The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - The Bridge: Encore Presentation - What Is The State of Canada’s Political Leadership In An Era of Protest?

Episode Date: August 15, 2022

Today an encore presentation of an episode that originally aired on February 15th. This is a fabulous and important discussion to have with two normally political foes engaging in a thoughtful, for the most part non partisan discussion about current leadership patterns.  Former Conservative cabinet minister James Moore and former Trudeau Principal Secretary Gerry Butts.

The following is an encore presentation of The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge, first aired on February 15th. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. What is the current state of political leadership in Canada? Big question. Get ready for some answers. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. I'm in Toronto on this day. And kind of a heavy topic today. Well, not heavy, but important. And I was thinking of doing this over the last couple of days as I've been trying to monitor the changes in the actions of various Canadian political leaders, whether it's the Prime Minister or his cabinet or premiers or mayors and trying to say and ask the question what do you think of the state of political leadership in canada overall the general picture you know we've got a situation where there have been protests across the country they've impacted the Canadian economy. They've impacted Canadian life for a lot of people,

for tens of thousands of people who are, you know, in some cases really upset about what's been happening. And so where do you turn to when a situation like that? Well, you initially turn to the media, right? You want to see what kind of discussion is out there. Well, in the last couple of days, and yesterday was a historic day with unprecedented action taken by the Canadian government to try and deal with the protests' illegalities as they see it. And so you turn to the various news channels. Could be radio, could be television, could be online. And you want to see what people are saying.

If you're going to judge the political leadership in Canada, you kind of want to watch what they say. Well, I was disappointed because in most cases, what I saw was the same old partisan crap that you normally see. Different parties taking different shots, cheap shots usually, at each other over an issue that is really concerned a lot of Canadians, whether it's the protests, whether it's vaccine mandates, whether it's the whole way the pandemic has been dealt with. So making that judgment is kind of hard. So I thought, okay, what am I going to do? How am I going to do a program that gets some thoughtful comment

and moves the partisan stuff aside? And, you know, not surprisingly, I know a lot of people who either have been or are in political life. Sometimes I think you never leave it. Once you you've been in it you're always in it even if you've kind of either left your position in in politics or if you've been defeated what have you you never really leave it because you're always watching and monitoring. Anyway, I determined, okay, I'm going to ask two people on. I'm going to ask somebody who's got the background with conservative politics and somebody who's got a background with liberal politics

and who I know well enough to know that they can, you know, separate the partisan stuff and talk on a big picture level about what they're witnessing, what they're seeing, and what they're feeling about the state of political leadership in Canada. So who did I choose? All right, well, from the conservative side, I went out to British Columbia, Port Moody, not far from Vancouver, and I asked James Moore to be a number of the Harper governments, was on Parliament Hill for I think 15 years at least.

So he has an understanding of the cut and thrust of what happens in politics. Today, he's an advisor to Denton's, one of the biggest law firms in the world. He's an advisor to Edelman Canada, one of the big consulting firms. National Vice Chair of the Cancer Society. So he's got a lot of experience both in the private sector and the public sector. So who did I pick from the liberal side? Well, some of you are going to go, oh my God, how could you pick him? Isn't he too closely associated with things?

Well, I wanted that. Plus, I've got more time for him than it seems some of his critics do, especially if you follow him on Twitter. And that's Jerry Butts. Jerry was the principal secretary to Justin Trudeau from 2015 until he resigned in 2018, late 2018, early 2019. He now works for the Eurasia Group, which is one of the big international kind of, well, they do everything from consulting to risk assessment.

They're heavily involved in consulting and analyzing the situation in Ukraine right now. Jerry's expertise is in a number of areas of public policy, but he's specifically involved in climate issues. But he does the gamut and he gets politics um he understands it you can uh argue with him about some of the actions that he took both at the ontario legislature when he was working with kathleen win and um and don mc McGinty. So he's got lots of experience.

