The Ben Mulroney Show - King Charles hits a home run in Washington for the UK. For Canada as well??

Episode Date: April 29, 2026

GUEST:  Justin Vovk / adjunct  professor of history at Redeemer University GUEST: Emmanuelle B. Faubert, economist at the MEI If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://link.chtbl.com/bms⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Also, on youtube -- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@BenMulroneyShow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Insta: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ Executive Producer:  Mike Drolet Reach out to Mike with story ideas or tips at [e-mail] Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This podcast is brought to you by the National Payroll Institute, the leader for the payroll profession in Canada, setting the standard of professional excellence, delivering critical expertise, and providing resources that over 45,000 payroll professionals rely on. Welcome aboard via rail. Please sit and enjoy. Please sit and sip.

Play. Post. Taste. View and enjoy. Via Rail, love the way. Well, at the beginning of Donald Trump's unprovoked a tariff war with Canada, the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, was front and center and consistent in his messaging. He'd get out in front of the cameras when he's talking to the Americans in an effort to sway the man who has thus far been unsweable. And he would say, we don't have a problem with Americans.

We don't have a problem with America. We have a problem with one American. and he just so happens to be the guy in charge. And we are talking directly to him and those around him in the hopes of convincing him that we are your best friends. And that happened, that went on for a while. And despite this charm offensive, not just by Doug Ford, but Danielle Smith and anybody else who was stepping into the vacuum

left by the Justin Trudeau, who was doing nothing at the time, it became painfully aware that not only was Donald Trump not listening, but he was doubling down. And so he would hurl insults and barbs and troll us. We're the 51st state. We don't carry our own weight. Are we really a country? Are we really an ally?

And that started irking people. That started really rubbing people the wrong way. And all of a sudden, good and friendly Canadians stopped acting good and stopped acting friendly and started booing the American National Anthem at live sporting events. I didn't like it then. I haven't liked it since. I said as much.

But with that as a backdrop, I take you to the Buffalo Sabres playoff game where there was a microphone malfunction that led to this. The trip was strong and from far and wide. Oh, care. And that continued.

It was a crowd in America. Granted, there's some Canadians there, but that's in America, standing, singing our national anthem. And so I ask those of you who are still angry, I ask those of you who are still upset with Donald Trump, after you hear something like that, does it make you want to raise your personal game? Does it make you want to be more respectful? I think it should. And if it doesn't, I would respectfully ask you to respect the thumper rule. And if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

But moving on, yesterday's charm offensive by King Charles, this is twice I say charm offensive, by King Charles in Washington. This was a masterclass in flattery for Donald Trump. Hit after hit after hit. We're going to start with this is the way you thwart a position by Donald Trump that you believe is wrong. Listen to how he was able to correct the man without demeaning the man. Indeed, you recently commented, Mr. President, that if it were not for the United States, European countries would be speaking German.

Dare I say that if it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking. French. Yeah, he sort of, Donald Trump sort of looked over, like, shrugged. He's, he can take certain barbs, and that's how he can take him. Here was King Charles talking about America's plans for the moon. Now, I know you have big plans for the moon, Mr. President, but I've actually checked the papers, and I'm rather suspect it is already part of the Commonwealth, I'm afraid. this kind of a side of it all is is the funny thing um but the big hit of the evening was when the the king presented a gift to donald trump and i'm not going to give anything away here but i i will say this this is the bizarre the bizarro version of the zalinski you're the

Zelensky moment, right? There's a way to get what you want out of Donald Trump, and there's a way not to. And President Zelensky of Ukraine, when he was dressed down in the most insulting way I've ever seen, was in a lot of ways because he didn't understand the person he was visiting. King Charles demonstrates in this moment that he knows exactly the man he is visiting. Speaking of submarine alliances, there was one particular orcas predecessor

launched from a UK shipyard in 1944 that served for the majority of her life attached to the fourth submarine squadron in Australia, playing a critical role during the war in the Pacific. Her name? HMS Trump. So tonight, Mr. President, I am delighted to present it to you as a personal gift. The original bell which hung on the conning tower of your valiant namesake may stand as a testimony to our nation's shared history and shining future.

