The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Trump's Public Campaign For A Nobel Peace Prize - Is It Justified?

Episode Date: September 1, 2025

Those who follow these things say they're never seen anything like it before. Donald Trump wants a Nobel prize and he's not shy about pushing for one. As The Bridge kicks off season six, our regular Monday contributor, Dr Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto makes her view known on that, Ukraine, Russia, China and the Middle East. 

And hello there. Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. And this episode is day one of season six of the bridge. And it's Monday. That means Dr. Janice Stein. That's coming right up. And hello there. Gee, I hope you've had a great summer. And I hope you're ready for lots of action for this fall. And there should be lots of action on a lot of different fronts. And right here on the bridge, we hope to capture it all for you as we enter season six of our program. Mondays, and this is Labor Day, but it's Monday, and that means Dr. Janice Stein.

And many of you wrote over the summer, you know, really, can't you just work one day, get Janice Stein in there? help us understand what the heck is going on in our crazy world. Well, Dr. Stein is going to be with us again for season six, and we're very happy to have her, and she'll be coming up in just a few minutes, times lots to talk about. I should give you a snapshot, though, of what to expect. We've shuffled the deck a little bit, not much, but a little bit, in terms of how things will unfold this year.

The success of the Moore-Buts conversations have brought us to the fact that we've got to have more of them. And so every second Tuesday, starting tomorrow, James Moore and Jerry Butz will be with us to discuss something that gives us a sense of what goes on behind the doors of politics and our country and others. and we have found over the last few years in the 21 conversations we've already had with Moore Butts that they're great at doing that and trying to, as best they can, keep their partisan senses, you know, James Moore is a conservative,

Jerry Butts is a liberal, but they keep those out of the way. They kind of check those at the door. So every second week, every second Tuesday, Moore and Butts will be with us. That's the plan anyway, going into this season six. And on the other Tuesday, on the other second Tuesday, well, we have something. Well, we actually had it in the 2021 election campaign.

We called it Reporter's Notebook. We'll call it that again. And the two reporters will have with us are going to be no strangers to you. Rob Russo, who did a fantastic job filling in for Bruce Anderson on Good Talk for the the first six months of this year. Rob, who is the correspondent for the economist in Canada. Rob will be with us. And so will, I'll see a Raj.

And the two of them were together for the bridge doing the 2021 election campaign. So they're getting back together, and they'll be the other second Tuesday program with a reporter's notebook. And we'll define that as we go along. I think it'll be a combination of all kinds of things, everything from smoke mirrors and the truth, kind of that angle to things, but also what the reporters are seeing

that they don't normally have time to talk about in their journalism, but we'll find interesting as well in telling us, you know, the national story, whether it's politics or whatever it may be. So Rob and Rousseau, Rob Rousseau, and Altheiraj. It's kind of a three R's, reporters notebook, Rousseau, and Raj.

That's every second Tuesday. Wednesday's an encore edition, although I've got some ideas that I might play out on Wednesdays as well. Thursday is your turn, and we really mean it. It's your turn, and we're going to have the question of the week. We'll get to that in a minute telling you what I think will work for this week in terms of the question of this week. We'll get to that in a second, but also on Thursdays where you, of course,

we'll have the random renter. The ranter will be by with his thoughts on on whatever the issue is for him on the week. And Fridays, of course, is good talk with Bruce Anderson and Althea Raj. So what's the question of the week for this week? This gives you time to think of answers and send them in by email.

The question for this week, day one, week one of season six, is what happened this summer that caught your eye? And it could be anything, right? It could be a political situation. It could be a world situation. It could be something about sports. It could be something about gardening. It could be something about anything.

What happened this summer that caught your eye? 75 words or less That's the rule Over 75 words, forget it You got to have your answer in By 6 p.m. Eastern time On Wednesday 6 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday

If it comes in after that it'll be too late Include your name Include the location you're writing from We need all those Those are the sort of facts of the way question of the week works. So there you have it. What happened this summer that caught your eye? Let us know.

And you write to The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast, all one word, at gmail.com. So look forward to getting your ideas on that question of the week. all right enough for the preamble let's start talking turkey with dr janice stein the director of the monk school the university of toronto now dr stein this week for this program as you know she's always traveling right she's always traveling somewhere in the world because people want to hear from her they want her advice they want her to her to take part in big discussions that are going on this week she's in New York and so I tracked her down to her hotel wasn't the greatest audio in the

world it's not bad I tend to overstate things but we had a little shuffling around didn't work just didn't have a very good connection from her room so we went to the you know business center in the hotel she was staying at in New York that was much better but it's a little hollow but the conversation is great starting with the first question question. So let's get at her, as they say, right here on the bridge. Dr. Janice Stein joins us right now. So Janice, here's the question. Have you ever seen anybody so publicly look for a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize? I'm never in all my years, Peter, seen anything like this.