And the two of them respect each other. And we're game to have this discussion, a discussion about the state of Canadian politics. So enough preamble. Let's get to the discussion. Got them together yesterday, actually just before Jerry Butts headed off to London and then to Munich to the security conference. So this discussion took place yesterday. And the idea was not to get caught up in the moment,

in the day-to-day situation on this protest, but to, as we say in the business, get in the helicopter, get up there high and look down and look at what's actually happening. And as I said, what is that state of Canadian politics? The leadership in Canadian politics. So here we go. Terry Butts, James Moore. Well, if we're going to look at this from the helicopter view these last couple of weeks,

I want to start with you telling me whether you think this is a crisis. And the question has some reason to it i think those of us in journalism use the crisis word at the drop of a hat all the time and i can remember more than a few times in you know in my daily life as a journalist having this question of what was it really a crisis is it you know a difficult, but is it a crisis in the technical definition of that word? So why don't we start there? Is this a national crisis? James, why don't you start? Yes. The word crisis doesn't just get overused by media. I mean, we have a child care crisis, a dental care crisis, a pipeline building crisis, a competitiveness crisis, everything's a crisis. And so, you know, the hyperbole is kind

of constant in politics. But I think this one is in the sense that, you know, Canadians expect peace, order and good government, we don't seem to have peace, we don't seem to have order, we don't seem to have good government. So, you know, if that isn't the criteria for the invocation of an Emergencies Act by the Government of Canada, within the context of the national capital being occupied, the local police being unable to do anything about it, and the federal government seeming to be incapable of coordinating resources in concert with the provincial government, then it certainly, I think, after two, you know, well into three weeks now, constitute a crisis of

confidence that the public has in the ability of Canada to sustain order in the face of really odious expectations. I mean, we're a liberal democracy. You have the right in a liberal democracy to protest. Democracy isn't just for election day. You have the right to peacefully protest. But we are a democracy, which is to say that in a democracy, the majority has rights. And the fact that there's unanimity in the federal parliament, unanimity in the Ontario provincial parliament, and clear, overwhelming majority of public opinion sentiment that this is unlawful, unreasonable behavior, that and forces that are supposed to be, you know, enforcing order in society are not capable to do so. The public demands civilized behavior from each other.

And so I think this constitutes a crisis. Yeah. Jerry, any disagreement there? No. In fact, I would see it in the context of what I think is an even larger and perhaps more troubling crisis. And that is the bad guys are winning these days worldwide. And we've seen in the past four or five years, the rise of extremist authoritarian sentiment,

if not outright governments and other countries in the world. And I think it would be a mistake for us as Canadians not to see this incident here, this crisis here, to use your word, Peter, as part of that more macro picture. and sources of authority that could be drawn upon in instances like this one have withered so quickly under what is effectively a pretty weak onslaught. This is a very small number of people. Granted, they've raised a lot of money from both people in Canada and abroad. But this is a relatively, you know, weak foray by authoritarian forces, and we seem to be paralyzed by it, which is quite troubling as a citizen and as someone who's spent a long time, as James has, within these institutions. We would have thought they would be stronger in a moment like this. You know, I find it interesting the way you've just described it, because it's somewhat similar to a definition of what Canada is going through

right now that I heard yesterday from a history prof at Yale University. Here's what he said on American television. Timothy Snyder is his name. We're seeing a kind of model where a very small number of human beings using tools like trucks funded from another country and encouraged by conspiracy theories on social media can do an awful lot of political and economic damage now i don't think anybody disagrees with that but does it surprise us that it's come to that i mean that sounds like you know a small number of people a bunch of trucks uh conspiracy theories and bang you've got a country in crisis james so yeah well so well all that's true so so in case then let's take us let's rise to 30 000 feet and talk about in my view why all this is happening in in my view

