Bloggers note :Here, Hear, all about the Senate of Canada maybe regaining relevance since 2015, after 10 years in the desert.
Raj-Russo: Is Compromise In the Air?
Are you ready for Raj Russo? It's coming right up.
And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. Welcome to the uh reporters notebook. Raj and Russo, Alia Raj, Rob Russo.
Althia of course from the Toronto Star and Rob from the Economist. Um here's
how I want to start. You know, a couple of weeks ago, both the the Liberals and the Conservatives suggested that they
were going to try to find ways to work together to make this parliament more
productive. Um, we've heard that kind of talk before and I think there was a, you
know, a lot of people are thinking, "Yeah, sure. Let's see what really happens." Well, yesterday there seemed
to be actually some progress on that front on a bill called C15. Now, I don't want to get caught in the weeds of what
the bill's all about. Um, but they it was a process that had the potential to
really drag on and on and on and it may still do that. But it appeared yesterday
um that there was a willingness on the part of the two main parties, the
Conservatives and the Liberals to work out some arrangement where they could move the bill along.
So, here's my question. H how real is what we seem to see yesterday?
Uh but even more importantly, what does it suggest for the future if in fact
there is some progress on this working together stuff? Um Althia, why don't you
start this week? Uh well, I think they are working together. Frankly, they have been
working together even on controversial pieces of legislation. And there is a part in C-15 that is quite controversial
in terms of giving uh a cabinet minister and potentially u more than one cabinet
minister to cabinet ministers um the power to suspend laws from being applied
um in certain cases. But we saw that in C5 when that was the first um one of the
first bills that was introduced by the Carney government that basically gave cabinet the power to suspend laws to
allow uh you know projects in the national interest to go forward and the conservatives uh gave Mark Carney a
helping hand and frankly we've even seen that going back to the throne speech
which was amended but passed on division and what you are seeing is um The
conservatives,
I believe, want to be seen to take the fight to the government. But
when it comes down to it, when you look at in the weeds at
committee stage, when things are actually getting done, uh they don't want to take
accountability
for helping the government pass things. So, they're trying to pass
things on division, which means there's no recorded vote or
they're abstaining when there is a recorded vote. Um, but also not actually opposing the government's agenda. And
the only push back and I'm going to say it's like quite minute is uh on the
Senate side where the senators are like oh wait a second like this is not getting the proper scrutiny and I
suspect C-15 it's being pre-studied going to start getting pre-studied in the Senate. They are going to do the
same thing on these this clause in uh part five of this bill. So, it's um it's
not necessarily new, but I do think there is a spirit of cooperation between
the two major parties. And I'm not sure, frankly, it's a good thing. You realize
how important the voices of smaller parties are and how few powers they have in a legislature with the rules that
have now been adopted. So I guess the question becomes, you know, is it a spirit of cooperation or is a spirit of
survival, especially on the part of the conservatives? Rob, what's your take on this? Yeah, I I I I think that uh that
Andrew Shear is going to great pains to paw at the ground, snort, uh suggest
that they compelled the government to make all kinds of changes to legislation like C-15, and that he's prepared to
fight them right up to the line where a confidence vote would be required that could dissolve parliament uh and result
in election. Um I I I think that it's poll driven. Much of what we're seeing
now in terms of the conservative posture is poll driven. It's not a bad thing necessarily uh that that parties get
together and actually compromise it in a minority parliament. That's that's the way it's supposed to it's supposed to
work. The the um the compromises they made on C-15 are really uh rather mild.
