The Ben Mulroney Show - Just when the election is finally about important issues, Donald Trump is brought up again

Episode Date: April 16, 2025

Guests and Topics: -Just when the election is finally about important issues, Donald Trump is brought up again with Guest: Warren Kinsella, Former Special Advisor to Jean Chretien and CEO of the Daisy Group 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

Okay, Martin, let's try one. Remember, big. You got it. The Ford It's a Big Deal event is on. How's that? Uh, a little bigger. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Nice. Now the offer? Lease a 2025 Escape Active all-wheel drive from 198 bi-weekly at 1.99% APR for 36 months with $27.55 down. Wow, that's like $99 a week.

Yeah, it's a big deal. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Visit your Toronto area Ford store or Ford.55 down. Wow, that's like $99 a week. Yeah, it's a big deal. The Ford it's a big deal event. Visit your Toronto area Ford store or for dot ca today. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show. Thank you so much for spending a little bit of hump day with us. We really do appreciate it. And let's get back to the election campaign. Now yesterday, on my Twitter, I tussle a little bit with a frequent guest of the Ben Mulroney show, Max Fawcett. He is a political guy out of Alberta, not too fond of the conservatives. And we were going back and forth on the carbon tax.

Somebody asked me the question, name one thing Pierre Poliev is responsible for. He's like, hey, well, he's responsible for getting rid of the carbon tax, you're welcome. And I was being a little cheeky, given the fact that he put pressure on and worked against it for long enough. Then Mark Carney decided he was going to get rid of it.

And Max contended that this was, that it was Mark Carney who did it. And I said, yes, but surely something that is so vital to saving the planet, which we were told for years, is worth fighting for whether the conservatives like it or not. I mean, we were told in no uncertain terms that the planet would burn if we didn't have this. And then he comes in and with a stroke of a pen, it's gone, nevermind the planet.

And then he asked me, show me the receipts because that was never said. So I found the post by Jason Kenney that said, the liberals managed to persuade the Supreme Court that the consumer carbon tax was necessary quote to prevent irreparable harm, and that it was quote critical to our response and an existential threat to human life in Canada and around the world. So I believe that that won me the debate. But all that to say,

the liberals have told us they have told us they have beat this drum over and over and over again that we have to reduce our emissions and the only way to do it is to pay for the price of pollution and the carbon tax is one of the ways to do that so when mark carney yesterday gets up and says this about the carbon tax it makes me shake my head if you look at the emissions reductions that come from the consumer carbon tax alone. It's about 6%, six, six of the overall emissions reduction. So it's something, but it's not very much. And so the vast majority of emission reduction work

is being done by the large emitters, the large polluters. And what we've done there is tightening the carbon market, creating a new system where they are paying, they are paying for emission reductions of households, so a positive incentive there, reinforcing investment tax credit and other element approaches to drive that clean energy investment. Remember, 80% of final emission reduction, emission reduction comes from final demand for energy. So it matters what happens in the energy system. We're driving that. I mean, I'm sorry, man. You're telling me all that work for six percent all that cost for six percent

and I'll remind you that the U.S. doesn't have a carbon tax and their emissions have gone down faster than ours over the past few years so square that circle for me. Finally the idea that oh yeah but don't worry because the large emitters are going to pay well who is going to who are they going to pass that cost along to it's going to get caught passed on to you and me and everyone we know that's just a fact That's how the world works. It's disingenuous to suggest. Don't worry. They're gonna eat that cost So their business their cost of doing business is going to go up or they're going to pass it on to us or they're going to Move somewhere where they don't have to pay it. I Someone has to tell me how I'm wrong, because anything that I've ever seen in terms of

how the world works, that's how it works. And Mark Carney hasn't explained how they are going to eat that cost, and it's gonna, and that's gonna be that. But he did continue, because he really does have a B in his bonnet on climate change, despite the fact that it really isn't the issue in this election

that it has been in the past, because we have other stuff we have to deal with. He really does seem to shoehorn climate change into everything. Here's Mark Carney saying how home building will play a role in his climate plan. We're looking to double the home building. But we're looking to double home building in a way that those new homes are emitting 20% less in the construction of those homes and that those new homes are much more climate efficient when they're built. So you can say that's not a climate plan, because it's a home building plan. It's a plan for affordability. That's both of those things are true. It's a plan that's targeted as younger Canadians, but it's a plan that's building an entire Canadian industry. I'll believe it when I see it. This sounds like another boondoggle. This sounds like another bureaucracy waiting to be born.