And should you ever need to get hold of us or just give us a ring? It was perfect. It was perfect. I don't think there has ever been a moment like this with Donald Trump. And let's throw the king in with the sort of the lot of foreign leaders. Right? It's never happened. But I don't think I've ever seen anything like that before.

I'm pretty sure Donald Trump didn't see it coming. It was personal. It was flattering. And here was Donald Trump's a response. I really begin. I want to congratulate Charles on having made a fantastic speech today at Congress. He got the Democrats to say, and I've never been able to do that. I couldn't believe it.

I couldn't believe it. They liked him more than they've ever liked any Republican or Democrat, actually. It was, like I said, it was a charm offensive. And, you know, I've been at some of these dinners where a gift is exchanged. leader to leader. And in a lot of cases, in most cases, it's, it's, it's, it's nice. But with Donald Trump, the stakes are always very high. Because as I've said before, Donald Trump doesn't deserve flattery, but he requires flattery. It's the key to unlocking him. If you can, if you do not understand that you need to turn your key in order to open the door that then gives you access

to the man who can do whatever you want, if you don't understand that, then you're going to always be on the other side of that door. It's actually a vital part of that diplomacy with him. Not that he's out there hoarding presence, but this is essential. But it sort of begs the question that Intrepid and I were talking about earlier. What was the point of this trip?

The UK, it appears, has almost like a duopoly. They've got a, they've got, it's a good cop, bad cop thing. They got Keir Starrmer for whom Donald Trump has no time. No time. No time and very little respect. However, he most certainly respects the crown. He most certainly respects the king. He most certainly respects the monarchy.

And so he's got a very good relation with the king. not so good relation with Kier Starrmer. And so therefore, I then ask, so maybe King Charles is the good cop now. Yeah, you're right. He respects power. But it's interestingly, there's historical power, there's cultural power, but it's very soft power. He doesn't have his finger on the button. He doesn't control the HMS Trump.

People sing about God saving the king. But if anybody had to co-in and save the king, it would be. at the orders of the prime minister. So just for further context, Charles and Camilla are in New York City today. And for some reason, they're only spending time in Manhattan. I guess we'll delve into that tomorrow. But we just laid out how King Charles pulled off a master class in Washington.

And so in the next break, after the next break, we're going to answer the question, to what end? What was the point of this trip? Who won? Who got something out of this? So we're going to break that down next. Right here on the Ben Mulerney show. Amazon presents Jeff versus Taco Truck Salsa, whether it's Verde, Roja, or the orange one.

For Jeff, trying any salsa is like playing Russian roulette with a flamethrower. Luckily, Jeff saved with Amazon and stocked up on antacids, ginger tea, and milk. Habaniero? Like Habinier, yes. Save the Every Day with Amazon. Before the break, we laid out the home run. What's a home run in cricket, I wonder? Joy, what's a home run in cricket?

It's six runs. Sorry? Six runs. So a home run is called six runs? Yes. Okay, this was clearly a six runs by the King of England in Washington as it related to just the general tone and demeanor between the two. But the question,

is, to whose benefit? The king is largely a ceremonial figurehead. And so it begs the question. Who extracts benefit from this sort of diplomatic handshake, if you will? And so we're joined now by Justin Vogue. He's an adjunct professor of history at Redeemer University and a royal expert. Justin, thank you so much for being here. Pleasure. Thank you for having me.

So, yeah, I understand when the king or the royal family come to Canada, go to Australia, we are their subjects. We are part of the Commonwealth. He is our head of state. That's the value in those sorts of things. I don't understand the value of or the purpose beyond the fact that it was nice to see these two people getting along of the King of England going to Washington. Well, there's a lot of layers to this. First and foremost, it's important to keep in mind that because the king, as you said, carries out a symbolic function. He's a constitutional monarch. This visit was not something that he just decided he was going to do.