uh the the Liberals gave in. So that there would have to be a 30-day public cons consultation on on some of the
provisions that would create what's called regulatory sandboxes allowing companies to to to test things outside
of of uh normal procedures, normal laws, and and there's a two minister or two
key requirement to trigger this. It sounds technical, but it's it's really
quite mild. So, what is it telling us? I I I think it's telling us that the
Conservatives have other problems they need to try and address before they can actually begin to oppose the Liberals in
a much more vigorous way. Uh I think they need to get their own house in order. Uh it's it's not just that
they're losing MPs. They they don't seem to have much control over their caucus. We saw that not just uh with with
Javanni uh but with Mike Dawson, the New Brunswick MP who uh dared to say that he
was he was not going to take uh an increase, a salary increase. Uh that
that's due to all MPs. It's regularly scheduled and then and then was heckled
and and and mocked in his own caucus room. Um all of that all of that suggests that Mr. Pv still does not have
control of his caucus. So, he needs to do that first. And the other thing that he needs to do, and he's going to begin
to do it next week, is is to roll the biggest rock out of the road between the
uh between him and the conservatives actually attaining power. And that's dealing with Donald Trump and the threat
Mr. Trump poses to our our national security, to our national economic
prosperity, to our national integrity. Um those are the things that he has to
get get at and he can't risk the potential dissolution of parliament uh
until he gets at that because those are the kinds of things that are keeping uh
the Conservatives bracketed, I would say, uh at at a level
of support that is going to give them a vigorous opposition and the Liberals an
easy majority government if polls are to be believed right now. Okay. Um, I I'll get to the the US uh
the poly US story in a moment, but I I I just want to I found it intriguing what Althia said about uh the Senate. Uh that
seems more a play on a bill called C4. And once again, I don't want to get into the weeds on what's happening there, but
I do find it interesting. And Althia is, you know, one one of those few journalists who actually spend some time
checking in on the Senate and seeing what they're up to. uh but the Senate which is a peculiar uh composition of
the Senate now given the independents that sit on the kind of what were the
liberal benches in the Senate. Uh but they they are are they really putting up a roadblock on this C4? Are they are
they saying no no no it's not going to happen as quickly as you think it's going to happen?
Yeah. Okay. So two things. Um I just want to on the C-15 thing that's happening in the House. I think it's
important for Canadians to know that if conservatives really believe that this one clause was so egregious, they have
the support to remove it. So, they chose not to remove it. And I think one of the things that we need to be aware of is
that the two main parties like to make decisions swiftly and without much
public scrutiny. And they're kind of reshaping the laws in that way. And the smaller parties who were incentivized to
say, "No, no, the legislature needs to have as much power as we as we can. we need a stronger role. They're lifting
their
hand up and saying, "Wait, wait, wait. This is not appropriate. Like we
still need to have a say in this discussion." So like in the greater
frame, there is that conversation happening at the moment. On the Senate side, Bill C4 that you talk about is in
my view a pretty egregious bill. Basically, it's one of the first pieces of legislation the Carne government
introduced,
which is a bill that had the support of a lot of people because the
election was run on it, which was basically a lower income tax uh cut
that
affects basically everybody and also getting rid of carbon pricing. And in the back of that bill, they tapped on
this this bit that says, "Oh, and by the way, all political parties will be
exempted from privacy rules. They will get to make their own laws and they will
have their own privacy person report back to Elections Canada whether or not they have abided by the laws that they
have set for themselves. Oh, and we're going to backate that to 2000 because there's this court case in British
Columbia that said that uh we were uh subject to the BC Privacy Act and we don't want that to happen. So, um we're
going to give ourselves these incredible powers. And in the House of Commons,
this was not studied at all. the parties just agreed to it and then they ship that off to the senate and the senate is
like wh what you want to do what come again and so they have sent this bill um
to a special committee legal and constitutional affairs that looked at it heard from witnesses and said whoa
uh we are here to save you from yourselves we don't have a conflict of interest you have a conflict of interest
because we are now mostly independent senators and we think you should revisit this so we're going to suggest that you
take this out of the finance bill or that uh you get rid of it completely or
if you don't accept that that um at least you give yourself a sunset clause so that you have two years to um make
this law better because basically the political parties argue well we can't be
subject to 13 different privacy regimes around the country which is an argument that has carries a lot of weight with
the
senators yeah you shouldn't be subject to 13 different types maybe
there should one federal system, but we think there should be some laws.
So,
that committee is basically reporting back to another committee today and we're going to find out whether they
listen to the people who heard testimony or they decide we're a lot we're under immense pressure from the government.