You know, people subtly signaled they would really like Henry Kissinger. He was a master of doing that kind of thing. But in this case, Donald Trump is not only campaigning, he openly, he is coercing foreign leaders in an effort to get this nomination. Probably the most striking example is where we are right now with Prime Minister Modi, who is on his way to Shanghai and then to Beijing, bristling, literally bristling at what he describes as the aggressive United States. Now, how did this come up? You know, 10 years of effort to build a strategic partnership. between India and the United States as China grows stronger.

All disrupted because on a phone call, Donald Trump says to Modi, you know, I resolved that conflict you had with Pakistan and I'd like you to nominate me as well as the prime minister of Pakistan. And Modi, who's a populist leader on his own. lives by the fact that he is tough with Pakistan actually talk back

and said no no I don't think that's the way it happened and did not volunteer to nominate within a few short weeks 50% tariffs against India higher than the tariffs against China

all for a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. You know, it's funny because Indian officials after that put out the word that Trump had absolutely nothing to do with the agreement between India and Pakistan that seemed to avert what was a potential crisis. You know, I don't know how much kind of research the Trump people have done into how the Nobel Prize works. Maybe they have, but maybe they haven't, because nominations close, in January of the year they're awarding the Nobel Peace Prize,

which usually comes out in October. So it's another month or so away. But, you know, they close in January, then this small kind of committee in Norway looks at the various nominations, and there's usually at least 200 that come in from around the world. And they kind of pare it down, obviously, and eventually come up with a winner.

but he was barely even president when they closed nominations for this year. Maybe he's thinking next year, but I mean, it seems a little odd. You know, even if they know that, Peter, and who knows what kind of research they do, because they have no staff. I mean, just as an aside, they fired half the national security accounts. So they literally do not have people to do the staff work on anything right now. But even if they know this, he probably has his eyes on January of 2026, which is not that far away. You know, Norway is the Oslo, was the host for the Nobel Prizes, which, you know, and I didn't realize until today when I was doing a little reading on the subject.

Nobel, of course, Alfred Nobel was Swedish, Swedish businessman who put in his will the idea of, these prizes and they're kind of there are five of them uh the peace prize being one of them um but it's in norway and nobody's ever quite understood why he said it should be done out of norway instead of nobody knows you know there's there's all kinds of speculation Sweden and Norway when he made this well there was some hope some discussion that they they might unify and that might have been a kind of message to bring Norway into the fold and Norway has always been a diplomatic activist as you know in this field but who knows what was in his mind but what's really interesting to me Peter and this is again opens the door for this

Donald Trump-like performance. Somebody was going to come along and do this. The others are all expert-based. You go to outstanding people in the field and you say, would you like to nominate? You know, university colleagues

do this in economics, for example. This prize anybody can nominate. You know, any committee can send a note to the Nobel to the Nobel Committee in Norway,

we think this person is deserving of the priest prize. That's why you get 200. And there's controversy around this prize in the last

decade or so that there is much more political, it's become much more political than it was at the time of

Alfred Nobel and in the first 75 years after. Just as a last question on this before we move into the current situation in different parts of the world. Is Trump deserving of consideration? I mean, he says he's solved six wars. I mean, he hasn't. But, you know, he's been a player in a lot of negotiations and talks.

Yeah. So is he legitimately someone who, you know, should be considered. All right. To be as fair mind as possible. Let's think back to the last U.S. president who was nominated. It was and got it. And that's what I think sticks in Donald Trump's crawl more than anything else.

It was Barack Obama. It was so early in his presidency. He hadn't delivered on anything yet, Peter. And when that prize was given, people were critical. They said this prize is being given. on a promise, not on achievement, which I think was an absolutely fair criticist. Here you have Donald Trump who comes to the White House, presents himself, among other things, as a peacemaker, wants to end wars, says all wars are horrible, can't watch them.

