The Ben Mulroney Show - Do we need a stronger federal government in order to break down Interprovincial trade barriers?

Episode Date: February 6, 2025

Guests and Topics: -Do we need a stronger federal government in order to break down Interprovincial trade barriers? with Guest: Max Fawcett, Lead Columnist for Canada's National Observer. -The Riveter: A WWII Fiction Novel with Guest: Jack Wang, Author 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

FanDuel Casino's exclusive live dealer studio has your chance at the number one feeling. Winning. Which beats even the 27th best feeling, saying I do. Who wants his last parachute? I do. Enjoy the number one feeling. Winning. In an exciting live dealer studio.

Exclusively on FanDuel Casino. Where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Please play responsibly. BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Visit betmgm.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older, Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. We have a big government in Canada, that we know. But do we have a strong government in Canada? Well, according to our next guest, Max Fossett, the lead columnist for Canada's National Observer, the answer is no. And so let's dig into his latest article to save Canada, we need a stronger

federal government. Max, welcome to the Ben Mulroney show. Thanks for having me back then. So what do you mean by strong federal government? Because as I said, we have a big one. What I mean is we need the sort of federal government actually that your dad led for for two terms and and pure Trudeau led, you know, a government that that makes the case for Canadian institutions, Canadian projects, Canadian aspirations. And it feels to me like, over the last, you know, call it two decades under both conservative and liberal prime ministers, we've lost sight of that. And instead, it's been a series of decisions that have either deliberately or inadvertently surrendered ground to the provinces. And the provinces are very happy about that.

They're happy to get more money. They're happy to get more jurisdictional authority. They're happy in Quebec's case to be, you know, recognized as an independent nation, but that has not done any favors to the project that we share, which is called Canada. And I think, you know, with Trump, with the threats to our sovereignty, which he keeps making over and over again,

I think it's reminded a lot of people that we are more than just a collection of provinces. And we have to be more than a collection of provinces if we're gonna survive. Well, we also have to be more than a collection of provinces if we're going to survive. Well, we also have to remember, and we'll get to the nuts and bolts of what you're talking about in terms of structural change to Canada. But I think we have to remember that right now we're

dealing with Donald Trump. But Trumpism will outlast him. And there could very well be someone representing that brand of conservatism, that brand of Trumpism in the future, who has far more aggressive ambitions as it relates to the manifest destiny of the United States. Like right now he's musing on true social

about Canada becoming the 51st state, but that doesn't preclude somebody in the future who espouses Trumpism, who will do more than just tweet. And we need to be prepared for that. I couldn't agree more. You know, I think we sometimes forget that, you know, we sometimes think that the threat of Trump ism is all Donald Trump. And you know, he's an old man. So at some point, he's gonna, you know, he's not going to be president anymore. But he is radicalizing, basically, the

entire Republican Party, huge swaths of the United States, with his tweets with his rhetoric. And when he's gone, they will step up and they might be better at staying focused on certain issues. They might be better at sort of navigating the instruments of government, and they may very much have their eyes on our natural resources, on proximity to the Arctic. There's so many ways in which we are vulnerable to this sort of revival, as you say, of manifest destiny. And it's not gonna be good enough for us

to stop buying American products. I mean, that helps right now, but we need a much more muscular and robust response. And I think that begins and ends with a stronger federal government. So give me an example in practical terms of what that means to give me sort of the point counterpoint. So how can we be how can we have a stronger government and where has it failed us? I think a perfect example is is inter-provincial trade barriers. And we've been talking about this,

you know, policy people, even elected officials have been saying like, this is a problem that you you have these internal trade barriers in Canada. We can't sell certain things in other provinces. There's this friction that business has to deal with. And if we can't get past that, what possible hope do we have of doing bigger and more sort of complicated projects, whether it's pipelines,

whether it's a national electricity grid? You know, we have to be able to knock over these relatively small impediments. So I think, you know, we've seen Anita Anon talk about inter-provincial trade barriers. We've seen Pierre Pauli have put out a very good video about how ridiculous these trade barriers are. Let's get those knocked over and move on to bigger things.

And bigger things might be, you know, another export pipeline to Tidewater. It might be obviously increasing the size of our military, new trade relationships. There's a lot of big fish that we have to fry, but I think we have to get in the habit of pushing past the objections of provincial governments. Because for 20 years now, when they cry foul, the federal government tends to let up. And, you know, look, I was born in Vancouver. I lived in Ontario. I lived in Alberta. I am a Canadian first and foremost, and I think we need to start cultivating that mindset among more people.