We're just going to pass this along and recommend to the Senate that we we do
the House's bidding. you know, we're unelected and we should bow to what the House decides, which is frankly what
happened
with another piece of legislation that's also pretty controversial on
immigrants. That's what happened yesterday on Monday when the
Senate said, "Uh, yeah, we did hear from a lot of witnesses who raised a lot of concerns and clearly the government
didn't do its homework, but um we're not going to make any amendments to this piece of legislation." So, I'm ranting a
little, but the other thing that's important to note is that the Senate is mostly independent at the
moment. As in, they have more senators that were appointed under this Justin Trudeau framework with this independent
advisory board and then like people in the public submit and ask to be a
senator and then a lot of them are in the Senate. Mark Parney has not said what he plans to do with the Senate. He
has not appointed any new senators. There are a lot of vacancy on the advisory board. it's unclear whether or
not he's going to continue with independent senators. So, they are also in the back of their minds thinking uh
we need to show Canadians the value of having an independent senate. End of
rant. You know, a good brand. You should you shouldn't worry about ranting because you really got to rant
out Rand Russo. But do you got something on this Rob? Do
you want to? Uh, look, I I think um this is going to
be one of the test cases for what has been a fundamental change to our um our
the foundations of our politics. Okay. Uh we you can't make constitutional
change in this country anymore. Really, since the Meech Lake process, anybody who who thinks about constitutional
change knows they're going into a political graveyard. Well, when the Liberals abolished um
or or expelled senators from their caucus, they in in fact created
something akin to a constitutional change. And now we're going to see whether or not uh the country is going
to be okay with that. Uh and it's going to be the Liberal government that's going to be affected by it. In in terms
of the favors political parties do for themselves, I'm afraid that this is an old uh and disreputable tendency of of
polit all political parties that have held power, not not just the Liberals, all of them. I find it appalling for
instance that uh if I want to make a a charitable donation to the Canadian
Cancer Society, uh it comes in at a lower rate than if I were to make a
donation to any political parties. Political parties have given themselves the ability to grant their their
supporters a bigger tax deduction than if I were going to try to do something to help uh the mental health association
or the cancer society. That's awful. that and and and that's just an example
of how political parties will look after themselves. So, do they need a check? Yes. Uh is this going to be an
interesting test of what happens to our country and and the way we're governed uh by having independent senators? Yes.
It's it's an unknown thing. Um um both both of those things I think are are
going to be illustrated over the next little while on this. Well, I think what's really interesting about
this one is that first of all, if you want to have like the the debate about the tax uh charitable tax rebate is
that's been in the public realm, right? But they they've been the government has been doing this like tacking things that
are like really frankly bad and deserve scrutiny on the back of omnibus bills
over and over and over again. And this bill basically like as a Canadian you have no right to ask a political party
for the information they hold about you. They are not limited from selling or trading your information. The people who
work for them the companies like for the liberals for example data sciences their provider when it's working for the party
will have to abide by no actual privacy rules other than the rules the liberals themselves set out for themselves. So
it's quite something like no company in Canada operates in a vacuum like this
and we are saying sure political parties can do whatever they want with your data
and you don't even have the right to correct the data to look at the data and they don't want even want to tell you
what they're holding about you. So in this age of like AI and all these risks
that we're saying like this is an important conversation to have and parliamentarians members of parliament
are saying we're we don't even want to be bothered to have it like we haven't heard from one witness. We didn't have
one debate. That's quite outrageous. So thank God for the Senate. I will say
kudos to them. R those are rarely heard words. I I think it's uh it's been really
important and um if they had not raised a stink demanding to study this, we probably would not know about it uh
until months later. Well, I'm glad you've raised it and I'm glad we've talked about it because I
think it's fair to say that for most Canadians, they still look at the Senate as a bunch of aging freeloaders who do
nothing except turn up occasionally and uh and cash besize checks. Um, however,
th this does give you pause as to uh what's going on and the and whether or
not there really is something worthy about a chamber of second, you know, sober second thought if that in fact is
what's happening here. Uh so we'll keep an eye on this and we know that Althia will because she likes Senate stories
and always has. Um okay let me you know we do have a couple of other things to
discuss and one of them is this thing that Rob uh raised earlier which is that Pierre Polyv is giving a major speech
this week which is giving him I mean he's had the opportunity before and
hasn't taken it but he's going to take it this week and outline what his
thinking is toward the Trump administration and and US policies towards Canada. Uh people have been
waiting for this. Uh his caucus to some degree has been waiting for it. Not not
all of the caucus, but some of it. And how different is it going to be than what his kind of rogue MP Javani had to
say uh last week or two weeks ago? What do we know about I mean I think we know
why he's doing this, but what do we know about what he's actually going to say in it? Um Rob, do we know anything yet?
