The Ben Mulroney Show - Everyone loves to say we support our military, so why isn't it a topic at the debates?

Episode Date: April 16, 2025

Guests and Topics: -Everyone loves to say we support our military, so why isn't it a topic at the debates? with Guest: Tasha Kheiriddin, Political Analyst, Writer 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

Yesterday, in the White House briefing room, Katie Simpson of the CBC was permitted to ask a question. And the first part of her question was, I think, pretty interesting. Let's listen. Yesterday in the Oval Office, President Trump suggested that there could be some help for automakers. I'm wondering what that looks like. Is it tariff relief on the 25% tariffs that are in place right now, or the new tariffs that are coming up in May on auto parts? And a second on Canada, if I may. President Trump's tone when it comes to... So the first part of that was very good,

very helpful for Canadian voters to understand what's happening to our automotive sector. I'm sure a lot of people working in the automotive sector very much appreciated the fact that that question was asked. But then there's a second part. Second on Canada, if I may, President Trump's tone when it comes to Canada, US relations, Canadians have noticed it's shifted a bit in the past few weeks.

Ever since the election campaign started, he stopped talking about Canada becoming the 51st state at least publicly. I'm wondering if that's on purpose and why. Okay, that's interesting. That's, I mean, I wouldn't have asked that. I wouldn't ask a question about the absence of information. Like if you stop talking about something, stop talking about it. But in a race that has tightened, and a lot of people believe it's tightened because Donald Trump has his attention focused elsewhere, and people can focus on domestic issues during this election campaign. And you

know, the belief is that Mark Carney needs Donald Trump to be a threat so that he can keep pumping his own tires as the solution to that threat? Kind of interesting that that question was asked. Let's listen to the answer. I would reject the president's position on Canada has shifted. Perhaps he just hasn't been asked about Canada by questions from this group in the Oval Office, but they see him almost every day, but the President still maintains his position on Canada. The United States has been subsidizing Canada's national defense, and he believes that Canadians would benefit greatly from becoming the 51st state of the United States of America.

As for autos and auto parts, I don't have anything to read out for you there, but I think the point the President was making is flexibility, and he has flexibility when it comes to negotiations and talks. But ultimately, his goal in his fair trade deals that he is pursuing with many countries around the world is to put the American worker first. And there you have it. Donald Trump right back in our crosshairs. The big bad baddie from south of the border, back on the the table back for us to be afraid of back for us to deal with in this election campaign I don't doubt that it

was done by design but it sure is convenient that just as he was moving to the periphery of the things that we're talking about during this election the CBC brings him right back onto the radar thank you Katie Simpson appreciate that meanwhile that mean that plays very well into Mark Carney's narrative right he them right back onto the radar. Thank you, Katie Simpson. Appreciate that. Meanwhile, that I mean, that plays very well into Mark Carney's narrative, right? He wants you to believe that Donald Trump is an omnipresent threat. And that's why he is best suited to be our Prime Minister. Here's what Donald and Mark Carney said about Donald Trump and his goals to restructure everything. President Trump is trying goals to restructure everything. when it forged alliances rooted in trust and mutual respect and championed the

free and open exchange of goods and services and ideas is over. There is no going back. We in Canada, we will have to build a new relationship with the United States and Canada can help redesign the global trading system with like-minded countries. I challenge the everything that he just said. No, not everything said the conclusion that he came to that our relationship is over and there's no going back. I don't believe that you have the ability or the mandate to say that, sir. As somebody who was as the son of somebody who, who tended to that relationship and built that relationship

over nine years made it stronger than it had been, I will remind you that we are in a pretty low point with the US government and our relationships with them under the first Trudeau government. It took years of work and communication and building trust and building trade to strengthen that relationship. But it got stronger and it was made stronger through successive governments. This is certainly a challenging time. But I don't believe that as somebody who has, again, not been elected to anything yet, you are our prime minister or have been our prime minister, but you, I do not believe that you get to unilaterally

declare the relationship over. I know it suits your political purposes. I know it's been working very well for you, that every time you raise the specter of Donald Trump, your poll numbers go up. I will concede that point. That is great politics, terrible policy. And I do not believe that you are either right on the spirit or right on the on the assessment that the relationship is over. It absolutely is not and never will be. This is a relationship that has spanned centuries and will continue long after you're gone. And how short sighted it is to say something as definitive as that that we have to look elsewhere. Yeah,

we do. We also have to rebuild our relationship with the United States. Do we have to be as dependent on them? No. Whose fault is it that we are? Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. But he needs this negativity. He needs this fear. The liberals need this fear to get people out to vote. And I'm not the one saying it, three quarters of Canadians in a new poll that's in the national post, three quarters of Canadians who plan to vote conservative say that the emotion that is guiding them is one of hope for a better future in Canada

to live, work and raise a family. So that's the blue side. On the red side, only three out of 10 of them say that hope is driving them to the polls, rather six out of 10 liberal voters say they are motivated primarily by a fear of what the future holds for Canada with an unpredictable U.S. President Donald Trump threatening trade relations. You see, this election only works for you, only works for the liberals, if you are afraid. If you go to the polls afraid, if you are motivated by fear, that's what works for them. The other side is hopeful. The other side believes in a better tomorrow. We will be stronger if we are hopeful. We'll be stronger if we do things together.

