 times before i'll make contact with the ball and then i'll skull it so uh it put a bad swing thought in my head just listening to fred talk about the messaging challenges for the conservatives right now okay back to you fred sorry thanks bruce um look i do i do appreciate I have to say I enjoy it now that the leash is off, Bruce, and you get to be that liberal pit bull and not just a commentator. You get to really show what you really think about things. Fair enough.

But to the question about Trump, we look at it through the economic lens so much, but there's the cultural lens. America has such an impact on canada and us on them as well um we are so tied together in so many ways our entertainment are you know the shows we watch the top five listened to podcasts in canada political podcasts four of them are american made yours peter is the is the top one uh it's the only Canadian made one um we uh absorb American news and culture at such a high level so it's not like we can avoid Trump ever um so when he also declares economic war on us it hits us on a different level not just on the economic side but I you know it's a betrayal I mentioned on a previous episode I'm a huge New York Knicks

basketball fan and I went to a game in Toronto and i wasn't sure could i cheer my own team that i'd gone for for decades um so it's just this weird place this puts us in and this has an impact and creates an even more volatile electorate and so what does that do uh in terms of how you deal how you as parties deal with the electorate, because we could be in a campaign in a matter of days, weeks certainly. How does this issue then fit in the cylinder of that campaign? You know, a five- or six-week campaign where it's unlikely, unless there's some giant reversal of policy on the part of Washington, it's unlikely that this issue is going to suddenly be taken off the table. It's going to be the issue.

So how does it impact that campaign? And anything you can tell us, Bruce, when it gets to be your turn, we're going to let Fred go this time. Yeah, I saw what's better. Whether he can do a soliloquy that will cover the basis but um how does it impact that campaign this issue well during the ontario campaign we felt it right the main message of the of doug ford's conservatives was protect ontario he wanted a mandate uh four years so that he could be in office more than President Trump will be so that at least we can have someone steady that can deal with it. And during that campaign, we kept having, you know, the tariffs were announced and then they were unannounced and then pushed back.

And there's all it was the ebb and flow. I think we just both parties will need to just remember that Trump is chaotic and this is never going to go away he he is going to continue to do this throughout the entire writ period uh but it'll ebb and flow there'll be times when he'll say something that's coming in and then maybe a week later he'll say it's off for a few months um and they'll adjust what they're doing at the end of the day though both parties need a coherent message on why they're the best that can take on Trump and deal with it. And I think, again, that's why the Conservatives, I think,

need to focus more in on affordability and Trump and tie that message together and point out Carney's record with the Liberals. And just they need to tighten up that message um and just pound it and do what they did effectively for the last two years prior to all this do you see any evidence that they're trying to do that i think they are the canada first i think that it's it feels like it's in its infancy stages in some ways um the rally that Pauliep had, and he did one in London Sunday as well, where he's pushing that message. But I think that needs to be their dominant message, and it's not.

I think you only get so many sound bites. You only get heard so many times, and they need to really pound that message and not the – I just don't know if the Brookfield one resonates the way they think it does. Bruce? Yeah, I'm going to sound a little bit like an advertisement for the Conservative Party here. That'll be a first.

I don't want to kid around with Fred, but Fred is an extremely talented campaign operative. He and a lot of Conservatives sitting around their strategy table are very talented people. They're tough. They're disciplined. They're well-resourced. They're organized. They know what they're doing.

They know how to campaign very effectively. Sometimes they have leaders that it's easier to design a campaign with, sometimes more difficult. But they can always be counted on, at least in the last number of cycles, to put together a pretty effective campaign that's probably frightening for their opponents. Why isn't that exactly what's happening here? I do think that Fred's put his finger on it. That's going to sound like an ad for Fred. You're covering all the bases here. I'm sure somehow it'll come around to your party and your guy.