No, not yet. uh you know I think many of the senior leadership uh from the party
were missing yesterday during the first question period and it seems to me there's a lot of huddling going on uh
and I think the huddling is going on because they're they're wrestling with issues like this uh as well as issues of
of clear problems in the distant early warning system of of their own caucus.
Um what is clear uh is is that um there
there are vast elements vast tracks of the conservative party membership that support if not Trump then Trumpism. Uh
and uh he he needs to deal with them. He now has a mandate to deal with them
because he has the support of almost nine out of 10 members of the Conservative party in terms of his
leadership. Uh but at the at the same time uh he also needs to deal with the
rest of caucus who can do him in uh and who will not many of whom will not hold
on to their seats if he doesn't deal with Trump and Trump isn't. So so that
that's his challenge. Are there openings? There are very very few openings. Um you know his his preferred
destination is to get to cost of living issues. uh that facing Canadians. We all
know them. We all shop. We're we're we all suffer suffer sticker shock every
time we go in and try and and buy something to make dinner. Um but he
can't get there if Donald Trump continues to be the issue that he's going to be. And there's no sign that
Mr. Trump is going to let up. But he needs to get there. He needs to have a coherent position. Is there a middle
path? Is there a middle path of cooperating with the United States while
not seeming to be uh supportive of what Mr. Trump is doing in terms of uh
perturbing, disrupting uh and and quite frankly menacing Canada. There might be
a middle path and I I would suspect that that middle path is continental defense.
that there it is in the interest of both countries to come together uh to to
confront the um the threats uh by the Russians, by the Chinese and others when
it comes to cyber security, Iran and North Korea uh uh to defend the continent, the continent's
infrastructure, uh the Arctic, all of that. The truth is that Canada cannot do
it alone. No matter what the plan is to uh present a more robust defense front, we cannot do it. We need the United
States just like Europe needs the United States if it's going to confront the Putin threat. We need the United States
at least for the next several years to help us. It's in our interests that both countries do this. Is that the road that
Mr. Puv is going to take? I I that's what I'm going to be watching for if he uh pushes all of the other stuff aside
for now and says here's where we can get along. And if we can get along here, maybe this is where we can get along on
trade as well. Well, it's a tricky uh plan to to strategize on continental defense with
somebody who actually wants your land and your water and your resources and everything. Yeah, absolutely. But I think we've seen
we have seen that if it's not the uh the the beginning of the end, but the end of
the beginning of Trumpism. I think I I think I mean maybe some people might say optimistic but the last several weeks
have been instructive that way. Althia what do you see on this?
I don't know what's in the speech. I haven't frankly made any calls on it, but I do think that the opening and we
kind of saw Pier Pellv take it after the Davos speech in his response to Prime
Minister Carney is saying it's great to work with other middle powers and expand
our trade networks, but don't take your eye off the ball. Most of our trade is done with the United States, and we're
not going to replace that overnight. And I think that is his opportunity to Rob's
point about continental defense. A lot of conservatives um don't believe that the American
threat, the Trump threat is as great as liberals make it out to be. And so um
not just liberals, progressives as a whole, I guess you could say. Um, so I think that that is an opportunity for
him to say, you know, like we need to be buying the F-35s. We need to be more engaged. You know, this too will pass.
We can't take our eye off the ball. KOSMA's really important. And that's a message that some in the business
community are really aching to hear and think that um the government's focus is
on things that are years down the line if not decades down the line and that um
the liberals risk doing irreparable harm to our relationship with the United States and that this too will pass. I
think this idea of like is it a this two will pass or is this a this is a transformational change that will never
go back that is kind of like the different visions between the two parties when it comes to foreign
affairs. Okay. Um there's more to this discussion and we're going to have it but we got to do uh take a quick break here and uh
we'll get back at it right after this.