You know, I think the mindset is I think the mindset on very big national projects is at least in this moment, a present there's a there's a poll out in the Calgary Herald today that says that 80% of Canadians across the country, including Quebec, including British Columbia, including other provinces, want pipelines to be built and other massive national building infrastructure. And so there's the will of the people there. What we need is we need a will of the government.

And for example, I remember thinking to myself when the Trudeau government coined the term meaningful consultation, is it related to non-governmental groups, making sure that they had their voices heard whenever a pipeline was gonna get built. I mean, to me, that was a de facto veto that was gonna be given to this group or that

group. And I thought to myself, well, that's going to be a sticking point. And sure enough, that's, I think, exactly what they wanted. In other words, we need somebody at the top who is going to recognize that this is what the people want and that it's best for the country. And therefore, they're going to go for it. And they're going to tell those loud but small fringe groups, sorry, but we actually don't really care what you have to say right now.

Well, there's a fine balance there. Because, you know, I agree that that, you know, the Trudeau government probably over indexed a little bit in that direction. But that was a reaction to the Harper government over indexing in the other direction. They know they did try to assert, you know, the national interest and say, we need to build these pipelines, stop complaining you environmental fringe radicals. And it didn't work. The courts kicked it back. And the courts would kick back any project, especially going through BC, which has unique legal terrain

with respect to indigenous peoples. It would kick back any project that didn't do consultation properly. So the answer there was do the consultation properly. That's what they did with TMX. And now we have this pipeline that could get our oil to global markets. And it's basically saving our bacon right now. So let's replicate that formula. Let's do that again. Right? You know, I think I saw a very interesting proposal today. Someone floated that there's a terminal in in Point

Roberts near Vancouver that exports American coal. Why don't we get rid of that and turn it into a new oil export facility? There's a lot of ways that we could be creative and smart about this, rather than just trying to dredge up old projects and old grievances about things that didn't work in the past. I think we need to be focused on what is going to work in this moment where we, like you said, we have this rare consensus that has emerged that we need to do something. Now let's do it. Yeah. What do you make of international trade Minister

Mary Ing saying that supply as we won't be making any concessions on supply management as it relates to negotiations with Donald Trump? Because that that to me, I was reading an article that supply management is not only a sticking point, obviously, with Donald Trump as it relates to our dare access to our dairy markets, but it is a huge interprovincial trade barrier. Yeah, to me, supply management is a litmus test here.

If we can't get through, get past that, then we're never going to get rid of these interprovincial trade barriers, because that's really what supply management is. It's an attempt to protect the dairy industry in Quebec. And if we can't get through that internally, management is, it's an attempt to protect the dairy industry in Quebec. And if we can't get through that internally, then we're not going to be able to do these other bigger things. So I think we need to be, we need to not put those sorts of no-go kind of

propositions on the table. I think there's a thoughtful way to approach that relationship and say, we have to do things that maintain the standards that are important to us. You know, we want milk to be healthy. We want the chicken we buy to be not filled with hormones and whatnot. Like we can have health standards, but to just put sort of a blanket proviso on the table saying, no, we're not going to talk about supply management, then we're not going to get anything done. We have to be willing to put the sacred cows on the slaughter block, unfortunately, and be willing to think about

things differently. Well, I've got to wonder, because I've got a lot of time on the radio to wonder, I got to wonder whether that perspective was put in the window for political reasons for the Liberal Party as it faces, you know, a fairly substantial loss nationally that perhaps, if they protect supply management, maybe that protects a few of their seats in Quebec, I have no proof. It's just a feeling I have. Well, it might be or it might be to put in the window for the Trump administration to negotiate around and say, you know, if we talk like we're not going to give this up, and then

we give it up. Yeah, it looks like a big win to him. Yeah, we're gonna have to, we're gonna have to leave it there, my friend. But Max, thank you so much for joining us. A great article. I urge everyone to leave it there, my friend. But Max, thank you so much for joining us. A great article. I urge everyone to read it. Thanks so much. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. Thank you so much for joining us

across the Chorus Radio Network. My pleasure to be with you today. And there are very few types of books I enjoy more than historical fiction. I love being placed in a very real world situation with a story that comes from the imagination of a tremendous writer. And so I'm very pleased to invite one such writer

to the Ben Mulroney show, Jack Wang. It's his debut novel. It is called The Riveter. Jack, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. Okay, when I was in college, I was a history and poli sci student and I studied the world wars and the cold war.

