The Ben Mulroney Show - Best of the Week Part 2 - Kevin O'Leary, This Week in Politics, Derek Burney

Episode Date: February 2, 2025

Best of the Week Part 2 - Kevin O'Leary, This Week in Politics, Derek Burney Guests: Kevin O'Leary, This Week in Politics, Derek Burney, Ian Lee, Franco Terrazano 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

This is an ad from BetterHelp online therapy. We always hear about the red flags to avoid in relationships, but it's just as important to focus on the green flags. If you're not quite sure what they look like, therapy can help you identify those qualities so you can embody the green flag energy and find it in others. BetterHelp offers therapy 100% online and sign up only takes a few minutes. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp, H-E-L-P dot com.

With TD Direct Investing, new and existing clients could get 1% cash back. Great! That's 1% closer to being part of the 1%. Maybe, but definitely 100% closer to getting 1% cash back with TD Direct Investing. Conditions apply. Offer ends January 31, 2025. Visit td.com slash DI Offer to learn more. Welcome to the Ben Mulroney Best of the Week podcast.

We had so many great interviews, including conversations with Kevin O'Leary about how did we get where we are with Donald Trump. Former Canadian ambassador to the US, Derek Burney joins us to compare Canada-US relations right now from when he was helping on the NAFTA file. Plus, our political panel was full of great insights this week. Enjoy. All right.

Tomorrow is Tea Day, Tariff Day. Donald Trump has said he will be dropping 25% tariffs on this country may or may not include oil, but they are coming. How did we get to this point? Who is responsible? And how do we make our way through somebody who has been at the forefront of this debate since day one has been investor shark, former dragon, Kevin O'Leary. And it is our pleasure to welcome

the chairman of O'Leary Ventures and Mr. Wonderful himself back to the Ben Mulroney show. Kevin, thank you so much for joining us. Great to be here, thank you. So tell me, how did we get here? Who's to blame? Miscommunication, I think you have to read the room. Let's take Trump's position and his number three

or number two mandate, depending on which week it was when he was campaigning Was to secure the border and get rid of fentanyl made in China. So, you know that was certainty Canadians know that Americans know that That's the promise he made and he's going to deliver on it And so what we should be concerned about is reading the room and I'll make a point about this here Remember Daniel Smith went down to Mar-a-Lago, read the room, she figured it out. And what did she do this week? She basically topped up the $1.3 billion Canadian dollar

commitment the feds made with an additional 29 million right out of Alberta. So she's topping up border security of her border. The other premiers need to do that today. They have to do the same thing, specifically about fentanyl because that's what Trump has to deliver on. He has to win on that and then we win. We don't need this tariff. We don't need a war with the United States. It's a bad idea and economic war is crazy. We all know that. Now, remember, we

have some bullets too, if you want to talk about economic bullets. 17 states in the US, their number one trading partner, it's Canada. Remove oil out of the equation, the 280 billion dollars of oil that Daniel Smith ships to the United States at a discounted price, and we're in a trade deficit with the US. We buy more stuff from them than they buy from us. So all of this concern about trade deficits is not really what you gotta read. You gotta read the room, it's fentanyl. We don't want fentanyl, we don't want drug cartels, we don't want our people dying with fentanyl.

So it's a win-win to clean this up. So I expect the four, it'll go on television today and the other premieres and top up, because it's small change, $29 million in the context of a trade war, and get this thing kicked down the road. Yeah.

So as somebody, Kevin, as somebody who's, as somebody who's spent time with Donald Trump, you know, his temperament, you know, his behavior, you've seen him behind closed doors and then you've seen him in the camp in front of the camera. So you know that what he says in one space isn't necessarily what he, what he telegraphs and communicates in the other space. Is there a chance, are you saying that if it's all hands on deck, and doing whatever it takes to telegraph to him that we are taking this seriously at all levels of government, do you think that there could be a reprieve on these tariffs yet to come?

Yes, it's not just to him. I don't know if you noticed the American airwaves yesterday, Daniel Smith was all over Fox television. It's the Trump base watching Fox News and Fox Business. And Trump watches it too. And so he wants to see messages like that getting to his base so that it looks like he's delivering on the promise of ridding the country of fentanyl. That's the whole idea.

You gotta read the room. You gotta understand how fentanyl. That's the whole idea. You got to read the room. You got to understand how this guy works. That's how he works. He has to get a win. He got the win out of the Colombian guys when he sent back their criminals. He whacked them with 25%. That was the message. They immediately rescinded and three planes landed.

Nobody lost any money on that. And who wants criminals anyways? So the whole point is we got to figure that out in the next 20 hours. So I expect the other premiers will do the same thing that Daniel Smith did and get out there and communicate that they don't want fentanyl in their provinces either. They don't want the Chinese using a porous border in their provinces. This is the focus right now. And if we get this done, the only objective is to kick this whole issue down the road until we have a federal election and we put a mandate in place with every the new leader is going to be to negotiate with Trump on NAFTA 3

because there's a big economic opportunity here, not a downside. That's who should be focusing on. So let's get that message out. Let's get it out on Fox. Let's get every premier saying I'll top up with an extra whatever it is like Smith did. 29 million bucks Canadian is nothing in the context of what it costs to get involved in in a trade war. Kevin, let's talk about the world of AI. I think anybody who has been following AI over the past just a couple of weeks must

have gotten their heads must be spinning like tops. On one day, we are celebrating massive investments by the leaders of AI in the United States. Donald Trump is talking about how there's hundreds of billions of dollars will be invested. And then the Chinese come in with what looks like a better version, a better mousetrap that they've built with far less capital.