After more than two decades as a journalist with CTV News, asking the questions, I'm now helping clients
answer them. I work with CEOs, associations, unions, building confidence, and helping them prepare for
everything from media interviews to board presentations. It comes down to being authentic, engaging, and
relatable. Because it's more than just what you say, but how you say it. So, let's talk
And welcome back. You're listening to the bridge, the Raj Russo reporters notebook for this week. Uh Althia Raj
from the Toronto Star, Rob Russo from the Economist. You're listening on SiriusXM channel 167 Canada Talks or on
your favorite podcast platform or you're watching us on our uh our YouTube channel. Glad to have you with us no
matter the platform you are connecting with us on. Okay. The the challenge for
Pierre Polyv in all this, especially this week, is trying to thread this
needle that he has, which is on the one side he's trying to um attract a broader
audience nationally uh on Canadians who are concerned about this the Canada US relationship and
don't like Donald Trump and they want to hear something uh from uh PR Polyv on
that front. The other side of the needle, if you wish, is his own caucus
and his own party. Uh some of whom, and you know, Rob and Melia have both mentioned this over time. Um are are
supportive either Trump directly or Trumpism. Uh and so he's got to he's got
to while trying to attract more on one side, he's got to not lose on the other
side. and losing on the other side can lead to all kinds of things up to and
including floor crossings really. Um what um
h how narrow is that that eye of the needle that he's trying to thread through uh given this speech?
I mean what's the risk here? What's the real risk that he has? who wants to join
that. I I I I think the the the path is not as narrow as it was before Calgary when he
won the backing of 87% of his party. That that gives him now I think more
room to maneuver. Why are people uh c crossing the floor? If we take Matt
Generoo at his at his word, uh it is in part because they are worried about what
Trump represents in the world and what Prime Minister Carney is offering in response. What is the issue that moved
the biggest uh segment of of votes in my lifetime? It was Trump. So, he needs a
coherent position on this. I I was u I think anybody who believes in Canada was
pleased to see how how crystal clearv was in terms of the Alberta secession
referendum. 100% of my caucus is is behind Canada and behind uh and would
vote no in a referendum and Alberta in essence is is what he said. Uh there there was no ambiguity about it. I think
he needs to take a similar kind of position on the threat that Mr. Trump
represents u while at the same time um as Althia said recognizing that you
cannot ignore the gravitational pull of 340 million of the richest consumers in
the world. He needs to be clear. He needs to be coherent. But at the same time, he needs to tell those people who
are flirting with Trumpism that we didn't turn our back on the United States.
They turned their backs on their on their best friends and at the same time they mocked and they scorned their best
friends and they told their best friends they didn't need any of their products. They told their best friends they're
going to kill their auto industry. Um and and by the way they also told their best friends um you know we're we're
really interested in your your in in in that lovely uh part part of it's almost
like
someone came to me and said your sister's beautiful. we don't want
anything to do with you, but we're we're really after your sister, and
that's
Alberta. Uh and uh that that's the thing that I think will allow him to hammer
back at Trump and Trumpism. No one uh in any part of the world should have uh
come anywhere near threatening the territorial integrity of Canada. Uh and
that's the nail. He can be the hammer on that. All right, Althia. And I can tell you
she's she's going to try to ignore the sister line, but
I'm sure she has some some overall thoughts here. Go ahead. Um, guess I will ignore the sister line.
I don't think the Trump thing is as big a factor as you both seem to think it
is. I think what is going to matter most in the days that follow the speech is
frankly what Mark Carney says in India, what Mark Carney says in Australia where he's supposed to be making a kind of a
similar Davos like speech and more caucus members will do a compare and contrast because at the moment
the conservative leader seems to be unsure about where to
land. You know, the conservatives have always been really good at kind of gauging the public mood and driving
towards an outcome often based on emotions. And now they're talking about there's an opposition day motion today.