Well, probably it will. Probably it will. But here's, you know, the thing that Fred has kind of acknowledged here, and he's done it in that polite way, is that Pierre Polyev needs to persuade Canadians that he would do a better job of dealing with this existential threat. I don't think he's really tried very hard to make that case yet. I'm not saying it's easy because Mark Carney has a very good background

and a very good understanding of that, and he communicates very effectively about how he would tackle that, even if a lot of details are left unsaid because, in his view, that's the best way to approach this. It's not easy to say, well, let's compete on that issue and let's prove to voters that we would be the better choice. But if you don't do that, then the alternative is, well, let's talk for a day about the fact that his investments are in in a blind trust knowing that within a couple of hours they will be in a blind trust they were as of i think late last night and so then we can't talk about that let's talk about brookfield until nobody reacts to it and then we have to stop

talking about that let's talk about uh carbon tax until people hear enough that he's not in favor of it anymore. So that whole series of, like, my swings in the sand trap metaphor, that's not a strategy. That's the absence of a strategy as far as I'm concerned. And so it's surprising, I think, to people in other parties who are watching this normally very disciplined, very talented and extraordinarily well-resourced group of people really kind of struggle with this question of do we really want to compete on the main field on the how do we deal with this u.s threat or not or do we only want to

do it for 10 minutes every four days and then we'll see if we can find something that will kind of get the blood boiling of the voters. I don't think the second version is likely to work. And I don't know how the first version works, but I think that's the fork in the road that the conservatives are at right now. And I think, and I'm saying that without suggesting that it's an easy choice. I don't think it's an easy choice, but I think that's the choice. Oh, boy, I love listening to you guys spin because you're really good at it. You know, like you're really good at it. Fred, do you want to try the reverse spin now?

I don't know. It's just a hack. I'm going to ask you. Well, I think, look, we are in a state in Canada where our economy, as the prime minister-designate himself has said, is weak. And of course, he was the economic advisor for the last five years. So I'm not sure what that says about him. But one of the issues we have, and I think that's where Polyev's messaging needs to tighten up.

They have used it a bit. The Liberals are going for their fourth consecutive term, and we do not have our goods to market enough, given the threat we have with the U.S. right now. So I think the Conservatives need to get the messaging harder that this is the fourth term they're going for. It's a continuation um and point out that carney was a part of trudeau uh throughout all of this that he was the economic advisor for five years and that he's not the one that could lead us through this

situation um i think that's a part of the narrative that needs to be a key part of the narrative for them to be successful on this um give me a sense from each of you of what the next two weeks are going to look like. What's happening in front of the cameras and in full view of the public and what's happening behind? Because I assume there's a lot in both cases. Bruce, why don't you start? Do you want me to talk about what the conservatives are doing no i you know i i want to try and understand what's you know going on in in in the background

for the liberals big decisions have to be made on a lot of different fronts here right now not surprisingly a guy comes in from the outside doesn't have a seat he has not been involved in his life in active politics and suddenly he's leading the charge and a lot of stuff has to happen in a hurry especially if there's going to be an election call in the next couple of weeks yeah look i think that for uh for mark carney the most important things are the transition, the policy choices that need to be made in a relatively short period of time so that if there is an election call in the near future, that things are in place that will serve the country's needs through that election campaign. That sounds kind of easy, but it's so hard relative to the Trump threat and the back and forth that Trump's mind takes him on these tariff issues. There's nothing more important than getting that policy right in the near term and having it on a path that will help people and help businesses in Canada, depending on what happens.

I guess Trump's latest deadline for the tariffs is what, three weeks away. So we might be in an election when that deadline lands. And so I think it's very important for Carney to focus on those things. And I think that's what he's doing. He's going to put in place a government of his own choice, but it's going to be a government that's intended to, you know, kind of set a policy course,

but not be the one where he says I've got a mandate and I'll do everything that I want to do within that. That's for later. In terms of the campaign planning, you know, I think if there's any advantage for the Liberals, and typically you would look at the Conservatives and say, no, that's a machine that's been well-oiled and maintained and has got an advantage over the liberals um if there's any good news for the liberals in the fact that there might be an election soon is that the carney campaign was able to put together something pretty quickly it was a little bit like building the plane while flying it it did however accomplish an awful lot in 63 days and so there are a lot of people, a lot of volunteers that are ready to go,

that are ready to do the kinds of things in a general election campaign that they did in a leadership campaign. It's different, obviously. But it's like the party went to a training camp and got a lot more fit and ready to campaign. And so I think it'll be a more even fight, obviously, because of that. Fred?