And that ended up wiping out so much of the value of so many stocks in the United States. What do you make of that? What's the state of play? All BS, and it's all been proven in the last 48 hours. Looks like this is what happened. Out of Singapore, where it's 15% in invidious sales, it looks like somewhere between five and 6,000 boards

with the chips on them went to China. Then the Chinese come up with a story that they only spent. So that's one point six billion dollars with the hardware right there if you put it inside a data center idea that they made it for six million dollars is complete bs of course it will the markets in a trillion dollars with the tech valuation was wiped off the map which is brutal

and that's the chinese messing around and then we find out that the code has been ripped off as well. Also, if you query on this thing, anything about China, it comes out with just glowing reviews of everything the Supreme Leader does. So it's a piece of spyware and propaganda. And you know, you gotta think that there's a 50-50 chance that TikTok goes dark in the next 58 days.

So they gotta find lifeboats to keep pumping out Chinese propaganda to the Americans and everywhere else. So if you download this thing and you read the agreement, it scrapes your emails. You don't want to do that. That's a really bad idea. So this is just more Chinese technology. So we're in an AI war with China now too. Look these guys are not playing by the rules.

Everybody knows that. And this AI BS story is just another part of that. We keep letting them in the door. I mean, you would think with TikTok and the security concerns that people have with it, we would have been very weary of another Trojan horse. And yet here we are almost with open arms, so many people downloading DeepSeek

like it's going out of style. Yeah, except the actual order, the TikTok order out of Congress and the nine to zero Supreme Court decision four weeks ago doesn't just specify tick tock it says any foreign adversary using technology to scrape American data in foreign soil that adversary gets shut down. Hey, Kevin, I don't want to I don't want to miss out on asking

this final question because crypto seems to be the everybody's buzzword these days in the Trump administration. Are you too bullish on crypto in the Trump era? I'm very bullish on it. I'm also bullish for it in Canada, as you know, and I've disclosed this many times. I'm a major shareholder of wonder five, the number one exchange in Canada for one reason. Now that Trump is putting in regulatory guardrails, we're going to do the same thing in Canada for the OSC. Canadian banks are under tremendous pressure by their own constituents to be able to own Bitcoin. The way they're going to do that is keep it on the bank balance sheets and use an exchange for price transparency and liquidity. And who's that going to be? This is a speculation on my part, but I've certainly put my money where

my mouth is. WunderFi. That's where it's going to happen. And do you think that that's going to do something about the volatility of a lot of these cryptocurrencies? I think there'll still be volatility, but the granddaddy of them all is Bitcoin. That's the one Bob and wealth wants to go. That's where Canadians want to put their money. That's the one that's performed. It doesn't replace gold, I own them both. But the point is, you can't have Bitcoin unless it's safely secured in a compliant wallet with transparency and liquidity. And that's we have 1.7 million accounts in Canada now nearly 2 billion, primarily Bitcoin under management.

Wonderfly has done a great job in consolidating the market for Canadians and finally something that's compliant with the OSC order. Kevin, I really appreciate you coming on. Like I said, there are very few people who've had access to Donald Trump the way you have and your insights are invaluable. So thank you so much. And I hope that in the days ahead, we'll be able to lean on you for some more advice. Let's see what happens in the next 24 hours.

All right, that was Kevin O'Leary, chairman of O'Leary Ventures and Shark Tank's Mr. Wonderful himself. This is the Ben Mulroney Show. Friday I'm in love with this week in politics. I love the best political panel on radio. Thank you so much for joining us on the Ben Mulroney Show and let's welcome our guest panelist Candice Bergen, former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Candice, welcome to the show. Hi, Ben. Warren Kinsella, a great friend of the show, former special advisor to Jean Chrétien and CEO of the Daisy Group. Welcome back, my friend. Good morning, sir. And another great friend, Adam Zivaud, national post columnist and executive director for the Center for Responsible Drug Policy. Adam, thanks so much for coming back. Thanks for having me. All right. So yesterday, we got confirmation that tomorrow is Tea Day. Trump confirmed that the tariffs are coming

on Canadian imports. And he said, oil may or may not be included. Candice, how did we get to this point? Was it an inevitability or could this have been averted? Well, I don't think anybody knows the exact answer to that. I mean, I was in the House of Commons. I was part of the opposition watching the Liberals

over the last two and a half years insulting and mocking Donald Trump and anyone who associated with him for political gain. I don't know that I would have taken that approach if I think I might have to work with an American administration. I might not have spent many years

mocking and insulting them. Let's start with that. Secondly, I think I might have to work with an American administration. I might not have spent many years mocking and insulting them. Let's start with that. Secondly, currently, we are not really listening to what President Trump and the people around

him are saying and why they are threatening and imposing these tariffs. If we want to find a resolution, I think we have to truly understand what they are saying. It's like a marriage ban. If you want the marriage to blow up, you disregard what your spouse is saying, say they have

no valid reason to be upset, and you're going to end up in divorce. If you want the marriage to work out, you say, hey, if it's important to you, it's important to me. So when Trump says, you've got fentanyl coming into the US, maybe we say quietly, listen, I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question.