you know politics used to be we have a shared we have a shared agreement across the country there's sort of a consensus about what the problem is the problem is you know the attacks on 9-11 the global anxiety about asymmetric terrorism what it is we have a recession in 1991 we have a recession in 2008 like these are more recent examples but the general sort of sweep of recent history, certainly from the Second World War through until now, has been we all have a shared agreement on what the big issue and challenge of the day is. And political parties bring in different solutions to it. And the public can decide who they trust to soldier the country forward through those challenges. But now politics has turned into essentially a culture war where it's identity politics in every direction. And you assemble your cohorts of the public based on identity. Steve Schmidt, who you know from American politics, he says, you know, it used to be in democracies

that voters get to choose their politicians. Well, now politicians get to choose their voters and you mobilize the coalitions that you want to come in to push into your party and you weaponize them. So you will have election campaigns now where it certainly happens in the United States. It'll, I suspect, happen in Canada, where you have the two governing political parties in Canada saying these are the top three issues of concern for the country. And the other party will say these are the top three. And those two lines will not in any way cross. And it's all about mobilizing cohorts of voters rather than being genuine about what the real challenges of the country are. And it's deeply concerning to me that our politics has gone that way. And why has it gone that way? Well, you know, we have in our society, you know, decreasing religiosity,

decreasing civil engagement, decreasing levels of volunteerism, decreasing levels of community engagement. And I think for a lot of theism, decreasing levels of community engagement. And I think for a lot of the public and a lot of people, we all want to live a life of purpose. We all want to live a life of engagement that's rewarding beyond a paycheck. And some of us invest that into family, but we also want to live in one sense that we've left our mark on something more noble than ourselves. And because volunteerism isn't down, religiosity is down, community is down, more and more people are putting their hopes and their anxieties and their aspirations and their sense of purpose. They're dumping all of it into politics.

The government and politics and my engagement and voting and supporting my candidate is going to fulfill that sense of achievement and justice. And politics is not meant to handle that weight. It can't handle that pressure. It's not supposed to be for all that. And we put our hopes and fears and our sense of justice in the world and our lives all into politics, and it can't handle the weight and it's cracking under that pressure. Yeah, it's a pretty bleak picture of where we are, but it's hard to disagree with it. Jerry? Well, I'd add to it again. I uh what the only element of the current soup we find ourselves in that james didn't discuss was technology and we now live in a communications

environment where we are algorithmically separated into tribes and it's done at a speed uh that was unimaginable 10, 15 years ago. And the gulf between and among those tribes is growing wider and deeper by the day. And I think that's a really difficult situation for a country like Canada that is amongst the most diverse on earth, if not outright the most diverse on earth, and requires us all to have a functioning public square where we all come together and sort out our differences. I worry about that a lot. And of course, we look at Eurasia Group, my day job, we look a lot at different countries around the world where this is, this dynamic has taken hold. And of course, the United States is even, even notwithstanding what has happening in Canada this week, what's happening

in the United States to its politics, to the legitimacy of its public institutions, to the degree to which it's being polarized. We still in Canada live in a country where it's conceivable that just about anybody will vote for a different political party in successive elections or at different orders of government. In the United States, you increasingly have a society where there's a blue America and a red America and they have nothing to do with one another. I think that if some good can come out of what's happened this week in Canada, we can kind of look at where this is all heading and take a step back from it and say, we don't want to be in that world where we're living in completely different tribes in this country. You know, I get that. I understand that. But I wonder how much stepping back and looking at it that way some of our political leadership was done in these last few weeks because that's getting to what i'm hoping to achieve in this conversation is to

try and understand from the two of you come from two very different political backgrounds but how you see the the state or the nature of political leadership in canada as a result of what we've been witnessing these last few weeks. And that can be at any level because none of them have necessarily distinguished themselves, whether it's federal or provincial or municipal, on the way this has been dealt with, or at least it doesn't seem that way. So give me your overview of the state of political leadership in Canada right now. And once again, I'm talking about the big picture. Jerry, start us this time.