You know, they're too painful for him to watch and says that his chief foreign policy goal is to end wars. well if you're going to give a prize on promise there are grounds and I think you're absolutely right to say this is the less ludicrous nomination than it would appear but what makes it so unappealing I suspect

we'll know in 2026 for the committee is it is campaigning so openly or as always sees his own worst enemy okay let's turn to Ukraine because you know a couple of weeks ago on that summit in Alaska there were moments during that weekend where it looked like well you know maybe he really should be being considered for something but as we all know that seems to have turned into a big nothing burger in spite of all the the photos and the moments that took place then and immediately after with the summit in the White House with the European leaders?

What happened there? Why did that blow up? Let me give you a really wonky answer to that question. I believe that doing the work really matters. So what is doing the work for a summit mean? You put your very best people on it who have experience, who've done this kind of staff work before. They go to Moscow.

They spend time with their counterpart officials in Moscow. They figure out where their presidents can agree where they can. When the language is big, they make it more precise. There's back and forth probably five or six times. And they only go forward with the summit when they are down to the last strokes and they really think that the principal, the two presidents, when they get in the room, there'll be enough good chemistry for them to agree.

None of that happened. There were long meetings between Putin and Wyckoff. And again, well-meaning, but inexperienced, no staff, no real staff supporting him. Apparently misheard what Vladimir Putin said and reported back to the president inaccurately. You know, I am not a big fan of protest in any job I've ever had, but you have to have some.

Don Trump has almost none. So he walked in to that meeting committed to a ceasefire, walked out, having abandoned that commitment completely, and agreeing to go for the tougher goal, which is a comprehensive piece between Ukraine and Russia. And Vladimir Putin, frankly, to be blunt, ruled him yet again. Well, that is certainly what it looks like. You know, we were always told before these kind of things happen,

whether it's a summit, as we remember from Helsinki as well, that, you know, Putin is a former spy. He's got this all figured out in his mind. He wouldn't be walking off that plane to shake hands with Donald Trump unless he had something in mind about how this was all going to unfold. And so you're left thinking, as you concluded a moment ago, that once again, Putin played Trump. Yep.

Absolutely. Because Putin, the thing that Putin wanted more than anything else, he got when he stepped off that plane, not only did he get it, He got a red carpet. He got this really tight hat shake from Donald Trump. And then what struck me when I was watching it, and you would have noticed this right away,

there were two cars there to go to the meeting. One for Donald Trump and one for Vladimir Putin. No, no, no, said Donald Trump, come in my car. And they had, that's the nightmare for the staffers. 15 minutes. No, no taker in that car. Nobody will ever know what they said to each other except Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

As soon as I saw that, I said, this is over. I love some of the commentators that day on television on the various networks. Some of them were saying, you know, Putin, remember that scene in the White House in the first term where there was all these theories about how Trump invited the Russians in, right into the into the Oval Office and they must have strategically

dropped a few microphones in there. Knowing the super spy Putin, these theories were that he, you know, slipped a pin mic somehow into the cushions of the car. So he'd hear all the next conversations

that went, but anyway, as far as fast as that sounded. You know, since then, and with the European summit, which seemed to me, I always seemed to me, like the Europeans were there to try and prevent what Trump was about to do.

Yeah. In terms of the deal with food. And they did. They did, Peter. But again, I mean, when I watched that and I had a reaction as a Canadian, I was so glad our prime minister was not there. Lots of people said, why wasn't he there were a strong supporter of Ukraine? And it's true, we provide a lot of financial assistance.

But I was so glad he wasn't there. The obsequious fawning. They were fawning, which is part of their strategy is sucking up. And, you know, you wonder where it really gets them. But it did sort of blunt that meeting, no matter where you look at it, it did blunt what was happening in terms of backing away from Zelensky again. And here we are left two or three weeks later. wondering, has anything really changed?

No, I think it's gone worse, frankly. There's one good thing that's coming into this, but strategically it's gotten worse because Putin's emboldened. Russian forces are moving on the ground. You know, there's a debate right now among us. Russians are claiming that they have advanced 2,500 square kilometers since made it first. Other independent institutes are saying,

no, no, no, it's not $2,500, it's $1,500. But just for a moment to look at what's on the ground, Peter, they occupy rationale. 99% of one part of the Donbass, Lansk, and about 75% of the second province in the Donbass, 70, you know, which is which is 75%. And that comes from

sources that are critical in Russia. So effectively, their forces have advanced in the area that Putin is looking to enact, frankly, as part of a deal. Yes, there's some parts to go, which