I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question feds eventually put together a $1.4 billion border plan. Some of it is taking effect, some of it's going to roll out over the course of months and years. You've got the provinces buttressing those in their own ways.

And so it looks to me like the solve is on its way. So the only thing that I can look at is while Donald Trump projects strength, he's thin skinned. And when our prime minister took to a microphone to essentially demean the American people and say you could have elected your first female president and you didn't, to me, I think he just decided, okay, I'm going to go full petty here and I'm going to inflict some damage. But I have nothing in the basis of fact to say that that's true. It's just a feeling I have no, I have nothing in the basis of fact to say that that's true. It's just a feeling I have.

Like we got here to answer your question to Candace, because we made a mistake as a people under successive governments of all stripes. We allowed 80% of our trade to balloon to one customer, the United States of America. That's why we're vulnerable. We didn't diversify our trade. That's why he's got us over a barrel. But just like I am so fed up of hearing about his BS about fentanyl and the border, he said those things as an excuse to get himself out of the terms of the trade agreement he signed himself with us, the USMCA. He could not get himself out of the terms of that agreement without concocting so-called national

emergencies, which is fentanyl and illegal aliens. And all of us know, anybody with a brain knows, that fentanyl and illegal aliens overwhelmingly come from the South into the United States, not from the North. So it's all bogus, but we do have a problem. Like I'm fed up trying to justify our behavior to this man. It's a bad strategy. You know, in full disclosure, I work for Hillary, I work for Harris. The one thing I learned about Trump is his predictability is that he's unpredictable. Right. Us trying to dance to his tune is a mistake.

We need to find leadership who can guide us through the years ahead and diversify our trade portfolio. That's what we need. Talking about the past, it's a waste of time. I know, and Adam, I'm of two minds. I agree. We've got this big problem ahead of us. It doesn't necessarily bode well or help us to look back. However, it's in the immediate past. We've the self-inflicted wounds of, you know, proroguing parliament and forcing us into wait for the liberals to figure out their own mess before we can finally have a prime minister with a mandate. These are choices that were made in the very recent past and

and Donald Trump wasn't around the corner at that point. He was right in front of us. Yeah, I mean, I think obviously these are self-inflicted wounds and that it was obviously unwise to prorogue parliament while we were well aware of the fact that we would deal with this substantial crisis, which I think some people, you know, have arguably compared to the pandemic. Should these tariffs, you know, fully go through as we all fear tomorrow, that risk shedding 500,000 jobs in Ontario, right? And we have a labor force of about 8 million people. So this would immediately increase our unemployment rate by about 6.25%. Basically bring it up to levels that we saw at the height of COVID. And it doesn't take a genius to see that if you have the risk of such a catastrophic

development coming through, you want to keep parliament in session so you can work together on a solution. Donald Trump is unpredictable and he's predatory and he smells weakness. And Trudeau, unfortunately, has been very weak and has prioritized his political survival over the country's economy and its future. In our previous segment, we spoke with Kevin O'Leary, who love him or hate him, has spent a lot of time with Donald Trump, and he says that we can get a last minute deal. Uh, let's, let's listen to what he has to say. We got to figure that out in the next 20 hours.

So I expect the other premieres will do the same thing that Daniel Smith did and get out there and communicate that they don't want fentanyl in their provinces either. They don't want the Chinese using a forest border in their provinces. This is the focus right now. And if we get this done, the only objective is to kick this whole issue down the road until we have a federal election and we put a mandate in place with every the new leader is going to be to negotiate with Trump on NAFTA 3 because there's a big economic opportunity here not a downside that's who should be focusing on. So let's get that message out. Let's get it out on Fox. Let's get every premier saying

I'll top up with an extra whatever it is like Smith did. 29 million bucks Canadian is nothing in the context of what it costs to get involved in in a trade war. I'm going to give each of you 45 seconds to respond to Kevin O'Leary, and we're going to start with you, Warren. I don't care what Kevin O'Leary says. He dropped the conservative race when he got like less than 1% of the delegates. Conservatives aren't even interested in what he has to say. This is like the voice of Boston. This guy lives in Boston and he's telling us how to run our affairs. Like he should just.

But he has been speaking to Donald Trump. He spent a lot of time with him and Trudeau has. And what a tremendous effect he's had, Ben. You know, what a success he has had on our behalf. He's an idiot. I don't care what he has to say. We need to focus on a Canadian solution, not listening to some game show host in Boston.