Um you've seen social media videos of Pier Pv saying, you know, uh bogus asylum seekers should not be allowed to
have uh healthcare benefits. Well, bogus asylum seekers should be um forced to
leave the country. But when it seems that if they're waiting for an appeal, they can still uh get uh this interim
federal health uh program. Um there's a lot of anti-immigration
sentiment in this country and the Liberals have also tried to respond to it. But if you're sitting in Pierre
Polyp's caucus, do you want to hear from a leader who says um you know there are
these are the big challenges of that we need to tackle and come be part of my team to help tackle like the crisis of
our time or do you want to pick on a
vulnerable group that may or may not be um
you know trying to get a free doctor's visit or braces for your child. And I I
think that it's kind of where where does the Conservative Party want to focus its attention. They were being I think quite
successful in the drive against the Liberals bizarre gun control buyback
program, but because of Tumblr Ridge that has fallen off the wayside. So they're kind of like struggling to find
an issue. And I think more than the speech, like Thursday's speech is going to be compared to Carney speech. And
it's
mostly about where do you want to spend the next three years if you're a
conservative caucus member who kind of finds themselves,
you know, progressive conservative on the center right spectrum where you feel as an MP that you will have a larger
voice. I don't think that any of the if you want to say proTrump
u elements of Pier Polib's caucus are are going anywhere. And frankly, you
know, the Conservative party is a really huge tent and a lot of those people don't really like their caucus mates
either. Um, and some of those people are in vulnerable seats that, you know, they they could also lose if there is an
election. So, wow, that sounds This is no easy party
to lead right now. Um, it never is, but yeah, it's not it's not an easy time,
but they will never gain power unless they deal with the Trump issue. Uh, and
as long as Donald Trump is there, if there's an election after Donald Trump leaves and all of a sudden we go back to
where we were, and does anybody actually believe that's going to happen in a hurry? No one does. He needs to deal
with this. Uh, this week's speech on Canada US relations is the beginning of
three, four other big policy speeches he's going to make over the next few months. But he can't get to them. Nobody
will listen to those. Nobody will take him seriously unless he deals with this one here. Um I think they're important
ones. Um they're going to be about affordability. They're going to be about housing. They are going to be about im
immigration. And and I think Althia is is probably right. If this the way if this is the way they're going on
immigration, this might be how they um uh appeal to some some of the the the
baser elements of of their own coalition. Uh if if they're going after immigrants cuz it it does sound like a
dog whistle. Uh it it does, but nobody's going to even hear that dog whistle unless he does something about Trump and
he has to do that this week. You know, I somebody we all know, Jamie uh Watt, you
know, a longtime conservative strategist, writes a column on the weekends for the Toronto Star. Um, and
you know, he wrote a piece, I guess it was two weeks ago where he basically made the argument that until
Pierre Polv utters the word Donald Trump, he will never be prime minister.
um that he's ignored talking about Trump. He ignored it again in Calgary a couple of weeks ago. Uh and that he just
feels he's got to talk about it. And I guess this week is the week he's going to um on the floor crosser front. Am I
to take away from this conversation that they're they're sitting in the w in the woods or they're sitting in the
background right now waiting to see how certain things unfold and namely that
speech on uh later this week by Polyv. Is that is that what you're saying or could anything happen at any moment?
Um I know conversations are still ongoing. I think frankly the prime minister's travel schedule is probably
more of a determinant because what's the point of having a floor crosser if you're not there to welcome them? Um,
so I don't know. I mean, you can there are some people who were rumored to cross and I don't know that they were
floor crossers because I didn't speak with them, but I I have noticed that there's definitely been some outreach on
the part of the Olo's office to those potential would be floor grassers. Um,
you know, giving them questions and question period. You know, there's a there's a lot of like, oh, I suddenly
realized that you are a valuable member of this team and I love you very very much.