will still be a tough fight and could take months. But think of the situation that Zelensky finds himself. You do an awful deal right now, or you fight for another six or nine nuts, and you could be confronted on the ground with what you're trying to avoid at the table. That's a very, very hard position for Zelensky to be. The Europeans succeeded. They bought time, and there's one concrete thing then, and I think that's valuable that the Europeans achieved. Marco Rubio

is now doing, and he's the most serious member of that team. It's not a high bar, but it nevertheless is when he crosses. He's leading the process on what security guarantees should look like for Ukraine. And that's probably, even Zelensky himself says that is the single most important thing to him now. what kind of ironclad security guarantees can he get from Europe back by the United States that whenever this fighting ends there will not be a second round by Russia within a few years that's moving and Donald Trump actually agreed to one thing which matters yes no US troops on the ground but he will provide air supports he will provide state and

are battlefield intelligence, which only the United States can provide. So in all this fuss about the optics, there are two not insignificant gains that the Europeans got for Zelens. Have you noticed with Zelensky in this last month or so a, I was going to say softening of his position, but that's probably not the right word, but a bending towards trying to find an agreement. In other words, retreating on some of the things he said he would never,

ever concede to. Yeah. There's no question. If you look at him, Peter, he looks exhausted. He looks exhausted. He's sober. You can see physically a change.

And I think that often gives you the first read. Secondly, He wants to shift the conversation now away. You know, he has to say that any territorial annexation, but here's where he shifted, of areas that Russia does not currently occupy, would be an outrage. So that's a subtle shift. But he's trying to change the conversation to the security entities.

Because the day that a ceasefire is agreed to, Zelensky will lose his job inside Ukraine. There's no question. The politics are already very tough this summer. There was again something that he made a mistake. He passed legislation trying to weaken the anti-corruption agencies inside Ukraine that had been set up. People took to the streets in Kiev. And there were demonstrations, and he backed right off it.

But that shows you, again, a leader who's under pressure at home, the Europeans are talking about an agreement with him all the time now. And so that's, there is softening. There's no push. But before we take our break, I want to ask another question on Putin. He's at this weekend summit of sorts in Shanghai, among other places, where some of the key players are, you know, Russia, China, India, North Korea,

and about a couple of dozen other nations, all Asian-based. No Donald Trump sitting at this meeting. I don't know whether he ever was, who would have been entitled to be at it anyway. But how important is that meeting that's going on there? And what impact could it have on a number of the situations that we're looking at around the world? Oh, it's really striking, Peter.

This is a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. So 25th annual meeting. And it's always attracted your Asian leaders. So Europe and Asia. And that's really what you see. But a large number of them are coming. And what does it matter so much this year? And that takes us back to what we first discussed,

at the top of the show, really India is there. But in India, that is now wrestling at the United States and the message of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is the world is changing. The U.S. is in decline. The West is increasingly isolated. We need to play a much stronger role in peacemaking and peacemaking. and in the global economic order than we have. And that's a group of heavy hitters, frankly, that Xi Jinping has assembled.

This is a three-day meeting, but what's it going to be followed on? And that I just find fascinating. There is a big victory celebration in Beijing and a big military parade celebrating the end of World War II. And Xi Jinping is now saying to everybody, look, China was a very important player. By the way, it wasn't the Chinese communist, just for the record. It was Chinese nationalist government at that time, Chiang Khashnik. But China was a very important player in that victory. We were instrumental in weakening Japan.

We lost 20 million dead. a story that, you know, the Russians told when they had their parade. And what you people have heard all this time is just the Western story of World War II. It's missing the role that China and Russia played. And we are entitled to a legitimate role in governing the world. And so all of these leaders from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in your coming, not just a significant group, India, Modi, all in this time on that story. And other leaders, like the President of Egypt, who normally wouldn't show up.