Hey, don't knock the game show host Warren. I used to be one. Adam, your take. Well, I think if he's advocating that we fix the border problem, I think that's ridiculous because there is no real border problem. As alluded to before, fentanyl coming in from Canada is not a big issue for the United States. The Canadian Fentanyl accounts for about 1% of what is flowing in from Mexico. So sure, we can spend all of this money trying to fix a non-existent problem, but ultimately what we have to do is kowtow to Trump and sue the Zigo. And maybe there's some truth in that, but I think we have to reflect upon what it means for us to have to treat our ally this way if we

want to be treated with basic respect and protect our sovereignty. Candice, you had the first word in this segment. I'm going to give you the last word. Well, I can listen. I'm coming, you know, as a mom and sometimes you want to get the problem solved. It doesn't matter who's right, who's wrong. You want to get the problem solved. In this case, we need the problem solved. So if Donald Trump thinks that we have a problem with fentanyl, I think we should be publicly and privately saying, please tell us where and what you believe the problem is.

Our data is not showing that, but we respect you. We want to listen to you. We want to hear you. We play psychology if we need to. So I would say I agree with what Kevin O'Leary is saying. We need to talk to them. If it's a problem for you, America, it's a problem for us because we want this relationship to work. So we shouldn't be gaslighting. I think we need to see what they're talking about and fix it to their satisfaction.

Well, this has been a great first segment of the political panel. Candice Bergen, Warren Kinsella, Adam Zivow are my guests for this week in politics. We've got more with the panel next, including are we buying what Jagmeet Singh is selling? That is next on the Ben Mulroney Show. This is This Week in Politics continuing with Candice Bergen, Warren Kinsella and Adam Zivow. We've got Jagmeet Singh saying he will bring down the government in March but he wants to pass Trump tariff relief first. Let's listen to the leader of the NDP.

Parliament is not set to come back until March 24th. It would be very unlikely that between that day and the end of March the government and your party or any other parties would be able to pass any legislation to help out workers. So again, if parliament comes back on the 24th and there is no tariff help for workers, you will vote to bring down the government at any available date past March 31st. But just like some clarity because your position has been moving on this issue. Not at all. It's not changed at all.

We said I was going to vote against the government when they come back at the end of March. I'm saying that again today. We absolutely can pass legislation. We've done it in the past. We absolutely can pass legislation. If the problem is recalled now, we've got lots of time to get Parliament to get this passed. It can be fast-tracked. If we get done, it can be done very quickly. All right. Adam Zivow, do you trust that Jagmeet Singh is gonna vote non-confidence at the first chance he gets, or is he gonna use dental care and tariff relief spending as a reason to prop up this government just a little bit longer?

I think the latter, because he's demonstrated time and time again that he has no spine, right? He tore up the confidence supply agreements and said that he was willing to bring down the liberals and did absolutely nothing until he was forced to when there was a national crisis after Christia Freeland's resignation. And I think that it's unlikely that the NDP will be in as good of a political position as it is right now for quite some time because their polling numbers are stagnant if not declining they have more influence than they've had in a generation and likely won't achieve this level of influence after conservatives have formed governments. and to continue to support the liberals, if only to push the agenda and get some kind of victory

that he can point to until his party goes to a period of hibernation for another decade or so. Candice, do you agree? My experience working with the NDP is that they're actually not that politically astute. If Jagmeet had been smart, he would have toppled the government in December and run against the liberals under Trudeau when he saw all that blood in the water.

So when I look at what he's saying now, I don't believe him, I don't trust him. I think he makes things up on the fly with not a real strategic plan. Interestingly, in this case, it could end up, if this is delayed a little bit, this could end up helping the Conservatives because it will maybe take the shine off what probably will be a Mark Carney coronation and expose the hypocrisy and the liberals. And so, you know, that could be interesting, but no, I don't trust Jagmeet at all. And it's not because I just think he's so shrewd. I just, I don't think he's got a lot of, he and the people around him are not that politically astute. Well someone who is exceptionally politically astute is Warren Kinsella. Warren, you've given advice to a lot of leaders and they've been successful in large part because of that

advice. So when you see Jagmeet Singh over the past few weeks and months, what sort of advice do you think he's been getting? Well thank you for that compliment. I will accept it. I actually think, you know, he's the voice of the axis of weasels, as I call it. So I don't believe anything he says. However, he's playing it the right way. In my view, he needs to show that he is consistent on toppling the government and the government under Prime Minister Carney, which is coming, they are going to do whatever it takes to get him over to their side of the equation. Like, whatever it takes. Every bribe that they can concoct. Because, like, put yourself in Carney's shoes. It's crazy to become leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister, and then get defeated two weeks later. Like it's just not gonna happen.

So they've got to do all they can to negotiate with Singh and I'm told that that is happening now. And Singh needs to show that he's consistent on his principles, but is he gonna flip for sure? He's folded like a cheap suit in the past and he's going to again, and it's gonna push the election to the fall. I don't believe that we're gonna have an election in the past and he's going to again and it's going to push the election to the fall. I don't believe that we're going to have an election in the spring.