And so to be thrust into this world in such a meaningful way that feels so real, I've got to ask you, in order to create historical fiction, you have to have a real depth of knowledge in the true history. So how did you do that? What sort of research did you do in order to make the Riveter feel like such a real world? Absolutely. Naturally, I read a lot of books and dug through the archives, but I also did a lot of first-hand research. I went to Fort Benning, Georgia, for example, looked at the jump towers, saw actual paratroopers coming down the mock towers. I spent a lot of time in the cities that I wrote about.

But as Hilary Mantel says, the task of historical fiction is to take the past out of the archives and relocate it in a body. My job as a fiction writer was to bring everything down to eye level through the main character, Josiah Chang. Otherwise, researchers can just be information, but the goal of a novel is to create drama. So who is Josiah Chang? Great question. So Josiah Chang is the Riveter. And at the outset of the second World War, Chinese Canadians were barred from the military. They were hoping to gain full citizenship rights, including the franchise, but the government was afraid that service would lead to those things. But Chinese Canadians still wanted to prove their

loyalty, so they joined wartime industries like working in a shipyard. Rivet guns were heavy and Josiah Chang is a big strong guy and he becomes a riveter at a shipyard where he meets Poppy Miller, who turns out to be the love of his life. And the best characters are rooted in, at least in part, in people that we know. Is there any part of Josiah that is part of somebody in your life? Well, Josiah Chang is an amalgam, I think, of a lot of people. On the one hand, I was inspired by Richard Maher, the only Chinese Canadian who served in the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion. Because Josiah Chang does go on to find his way into the army and to join the famed airborne infantry unit that served in Europe, three campaigns, never failed a mission. And so he's inspired by Richard Marr.

And in part, of course, he's drawn from various aspects of my own experience, as you know, all writers do, they draw from their own lives. And so he's amalgam of the real and the fictional. And you know, I read a lot of historical fiction. So I've been dropped into New York in the 1920s in the World War II. It's rare, I don't get that opportunity to do so with Vancouver in 1942 or Toronto. And it was so wonderful to feel like I was in those places

that I know so well today, but have very little knowledge of in days past. Yeah, you know, I feel like it's a very Canadian novel. I grew up in Vancouver. I was an undergraduate of the U of T. So again, these are cities that I've lived in and know. It's a very Canadian novel in the sense that, you know, it goes across, literally goes across the entire country. And I think that it's not just that Canadians perhaps don't know all that much about Chinese Canadians who served, but I feel like not everyone knows

about the first Canadian parachute battalion. You know, in the U S a lot of people have watched band of brothers, they know about easy company and we had, you know, we had our own easy company and I think that should be recognized. You know, it's great that you say that, you know, we're having a larger conversation in Canada about, you know, how to support our military. And once we support it, what does what value does that does that military have for Canada in terms of promoting our values around the world? And I don't believe that you can have that conversation unless you appreciate the sacrifice that has come from generations past. And it's really nice that in a packaged in in a historical novel is, is an appreciation of that sacrifice. Absolutely. You know, these days,

a lot of fighting we leave to professional soldiers, but we have to remember at that time, second world war, you know, we're talking about people who were just leading ordinary lives who left their jobs as teachers, as bankers, as ordinary citizens to join up. And it actually reminds us a little bit of the war in Ukraine where part of what's astonishing is that people who were just last week, you know, IT guys or mechanics are suddenly at the front line. That's what it was like for millions of Canadians, they just ordinary Canadian citizen soldiers going off to fight.

Now, Jack, as a writer, at what point do you do you emotionally let go of the riveter and give it to the world so that you can give space to yourself to find a new story to tell? Yeah, that's a great question. You know, the process of bringing a book into the world is quite a long one. It happened to take me you know, about a decade to write this novel. And it went through many iterations, many changes, lots of things were left on the cutting room floor. Excuse me, and then it actually

takes a long time even once the book is sold to go through many edits, copy editing, proofreading. So I'm still living with it because there's, you know, I'm launching the book out in the world and I'm still living with this, these characters and thinking about them. But my next novel is already gestating. Oh, it is. Well, listen, you know, I used to work in television and we talked a lot about movies and TV and you just used the expression cutting room floor, which begs the question, are you

in discussions to take the Riveter from the page to the screen? Well, you know, I don't want to jinx anything, but I would love to see that, you know, and I have heard people say that the story is cinematic and I would love to think that it would make for a good movie or TV series. Jack Wang, we are manifesting it right now. We're putting it out in the universe right here on the Ben Mulroney show. Let's do it. Hey, thank you so much. Hey, the next time that when your next book has fully gestated, I hope you come and share it with us here on the show. That'd be awesome. Thanks so much. Thanks so much. That was Jack Wang, the author of the new World War II fiction, The Riveter.