It's in positions of political leadership, and I don't want to be one of those people that harps from the sidelines. But it's hard to be a devoted citizen of this country and look at the last three weeks and come away from it anything but alarmed. That it feels like and this isn't a specific charge against any one political leader but everybody seems to be taken have been taken by surprise uh by this and really struggle to find their footing um granted this is an unprecedented situation that we're facing but it feels like there's not a lot of, there's not a lot of, I hesitate to use this word because it gets perverted, but there's not a narrative that's bringing everybody together. And that's extraordinary when you have a situation where 70, depending on the poll,

70 to 80% of the country is looking on in at the very least concern and at the very most horror at what's happening at places like downtown Ottawa and the Ambassador Bridge. And we haven't been able to put that all together in a story that can mobilize cohesive and collective action. That's very worrying to me um it's quieted down now in your house but i assume i assume that was your dog pretending it was a protest i apologize absolutely disagreeing with everything you said exactly she obeys no master james um what's your take here on this well it's easy it's yeah it's cheap and easy to Monday morning quarterback. But on the other hand, it's fair to have a little bit of analysis about how this was handled by differing political actors and maybe draw some lessons from that for the future.

I mean, I'm out here in British Columbia. And look, the truth be told, the NDP is not my, you know, my ideological instinct, but, you know, John Horgan has done very well out here in British Columbia. And I think the model of how John Horgan has approached things, even, you know, today, Abacus has a poll out showing that British Columbia, more than any other province, 73% of British Columbians do not want mask mandates and vaccine mandates left yet in the province. And this is, you know, with the rise of all the support British Columbians are different like that. And also British Columbia, by the way, the people who are who are who are banging pots and pans in the streets to get rid of mandates is almost a 50 50 split between sort of hard, hard right people's party, libertarian instinct and Green Party people who think all of this is voodoo science and nature is doing what it's doing. So it's different out here. But in terms of leadership, you know, John Horgan, from the very beginning, had an approach, which was we're going to be led by science. And he meant

that. And Bonnie Henry has been the face of this, as opposed to, frankly, Premier Kenney, who's gone out there every day and own this every single day. Doug Ford did that in the first half of the first half of this got burned by it, got burned by it because he's riding a bull whose direction is unknown with the different waves and variants of different approaches that have succeeded and failed. John Horgan was clearly hands-off and he had Bonnie Henry out front, Dr. Bonnie Henry always introduced as such. And then second in terms of government spokespeople was the health minister who at the press conferences always, if you'll notice, always stood sort of back two steps to the right two steps over the shoulder as a deference that the political government was deferential to the

scientific approach that the government was taking in terms of evidentiary policy. And then the premier would come in and speak maybe once every week, once every two weeks about the macro approach to things. That was a very reassuring thing. The government was being led by an approach that was reasonable and objectively based, not based on the pressures and winds of the day. So I think he deserves credit. Now, that wasn't necessarily, you know, in the outset, the right approach to do things, but it has. And it's built with him and surrounded him with a great deal of public confidence and support to do the things that he's doing. You know, with regard to the federal level, you know, I think it was obviously incredibly cynical of Prime Minister Trudeau to call an unnecessary election during the most dangerous wave of the variant, the Delta wave, an unnecessary election in every regard. And then to use the language that he used in describing people who are unvaccinated, that is not what a prime minister does. A prime minister and a true leader never shoots down. And then now we here we are, hopefully in the tail end of the entire pandemic, and you've got conservatives who are cashing in some quick, some quick receipts in order to in

order to pad the party and some leadership campaigns with some supporters, and all that. So I think that has been kind of the the most disappointing aspect of this in terms of political leadership. Yeah, I think Peter that, you know, I was not a fan of an early election call, as you both know, and as I was pretty public about at the time. And I do I agree with James assessment that the challenges the government federally is having and maintain building and maintaining public confidence right now is a direct result of that election call. And we can we can get into that in some detail. But it's a basic fact of science that the virus is not ideologically predisposed, right? That it is doing what it is going to do, based on the laws of science and not based on the laws of politics. As soon as it became an issue in a hotly contested election,

it became a political issue to a degree that it heretofore had not been in the country. And I think what we're living with now is the aftermath of that change in the nature of the discussion about the virus and about our policy to deal with it. The roots of this problem are in August and September, in my view. I'm going to take a quick break. I'll be back in a second. And we're back with our special edition looking at the kind of state of political leadership in Canada. And our guest to help us through that, Jerry Butts, former Principal Secretary for Justin Trudeau in Ottawa, and James Moore, former Stephen Harper cabinet minister in the conservative government of the, I don't know, the mid-20-teens.

