The Ben Mulroney Show - Ben discusses why are our politicians so eager to get into a tariff war when we should be negotiating?

Episode Date: January 30, 2025

Guests and Topics: -Ben discusses why are our politicians so eager to get into a tariff war when we should be negotiating? with Guest: Ian Lee, Associate Professor At Carleton University At The Sprott School Of Business -What is happening in the so called Safe Injection Sites with Guest: Yonah Budd, Corus addictions and counselling expert YonahBudd.com If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-ben-mulroney-show Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Calling all sellers, Salesforce is hiring account executives to join us on the cutting edge of technology. Here, innovation isn't a buzzword. It's a way of life. You'll be solving customer challenges faster with agents, winning with purpose, and showing the world what AI was meant to be. Let's create the agent-first future together. Head to salesforce.com slash careers to learn more. We're talking tariffs because they could be coming in and the effects that they could have on this economy would be myriad and entirely negative. One of the people involved in that process of levying them

is US Commerce Secretary nominee Howard Lutnick, and he was recently in Washington. And he explained how Canada can avoid punitive tariffs right now, but also warns of sort of long term tariffs if other things happen. Let's listen. The big tariff view is going to be studied. And the president wants that in an executive order where he asked the Commerce Department and the USTR to study the tariff model long term.

The short term issue is illegal migration and worse even still fentanyl coming into this country and killing over 100,000 Americans. There's no war we could have that would kill 100,000 Americans. The president no war we could have that would kill 100,000 Americans. The president is focused on ending fentanyl coming into the country. You know that the labs in Canada are run by Mexican cartels.

So this tariff model is simply to shut their borders with respect, respect America. If we are your biggest trading partner, show us the respect, shut your border and end fentanyl coming into this country. So it is not a tariff, per se. It is an action of domestic policy, shut your border and stop allowing fentanyl into our country, killing our people.

Okay, so there's a lot going on here. And there is a great dispute over that hundred thousand people who are killed by fentanyl. I'm inferring from that that he is suggesting the fentanyl that's coming across the Canadian border is killing 100,000 Americans every year. I haven't met a single expert that I've spoken to on this show that agrees with that number. But let's take him at his word. For the sake of argument, 100,000 Americans were killed by Canadian fentanyl every year.

If that's true, then everything he says makes sense. Everything he says makes sense. Take your border security seriously. Take your immigration seriously. Because if what he's saying is true and all the fentanyl in Canada is being made by Mexican cartels that are operating with impunity in Canada, A, what the hell are they doing here? B, what's the plan to get rid of them? C, why aren't we doing it right

now? You saw how quickly Donald Trump started enacting his promises. On day one, he started deporting people. We've known Donald Trump was coming in. We've known that these threats were going to destroy the Canadian economy. These tariffs were going to come in and gut us, gut this country. Why has it been three months? Where is where the boots on the ground? Where are the the the orders to deport these criminals, find them, incarcerate them and ship them back to Mexico? If they can do it, why can't we? Well, maybe because we simply don't have the manpower. Maybe simply because we don't have the know-how,

the workflow, the protocols. Maybe because we've never taken this seriously before, we've never done it before. But we've seen this threat looming. We've had somebody in the bird's nest, and they identified the iceberg with more than enough time to turn our ship. And now we find ourselves a day away

and we're hearing from Howard Lutnick and it sounds like he's saying, we're not taking these things seriously today. So those are some of the questions I've got. He continued during his interview on Capitol Hill, talking about a completely separate action with regard to tariffs. This is a separate tariff to create action from Mexico and action from Canada. And as far as I know, they are acting swiftly.

And if they execute it, there will be no tariff. And if they don't, then there will be. But it's an action-oriented model. That's not the ordinary tariff. The ordinary tariffs need to be studied and examined, and that will start, as the EO said, in April. Okay, so- That's a separate tariff.

Correct. After that study, what would be the timeline of that? I think that's sort of in April. Those studies will come out in the end of March and April, and then you'll hear about those at that time. So big macro issues with tariff are being studied, but the micro issue is Canada and Mexico and the precursors from China, they need to end and we need to protect our Americans from fentanyl and our trading partners in Canada and Mexico,

they should end it and stop disrespecting us and allowing this come through our borders. Okay, so now the picture is coming into focus because at dispute was he said one thing during the election campaign and then he said something completely different a few weeks later. First, it was about the border,

then it became about the trade deficits. So now, and Danielle Smith posited on this show, oh no, not on the show, we referenced it that perhaps he misspoke on the February 1st deadline for tariffs. And what he really meant was April 1st, because he had positioned Howard Lutnick and the commerce department as information gatherers. They were gonna study it, which means they would need time and April 1st was probably gonna make more sense. And so I thought it was an either or situation.