Rob, the the the rumors are rife. I mean, this is a town that was built on rumors,
but um the uh that that the next one could come from Quebec. So, I would
watch I'm sure they're watching their Quebec, the Conservatives are watching their Quebec caucus very very closely. I
do think I do think that if the if the Liberals are going to get their majority, it will come through uh the
province of Quebec, but not because it's necessarily a floor crossing. A couple of things have happened,
the first of all, Tbun uh which could could allow if if the Liberals hold
their seats elsewhere, it could allow for a possible majority government there. But we've we found out that uh
Alexander Buleris is is he says he's thinking about leaving. When you say that, you're all but gone out the door.
He's thinking about leaving. This is the NDP's only MP east of Manitoba. Okay. Uh
he's he's he's about to leave and run for a secessionist party in the province
of Quebec, which is mind-blowing. Um, but it's it's a writing that is uh he
he's managed to hold on to. Uh, it's it's his writing. It's not an NDP writing. It's his personal kind of
thief. And the Liberals finished a stronger second there in the last election. Still considerably behind, but
but increased their vote substantially. Um, and if the Liberals win those two seats in the province of Quebec, where
Mr. Carney remains quite popular, uh, they might get their majority that way. All right. Um, well, before anything
happens this week on any of the fronts we've talked about, uh, all eyes will be on the State of the Union address
tonight in the United States when Donald Trump speaks to the US Congress and and the people of the United States and in
fact the people of the world because he does tend to attract an audience. You never know what he's going to come out
of his mouth next. Um, should Canada assume it's going to get targeted here
uh, tonight? I mean, it's not the biggest vote getter one assumes in the United States, but he loves to uh to
deal with Canada in ways that create all kinds of uh excitement and uh in
discussion. What do you what do you assume? Let me start with Rob because he's the former, you know, a former
Washington bureau chief for Canadian Press. Um I I think there's already a bullseye on
us. There there are already investigations under section 232, the national security provisions of of trade
uh powers for the president. Uh looking at pharmaceuticals, looking at semiconductors in Canada, looking at uh
aircraft, commercial aircraft, we're people don't realize because of Bombardier, we're the biggest commercial
aircraft provider to the United States. So there are investigations going on ongoing there. So we've already got that
bullseye. Does does anybody think that uh tariffs are are going to be abandoned
when they are the lynch pin and not just the economic lynchpin of Trump and Trumpism, but his political lynch pin,
his diplomatic lynch pin, he uses it in order to coersse countries into doing
other things for him around the world. He cannot abandon it. So if you believe
that, you have to believe that that Donald Trump right now is like an
enraged bull who's had his tail pulled by the Supreme Court. Uh and it's that
enraged bull is going to go after the first target that appears. Um I think
that's one of the reasons why Cana Canada, the prime minister, everybody has been discreet in terms of their
reaction to what's happened at at the Supreme Court. Um but his rage will
increases with every setback. He's had a whole bunch of setbacks. Uh and so
should Canada be prepared for it? Yes, they should be. We've they've already got things that they're looking at. Uh
but uh you know, if I if I were if I were other countries, I'd be more concerned. If I were in the UK, which
signed a 10% tariff deal with the United States, and all of a sudden I find myself looking at 15%. I would I would
be very worried as well. All everybody's worried. Um, I I I think I I said I was optimistic
before and I I do think that we are seeing not just with the Supreme Court
case, but with the six Republicans on February 11th who abandoned their party to uh to vote with Democrats against uh
in favor of removing the tariffs on Canada. We see erosion there. the New York Fed, which came up with a report
earlier this month that said that it's Americans and American companies that
are bearing 90% of the cost of the tariffs, that it it's weakening the US dollar, that it's not spurring
manufacturing in the United States. These are all things that I think are eroding the argument in favor of
tariffs. the Supreme Court's decision to to have section 122 and and section 301
of the of his trade powers uh uh means that investigations have to be held.