And you know, I just keep going to that number 77% of Canadians want an election yesterday. And so the farther this goes, the farther the can is kicked down the field, the more anger is going to build up in the electorate and they're going to they're going to direct it at the two parties that evidently want to keep people away from the ballot box. That's just my humble opinion. I just don't think the longer they wait, the worse it is for them. But that's just my humble opinion. Anyone want to weigh in on that thought? I think you're right, Ben, but let's not tell anybody that. I, you know, I have a bit of a bias here, but I think you're right. Absolutely. And that was my

point. If again, if thing is smart, he is smart, he takes them down as soon as possible. Or sorry, the other way around. He'll try to keep it going. And I think that actually that could help the Conservatives. Adam, let's talk tariff relief spending. I get it. I get the desire. I get the motivation behind it.

But do we really want wanna take the same approach we did during COVID and just start pumping money out? I mean, it's not the same situation. We spent like drunken sailors with no guardrails, and we are certainly not in the same fiscal position as a nation today as we were prior to COVID. I think that monumental spending would have been justified under a different government, but our current government has illustrated time and time again that it doesn't have a sense of fiscal reality. And we saw that with the aborted budget from December, you know, which public letter where she essentially accused Trudeau of prioritizing

cheap political gimmicks over the country's financial health and given all of the wasteful spending that we saw under Covid which was really astonishing I mean just hand firehosing money with no with no thought at all for the inflationary effects of that, I would be skeptical of any major stimulus packages coming up this spring. Yeah. Warren, I don't trust a government addicted to spending to enact something like this responsibly.

Like I would have trusted your boss, Jean Chrétien, to do something like this because he showed discipline in the face of really tough financial times. And I would trust Pierre Poliev, who's allergic to this sort of spending, because he would do it and hold his nose doing it. I would be very worried for this country if this current incarnation of the Liberals were given license to just print money. Yeah, but you know, and like Ben, you know, I don't spend a lot of time defending Justin Trudeau ever. But you know,

we've got Doug Ford standing up saying something politicians don't like to say two weeks ago, which is half a million people in Ontario are going to lose their livelihood. Okay, yeah, politicians don't like saying stuff like that. Because it creates an expectation that the politician is going to help them out. And so, like, you know, all of us have bums on this panel. Like somebody who's living in Aurora right now and works in the auto parts industry, whose spouse is saying to them, oh my god, what's going to happen to us? Like they're gonna lose their jobs us? They're going to lose their

jobs. They're going to lose their house. They're going to lose everything. And Stephen Harper, he got accused of spending like a drunken sailor during the global fiscal crisis in 2008-2009, and I defended him, and even though I'm a liberal, because what he did was the right thing. And during the pandemic, it was the same thing. We can't let people starve to death on the streets, because we had millions of people lost their livelihood during the pandemic. It's the same thing here. And the people agree with me or people like Stephen Harper and Doug Ford. Candice Bergen, you represented people who could lose their

jobs, what would What would you be doing in this situation? I'll give you the last minute. Well, I'm terrified when I hear Justin Trudeau, he said this morning, you know, Canadians, we have your back. I'm like, oh my gosh. Oh, that literally triggers me because we were still missing $39 billion, you know, from COVID spending when he had Canadians back. I am very concerned about massive spending but I'll tell you another thing I'm concerned about and I don't mean to be cynical but it is in the interest of some of the current politicians that are talking and part of this for this crisis to go on. That worries me. Do they actually want to

fix the crisis that we're having with tariff threats? Or do they want, you know, never let a good crisis go to a wake? Right? So don't worry, we're here, we're going to save you. That has not gone well for Canadians over the last 10 years when it comes to how the Liberals spend. I mean, right now, they don't even know who are the Liberals. You know, they love the carbon tax for the last 10 years. Now all of a sudden, no, we're throwing the carbon tax out. Yeah. We must have that.

Agreed. Candice, Warren, Adam, thank you so much. This episode is brought to you by Samsung Galaxy. Ever captured a great night video only for it to be ruined by that one noisy talker? With audio erase on the new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, you can reduce or remove unwanted noise and relive your favorite moments without the distractions. And that's not all. New Galaxy AI features like NowBrief will give you personalized insights based on your day schedule so that you're prepared no matter what.

Pre-order the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra now at Samsung.com. We are living in a time where Canada-U.S. relations are at a low point, to say the least. Wasn't always the case. And so we're going to turn back the clock with somebody who remembers a time and who helps shape a time where Canada-U.S. relations were in a golden age. Please welcome to the Ben Mulroney show, Derek Burney, former Canadian ambassador to the United States from 1989 to 1993.

He led the Canadian delegation in concluding negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and he was a trusted advisor and friend to the late, the great, the wonderful dad, Brian Mulroney. Mr. Burney, welcome to the show. Thank you very much, Ben. Good to be with you. I want to turn your ear to a conversation I just had on the show with Warren Kinsella. And here was his assessment of what's going on right now with Donald Trump. But just like I am so fed up to

hearing about his BS about fentanyl and the border, He said those things as an excuse to get himself out of the terms of the trade agreement he signed himself with us, the USMCA. He could not get himself out of the terms of that agreement without concocting so-called national emergencies which is fentanyl and illegal aliens. And all of us know, anybody with a brain knows which is fentanyl and illegal aliens. And all of us know, anybody with a brain knows, that fentanyl and illegal aliens overwhelmingly come from the South into the United States, not from the North. So it's all bogus. And so what do you, what do you think Mr. Ambassador?