Yeah, well, I just spent nine hours with liberals at the convention Sunday. I was there on behalf of CBC giving commentary. I can tell you there was life in that party. It looked a little like a hostage video there. It was scary at times. I was there on behalf of CBC giving commentary. I can tell you there was life in that party. It looked a little like a hostage video there. It was scary at times. You know, liberals, a lot came up to me and they said the worst possible thing I think anyone could say to me at a liberal convention, you're our favorite conservative.

That was hurtful. I don't think I'm doing my job well when people say that. But look, I can tell you there's certainly life in the party there. People were energized. If you walked around Ottawa for the last two years, it was liberal zombies everywhere looking for the exits. So it's certainly changed, and they can certainly build a campaign team quickly. On the conservative side, same thing.

The team is built. It's strong. The war room is up. It's operational. Those things can come together quicker. We have so many professionals, both the liberal and conservative sides, that you can build campaign teams at a pretty rapid pace when you're going, what areas of the country you're going to go to and what you're going to say there. Those would be key decisions that I would say both camps should be making right around now as they get ready for this big epic fight that we're about to see. I think there's one question that Peter, I wanted to sort of raise before we wrap up that has to do with the relationship between the campaigns and the news media.

And in this instance, I'm really talking about the traditional news media. Because, you know, we've been heading towards a situation in each electoral cycle where the scale of the traditional news media gets smaller, the number of interactions with journalists are fewer as a result of there being fewer journalists, but also I think parties sort of saying, well, there are other ways for us to get our messages out. And, you know, I've seen people like Ben Mulroney and others say, why won't Mark Carney do interviews with the media? And I'm kind of confused by that because I think he has been doing some,

and obviously he's going to do more. But there is this kind of, we need the media to vet these candidates. And I see, you know, what the Conservatives have been doing, or Pierre Poliev has been doing for the last couple of years, which is to say we're not going to spend much time with traditional news media. We don't think that they give us a fair shake or whatever the reason is. We're not going to. And then we're going to pick the ones that can come to our press availabilities, a little bit like what is being done in the White House now. And I don't know if like I assume that the the liberals are going to want to have a lot of interaction with the media. I don't know that for sure. But I think that that's probably what I

would do if I were them. I don't know if the conservatives are going to adjust their approach right now. Because it's one thing to say when you're 25 points ahead, we don't need you, we don't need you to tell our story, we don't need to have relationships with you. We don't need you to tell our story. We don't need to have relationships with you. But if I were them and I had lost that 25 point lead, I might look at that again. And I'm kind of curious as to whether Fred thinks that's on the table or what you think about it as a long time journalist. Well, I'll start with that. And I'll just point out that Paulieves actually does more press conferences, I think, than any leader I've ever seen. I just did one yesterday. He's quite active on that front. And I will say, you know, Carney and the Liberal leadership candidates did lots of media. It was all in the US. They didn't do much Canadian, but they certainly did lots of media. It was all in the U.S. They didn't do much Canadian, but they certainly did lots of media.

I don't think I saw Carney on any of the main networks in Canada. Is he a Rosie Barton interview? No? He did a Sunday morning interview. I mean, you know, here's where I'd agree with Fred. I think both sides are doing lots of media. You can pick apart some of the media that they've been doing, whether it's more beneficial to them than the kind of traditional legacy interviews,

big time on the network news or big time on a Sunday morning, you know, politics show. But I think they have been more accessible than they had been. Certainly Polyev is more accessible now than he was a year ago. I'm not sure how, how that's working for him. I mean, one would assume seeing as their numbers appear to have dropped considerably that are they reacting to that drop by doing more media, or is the drop a part of having done more media?