You know, the President of Vietnam is coming. If you look at the dignitaries at that parade, they probably have everybody there, Everybody there, but Europe and North America. Well, you know, obviously we should be watching the situation and the continuing power base and power structure of what's happening in the kind of Asia-Pacific area of our world in a changing world that we're facing. Okay. Let me make one comment as we understand this point. So if you just think about

a Shiji Ping is reaching out all the time, bringing, you know, just delighted that Modi, because there's been such tense relationships between them that Modi is now coming and trying to bring people, you know, into the tent, helpful China,

you know the voice of all those who want a greater share in the in the world order and what's Donald Trump doing fighting with every one of his allies with Japan right you know with South Korea there was a very tense meeting when the president of South Korea was in the White House because all Donald Trump talked about was president of North Korea It's not super nice to us right now. Humillioning trade deal on the European Union. He is fighting with all the allies of the United States has taken generations to build up. If you're listening to the music on both sides of this,

it is not encouraged. No, it certainly isn't. And then, of course, there's the Middle East. And that's what we're going to get to next. but let's take a quick break. We'll be back right after this. And welcome back, Peter Mansbridge here with Dr. Janice Stein. It's a special Labor Day, Monday edition of the bridge,

as we kick off yet another season. And we're looking forward to it. And, of course, the way this season will start on Mondays will be the same as it's started the last couple of years. and that's with Janice Stein, and we're lucky to have her with us once again. You're listening on Sirius XM Channel 167, Canada Talks, are on your favorite podcast platform.

I actually kind of hesitate to bring this up this way, but I've been thinking about it a lot in the last month or so. We've talked at times over the many years that we've known each other, that there's a point at which the audience says, I can't take any more of the Middle East story, especially the Israel-Palestinian story. There's never a resolution. It keeps happening.

People keep dying in horrific numbers. And we're witnessing that obviously again right now. Now, after October 7th, there was a sustained interest in that story to the point where news bureaus that had closed down their Middle East operations, partly because of the reason I just mentioned, People just get tired of the story, went back.

And there has been a considerable amount of reporting at severe cost to more than a few journalists. But it seems to me we're in another one of those periods where people and news networks are saying, you know, this is never going to resolve itself. we've got to put our resources elsewhere and telling other stories and they're kind of backing off which of course plays into well in this case

seems to play into Netanyahu's hands but do you see it the same way do you think there's a sort of retreating on the discussion and the diplomacy and the action surrounding that story

in this last I don't know, well, the summer of 2025. What I do sense, Peter, is frustration and hopeless. People can, even professionals who work in this field, just cannot see a turn in the story. They can't see, never mind for a resolution of the conflict, which has been going on for 150 years, But even on, you know, on gas, on the Palestinians and gas, people can just not see it.

But I think there is also another dynamic going on that the images that photojournalists are sending out of gas are so horrific. There's clearly starvation going on in parts of gas. There's no question about it. are so terrible that people feel guilty about turning away and not paying attention to it. So I don't think the story is actually going to go away. The other dynamic we're seeing is it isn't part of that's enough. This has gone far enough. enough is enough.

We are seeing all of Israel's allies send that message and say and force the issue at the UN General Assembly, which is coming up in three short weeks, really, at the UN, where in our own prime ministerry is part of that, where they're saying we are going to recognize the state of Palestine. So the story is not going to go away because political leaders have to. taking it on in an effort to break the law champ. You know, there is a lot of discussion about whether recognition of a state without borders, there's no defined borders, with no sovereignty, all the legal requirements that we normally have to recognize the state are not there.

And there's no dispute about that. But that's not why this is happening. This is happening because leaders are looking for some way to. send an unmistakable signal this has to stop this has to stop you know i i don't disagree with anything you've said and yet at the same time i watched the nton yahoo government and it seems you know the the this new positioning by the other countries like canada has had seemed to have had zero impact i mean look at the things that that the israeli forces have done just in alaska of weeks now.

There's been some indication from Netanyahu and others that there were mistakes made here and the, you know, the targets that they hit weren't the targets they were aiming at or something. But there's been no real indication that he's backing off from his positions on what he wants to do now. None at all. You know, you're right. And I just look at where we find ourselves.

six months ago Netanyahu said he wanted a partial agreement because he wouldn't agree to end the war so he would trade for ten hostages and he would free Palestinian prisoners and Israelis would withdraw to a buffer zone but keep control of two roads and Hamas said no way

no way we're not doing none and they rejected the offer where are we now after and actually give President Macron some credit here. After Macon convened that meeting and our governments

including Qatar, including Qatar, which is something that most Arabs would never have expected to see. They say to Amas the Arab world has to Amos, you have to lead and have to disarm. Because

they're saying enough is enough, just like all the Allies of Israel are saying enough is enough. And so what's on the table map? A partial deal. Hamas backed off, returned 10 living hostages and some dead hostages, of which there are many, in exchange for Israel pulling back to his buffer zone. And who won't accept the deal that he himself put on the table six months ago, Netanyan. Now he wants a permanent deal. So if you actually look at what's happened in the last six months, each Hamas is now where

Israel was. And Israel's position is now where Hamas was. I actually think, I hate to say this. I actually think we're at the end game because there's nothing else left to try, frankly. And the opposition, and that really matters. Two things matter inside Israel. They're going to drive this ultimately. And I mean six months to some kind of end gain. I have to say that's an eternity for the Palestinian population in Gaza. One is, but we have 70% of Israelis who are saying this war has to stop. And the opposition is now coming from a broad part of the population. It's not coming from a discredited left.