It was a border or a trade deficit issue. Turns out it's both. Turns out it's both. Turns out it's both. So he wants action immediately on the border or tariffs. And by April, if we haven't solved the trade issues, there will be additional tariffs. That's just super. That's just super. And he said they are acting swiftly. We'll see if those plans come to fruition. And therein lies the issue. I have no doubt that the liberal government has been working behind the scenes to allay the American spheres as it relates to the border. We know that they've bought drones.

Apparently, those are drones from China that we can't use. We know that they've bought Blackhawks. We know that they're hiring more staff. We know that they're doing a whole bunch of stuff to beef up the border. But has the rubber met the road? Is this still just in an action plan or is it a plan in action?

Well, our public safety minister, David McGinty, headed down to Washington to convince the Trump administration that it is in fact, our border is in fact more secure today than it was before. I think we should take Mr. Olatnick's comments seriously. I think we should take them at face value. And I think we should continue reminding our American neighbors how far we've come

and Canadians how far we've come. We had a very strong border. We have an even stronger border today in the last several months. And I'm quite convinced that the evidence that's being presented to the administration will break through. All right, so he's trying to say,

hey, we've done what you said. We have taken action. The border was secure before, but it's even more secure now. Now, I don't know how secure it was before, I'm not an expert. But hopefully the changes to the border, and I'm not an expert. But hopefully, the changes to the border and I guess not just at the federal level, but with regards to with regards

to all the provincial plans as well. Hopefully that'll be enough. Meanwhile, Danielle Smith, who I believe has acquitted herself honorably as a representative of Canada, self appointed. She posited that we might, we might need a border czar. Let me say it again. The one thing that we can do this week in just the next couple of days to have the best chance to avoid terrorists is to show clear and unequivocal action to secure the border. This should start with the appointment of a Canadian border czar to work with the new American border czar to jointly crack down hard on fentanyl and illegal migrants. Is this likely to end the threat of tariffs entirely?

I don't think so. I think there will be other things that we will need to work on and we will do so. But I am convinced after speaking with dozens of elected US representatives, administrative officials, administration officials, and the president himself, that this is the most important first step. Today, I reiterated this to the premieres, Minister LeBlanc, Minister Wilkinson and Prime Minister Trudeau, and I hope it is acted on by the end of this week before February 1.

To the Liberal government, I implore you, Danielle Smith is the adult in the room. She's the one who's been taking the meetings. She's the one who's been communicating with these people. She knows what she's talking about. When she says we need a border czar, listen to her. Like so worried about my sister. You're engaged. You cannot marry a murderer.

I was sick, but I'm here. Returning to W network and StacTV. The West Side Ripper is back. If you're not killing these people, then who is? That's what I want to know. Starring Kaylee Cuoco and Chris Messina. The only investigating I'm doing these days is who shit their pants.

Killer messaged you yesterday? This is so dangerous. I got to get out of this. Based on a true story. New season Mondays at 9 Eastern and Pacific. Only on W. Stream on a true story. New season Mondays at nine Eastern and Pacific only on W stream on stack TV. Welcome back and we got to talk tariffs. I know we're tired of talking tariffs,

but we're going to promise you when they hit, they're going to hit hard. And, but we don't know when they're coming or why they're coming or how they're going to be applied. And we don't know, but there's a lot we don't know. And there are, because of that, there are a lot of different tactics that people think we should employ.

Some people think they should be targeted. Some people think that we should target a Republican districts because those Republicans who represent those districts have the ear of the president. They think, some people think it should be dollar for dollar retaliatory tariffs. So there's a lot of conflicting

and debating going on as it relates to what we should do. I'm not the right guy to provide answers and that's why we brought out the big guns. Ian Lee, associate professor at Carleton University at the Sprott School of Business. Professor, welcome to the Ben Mulroney show. Thank you for inviting me, Ben. So let's talk about who could lose out more. Because there's an article in the CTV that says Canada could lose more from Trump tariffs and retaliation. And I believe that's according to you.