Honestly. Honestly, it really does. And it also doesn't sound to me like this is a plan designed to lower the cost of home building. This sounds to me like hoops that home builders have to jump through that is going to cost money and take time. And there are going to be gatekeepers that are paid by the federal government, which means you and me, who are going to be there to make sure that these guys are subscribing

to and building according to a new set of codes specific to climate change. But that's just me. We'll have to wait and see, or maybe we won't, depending on who wins the election. Lot of promises coming out of all of our leaders, but on Mark Carney's front, there are a number of promises that he has been making that sound an awful lot like promises that were made

previously by Justin Trudeau. But that's not the case. It is not the case, and he explains how. It's not an old promise if I make it. Okay, it's not an old, it's a promise. It is a new promise. And it's different. Play that again, because I love it.

It's not an old promise if I make it. Okay, it's not an old, it's a promise. It is a new promise. And it's different. Oh, that settles it. It's, it's, it's, it's different. It's different because it's new. It's different because it's me. It's different because it's me.

Okay? I love that, okay? I don't know. When I hear that, I hear, do I need to talk more slowly for you? Because I don't think you get it. I'm gonna tell it to you the way it is. It's a new promise because I'm making it.

No, sir, it's not. It's the people receiving the promise that are telling you it's the same, because it is the same promise. It doesn't matter if you're giving it, it doesn't matter if you take Pierre Poliev's, it's the same promise. These are the same promises that were made years ago.

And just because the guy's saying it is different doesn't make it different. Okay. Well, the only guy promising to get rid of the CBC has been and will probably be and for the foreseeable future, Pierre Polia. But he was asked about his timeline for defunding the CBC. And here's what he had to say. I don't have a time frame, but we we've already said I've already made my position

clear on that and it hasn't changed. We're going to we're going to defund the CBC. I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that.

I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that. I'm not sure if we can do that. all along while protecting services at Radio Canada, because without Radio Canada, the francophones across the country would not have access to that information. And look, I come from a very specific background in media in this country.

So my perspective is unique to me. I don't expect everybody else to subscribe to my belief, but I grew up professionally in a world where our mantra in public, in private broadcasting was do more with less. Every single year, no matter how successful we were, no matter how many number one shows we had, no matter how many times we had a million viewers,

no matter how many times we beat Americans at their own game, we were told next time you do it, you have to do it with fewer people and less money. Because that is the reality of working in media in Canada. Unless you are the CBC, where none of that applies. You do not have to chase ratings, you don't have to worry about budgets, because next year you're going to get more money, and it't matter if you have fewer fewer viewers, it does not matter. So yes, there is a resentment in me of that dichotomy and

that dynamic. And when I read a tweet that says perhaps someone could explain to me why the CBC needs 7500 employees across their television and radio network, chorus entertainment has a similar mix of TV and radio across Canada, including global television and gets by with approximately 26,100 employees, even if someone could justify the need for public funding. Why do they need three times the employees? Of course, I completely completely agree. I've witnessed it firsthand and it's echoed by another tweet that somebody put out I have done hundreds of TV interviews over the years. When I did an interview with Global or CTV, there was a camera operator and a reporter.

Sometimes the camera operator alone had questions from the reporter. When CBC came, there was a reporter, camera operator, sound tech, lighting tech to do an interview on the same subject I just finished with one of the others. There has always been this kind of waste with the CBC. And yeah, fundamentally, I can validate those tweets because I've seen them and witnessed them with my own eyes. They do not live in the reality that their colleagues who fight tooth and nail to produce high quality television that people will watch, they do not live in that reality. They have no pressures of the real world on them. They don't care about ratings and they don't care about budgets.