Don't ever let anybody tell you that the conservative party is the party of fear. The numbers do not bear it out. Do not let anybody tell you that the conservative party is the party of negativity. The numbers do not bear it out. Look, we'll see it. We'll see these are these differing dynamics on full display during the French language debate tonight. But tonight, in some parts of the country, it's gonna be the afternoon because they moved the debate to suit a hockey game.

The Habs are playing and they're in a very, very competitive playoff race. And so rather than go head to head with the hockey game, the election commission or the debate commission has decided it makes more sense to go against, to move it earlier. And I think that is a shameful, shameful thing to do to Franco Canadians across the country who will not be able to watch this live. It is an affront, I believe, to their constitutional right to be informed live with the rest of the country.

And because of a hockey game, I'm a Habs fan. I want them to have a deep playoff run. I want the past few years to be a distant memory. I want the success of the Montreal Canadiens to be front and center for everybody to enjoy. But I'm sorry. I don't care about this hockey game when we have bigger fish to fry as a country and this election and French Canadians deserve a heck of a lot better than what they're getting out of this election commission. Welcome back to the Ben Mulrooney show

and as always we thank you for listening to us on radio, on a streaming app or on any podcast platform you may find us, we appreciate your ears wherever we can find them here on the Ben Mulrooney show. I'm a Mulrooney. So as a Mulrooney, I appreciate the importance of election debates in 1984 and 1988. They were defining moments of those campaigns. In some cases, if the stakes are high enough and if a leader nails a moment in those debates, it can change the outcome of an election. And so we're all waiting with bated breath for the French language debate as well as

the English language debate that's coming up in short order. But I think it's important to talk about what's going to be talked about at the debate. And here to discuss this is Tasha Carradon, who's written a really great piece in the National Post. There is much the leaders need to debate, too bad they won't. Tasha, welcome to the show. Oh, thanks, Ben. Okay, so what do you mean by this?

Like, it's true, listen, there's a lot to get to in an election campaign. It's hard to get to all of it in a debate. But what don't you think is gonna get discussed that should be discussed in the debates? Well, the big one that's missing is national defense. Yeah. And not every debate may need an entire segment on this. But in this day and age right now, I think that that segment is a

must do and it's in neither debate. There's, you know, going to be talk about affordability, absolutely cost of living tariffs, great Quebec's doing a piece on immigration. Both have a segment on climate, which is not an issue actually that is in the top five, according to voters' concerns at all in this election. But there's nothing on national defense. There's one segment on public security, but that is a very broad topic and safety could include crime. It's not national defense

Yeah, I like to divide things into nice to have and must have and and when times are good We move the environment and climate change from the nice to have into the must-have But right now people are hurting and people are worried and and if you take Mark Carney and the liberals at their word and we are facing a crisis and we're facing an aggressive neighbor to the south, then national defense should be paramount in English and in French. You would think so. And not only that, we've also been talking about rebuilding our armed forces even before this election. We have a 10,000 troop deficit in the last three years. We've had more people leave than sign up. So it is a serious problem. And then there's the fact also the leaders have also talked about it. They have been very vocal on what they would

do and they have different visions. They probably have one to build one Arctic base and hire 2000 more Rangers for the North in particular. Carney's talking about two bases. There's a whole discussion around the F-35. Do Do we continue with that contract or not? There's a lot of material there to discuss, as well as the big question, how are we going to pay for it? Nobody's answered that. Yeah, yeah. Nobody's answered that.

Everyone talks a mean game, but when it comes time to showing that with the respect to those who wake up every day and put their lives on the line to defend the Maple Leaf and even those who've paid the ultimate sacrifice in service of their country. We stop short as we like to do. We like to make bold pronouncements in this country. We don't necessarily like to follow through with the policy that would allow us to honor them and to promote Canadian values around the world. Let's talk more broadly about the debate commission and sort of the show that they're running because my goodness, it's a little bit of a clown show in terms

of... I'm hosting a fireside chat tonight with Don Stewart, the conservative MP who's responsible for what I call the miracle in Midtown in Toronto. And it was all designed so that people could get home and watch the French debate only to find out that at the last minute they changed the time of the debate to suit the hockey game that's being played in Montreal. Yeah, well, I'm sitting at the desk at Radio Canada tonight in Montreal, actually to do both both nights of debate. And now there's no pregame show.