It's a tremendous read and I highly recommend it to anybody listening. Hey, so NASA has said that there is, you're going to love this. There's a 1.9% chance that a large asteroid is going to hit Earth in 2032. Almost a 2% chance. Now that's up for 1.6% yesterday, which means every day it's creeping upward. Now, so what I first of all recommend going out and watching Armageddon. Okay, that's that's 100%. That's what you should do tonight. One of my favorite movies. I know it's terrible, but it's one of my favorite movies. But a roughnecks who are turned into astronauts to save the earth. My favorite line at the end when they come back at the end, and they've saved the earth. My favorite line at the end when they come back at the end. And they've saved the earth. And one of the commanders

sees Liv Tyler, whose dad perished as a hero saving the earth. He says, Lieutenant Commander Willie Sharp, United States Air Force requesting to shake the hand of the daughter of the bravest man I've ever met. And then all of a sudden, the fighter pilots are flying overhead and the billowing American flags. And it's just it it's just a, it's all Michael Bay and it's all awesome. And I don't care what you say. I know it's terrible, but I love it. Anyway, so this story grabbed my attention.

So we have almost 2% chance of getting hit by an asteroid. And by the way, they say that this asteroid, it's like a city killer. It's not going to be an extinction level event, which is also parlance from those movies. The asteroid is named 2024 YR4, measures between 130 and 330 feet in diameter. And yeah, we're getting close to like 2% chance. So how do those odds stack up against other odds in other situations? So the odds of the asteroid hitting are 1 in 53. The odds of hitting a number in roulette are 1 in 38. That's about 2.63%. The odds of getting a hole-in-one in golf is 1 in 12,500 and that's lower. And the odds of going from minor league

to a steady NHL career are roughly one in 4,000 or about 0.025%. So we're in the ballpark of all this stuff and who knows what tomorrow's gonna bring. It might be even closer tomorrow. And then if it does decide it's gonna come our way, what city would it hit? Maybe that's a question for our opinion line.

What city would you like the asteroid to hit? I know, right? Yeah, talk about dividing Canadians. I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to bring us all together. I want us to unite against the asteroid, not against the city it might hit. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show. Thank you so much for spending a little bit of your Thursday with us.

I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions from the opinion line tomorrow on the Ben Mulroney Show. And so just give us a call, leave us a message and the best opinions will make it onto the show. So we've been talking about how we have a real opportunity as a nation to finally all get on the same page, stop getting in our own way and bring our goods to market beyond the market of the United States. And it feels like a lot of Canadians are waking up to this, not this reality that we've been forced to deal with, but this opportunity that is being presented to us. And so when I read this morning that the Canadian government as it stands says that we will

not as a nation be making concessions on supply management to the United States, essentially the policy that protects our dairy industry, I think to myself, I guess Mary Ing didn't get the memo because this is our international trade minister saying that the federal government will not be making any concessions on supply management. And that's fine, Mary Ing can have her opinion. This government is not long for this world, but it's not a position that flies in the face

of this movement that we're feeling towards everybody getting on the same page. And rather than listen to Mary Ing on this subject, I would take my marching orders from Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor, if you will, and one of the great guests that we have on the Ben Mulroney show who likes to lay out food policy and explaining it in a way that makes sense to me.

Now he says that according to the World Trade Organization, Canada is the ninth least protectionist country in the world. However, there is one major exception when it comes to Canada's supply management system, mainly our dairy monopoly, we are not open for business, with tariffs exceeding 300% on certain dairy products. It's no surprise, as he says, that Trump has it in its crosshairs. But he goes on, supply management is not just a trade issue, it is central to Canada's long standing inter-preventive inter-preventive trade barriers. While politicians frequently call for freer domestic market, the reality is that supply

management itself is a structural roadblock. Provincial boards backed by quota allocations and regulatory power hold significant sway over the dairy industry, reinforcing regional monopolies that make real change virtually impossible. This is why despite political rhetoric, meaningful progress on interprovincial trade barriers remains elusive. This is one of the magic bullets, one of the silver bullets that could help us break apart

the inter-provincial trade barriers that have been plaguing our country to the tune of $200 billion in lost revenue every year. That's found money. That's money we would find in our couch. And I have to wonder, because the dairy industry is so central to the Quebec economy, I have to wonder if this is pure political calculus by the federal government that is looking to stave off liquidation in the next election. Perhaps they could preserve a rump in Quebec.