Yes. And all I'm doing is summarizing and synthesizing scholarly research in peer reviewed journals, including a recent piece by a very good professor in economics department at the University of Toronto. University of Toronto is not a shabby university. It's probably the best university in Canada, even though I'm not from that university. So what is your conclusion?

My conclusion based on looking at this, and I've been teaching international business strategy and business strategy for 38 years after working nine years in banking in Ottawa is that when you have a much larger country and getting into a trade war, whatever you want to call it, tariff retaliation with a much, much smaller country, the bigger country will always win. Or to put it another way, they will experience far less pain and suffering. The fancy academic word, it's an asymmetrical relationship.

Symmetrical means equal. Okay. Asymmetrical means that's not equal. We are, Pierre Trudeau understood this 40, 50 years ago. He put it much more colloquially. He said, the youth living next door to the United States, that's the two ton elephant. We are the mouse. The elephant sneezes, the mouse catches pneumonia.

So all of this bluster and braggadocio from our national leadership in both Ottawa and the premier of Ontario, we're going to get into a fight man-o-a-man-o and we're going to punch them in the face, you know, metaphorically speaking because we're just as big and bad and strong as the United States is bogus, spurious nonsense. So if we know what not to do catastrophic, if we have a is catastrophically bad. The Bank of Canada governor said this yesterday was going to impose huge costs on us. And just very quickly, Ben, so everybody understands what I'm saying. Your food at the grocery store will go up because the tariffs announcement will drive down and crash and crash the Canadian dollar. And we import one

third of our GDP. That's a trillion dollars of stuff at Loblaws, at Canadian Tire, at Home Depot, all the stuff we buy will go up dramatically in price. And if we thought the last two or three years we're upset about the inflation of the last two or three years, well, we ain't seen nothing yet. Well, let's move on to, well, I think bad news that makes what you just said worse, that almost half of

Canadian businesses plan to shift more of their investments and their operations to the U.S. to mitigate potential tariffs and maintain market access. So first of all, this is exactly what Donald Trump wants. He wants to bring jobs into the United States. And if his tariffs are going to do that, people are going gonna think he's a genius. Yeah. Yes, let me just go back, step back, just put a big frame around it, cause that's how I like to do things as an academic.

Yes, sir. You know, big frameworks. There's three separate horrible consequences from a trade war. Number one, the first instance is not the tariffs on the particular industry that gets whacked. Yes, that's going to hurt. The first consequence will be through the currency markets because the currency markets work in real time. I mean nanosecond real time. No lag, forget six

months, forget six weeks, forget six days, forget six hours. The moment they're announced, the K&D is going to go down dramatically. How much depends on the size of the tariffs and how extensive they are. And that waxes all of us through the goods we buy. The second consequence of a tariff war is on those industries that are hit by the tariff. Yes, they will suffer and those companies will probably lay off a whole bunch of Canadians. The third consequence, which is the most long-term and which scares the hell out of me as a long, an older Canadian is what you just mentioned. The KPMG survey of real businesses, not theory, real business across this country, half of

all of our businesses are looking at locating some part of their company into the states so that they're not going to get hit by the tariffs. The capital investment is the single most important predictor of future economic growth because that's the money that creates the businesses and the factories and the companies and the technologies of tomorrow. And so it's a three prong threat to Canada. We've got to stop that threat. We've got to get to negotiations. How about tomorrow morning? Not one year from now.

Cosmo calls for renegotiation in 2026. How about tomorrow morning? We've got to start negotiating a new Cosmo agreement, which for those, because I get emails from people saying, don't you understand Trump won't do that? I wish people would read and listen. Trump said three days ago, I'm ready to

start talking about a new Cosmo right now. Yeah. And so, Lutnick yesterday before Congress, if we only if our leadership would do their homework, do their due diligence, go read what they're saying to Congress or testifying. If they would read the paper by Stephen Marin, the new chief economist to the in the White House, where he mapped out the whole strategic vision. Yeah. Yeah, but Professor, I don't know that we are equipped right now with a government with a prime minister on his way out and a government on its last legs.