Our pregame show is at half an hour. I can't even make it because I have other commitments. So I guess I'll do the English one, which in Quebec no one's gonna watch on French television. But it is ridiculous. I think if I had to move one of the two shows that are on tonight, I would have moved the hockey game. And this is an election.

I know hockey is the passion, especially in Quebec. The Canadians are in the playoffs, but still I mean it's a little absurd when you think about it that we're prioritizing The hockey game over the debate at a time when we're talking about 51st state and and it's it's an election of our lifetime And the debate commission just folded like a cheap suit and said, oh, yeah, we'll move the debate back to six o'clock Who's going to be watching it at 6 p.m.? Well, let me play devil's advocate though. How many people are actually going to watch it versus consuming it in snackable bites on social media?

I mean, we are living in a world where people consume information differently. I mean, you could argue that it's going to happen regardless and people will come into contact with it over the course of the next 24 hours, just by virtue of how we consume media now. regardless, and people will come into contact with it over the course of the next 24 hours, just by virtue of how we consume media now. So are we, is it a tempest in a teapot?

No, 50% of us are going to watch voters, 50% of voters. And of them, of them, 18% say, I don't know, I want this is going to decide for me. So that's 9% of the electorate. Okay, I have been schooled by the numbers, Tasha. And I was shocked, too. Yeah, I was shocked, too. But I think it's because this is a consequential election bet. And everyone's telling us, you know, this is the election. So people are going to be paying attention. But now, I mean, you know, if you're coming home from work, or you're dealing with your

kids at that hour at supper, like, you're not be paying attention to the debate. And yes, you're going to get it in the soundbites, which are of course filtered through media and some media better than others. Yeah, no, that's a good point. That's a very good point. So look, I think they got it wrong on this front. Let's also not forget that there are francophone populations

far, far west of Quebec and Ontario that for a lot of those people, they will be at work when this debate is taking place. Yes, 100%. You know, if you go a Franco-Saskancho-Saskancho-wa, am I pronouncing it right? Franco-Albertin, Franco-Colombie-Britannique. I mean, you know, this French radio, I know this because I do it in every province in

Canada, those audiences. So yes, those people are completely out of luck. Okay, well, let's talk about something that finally, it seems like they got right. You know, a lot of hay has been made over the fact that you're going to have five leaders on stage, but only two really have a chance of forming government, which means a lot of the extraneous conversation during this debate you could view as wasted. I don't think anybody really thought thinks Jagmeet Singh is going to form government, obviously the Bloc Québécois, a force in Quebec, but certainly not in a position to form government. And then you got the Greens, and there's been a real debate over whether or not they

even belong at the debate. Looks like they finally made a decision, the commission, and they have made sure that they are not... They've kicked them off. They've kicked them off the debate stage. And I think rightly so. Well, you know, because they say that they are not, they've kicked them off. They've kicked them off the debate stage. And I think rightly so. Well, you know, because they say that they intentionally reduce the number of candidates running the election for strategic reasons. So they no longer meet the intention of participation criteria to justify inclusion. We could have figured this out before, right? I think the last minute, it's, you know, I almost feel bad for, for Pedno, who was preparing

for this debate and now has nothing to do. And yeah, the debate commission has a lot to answer for here. I think that decision should have been made a lot earlier. You know, yeah. But you know, Tasha, if we take them at their word that this was a strategic decision on their part, okay, well, that's a choice you made. And because you made that choice, you fell below the threshold required to justify having you on the stage, which means you don't get to be there.

Right. And that's fine. But like I said, everyone knows, they've known since Monday, it was a drop dead date for candidates, right? So they could have made that decision yesterday, they could have made it Monday, they could have made it ahead of time because everyone knew that the Greens are not going to be running a full slate of candidates. They don't, you know, not even close.

So yes, and honestly, if you're talking about a party that would have the balance of power, it's likely if there's a minority government, it would be the block at this point, not even the NDP, but at least the NDP has right now 20 odd seats, so let them in. Tasha Carradon, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Thanks, Ben. Resort every Sunday and look for the code word during the show. Then enter at homenetwork.ca slash watch and win for your chance to win big. Amazing. The small details are the difference between winning and losing.

Watch and win with Renovation Resort on Home Network.