And I'm sorry, but that is not a, we do not live in a world where we can have that level of bloat and unaccountability on the public dole. I'm sorry. I just do not subscribe to that. You may. I don't. Very happy to be joined by a good friend of the show, good friend of mine, Warren Kinsella, former special advisor to Jean Chrétien and CEO of the Daisy Group. Warren knows as much about running an election campaign as anybody, so to have him with us

so we can lean on his knowledge and his insights during this election campaign, invaluable to me and invaluable to the listeners of the Ben Mulroney Show. Warren, welcome. Thanks, my friend. So yesterday, after some quiet time from Donald Trump, he reared his head again, the threat of a 51st state and annexation and all that stuff, except it wasn't him saying anything.

It was the CBC goading his press secretary into saying something. I'm not so cynical as to assume that Katie Simpson of the CBC did it deliberately, but it certainly is beneficial to Mark Carney. Yeah, I said to my editors when it happened, CBC for the assist. Yeah. Katie Simpson is an excellent reporter, as you and I both know. And then we also didn't know what was going to come out of the White House press secretary's mouth. She could have they could have reversed course, but they haven't, clearly. And that accrues mainly to Mark Carney's benefit.

However, like if he tries to use it tonight, Ben, it'll be a reach, right? Like it's like, okay, we got the Prime Minister of Canada quoting a press secretary. You know, it's a bit of a reach, you know, and what does Poliev do with it? Blanchet do with it? So it may not even show up, but obviously, at least in the White House, they're still thinking about us as the 51st state. And meanwhile, there's a poll that I really, I want to highlight on the show. We've talked about it a couple of times in the National Post.

It says three quarters of Canadians who plan to vote conservative say that the emotion that's going to get them off the couch, that's going to get them to check a box in favor of their conservative candidate is hope for a better future. And in contrast, six out of 10 liberal voters say they're motivated by fear of what the future holds for Canada. What do you make of that? I found that fascinating. Actually, that is, yeah, there are two buttons available to you in a campaign, which is hope and fear. And when you're in opposition, you tend to hammer away at the fear button, don't put these guys back in, and they're going to wreck things even worse, etc. And you're the incumbent, you're usually doing hope. So like Ronald Reagan, you know, it's morning in America again. But like, this is fascinating that the liberals are now

in the position, at least according to this poll, of pushing the fear button. Yeah. It's not their natural position. No, it's not. I was going to say that. Now, would you recommend, if you had the ear of the conservative campaign, would you recommend that they lean into this and maybe put together a quick online promotional ad campaign pushing that message of hope that feeling of hope? 100% but you know, I mean, like, you know, I just I've been waiting for two years for a peer poly and since he became leader to say, you know, not the country is broken is

like this country's got lots of problems, but I love this country. I love the people of this country. We are the best country in the world. We've got a bunch of stuff to do. Let's do it together. But he, you know, it hasn't been his style. And I think he is in fairness to him during that two year period, when he was talking about the country being broken.

A lot of people agreed with that. Yeah. But the problem now is arisen in the month of January is Donald Trump comes in and also says, Canada is broken, effectively. So, you know, making that pivot at this point after week three in the campaign, it's pretty late. However, you know, like, you know, your dad did it in 88

with John Turner. Turner was surging over, you know, a hope-fear type exchange during the debates. And then it was the bomb the bridges. So it was just kind of leveling any kind of advance that Turner had made. It is possible, but you've got to be ready to get your creative, your spots dropping tonight.

You know, that's what the NDP did with Michael Ignatiev, right? You know, it's part of being leader of the opposition Ignatieff, right? You know, part of being leader of the opposition is showing up for the job. And then they had it had the drop right after the debate. And it just killed Ignatieff. Right? Yeah. And listen, I'm a big believer in the debates being consequential. How consequential depends on what is said. And how consequential depends on who gets the airtime.

There's a lot of debate news that we've got to talk about. We've got to talk, and I'll just list them off and we'll talk about them organically. You've got the fact that they changed the French language debate time to suit a hockey game. You've got the fact that a last minute change of who can come to the debates with the Green Party being turfed.

What do you make of these changes? What does it say about, I mean, I don't think we have to talk about the debate commission itself, but it doesn't seem like they're being run very well. Well, you know, but what's more Canadian than that? The change in a consequential leaders debate for a hockey game. I as a Habs fan, I love that.