I don't know if those are the people who have the mandate to renegotiate NAFTA. I mean, it's a mess of our own making, but it's the reality on the ground. So we know the impact of these things. When you hear the premier of British Columbia say that US tariffs could hit harder than the 2008 recession, it sounds like you'd agree with that,

but that the solution is to back pandemic style relief. What do you say to that? No, I just think that that is a terrible idea. First off, there are some people think this is very clever, this analogy. Let me remind everybody, there is a profound difference between the pandemic and this crisis. The pandemic was a natural disaster. Nobody in Canada or the United States or anywhere said, I'm going to create a pandemic and infect the population. It was just like an earthquake or a wild forest fire in the west or a hurricane. It was a natural disaster. This crisis, if we go into a tariff war,

is not a natural disaster. It is a made in Canada disaster by the leadership of our countries going into a trade war. They are creating the disaster. So, you know, this is not the same situation at all, at all, at all. They are the leadership and I'm referring to the Liberal government in Ottawa and Premier Ford and the other Premiers who are advocating this. They are taking us the charge of the light brigade into the valley of the shadow of death. They are trying to walk us into a trade war. This is extraordinarily irresponsible of our leadership. They should be saying the exact opposite.

Very quickly, Ben, for a run at a time, my university, I'm unionized at Carleton, and we're in negotiations right now with the university administration. You don't go into labor management negotiations at the first meeting and say, that's it, we're going on strike. Oh, by the way, no, we don't wanna talk. We don't go into labor management or negotiations at the first meeting and say, that's it, we're going on strike. By the way, no, we don't want to talk.

We don't want to do negotiations. Oh, no, no, we want to go straight into strike. That's not how you do it, whether it's trade negotiations or labor negotiations, you negotiate first, and if all else fails, then you look at the nuclear option of going on strike or going to a trade war. Our leaders are saying, let's go straight to a trade war without any negotiations whatsoever.

This is not how it's done anywhere in the real world that I've ever studied. Associate professor at Carleton University at the Sprott School of Business and one of the most exciting guests I've ever had on the show, Ian Lee, thank you so much. I hope you'll come back because this is just the beginning of a very long four years

with President Donald Trump at the helm. Yes, it is. And thank you very much, Ben. Thank you. I gotta say, I can't tell whether I'm more or less scared about the next few days because of that conversation. I have more information, which should allay some fears, but no, they're gonna hit and they're gonna hit hard and I would I would heed the words of Ian Lee and I hope people in Ottawa

heard that. You are listening to the Ben Mulroney Show. Happy Thursday everyone. Welcome to our show. Welcome to everybody on CFPL in London. Welcome to everybody listening on AM640 Toronto. Thank you so much for joining us. Something that's updated in real time and is going to be over the next month is the fact that we are in an election campaign. And Doug Ford was stood behind a podium and he spoke of leadership. Leadership, leadership and leadership. And who do you trust to take care of the people of Ontario and the businesses and the workers when times get tough? And they're going to get tough.

Do you trust the other parties that all they believe is tax and spend? Or do you believe in the PC party that's going to support you? We're going to put tens of billions of dollars into the economy, just like we did during the pandemic. There's experience on one side with the PC party

and zero experience with the other three parties. I'll tell you who I'm betting on. I'm betting on the PC party. Yeah, well, a lot of questions come from that. Where's the money going to come from? Is it even needed? We spent a lot of money that I don't think we needed to spend during the pandemic, to be completely frank. And so I'm not looking for a repeat of that.

That being said, I think you know where my heart lies in this election. And I should remind you, my sister is not only a member of the PC caucus and cabinet, but she's a candidate presenting herself yet again in this election. But again, what happens if Donald Trump doesn't levy these these tariffs? There's going to be a real question about why we are going to the polls. If he decides on February 1, that that they are not needed, that the border has

been secured, they got what he wanted. And we are now walking in lockstep with what his vision for North America, the question is going to be, why are we going to the polls? So that's going to be an interesting circle to square. That's one of the leaders. And Greg Brady yesterday spoke with Bonnie Crombie, the liberal leader, this morning, just a few minutes ago. He had Marit Stiles on the show, the Ontario NDP leader. And he asked her a very important question about safe injection sites.