I'm not sure, and I guess time will tell on that. But I think the media, as it always has, has a traditional role. You can argue about how well they do it these days and how much trust people place in the media, both the legacy media and the kind of new media, but they have a role to play. And it is to challenge and question our political leaders about their policies and about how they actually reflect on Canadians' needs. So I think we'll see more of that in the next five or six weeks. But the fact of the matter is, this is coming down to a very short period of time.

I mean, let's face it, look how fast that Liberal leadership race went. It went like that. And the election campaign is even shorter uh big issues to cover or maybe just one issue to cover the existential threat from the united states um so both sides you know all three players in this the the political parties the people and the media have some key decisions to make in the next few days about how they're going to deal with this. And those decisions are not ones they can suddenly change around in a short period of time like a campaign. What they decide to go with in these next couple of days is going to be what they go with. And we'll see how the people react to that.

Okay, I've got one minute left. Quick last thought from each of you on the general theme we've had here in all this. Bruce, why don't you go first? Well, I think for me that the last big thought, if it's a big thought at all, is that it's the big picture that matters. It's not the small stuff. And I think that, you know,

the conversations I've been having with friends who are in journalism, this instinct to kind of keep on covering politics a little bit less. So all of the small ball stuff really does matter is kind of, is missing the plot a little bit. They're not all doing that, but I kind of feel like this is the conversation that Canadians want is a conversation that isn't about the small everyday little snafus that happen within campaigns. On that front, I think, too, this is such a concentrated message campaign

we're going into. It's not like, you know, in previous elections, it may be an issue I'm trying to raise in eastern Canada that doesn't resonate in western Canada. You got another issue there that you're trying to punch on to win seats there. We don't have those local battles in terms of messaging right now going into this election. It's going to be one overarching major... That's a great point.

Okay, gentlemen, I'm not sure how much clear the picture will be a week from now, but whatever it is, clear or unclear, we'll be able to find some way to talk about it. Thanks to Fred Delorey, Bruce Anderson, Smoke Mirrors and the Truth back in a week. See you later, guys. See you, folks. And welcome back.

You're listening to The Bridge, the Tuesday episode. Smoke Mirrors and the Truth was up front. And a reminder that Smoke Mirrors and the Truth is also on our YouTube channel. So just the first half of the Tuesday program is available on YouTube as well. But here on the second half, we've got a couple of things to deal with. A reminder first that you're listening to The Bridge on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Yesterday we announced the question of the week. It is, what's on your mind?

So it's wide open. And thank you to the many people who have already written. It's been a torrent of emails coming into The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Remember, please include your name and the location you're writing from. And also, we instituted this week to try and cut down on the long letters so we can avoid the editing process and to get as many letters in as we can on Thursdays.

We set a word limit around 75 words, okay? You can get quite a few thoughts in 75 words, and a lot of you did already. And so we appreciate that very much. Cut-off time, 6 p.m. tomorrow. So get those cards and letters coming in to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. Now, I get a lot of mail on a variety of different things. I don't know, a couple of hundred at least a week. And as I've said before, and as I said, I think yesterday, I read them all. I do read them all.

So whatever you have to say to me, I read. Do I respond to everything? No, I simply don't have time. I respond when I can. So that's more occasionally, but the important thing is I do read what you write and I know that matters to you. So whether you get a reply or not doesn't mean you've been ignored. You have been read. When I do reply, I do it briefly. I don't get into long replies, and sometimes, you know, I guess it's one of the problems with email.

Your tone can sound different than it was intended. And I'm sorry about that. Some people think I'm curt with them or insulting them in my replies, and I honestly don't mean that. They are what they are. I'm just trying to, you know, keep the conversation going. Maybe it's better if I just don't reply at all. But I try to reply when I can.