But the Greens not being there, that actually accrues to Poliev's favor. Okay. When I prepped Crutch in 2000, he said to me, oh, there's gonna all these people on stage yelling at me. I said, exactly. I said, if I could get more people on stage yelling at you, I'd do it. Because all you have to do is sit there

and cross your arms and look like a prime minister. And they all look like snapping little dogs at your ankles. So it works to Karney's favor if the more people on stage because then he looks like the adult. So the fewer the antagonist he's got, you know, it can work for them. My prediction is Polyev is going to cool it a bit tonight. He knows he can be too hot for TV.

He knows that it turns off women. So I think he's gonna be cooler, but firm. He'll have a couple killer lines and they're going to be looking for the clips. The clips is what matters because increasingly, sadly, a lot of people don't watch debates. I was hearing that Blanchet was really didn't want Pedneau there from the Green Party because he acquits himself very well in French and he didn't want to compete on that level. So does this benefit Francois Blanchet? Yeah, I think so. And then, benefit Francois Blanchet at all? Yeah, I think so. And then, you know, Blanchet and Singh have got the same problem is their being just,

their momentum is being killed by the Liberal Party. So those two guys, you know, somebody, one of my readers said to me this morning, oh, you know, Blanchet's gonna go after Paulie Evan. I'm like, no, he's not. You know, the threat to his existence is the Liberal Party and their Mark Carney. So I expect the NDP and the block

are gonna go hard after Carney because they have to. Talk to me about this piece that you've written recently in the Sun about Elections Canada picking Holy Week to hold advanced polls. What do you make of that? I think it was sloppy. You know, I'm full disclosure, I'm a church going Catholic, but I'm not a fanatic about it. And when I looked at the dates, there's like, Holy smokes, no pun intended.

Like they're having the advance polls, you know, on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Passover. Um, and, and like those Holy Week, those is the most Holy Week of the year for Jews and Catholics. And like, couldn't you pick other dates? And I checked the legislation, I checked the Elections Act, and the elections commissioner, Mr. Perot, does have the authority, he's got the jurisdiction, to change the dates. He's actually done that in the past. And you know, why they're not doing it here? I don't know, increasingly secular society. Maybe they think they could they could get away with it. Maybe they're locked in because of the election date. I don't know. But it I was quite

surprised because it I thought that some people would get upset about that. Yeah, yeah. Hey, I want to go back to one last thing. I watched as I'm sure you did. I watched the leaders on to London power and I was struck by if I'm being completely objective and fair, how much better Carney's French was in that moment than I've seen at all in this campaign. He was, even in English, extemporaneously,

he ums and ahs his way through answers. And there was none of that in French. And I was quite taken as my goodness, if he's able to do that in just a matter of days, what's he gonna be like on the debate stage? Well, we, you know, we've both seen it. When you're an Anglophone, with the exception of your dad and maybe Jean Charest, there's very few Anglophones

who can slip into both cultures instantaneously, where you can't really tell the difference. And so it's hard. And what you've gotta do with your candidate, if he's an Anglophone like Kearney, is you've gotta make sure he's surrounded by Francophones the entire week before the French debate. So there's no slipping back of their brain into speaking English, because you can see

that when they do that. So my suspicion is the Liberals have surrounded Carney, because if you look at Carney's schedule, he's kind of disappeared in the past week. He's done a couple media veils, but not a lot. And so he's been far less available in Pollyade. And I think that's a recognition of the fact that Cardi's French wasn't where it needed to be. So they basically put him back into French immersion, showing some results.

All right, Warren Kinsella, thanks so much for the update and Go Habs Go. Go Habs Go. Thanks, brother. Yeah, I don't know. I'm going to have to watch. I don't know what I'm going to watch on tape delay. I don't know what I'm going to watch on social media. There's going to be a lot to consume tonight for a person like myself. There's no limit to how far criminals will go to cover their tracks.

But investigators will go even further to uncover the truth. I'm Nancy Hicks, a senior crime reporter for Global News. This season on Crime Beat, I'll take you from the crime scene to the courtroom and inside some of Canada's most high-profile cases and some you've likely never heard of before. Search for and listen to Crime Beat on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music and wherever you find your favorite podcasts.