Well, I agree with Warren entirely. I mean, it's absurd to compare the problems on the Northern border, border, which there are some with those on the Southern border. I mean, given how Trump is reacting to the Southern border, sending troops in and the whole bunch, it's absolutely absurd to make the comparison. His threat of tariffs against Canada are unsubstantiated, completely unsubstantiated, unwarranted, and probably illegal. As Warren said, Trump signed an agreement that was passed by Congress and our Parliament, and this action would violate the basic terms of that agreement, as well as any other international trade agreement that I can think of. It's absolutely absurd.

Mr. Bernie, my dad used to say that the most important relationship he had as prime minister was with his caucus. And the second most important relationship was with the president of the United States. The president wasn't always going to agree with you. He wasn't always going to do what you wanted, but he was always going to take his call and he was always going to agree with you. He wasn't always going to do what you wanted, but he was always going to take his call and he was always going to listen to him. We are certainly not living in that time right now. As somebody who's been in the room, as somebody who's been integral to the negotiations, how talk to me about how things have gone since Donald Trump got elected. How is our prime minister, how has our government acquitted itself? Well, we've become irrelevant in Washington. That's the sad truth. You know, your dad once said when the Reagan administration slapped a 35%

tariff on our shapes and shingles, roofing basically, in the midst of the free trade negotiations. And your father said, there are days like this when it makes countries like, it makes it difficult for countries like Canada to have good relations with the United States. And yet he never stopped working on that. We haven't worked on it. We haven't worked on it conscientiously. We had an almost, you know, absent relationship under Biden, understandably. But we've done nothing to resurrect a relationship with this new administration, but I can see.

And one of the saddest things for me, Ben, is the lack of comment by any American politician in Congress or any American senior businessman who stands to be victimized by this. You know, the Americans don't buy our oil or our uranium or our lumber because of the color of our eyes. They're not doing it as a favor to Canada. They're doing it because they need it. They need our oil. They need our uranium. They need our lumber. Imagine trying to reconstruct California, and you don't have enough lumber to help the housing industry, which is going to need it. They don't have enough. Trump says absurdly that they can do it all on their own. Well,

they can't. For one thing, their refineries need our crude oil because they don't have any. You know, the tariffs have not yet come into place. We've been told they're coming tomorrow, but they're not yet enacted. So there are people holding out hope for an 11th hour reprieve. Now you're no stranger in the NAFTA negotiations, or it might've been the original free trade agreement,

that to working down to the last second. What advice would you give whoever is talking, because I don't know who's talking for Canada in Washington right now, what advice would you give to them that if there is a sliver of hope to get the ball over the gold line and save us from these tariffs?

Well, you're right. This is a threat. I mean, this is a threat from a deal maker who's obviously looking for some kind of a deal. We have to figure out what that is. Our strongest voice in my mind is our ambassador in Washington. She's a pro on trade policy, and I'm sure she's got good US legal advice giving the basis for a challenge, which is what would be the first step we should take.

We should also be ready to retaliate. There's no question about it. When you're dealing with a bully, that's the only way you can respond. We have to respond in a similar manner with tariffs of our own. That will affect American consumers and producers alike. It will destroy any hope Mr. Trump has of reducing inflation. it will increase inflation. Every economist in the world knows that. That's why, you know, these threats, I hope it is a threat and nothing more, but you can't bank on that. He's material. Nobody can predict what he's going to say, not even his own staff. Let's talk about the automotive sector for a moment. I heard somebody on the radio yesterday, an expert in the automotive industry, say that if these tariffs come into effect,

because the supply chain is so integrated, that parts to make cars before they become cars have to cross the border as many as nine times. And because of that, the cost of a car will go up as far as $10,000. And he asserted that something like this, something this onerous would cause the entire system to collapse and we would stop producing cars

on both sides of the border within a week. What do you think of something like that? Well, I don't think it would go that badly, but it won't go well for sure. And the basic point is right. I mean, these industries have been totally integrated for many decades. And to try to unwind that is, you know, just impractical as well as impossible.