Golden years. The golden years, right. Let me take another run at this, because I understand the linkage between you know the pandemic and the crisis we're going on now uh we get it but it's a different kind of crisis in a way one was a health crisis or it still is a health crisis the other is a security crisis and i'm not sure whether the same kind of leadership is needed for both of those all i do know is that people are pretty uh you know upset at the kind of leadership they've seen on the security crisis and i guess that's the focus of the big question for me which is you know do it you know none of these people

were trained in i'm talking about our leaders, were trained necessarily in this kind of a crisis. But I wonder as a result whether we're looking for a new level of leadership, a new kind of leadership. That these two situations, both the pandemic and this, have shown us? You know, is it time for a kind of a turning of the page? And I don't mean in personalities, but I just mean in the type of people that we're looking for to lead a country in times of crisis. Jerry. crisis um uh jerry well look i think the first step in uh cohesive political leadership leadership that kind of brings people together rather than separates them into camps is describing

to uh the majority or at least the plurality of citizens, what is actually going on here? And the distinction you just drew, Peter, which I think is a really important one, is this still a health crisis? Is it now a security crisis? I think it's related to the dynamic we talked about at the beginning of the discussion.

The truth is all of these crises are just becoming new theater stages to play out those tribal differences. And as politics gets formed more and more, as James said, around community, i.e. who is like me, not who shares my aspirations for the greater common good, then we're going to see this replay every time we do have a crisis. There's no particular reason why a conservative or a liberal should have differing approaches to a global pandemic. Yet we've seen the gulf grow between those two communities over the course of it rather than see it diminish. And to me that if you're thinking

about these in terms of what's the dependent variable here, right? Like what's the most important aspect of this recipe? It's the hardening of those communities. And it's going to take a pretty special kind of political leadership, both here in Canada, and probably even more so in the United States, to transcend those gulfs, because they have a self-propelling logic to them. And our modern technology, especially social media platforms, are acting as an accelerant. So people are moving in one direction. and their means of communicating with one another are pushing them downhill. And I think that that's,

there are very few examples in the world, maybe Jacinda Ardern, but she's still wearing the jammies with feet, so to speak, although she was just reelected. There are very few durable examples of political leadership that has been able to transcend that gulf between communities, both within their country and between countries. And I worry about it because it used to be in the old days that you could count on sort of having 10, 12 years of political capital to spend. But one of the many impacts of modern communications technology, at least to me, seems to be that it's accelerated the depletion of that political capital for everybody. And at a time where we're facing incredibly difficult and complex issues, like polarization, climate change, etc, etc. We kind of need durable political leadership

more than we ever have. So there's a great historical irony here that just when we need durable leadership to deal with long term complex problems, it's becoming harder and harder to produce because of our technology. James? Yeah, I mean, we're already with this. You know, one thing that's happened in the United States that is not yet happening in Canada is that the fundamental core spine of the democratic institutions are still robust and holding firm, right? We don't have gerrymandering of our districts. We don't have, you know, elected officials who are supposed to oversee the election of things who then can be corrupted and all that. So I still have the, yeah, money is very different in Canadian politics, both how you draw it in, how you account for it and how you spend it. So our politics is very

healthy in that sense. So those core institutions of who gets to govern and deference to the other is still intact, which is, I think, critical going forward. But look, like the malaise of the 1970s, when the corner was turned, like the end of the Second World War, like other sort of traumatic events of history, when you come to the end of a two plus year, maybe two and a half year pandemic, and you pivot forward, people are going to be looking for a fresh start in terms of maybe personalities, but certainly approach, tenor and tone about the way forward with some empathy for what happened in the experience that all of us have gone through. My son hasn't seen his one and only remaining grandparent for two years because she's high risk and he's high risk.