And if they can stand up as the bastion, as the protector of supply management, then maybe they have a chance to come in second to the Bloc Québécois. And to that I say, well, of course they would. Of course they would. They want to talk about breaking down down interprovincial trade barriers. But one of the most most central, the one that's almost holding the whole thing up is supply management. So of course they would say that. And it has the added negative knock on effect of pissing off Donald Trump. But sure, let's go down that path, because it makes more sense for the Liberal Party.

Seeing as how the Liberal Party is Canada, what's good for the Liberal Party must be good for Canada. That's how they see it. So they're going to keep, they want to stay alive. So they're going to stay alive at the expense of this relationship with Donald Trump, which is tenuous at best. Someone who is getting with the program, someone who has seen that we are stronger together. And that's not a catchphrase, that that literally how we have to see this, how we have to see our country in order to move forward, in order to grow.

We are stronger together. Stop looking out for our own little piece of the pie and let's try to build something together. Wab canoe, the young and I think dynamic Premier of Manitoba. He is working with the provincial government to spend $80 billion to refurbish Churchill port. Let's hear what he had to say about this vision.

Well, yesterday we had this amazing announcement, some 80 million dollars being invested into the Port of Churchill and the rail line that serves it so that our mining products, our ag products can get to the EU, can get to Brazil. We can help resupply Nunavut. This is a really smart investment that makes sense for the U.S. audience because it's strong on Arctic security but it's also about diversifying the markets that we can ship our goods to from here in Manitoba. Everyone thinks about Manitoba as the prairies, as the bush. We have tide water in the province too. You can get to the ocean

from our province. So there's a lot of this work that we're doing. Obviously we're talking to a ton of this work that we're doing. Obviously, we're talking to a ton of businesses, large employers included here in Manitoba, just sending that message that we've got their back and we're going to keep working together to grow our economy. Heck yeah, Bob Canoe. Well done. Absolutely. Absolutely. Work with the feds, work with other provinces, build out that infrastructure, get your products to market beyond the United States, heck yeah. I co-signed that, well done, sir.

Let's switch our focus for a moment and move on to Donald Trump, who has been reshaping America with the stroke of a pen in the form of executive action since his inauguration, or yeah, since his inauguration or yeah, since his inauguration. He's been sitting behind that desk signing that weird signature and changing the face of America. He got elected on what he did yesterday.

He got elected on saying that there were only two genders, which he signed into an executive action about a week ago. And now the next step was ensuring that only biological women could play women's sports. And he was shoulder to shoulder with dozens of female athletes of various ages who support him. These women feel like they have lost their safe space and they want it back. And he got elected on giving it back to them. Here's what he had to say. And who could forget last year's Paris Olympics where a male boxer stole the

woman's gold medal after brutalizing his female opponent so viciously that she had to forfeit just after 46 seconds and she was a championship fighter and actually they had two women or two people that transitioned and both of them won gold medals and they won them very convincingly but all of that ends today because with this executive order the war on women's sports is over. Yeah look he got elected on it he got elected on it. He got elected on it. This is what the people wanted and he gave it to them. And I heard another radio show host say that if you're an activist for transgender rights, the fact that you've chosen this niche issue as the hill to die on, as opposed to focusing on as opposed to focusing on the broader issues that would help your community of access to jobs

and healthcare and insurance. And I'm not an expert enough to list them, but the fact that you would focus on a subset of a subset of a minority as the tip of your sword, the most controversial thing that you could do as opposed to going to find consensus on issues that would make the lives of your community better on a broader scale

is a tactical error of your own choosing. You chose to make this the face of transgender issues even though it affects a subset of a minority You chose to make this the face of transgender issues, even though it affects a subset of a minority of your group. Is, I mean, you made the bed and Donald Trump took it over. And I'm personally, if I can editorialize, and of course I can, I'm just happy that we can live in a world now where we can have these conversations

free, like you can call me a whole, you can call me a transphobe. It's not gonna stick the way it did years ago. And so I'm not afraid to ask the questions in good faith because they were always going to be posed in good faith, but the simple act of asking those questions made you out to be a transphobe, and I'm glad we're not living in that world anymore. Home Network is here. I love it. Discover the best shows and your favorite trusted experts all under one roof. Are you kidding me? Every Thursday watch heartwarming programs like an all new Extreme Makeover Home Edition at 8. Home at Five!

We are so lucky to be a part of this. And Honest Renovation, starring Jessica Alba and Lizzie Mathis at 9. Changing these homes, we can change families. There's no place like it. Home Network. Stream on STAC TV.