When the press release came out about a month ago, it specifically stated, which was unusual, that at the request and direction of His Majesty's government, the king was doing this. So Kier-Starmor and the British government is specifically wanting Charles in Washington right now. And on the surface, it's all the pomp and the pageantry and the hoopla around the 250th anniversary of American independence, ironically, from Britain. And so it's on the surface about celebrating the decades of cooperation and alliance between the two powers, especially since World War II. But it's behind the scenes that there's a lot of a lot of soft power negotiations going on. that we aren't seeing. And those are the things that are happening away from the cameras. So what could have been on the docket that they would have talked about?

I mean, you know, he said that the king is a very well-educated man. And so he's capable of, I'm sure he's briefed on all manner of government action. And, you know, he's been a very, very staunch environmentalist his entire life. I know that he's been critical sometimes. I think I got in trouble for being critical once of some environmental policies of a previous government, but he's a man with opinions and he's a man who clearly knows how to speak. He's a man who knows how to, I said before, unlock the president through flattery. What could he have been tasked with behind closed doors?

That's really the big question because I don't think anybody is really buying this story that the only reason that Charles is there is to celebrate this anniversary. The timing of it at a moment when the world is in tremendous instability facing great uncertainty largely as a result of U.S. foreign policy,

Anglo-American relations are at a low point. And there have been rumors about the Falkland Islands, which is a British territory off the coast of South America, that they may be rumbling for

autonomy and independence. And there's been rumors coming out of London that they're behind the scenes. Kier Starmer may have asked the king to try to grease some palms to ensure that the U.S. would support British policies in the Falklands. But again, that's nothing that's officially been confirmed. We haven't heard from Kier Starrmer really what his political goals of this visit are. I find it really interesting that the prime minister of England can avail him. himself of the services of the king when if he needs them.

But, you know, he's also, he's as much the king of Canada as he is the king of England. Does Mark Carney have such an ability as well? He does, but in a different capacity. Exactly like you said, Charles is king of the UK. He's king of Canada, Australia, New Zealand. These are all separate offices, though. So with Charles being sent to watch, Washington. That is only in his constitutionally speaking capacity as king of the United Kingdom.

Prime Minister Carney could theoretically ask the king to do something similar. In fact, that's what he did a year ago when he asked the king to come in open parliament when the whole 51st state rhetoric was going around. But it's this really narrow tightrope that Charles has to navigate because he's operating on the advice and the permission of his different prime ministers, but he has to make sure that he doesn't perform his duties to Britain in a way that is damaging to Canada's constitutional settlement. So it's a really tricky thing. And that's what I was going to ask next is the king in a situation like that where

everyone knows. I know the king knows this, that Canada's relationship with the United States, tenuous said best these days. Would he be under an obligation or somebody from his staff be under an obligation to brief our prime minister, either before, during, or after this visit to say, hey, listen, this is, can't tell you exactly what was discussed in terms of what the UK wants, but we can tell you that some stuff's coming down the pike. Could they warn us?

Could they, what's the obligation there? What's that dynamic like? Well, absolutely. And the king has a responsibility. The other side of this constitutional relationship is the king has a constitutional responsibility to advise and warn and guide his prime ministers. So if anything comes up that is relevant to Canada, the king does have an obligation to have a conversation with Mark Carney about that. Could you see a scenario? Obviously, we don't know what's good.

what went on behind the scenes. It's all speculation. But knowing what you know about these dynamics and the powers at play, could you see a scenario where the Prime Minister of Canada gets wind that the King of England is going to Washington? Could you see him our Prime Minister calling Buckingham Palace and asking for him to back channel some information to the president or to somebody in his administration?