We've, you know, we people have missed funerals and weddings. We all know the story. You know, that is a deep emotional trauma that all of us have gone through, let alone the health part, let alone the economic part. And I think we're only in the cusp of beginning to understand all that. And I think future political leaders who have a who have a graph who are genuinely empathetic and can genuinely project that empathy back to the public and say, I get it, too, and I know where to go. Chuck Strahl used to have a great line in politics where he

would say, nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care, which is a cute way of saying that future leaders, the public, in order for them to consent for you to govern, have to know that you genuinely understand who you are, what you've been through, and then they can reflect that back to you in temper and tone and in policy as well. That straw line is a great one. And, you know, and I think it's been missing for a lot of those who are in leadership roles across the country on both these issues. Listen, this has been a fascinating conversation. Let me just ask one last quick one. You know, maybe this is old school, but there used to be a time during a period of crisis

where the leader, whether that was the prime minister or a premier, would try to share a moment with the public in the sense of an evening address. I mean, they used to call it by the FDR and by the living room fireplace, usually on radio. But whatever the case, we haven't seen that. At least I don't recall having seen that, in the last couple of years during this period of crisis.

I'm old enough to remember the War Measures Act. I remember Pierre Trudeau going on the air at night and other times during his prime ministership and the opposition leader following him with their take on on the same situation but in the evening at night when the the sort of people were gathered around the television i know it's not the same kind of time today maybe they need to buy time on netflix or something but whatever the case we don't see that moment at least i haven't seen it and i'm wondering if they're missing an opportunity there in in capturing that chuck

stroll moment uh by being in a as sincere as possible and and showing that they get it they understand what people are going through um and they're looking for an understanding of the difficulties they're facing and trying to deal with a situation like the like the current one um am i dreaming here in color am i living you know the old playbook is it just not is that not something you do anymore um no i don't i don't think you are p Peter. I think James described, I think, quite aptly, the reason John Horgan has been able to, or the NDP government in BC has been able to maintain confidence throughout this crisis. And in some ways, it's just good old fashioned, appropriate division of responsibilities. You have the people out there who are trained in the science and they know things and they know what we should be doing in order to contain this problem that has been foisted upon us. And they're talking in a certain way with their political counterparts. But then the leadership has to take the time to tell you why you're doing all these things and the extraordinary

sacrifices that are required in order to get them done and i think one of the um you know i'm as guilty of this as anybody on social media but one of the things that has piqued people is just how much sacrifice james talked about the collective trauma we've all been through. We've all had people we love die. We've all not seen the people we love and far too long. That is a unique collective experience that has all the ingredients of a moment of political leadership. And very few places around the world have we seen leaders step into that breach to fulfill it. So, you know, I thought while you were describing this, my own usual evening where it's, there are four people in my household, plus the dog that was

interrupting us earlier. And more often than not, not only are we not watching the same thing, we're all on four different screens and four different parts of the house either in mine and jody's case doing work or the kids doing homework or whatever it is they're doing on their screens um i think that a powerful message could bring everybody to the same place right and not overdone not done too frequently uh but i think political leadership still has the power to bring people together the etch-a-sketch of society i think has been shaken clean right you know you remember the etch-a-sketch the two knobs and all the cross lines you try to develop things i never do it but as kids this is a very, it's a toilet

and none of your listeners under the age of 20 will have a reference for it, but Google it. You know, but the complexity of life has been shaken clear. Kara Swisher of the New York Times has a phrase for what's going on, right? Which is the great reevaluation. We've had the great recession. We've had the great depression. This is the great reevaluation of how we spend our lives, how we invest in things. In a lot of ways, it's been obviously horrifically traumatic, socially, economically, health-wise, and so on. But in other ways, it's also been a recentering moment for a lot of us. I mean, I've made a lot of changes in my life that have been healthy for me, healthy for

my family, good for my son, all that. And I think there's been a good moment like that. But I have to say, I don't, I don't know that political actors who took you through the trauma are necessarily the political actors who are going to be the same people to help with the rebuild. Of course, we know the example of Winston Churchill in the first campaign after 1945 and what the public thought of him. You know, Justin Trudeau,