I have to think that, you know, the governors in states like Michigan and other states, you know, Canada is the dominant trade partner for 35 of the US states. Where are those governors? Why aren't they saying something? That's what appalls me. I mean, we need friends in the US. I even think the government should recycle the Tom Brokaw interview during the Vancouver Olympics so the American public can wake up to the reality of their relationship with Canada. It's been neglected. The one valid point, Ben, I would make on behalf of Trump is his criticism of our defense spending, which is pathetic by any measure. You know, your dad was the last prime minister to meet the 2% NATO commitment. It hasn't been met since by Canada. And that's a disgrace, not only to our military, but

to the country. You know, in every conversation I have, Mr. Bernie, none of this makes any sense. We don't understand 25% tariffs on Canada, but 10% on China. So I keep going back to personality. And as much as he projects strength, he's a very thin skinned man. And you said before that this this government has not maintained a healthy relationship with the Trump administration. But I'd go even farther to say they've deliberately antagonized him. And I've got to wonder whether

the fact that he just doesn't like our government is why he's one of the reasons he may be doing this. Well, certainly the current government is the direct opposite of him on many fronts, on the environment, on woke policies, DEI and all of that jazz. I mean, they are the obvious alternative to that. But you know, if he's a thinking person at all, he should recognize that there's an election pending. And with his action, he's going to do more for the existing government than he's going to do for the opposition. That's what his advisors should know about.

If he wants something in Canada in similar ways to the government he's running, then he should look to an alternative up north. Well, I've been speaking, I've been in conversation with Derek Burney, the former Canadian ambassador to the US. He also led the Canadian delegation to conclude the negotiations of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. Sir, on the eve of these tariffs, there's no voice I wanted to speak with more and I've got to say on a personal note speaking to you, makes me feel closer to my dad. So thank you very much, sir. Thank you Ben, it's a privilege for me.

Welcome back and we gotta 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. 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. There's a lot we don't know. And 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 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 and 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 living next door to the United States, that's the two ton elephant. We are the mouse. store to the United States, that's the two ton elephant. We are the mouse. Yeah. The elephant sneezes. The mouse catches pneumonia. Yeah. 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, oh, a man, oh, 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 straw for the back, the Bank of Canada governor said this yesterday, which is 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 trash 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 US to mitigate potential tariffs and maintain market access. 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 to think he's a genius. Yeah. Yes. Let me just go back, step back, just put a big frame around it because 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 and dollar is going to go down dramatically. How much depends on the size of the tariffs and how extensive they are. And that wax 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 businesses 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, cause 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 Lutnik 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

testify, if they would read the paper by Stephen Marin, the new chief economist 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 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. and 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 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, you know, 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 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 going to hit, and they're going to hit hard. And I would heed the words of Ian Lee. And I hope people in Ottawa heed the words of Ian Lee and I hope people in Ottawa heard that. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show and if you've followed politics for the past few years you know that Pierre Poliev, the leader of the opposition and as of right now the front runner to eventually one day if the liberals ever let us and Jagmeet Singh ever lets us have an election he's the leader, he's the front runner to become our next prime minister. And he's had a bee in his bonnet for years about the CBC, the cost of the CBC,

the slant of the CBC, the value or lack thereof to our country and the value that we get back as taxpayers. And he has said that if he ever becomes prime minister, one of the first things he will do is defund the CBC, to strip it of its cash and, I don't know, send it off into the wild in the hopes that it can make it on its own or sell it for parts, who knows? But there's a new boss in town, a new CEO at the CBC

named Marie-Philippe Bouchard. And she says it's way too early. Oh, she said a few things. She gave an interview on the CBC. And one of the things that she said, this will really bring her into Pierre Poliev's good graces, she says it's way too early to say whether or not she would accept executive bonuses. And she went on and she's

essentially in this interview, she essentially calls Pierre-Paulio's bluff. So that part that's appropriations, that's government money is 1.4 billion. That's a lot of money. I understand these are big numbers, but it supports all of what we do. And so a billion dollars, considering that he's talking about CBC, the math just doesn't work because there's not much left for French services. If we are imagining that we are going to go forward with only French, the math just doesn't work. There's a serious risk that it would in fact cripple not only the English service but also the French service. So I'm having a difficulty just reconciling all of that and I think it's normal because we are at the pre-election stage and maybe

the promises are not that fleshed out. So what I'm saying is let's have a real conversation about how it's going to impact Canadians. All right. So maybe according to new CEO is not going to do it here to react and to talk about a number of issues is Franco Tarrazano, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Franco, when I hear that, I think to myself, oh, Madame Bouchard, if you think Pierre Poliev hasn't fleshed this thing out yet, you don't know what you're up against. Oh, I couldn't agree more. And like, look, I understand that she's new to the job, new to the head of the CBC, but like, where have you been the last two years?

You're like, we've been having this conversation all across Canada for years now. And Mr. Pauliev has been so unequivocal. You go to a rally and his two biggest applause lines are, ask the tax and defund the CBC. To give Mr. Poliev credit, he also took a stand on the taxpayer funded bonuses before they were a huge national issue. Okay, when he was running for leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Mr. Poliev said that he would end the taxpayer-funded bonuses at failing government authorities, and he specifically cited the CBC. And, you know, for the head of the CBC to come in and not rule out taxpayer-funded bonuses was crazy.

Well, yeah, Franco, I don't know what it is about CBC CEOs and putting their foot in their mouth when it comes to bonuses, but it seems like it's a prerequisite for the job. The former CEO, just to give context to our listeners, Catherine Tate, well, she defended spending more than 18 million, and she didn't call them bonuses. They're not bonuses, they are performance-based pay. So they laid off 141 employees. They eliminated 205 vacant positions.