Time limits are on tariffs that pushes all of this stuff into the primary
uh season. Um, and uh, if you can get to the summer and you're a Republican who's
worried about tariffs and the cost of living on your constituents, he can't Trump can't launch a a primary challenge
against you. So, by the summer, not we don't even have to wait until the fall. By the summer, more power will be taken
away from Donald Trump. He's enraged. We should be worried about him while he's enraged, but his power seems to be
ebing. You get the last word, Elia. Um, I was going to say more like a
wounded bear, but um, enraged bullshure. Let's go with that. I expect will be
mentioned only because Donald Trump said that it was going to be a very, very, very long speech and he normally speaks
for a very long time when he doesn't say that. So, I have no idea how long this speech is going to be. Um,
on the plus side, I think what's most concerning to Republicans is the
affordability crisis. And I think that's actually where American voters are focused and this um, State of the Union
address is supposed to launch the the marking point of the midterm season. And
so I expect that the focus will definitely not be on Canada. Aside from
saying that you know Canada and the rest of the countries are um you know acting unfairly and treating us unfairly and I
have must fix this because that is my job. Um I I I think the focus will be
elsewhere. I mean there's the Americans are so busy with what's going on in Iran. Uh the fact that he is so deeply
deeply unpopular. I just saw a CNN poll um yesterday that showed he had a 26%
approval rating with independence. Um, I mean, it looks like it's going to be a blood bath in the fall. So, if we can
just kind of stay out of the uh orange man's viewpoint, I think we will we will
do we will farewell. But, of course, you know, you know, Ottawa will be paying very close attention to what he says and
adjusting accordingly. And and he will have those Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him
uh and right in front of that lectern. So, they're going to be the first target the enraged bull sees.
Yeah. And I'm sure he will say something about that. I mean, as Althia said, he's promising a long speech. You know, if he
just reads the prompter, it'll be a long speech. But he doesn't just read the prompter. You know, he takes detours all
the time. And uh, you know, if there isn't something in the speech written about the Supreme Court justices, I'm
sure he'll he'll say something anyway when he sees them sitting there in their robes in front of him. Um,
it's going to be a bit of a circus this speech from the I was going to call it a
speech from the throne, but the State of the Union address. I I guess in some ways it is a speech from his throne.
That's the way you'll look at it. Um but you know on on on the one hand you've got the survivors, the uh girls and
women who are the Epstein victims um who are going to be supposedly in the room
invited
by the Democrats. They're going to be there. What are they going to do?
Are they going to stand up? Are they going to be wearing their white uh
t-shirts and put on a um you know a protest of some kind when he's uh when
he's speaking? And on the other hand, you've got this this situation where he's invited the US hockey team. Um,
but the girls said no. The the women said no. Yeah, they're not going. Um, the men certainly
seemed like after partying with Cash Patel the other day in Milan that they'll be uh they're going to be there.
At least some of them will be. Um a and you know I'm sure the Congress will if
they are there are going to cheer for all of them anyway, you know, no matter what uh side of the partisan aisle
they're on. Um so anyway, it it'll be a show and there's nothing Trump likes
better than a show. He likes to orchestrate a show. Yeah. Although who knows if it if it
will
play in his favor, right? Because it does feel like the Democrats are
kind of goating them when they're talking about who they've invited to
sit
alongside with them. I I'm not sure what plays in his favor anymore. You've both mentioned the trouble in the in the last
few
weeks, but it's a you know, everybody keeps talking about the midterms
and he's going to get crushed. The midterms are a long way away.
Lots, but there is this erosion in his support. But I do think you're right. Donald Trump is a sore winner. Just look
at what he put on social media after the Olympic hockey game on Sunday. Uh but
what's he like as a loser? Well, we're about to find out because he's losing and I don't think it's going to be
pretty. Uh, and I I think that uh he is he he continues to be very dangerous in
terms of Canada as well. Okay, we're going to leave it at that uh for this week. A couple of notes uh
before we say goodbye that uh the week's question is an ask me anything question
for Thursday's your turn. Um, so, uh, already we've had a lot of, uh, questions come in for me to answer. So,
the last week of each month is ask me anything. This is that last week of the month. Um, send to the Mansbridge
podcast atgmail.com. Have it in before 6 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow. Include your
name and the location you're writing from and keep it um, under 75 words. So, 75 words or fewer for that. Um, thanks
to both of you. Uh, fascinating conversation. uh as always and uh have a
good week. Thanks. Sounds got lots to do. Um I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks for
listening. Talk to you again in less than 24 hours.
No comments:
Post a Comment