Safe injection sites are a controversial issue. The NDP voted against moving them away from schools and daycares. We could debate the purpose of them, we could debate hard hubs and how those are going to work. I've been critical to Ford government. They're slow on building them. They should be done already. You should announce that they're almost done. This was about eight months ago. He announced this in September. But the NDP is gonna, you're out there on a limb on this one. What is the defense for keeping a safe injection site

near a playground or a school? Well, look, first of all, I gotta tell you, I think that because, what I don't believe in is, I don't believe in shutting down services without replacing them. And the problem we have in so many communities, I mean, let's be honest, every community in this province, small towns, big cities, everywhere I go,

there is a crisis. There's a mental health and addiction crisis. There is a homelessness crisis. But you can't take something away and then not replace it with something else because otherwise, you know what? You're gonna get more people in in parks in playgrounds using right? Yeah, I take issue with that greatly. You know, that's that

that's based on a pretty big assumption that is safe injection site, which by the way, is an exercise in governmental gas lighting because there's nothing safe about these injection sites. Don't tell me they are. But shutting something, I don't believe in shutting down services without replacing them. That assumes that this is a service. That's like saying, oh, well, we don't fill a pothole

until we make sure we dig another one. That's, I don't subscribe to that. And Greg, to his credit, pushed back. A lot of the argument is valid about the mental health and about the continuation of drug use. The argument on the counter that I hear from people in communities who have one close to their home is they enable drug use and they send a message to drug users, we've given up on your ability to stop using drugs. And that filters people towards those

communities. And no, they don't die on site, but they could die in an alleyway, they could die in a park. There's more people dying now than ever since we've opened these up. And I can't find a North American jurisdiction where they've worked and where they've reduced deaths. I can't. I gotta tell you, Greg, we have four weeks here to change things in the province of Ontario.

My focus is on making life better for everyone after seven years of Doug Ford. And yeah, you're absolutely right. Things have never been worse today for many people. Marge Stiles came out swinging, but I think she's going to have to have a better answer than that on safe injection sites, because this matters to people. This is this is a kitchen table issue and it matters to people. And I don't think she answered that question appropriately. Somebody who I trust more on the subject of safe injection sites, drug use, mental health

than anyone is Yonah Budd. And in about 30 minutes, we are gonna get more into the topic of these safe injection sites and what they do to a community. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. Thank you so much for joining us on this Thursday. Thank you to everybody listening in London. Thank you to everybody listening in Toronto. And thank you for everybody listening in podcast

form wherever and whenever you get those podcasts. You'd have to be a special kind of psycho to not feel empathy for people that you see on the streets wrestling with mental health issues and wrestling with drug addiction. They are members of our community, they are our friends, they are our family, and even if they are a stranger, they matter and they are important and they need to be seen and they need to be respected. So what do you do? What do we do? Well, as a society, we've gone down a particular route that many have called safe injection sites and safe consumption and safe supply. But

the Ontario Superior Court has heard and witnessed evidence in a report that says, rampant crime and drug use, violence, and just overall, just danger, just a bad scene is what you find inside these places. Investigators went inside a number of safe injection sites and saw what I would describe as a dystopian hell on earth. And before I go down a rabbit hole I would describe as dystopian hell on earth. And before I go down a rabbit hole and tell you all sorts of opinions,

let me get some guardrails in place and invite our chorus addictions and counseling expert, Yona Budd into the conversation. Yona, thank you so much for being here. Thanks, man. Thanks for including me. Yeah, so I read this and it sort of confirmed what I felt. Feelings aren't facts, but it was nice to it sort of confirmed what I felt, you know, feelings aren't facts,

but it was nice to see that my feelings, not nice, I'm saddened that my feelings aligned with the facts. And I feel kind of angry that, you know, when people have pushed back on sort of the expression, safe injection, safe consumption, they are labeled or targeted or disparaged, but it doesn't look like there's anything safe about these places.

Yeah, great, great opening, I appreciate it. Yeah, there's nothing safe about it. The concept is that the intent of all of this is to be able to inject or use your drugs in a place where, if God forbid, you have an overdose, there's someone there that can help you medically they can provide clean syringes if that's a concern but you know that's what happens theoretically and conceptually inside the facility. Yeah. Right so it you know it's safe for

those that are using and are already at risk safe in so far as if they don't have anybody else to use with, where many people use together. So if one of them has an overdose, the other one can help them back with some Narcan spray in their nose. So the safety factor really is a, really is a false sense of security for anybody,

either user or, you know, addict to someone in a mental health struggle, or the people living, like you say, in that in those communities. Yeah, it's it's definitely a mess and, and has been forever and ever ever since we've had methadone clinics, right? So it's not, it's not really new, but it's certainly becoming very popular in terms of discussion. Well, Greg Brady earlier on on his show had opposition and NDP leader,