I wouldn't think so. because that, well, I mean, actually, I should say, theoretically, the prime minister, Mark Carney, can do that. But it doesn't mean Charles is able to do that. What I mean is having just watched this diplomatic masterclass where he, he flattered the president in just the right way, just the right way. I know they had warm relations before. Like, they would go on a camping trip together right now. that's how happy Donald Trump was. So knowing that, I mean, if I were Mark Carney and I saw what I saw, I would get on the phone

right there and say, all right, you got them right where Keir wants him. While you have them there, could you maybe say X, Y, or Z on our behalf? I don't see that happening. Again, the prime minister could ask for those things, but it really would be inappropriate and quite frankly, possibly a violation of the constitutional nation. of the crown for the king to be sent by the British government and then for him to be espousing the cause, even of one of Britain's closest allies like Canada, not unless, and I don't think this has ever happened, unless the Canadian and British governments got together and said,

okay, let's present a united front and you're going to represent both of us, mostly because the foreign policy and government policies would be so difficult to try. to navigate. But we still saw in that speech yesterday, we still saw in particularly the Queen's engagements today, aspects of Canada being worked in, those subtle reminders were still being slipped in that Canada is important to the monarchy. So would you say that this was, thus far, has been a successful trip for the King of England? Absolutely. Whether or not it's considered successful, say, by the American people, although I'm hearing very good things over the last few hours.

That's a bit of a different thing, whether Keir Starrmer considers it a success, again, a different matter. But certainly for Charles and at least the direct line that London now has to Washington, it really has been a ceremonial success and a triumph in terms of showing not just a Republican country, but the rest of the world, showing them the value that a ceremonial and a constitutional sovereign serves that can transcend these political parties. Justin Vogue from the Redeemer University, thank you very much. He answered a lot of my questions, which means I know you answered a lot of the questions

that our listeners and viewers have really appreciated. It was my pleasure. All right, when we come back, we're going to switch to the economic uproids. date that was delivered yesterday. The deficit is lower, but is it still out of control? That's next. It's never too early to plan your summer story in Europe with WestJet, from rolling countryside to cobblestone streets. Begin your next chapter. Book your seat at westjet.com or call your travel agent. WestJet, where your story takes off. Yesterday in the middle of the show, we got the economic update from the Mark Carney government, and we were learning about it in real time as

You were. My first instinct, you could probably tell from my tone, is I was nonplussed. I was not impressed. It wasn't, didn't signal much. The deficit was lower, but beyond that, I mean, still high, still exists. No plan to balance the budget. And so we're going to take a deeper dive into what it all means with Immanuel Foubert, the economist at the Montreal Economic Institute.

Immanuel, welcome to the show. Thank you for having me. Okay, so yeah, no plan to balance the budget. And there are some people who normally have a lot of time for this government who are saying that not only is there no plan to balance the budget, but it doesn't seem that we have yet a clear idea as to what the economic vision for the country is that Mark Carney has. Well, so far, the view that they seem to have is that by reducing spending a little bit, that they're doing a good job, but the reality is that they're still spending a lot. We're looking at for 2026, 2027, just this spending $595 billion,

while in comparison, the revenues will be $511 billion. So we're talking about a pretty big deficit that's coming. We're talking about like around $65.3 billion, and this $65.3 billion, and that's something that is going to be added to the debt that it keeps growing and that we will end up having to pay at some point. Well, let's talk about that, right? Because at one point, when we had slayed the deficit, there were a lot of reasons for it. One of them was the ability for a government to access the GST, and we were able to pay it down in a lot of ways.

But that was essentially free money. And then I found out a few years ago that every penny that we were collecting as a federal government from the GST was going to serve. the debt. So, I mean, we had a few years there where all of that free money, that was funding the stuff that all the progressives love, all the social programs. That was helping out a hand over, hand over foot. And now we find ourselves with an exploding, exploding interest costs. I mean, based on what we have here, almost $60 billion this year. This is unsustainable. Definitely. And just to give a bit of a, this number seems maybe as a little. abstract, but what it means is for every taxpayer, it represents $1,735 per Canadian for taxpayer.

That's a lot. And it's a lot of people. So what we're doing, this money is, and this is essentially money that is thrown out the window, because this is not money that is being used to provide services for Canadians or being used to grow the economy, is just to pay the debt that we have accumulated. And every time we have a deficit, and this year it's 18 years in a row of deficit. And every time we add more to this debt, this interest payments will increase and it will mean heavier burden on Canadians. You know, we hear that Canada is going to have the second fastest growing economy in the G7. And that sounds good. but 1.5% GDP growth is not good.