They had a budget shortfall and she still gave out 18 million dollars in bonuses. And at one point, she was asked, you know, will you cancel those given the fact that you're in a budget shortfall and said, oh, well, no decisions have been made? What she should have said is I'm going to lead by example. If I'm due a bonus, I'm not taking it and I urge everybody to do the same. But she didn't. And not just urge everyone to do the same. You're the head of the Crown Corporation and the bonuses.

Yeah. Right. And like, like think about this, folks, the friends of Canadian media. They're an advocacy group They're essentially a cheerleader for the state broadcaster Even that organization called out the bonuses at the CBC even that organization said the bonuses were deeply out of touch and unbefitting of The state broadcaster like folks like think about it this way too, right you had Kate state broadcaster. Like folks, like think about it this way too, right? You had Kate crying that the cupboards are poor. I remember it was just before Christmas when announcing

hundreds of layoffs at the CBC clamoring the government for more money from taxpayers. And then you still turn around, hand out $18 million in taxpayer funded bonuses, not just that, the average bonus, the average taxpayer funded bonus for a CBC executive, 73,000 bucks. Yeah. That's more than what the average Canadian worker makes in an entire year. Oh, listen, I used to see the I used to see the absurdity of the CBC in real time when I was working in in television, because I would see what we were able to muster together as a team to go on a shoot in private broadcasting.

And then I would see what the CBC brought with them. And I mean, they were in the lap of luxury. What we did with a cameraman and an audio guy and a host and maybe a producer, if we're lucky, four people, they had eight or nine people to do that same job. Yeah, no kidding, right? I mean, it is a huge waste of money. It essentially is what you would expect of the government running any type of corporation. That is what the CBC is. But look, like to get to the point of this conversation, right? Like, it's, it's way past time to leave

this to the CBC. Okay, for years now, the CBC has refused to do the right thing and then these taxpayer-funded bonuses. We need our elected representatives to step in. And there's three of them who need to step in right now. You obviously have the Prime Minister, but beyond the Prime Minister, you have Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Canadian Heritage Minister

who's in charge of the CBC portfolio, Pascal St. Ange. They got to step in because the CBC is unwilling to do the right thing and they need to put an end to these taxpayer-funded bonuses. So, Franco, the CEO of the CBC doesn't necessarily believe that Pierre Poliev has the courage of his convictions, but most Canadians are certain that the Liberals won't dump the carbon tax. A lot of them are saying they're going to if they become the new leader, but 51% of respondents say they're not confident that a new Liberal leader would actually eliminate the consumer carbon tax.

What does that say to you? Well, you can't blame taxpayers for having trust issues with the Liberals and their carbon taxes. You know what I mean? I mean, look, this is the liberal government that hiked carbon taxes every single year, despite provincial governments providing fuel tax relief. They continued to hike the carbon tax during a 40-year high inflation when families were struggling to put food on their tables. People were struggling to afford the gasoline to get to work, and people were struggling to put food on their tables, people were struggling to

afford the gasoline to get to work, and people were struggling to keep their heat on. So throughout this whole time, the liberals continue to crank up the carbon tax. So can you blame taxpayers for having trust issues? I say no. But then let's take a walk down memory lane, okay? Because back in 2015, when Trudeau was first running to be the Prime Minister, his election platform and campaign barely mentioned the carbon tax. Their platform, buried in at 39 pages deep, was a vague reference to a quote, price on

carbon. Now back in 2015, barely anybody would have known what that meant. Okay. And then not just that. They told Canadians they wouldn't crank up the carbon tax beyond 2022 at 11 cents a liter. Right before the 2019 election, you had the former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, saying the government has no intention to keep cranking up the carbon tax. Well, after they're done singing for their supper, after the election, they announced they would keep cranking up the carbon tax year after year after year. So I don't blame Canadians for having trust issues with the liberals and with the carbon tax.

Yeah. And I think if we, if we just look at this real quick from up through the political lens, if 51% of people don't believe them, that means that they believe that anytime one of these liberal candidates for leadership comes out and says, I'm going to get rid of it, they see somebody lying to their face. And that is not a good look for somebody who's trying to rebrand a very tired liberal party. No kidding. And you know what's making it worse? The fact that all they are giving us

is word salads for answers. Yeah, Franco, we're gonna have to leave it there. Really appreciate it. I'll always love your perspective and thanks so much for joining us on the Ben Mulroney Show. Hey, my pleasure, Ben. Have a great rest of your day. Thanks for listening to the Ben Mulroney Show podcast.

We're live every day nationwide on the Chorus Radio Network and you can listen online through the Radio Canada player and the iHeart Radio Canada apps. And make sure to follow and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your streaming audio. We release new podcasts every day. Thanks for listening. BC Children's Hospital is one of North America's top pediatric care hospitals, leading the way in groundbreaking research, treatment and innovation. We're pushing the boundaries of what's possible so kids of all ages and health challenges can have the best opportunity to thrive.

We're treating today's patients and we're shaping the future of pediatric care in BC, Canada and beyond. Amazing people wanted. Must love kids. Apply now at jobs.bcchildrens.ca