It's coming from Orthodox rabbi. That's the easiest way I can describe how the opposition inside him. strengthened. They were the heart and soul of Netanyahu's coalition. They are now coming out with moral condemnations, Peter. The second is, 2026

is an election year. They have to have the elections. They have to have them. And the polls are consistent that his coalition cannot win a majority.

There's an offering. only if he ends this war. So I think if you put those two together, the opposition inside Israel and the opposition to Hamas inside the Arab world now. And a story out of Egypt this week, which is encouraging,

they are training Egyptian soldiers to be part of a security force that will go into Gaza. They've long refused to even acknowledge that they were doing that and people say to me all the time, why would they do it?

They would do it because of the desperation that they're seeing on their border, frankly. Right. And the last thing Egypt wants is is all the Palestinians coming into Egypt. Yeah, they have refused throughout this whole agonizing two years, frankly. Here's my last question for today.

And it's about Hamas. I thought they were crushed. Their leadership was decapitated. You know, it looked like it was all over for Hamas. But it's obviously not. Well, it depends what you mean by crushed, right? So there are still Hamas fighters inside tunnels in areas that use Israeli forces. And that's the alleged rationale for this last military campaign,

that those tunnels still exist inside the largest city in Gaza and there are fighters in those tunnels. And if, you know, if we need any proof from that, 10 fighters came out and killed seven Israeli soldiers in the last several weeks. But they have no organized leadership anymore, Peter. The stories from people who know Hamas well is that the difficulties they are. are now having the hotel guides in communicating with leaders

inside Gaza is so difficult apparently there too that's all there's no organized leadership left of him up

and that's why they can come out and make statements like you have to leave and you have to disarm. So this is now just about is there

any security force that would go in without approval from Netanyahu of a political path forward to the Palestinians and that's what he has refused to give

because that would be lethal for his college. That's what and all these people are dying both from hunger and from war over that set of issues. but those are engaged at their debate.

Well, you know, you set us up, as you always do, at looking at some of these things are going on in the world. And the key ones, you know, there are lots of other things happening as well, and we'll get to those in one of our, what are we missing episodes in the future. But you've also signaled to us that we, you know, we tend to ignore the UN. a lot and in many cases for good reason. But a general assembly could be an interesting one this fall. And as you said, it starts in a couple of weeks in New York.

And we'll keep an eye on that. Janice, great to have you back after a long summer. Great to you, Peter, and to be with all the listeners. You take care of your, you're in New York this weekend. and we'll see you back here next week. Thanks, Janice. Thank you. Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School, the University of Toronto.

Always such a treat to be able to talk to her. And we'll be doing it every Monday again this year. So looking forward to those days. Okay, time to wrap it up. Time to wrap up the first show of season six of the bridge. Tomorrow, as we said, we'll have a more buts conversation, number 22. And the focus of that one is going to be, how do you or can you actually negotiate with a person like Donald Trump? There are key negotiations going on right now between Canada and the United States, between many other countries and the United States.

at the end of the day, it's whether Donald Trump, on the American side, wants the deal or not. And I think it's a legitimate question to ask, given his past and his present, how can you actually negotiate with this guy? We'll talk to James Moore, Jerry Butts. Jerry Butts, of course, was in the room the last time round on a trade deal with the United States. So he knows what it's like seeing Donald Trump sitting on the other side of the table. So we'll have that conversation with Moore and Butts tomorrow. Then through the week, you're working on your answers to the question of the week, right? Did something happen for you this summer that caught your eye? What was it?

Send those answers in to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. Get them in before 6 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. Keep it under 75 words, include your name and the location you're writing from. Looking forward to seeing what you have to say on that. The random ranter will be by on that day on Thursday as well. Friday, of course, is Good Talk with Bruce Anderson and Chantelli Bear. That's it for this week. Glad to have you back in the fold.

And hopefully we'll keep there through this year. That's going to be an exciting one. All right. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again in just under 24 hours.