Well, it's better than nothing, but it's not great. But we didn't hire Mark Carney for 1.5% GDP growth. We hired him because he had the biggest brain in the room, and he was going to unlock the potential of the Canadian economy, and we were going to get to work growing and building the most powerful version of this country you've ever seen. And this, when the global average, based on the OECD predictions, they say the average in the OECD is 1.7% GDP growth.

And global average is 2.9% GDP growth. So we're not even, we are not even, we're just, we're half of the global average. That's not good. No, it's not. And the thing is that this is something that we've been dealing with for a while. This is basically a Canadian approach where the government, The fiscal, fiscally and bureaucratically, we Canadians love to do the carrot and the stick when it, well, governments love to do the carrot and the sticks when it comes to taxation and subsidies. So what the government does is on one end, the tax very heavily and the regulation framework is very complicated for individuals and companies to grow and scale.

But on the other hand, this heavily subsidizes other industry that ends up distorting. the incentive structure, making industries more fragile because it incentivizes checking boxes to make sure that you're able to get grants and subsidies rather than focusing on growth, on productivity, on profits, and on economic growth. So it shifts and destabilizes the market. And that approach has been a historical preferred approach, but priorities are in the wrong place, in my opinion. Emmanuel, are things, let's assume everything stays consistent for the next few years.

I have to believe that if everything stays consistent, the economic forecast still gets worse because we have, we have, we've made promises on defense that we have to keep. There are more and more seniors that are leaving the workplace for retirement when they are expecting benefits. And which means with them no longer, it's a reverse. We're losing them as productive members and instead they're now collecting on what. what is owed to them, plus these interest payments that are going up, does 1.5% GDP growth consider that? I mean, are we able to pay for all of that with 1.5% growth? Well, I cannot determine if that 1% would be enough,

but ideally we would want as much as possible because as the population growth, as population ages, needs for everything will be growing. also that counts in healthcare, services, all that is going to grow. These are going to grow. So we absolutely need to focus and shift the focus from, this is, the approach has always been, what can the government do for us? What can we, what chore can we give the government to make our life easier?

But what we're seeing is that when it comes, for example, to picking winners and choosers in terms of industries, the government doesn't have a great track record. So instead of trying to give more and more, space to the government. We need to start thinking for ourselves and say, what can we do as a population to grow ourselves? And the government needs to take a step back,

reduce those all those subsidies, but at the same time reduce taxation and regularity ease some regulatory frameworks in order to incentivize entrepreneurship, innovation, and growth organically without intervention. Yeah, we've got entrepreneurs who say that most entrepreneurs in Canada would not recommend to friends and family to start a business in Canada right now.

You're right, the regulations are choking off business. Taxes are slowing down their growth. And you know, you said, what can government do for us? Well, you know, they've been so busy sending so much of our money abroad on pet projects that

have no direct value to the taxpayer here in Canada that I really was hoping he was going to come in, Mark Carney was going to come in and get rid of some of the foolhardy projects of of sending billions and billions and billions of dollars overseas

that Justin Trudeau did. But he hasn't done that and I don't understand why. But Emmanuel, we're going to leave it there. I want to thank you so much for joining us. My pleasure. Yeah, this is the problem in Canada with thinking that you elect the same government with a different leader

and that represents change. It does not represent change. Go read Andrew Coyne. Like I said, he's got a lot of time for this government. And this is a continuation by so many metrics of the foolhardiness that we experienced for 10 years under Justin Trudeau.

When you voted for this government, you probably thought you were voting for something different, but we're getting more of the same and more of the same money being sent elsewhere, as opposed to having it either back in your pocket or back in services that we all depend on.

Or, ha! paying down the debt. Paying down the debt. Call me crazy. But maybe that should be a priority because one of these days that costs is going to get too big for any of us to handle.

And then what do we do? Puck drops, tip-offs, first pitches, kickoffs. When the game is on, you call the shots. Head to betway.com. And bet your way. Must be 19 plus Ontario only.

Play responsibly. Concerned about your gambling. Visit connectsonterio.