I really appreciate your mail. And I appreciate the nice things you say about the bridge. And I also appreciate some of the things you say that you don't like about the bridge. And I try to adapt when I think it's appropriate. There is confusion at times as to what this program is. It's not a newscast. It's not what I used to do in the, you know, five decades that I worked for the CBC.

Loved every minute of that time that I spent with them. Admired my colleagues tremendously and understand that my success was often based on their hard work. But this is a podcast, non-newscast. So it's basically opinion. You know, it's what I think.

It's what Chantel and Rob think on Fridays. It's what Janice thinks on Mondays, Dr. Janice Stein, who I've worked with for, well, I don't know, more than 40 years. And I've relied on her understanding and expertise and knowledge and wisdom about the situations that she has covered and talked about and written about and advised about. She's a conflict negotiator. So not surprisingly, she has ideas about how negotiations should go. And as she's the first one to say, you don't have to agree with me, and some of you won't. But this is just the way I feel.

And that's all it is. You know, some people think, oh, man, she's selling out Canada. She's saying bend over and take it from Donald Trump. That's not what she's saying at all. She's saying there's a different way to negotiate these things. You have to understand who's on the other side of the table and what their motivation is and how best to handle that motivation. And it's not caving in.

I don't think she's ever said that. But anyway, I know that you love Mondays and I can tell you the Monday program is valued by as many listeners now as the Friday program is Good Talk. Mondays with Dr. Janice Stein gets as high ratings as Good Talk does. You know, around 20,000 downloads each week just for the audio podcast. That's amazing. The YouTube version of Good Talk on Fridays is doing extremely well. I mean, last week's is around 75,000, which is huge.

And it's been as high as 100,000. I think it was 120,000 a couple of weeks ago. So that's great. I'm rambling. I did want to share one thing that somebody sent me. One of our loyal listeners goes back, I don't know, I think Ron Fisher has been writing to us for at least the last few years. He sent me a note yesterday.

He said, hey, Peter, I don't know if you saw this, but I don't find it reassuring that the U.S. Congress feels they need to pass a no-invading-our-allies bill. Just a thought. Now, I hadn't seen this, Ron, and I should have. I don't know why I missed it, but it was on the CTV News website. And the headline is, U.S. Congress Bill Aims to Prevent Funding of Invasion of Canada.

Amazing where this thing has gone to. You know, I'm on an American show later today talking about things, and I'll probably bring this up. Anyway, here, here's the story. A new bill introduced to the United States house of representatives would withhold federal funding for any American operations to invade or seize territory from Canada, Panama,

or Greenland. Unless Congress agrees to it first introduced Thursday by road. This last Thursday by Rhode Island Representative Seth Magaziner, the No Invading Allies Act would require U.S. President Donald Trump to seek a formal declaration of war, congressional approval, or proud of a national emergency created by attack or imminent threat of attack to authorize, not proud of, proof of, to authorize offensive military action against the places mentioned above.

This has all come out of the 51st state garbage. Right? It's not just tariffs. Anyway, the story goes on and on. It's a CTV news piece, so

you can find it if you want. And I agree with Ron. Did we really ever think it would come to

this? That after I introduce a bill about not invading Canada? this, that I have to introduce a bill about not invading Canada. Okay. That is going to wrap it up for this day on the bridge.

With a reminder, tomorrow, Wednesday, is a Encore Wednesday program. So we'll have that for you. Thursday, it's your turn with your answers to this question of what's on your mind, plus the random renter. Friday is Good Talk with Chantelle Hebert and Rob Russo.

And there'll be lots to talk about on that one because by that time, we'll just be literally days away. We'll know, first of all, we'll probably know who the Carney cabinet is. I think you'll find out that, the swearing in of Mark Carney as Prime Minister of Canada, the 24th PM,

probably, what, Thursday of this week? That'd be my guess. And naming of a cabinet, probably the same day. So Friday, there'll be lots to talk about, and then we could just be days away from an election call. So busy times. All right, we're going to leave it at that for this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge.

Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you again on our Encore episode tomorrow.