Marit Stiles in for conversation and they spoke about these safe injection sites. And she said that she's not a fan of what Doug Ford did because I don't like the idea of getting rid of a service without providing another service. And I took issue with the reference to it being a service. And if that's how people look at it, then we have to take this down to the studs

and start the conversation from ground zero. Yeah, so, you know, the solution that's being provided or the one that Premier Ford is talking about dismantling, you know, some, a lot, many people will say it saves lives, sure, because someone shows up, uses in a safe place, perhaps they might've had an overdose otherwise, so that that would be considered a win. But the, you know, I've been talking,

and I think you and I chatted on a couple of shows ago about, you know, if we're gonna provide safe care for people who are struggling with either mental health or addiction, and frankly, anybody that I know over 50 years of doing this that has addiction issues clearly has mental health issues that. And frankly, anybody that I know over 50 years of doing this, that has addiction issues, clearly has mental health issues that drive that behavior. So can't really separate them,

addicts and mental health things, they go together. That needs to be in a hospital setting, bro. Like it needs to be in a setup camp of some sort or a tent hospital in the back of a hospital, a tent hospital in the back of a facility like Sunnybrook or St. Mike's or one of those. So if God forbid somebody is in a bad way where they're already structured with proper security, they're already structured with police drive-bys, they're already structured

to prevent bad things happening outside the hospital. These facilities do very little, if anything, to protect the people coming into the facility and the people coming out of the facility. And I think that's really the danger here. And, you know, in so many cases, I don't wanna make a blanket statement, but it just, again, I'm going with my feeling on this, my instinct is that these are the weakest members

of our society. They need protection, they need help, they need guidance, and it's a multi-layered and it's highly complex, but at its most basic, they are our most vulnerable. And so if you had told me 10 years ago that we would be living in a world where our most vulnerable were being backed by our courts and our legal system,

empowered by certain types of people to say this is about their human dignity and their agency over themselves and their human rights and you're depriving them of their choices, that the legal system would be pushing a narrative that they are fully informed people, they are fully mature and they are capable of making reasonable decisions

and they've got the legal backing to back that up. I would have told you, you were crazy, but that's what we have here. Yeah, you're talking about people with diminished capacity at one level or another, like, you know, short term, long term. You're talking about people with diminished capacity. And, you know, according to the article

that you and I are talking about, you know, it seems like everybody's all up in arms that, oh my gosh, you know, there's drug dealers outside of these places and there's people selling stuff and taking advantage of robbing people and so on. Like, of course, it's an absolute, you know, catch basin or stock pond, which is the term I use with your producer, George. It's a stock pond of opportunity for bad guys to take advantage of people that are that are vulnerable. It's hard not to draw a parallel with the notion of safe injection sites and communism intellectually academically with people who live in in books and in theory.

They're both great ideas, but you put them into practice and human nature takes over and the force forces that be alter them and pervert them into what exactly into something that you really wish you'd never started going down the road with in the first place. Yeah, and just for everybody that has a false sense of security, because they don't live anywhere near a injection site, you know, just look, you know, Google methadone clinics in my neighborhood, and they're everywhere. And outside of methadone clinics, which is where people go to get a drink of something or a pill that they can take to help them not use opioids, outside of those facilities, there's all kinds of illegal activities.

So anywhere that's labeled where someone with diminished capacity is coming to reach a service, use a service, do something, you're gonna attract the people that are gonna take advantage of them. It's like putting out a sign that says open for business. Yonah Budd, our chorus addictions and counseling expert. Thank you so much for a frank conversation.

Always a pleasure, Ben. Thanks for including me. So this is the snapshot of the world we're living in the province that we're living in. We've got three main options on how to deal with it, the progressive conservatives, the NDP, and the liberals, I will be paying very, very close attention to how they are going to present an option, a solution to a scourge that is ravaging through our most vulnerable and hurting innocent bystanders who just happen to live near one of these quote unquote safe injection

sites. For the most important stories from around the world. We are here in Jerusalem. We just heard the siren. For many people, the worst days of this disaster are still to come. Told by the best journalists in the country. I'm Donna Friesen in Berlin. Just keep your head down.

He's away, he's away. Go, go, go. Watch Canada's number one national newscast. A rail strike could cost this one southern Alberta farm as much as a million dollars. The award-winning Global National with Donna Friesen.