I just took a shot at him for calling the campaign in the middle of the Delta wave. And, you know, it's, he's been, he's been heavily criticized not only for calling the campaign, but for the rhetoric of the campaign by liberal MPs like Joel Laubauer. However, he was reelected. He did get the mandate from the public to form a minority government and to move forward. He gained seats in the campaign. So the public felt that Justin Trudeau was the right person in that context to continue to have stability of government to move forward through the crisis. But is he the person to take us into the new world and to move us forward? Therein lies the opportunity for an alternative person to become Prime Minister of Canada at some point, either

within the Liberal Party, or within the other governing party, the Conservatives, to capture the moment to see the landscape that's in front of you, to be mindful of the trauma of the past and the present and just point the public to a horizon that's a little bit brighter, a little bit safer, a little bit more stable, and a little bit more responsible, which is why, coming back to the beginning of the conversation, I say to my former conservative colleagues, the public is looking for stability and sanity and reassurance and calmness. So, you know, wrapping your arms around a convoy of trucks that have F Trudeau on as bumper stickers smeared all over them is a fun instinct, but it's not the kind of leadership

the public is looking for. They're looking for people who are reasoned and responsible. It's entirely possible to believe that Justin Trudeau should be replaced as prime minister, but also believe that science mandates and vaccines have got us through this, that they are gifts that we should embrace and be thankful for. And that to move forward responsibly and to open responsibly while at the same time, not being big fans of the incumbent government, that these things actually can exist and also want law and order at our

borders and our national capital. Like these things should not be mutually exclusive. You don't have to be Orthodox on one side or the other. You can actually mix and match because guess what? That's where the public is on these things should not be mutually exclusive. You don't have to be orthodox on one side or the other. You can actually mix and match because guess what? That's where the public is on these things. And I think a little bit of nuance about public policy as opposed to instinctive tribal alignment is probably a sign that the public will look for as to whether or not you are worthy of governing a G7 country.

I think that's a great place to end it. A great conversation. I really enjoyed talking to you guys and we'll, we'll do it again. I mean, we'll, I'm sure we'll have leadership conventions to talk about at some point, you know, assuming that neither of you are running in one. Well, Jerry shook his head. No, James was being very diplomatic.

Well, I'll say I'll save I'll save James for a second here. I have been around very successful politicians to know what it takes to be one. And I ain't got it, Peter. I'm happy to leave it to the professionals. I tell people when they ask if I'm running for anything. I said I ran five times. You run for one or two and then we'll have a conversation but i'm enjoying the private sector i'm enjoying the private sector kid listen thank you both very much for taking the time to do this

it's a a good conversation gives it gives us all lots to think about thank you you are welcome it's an honor well whoever said that you couldn't put a liberal and a conservative together and have a thoughtful discussion that was one and i'm you know i'm glad we did it um and you know it it's nice to hear it provokes thought uh amongst all of us to um to think about where we are what we're seeing what we witnessing, and the kind of leadership that we want. And I don't mean that from a partisan nature, but the kind of leadership we want from somebody in a position of authority at a time of crisis. I mean, I hate to keep using that word, but it seems to be what we're in. That's going to wrap it up for today. I mean, I hope that it's inspired you to think about all this.

And, you know, you might want to even listen to that back again. Aside from the dog, there's a lot of good stuff in there. I'm Peter Mansbridge. That's it for this day. You've been listening to an encore presentation of The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge. First aired on February 15th.