The Ben Mulroney Show - The Political Panel -- Did Senor Carney make any deals in Mexico?

Episode Date: September 19, 2025

 Chris Chapin, Political Commentator, Managing Principal of Upstream Strategy -  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://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 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. Hey, thanks, son. What do I owe you? Don't worry about it. It's payday. Payday, huh? I bet you it went straight into your bank account and you didn't even check your pay stuff. My what? Your pay stuff. Back in my day, you had to wait for a physical check. Then, you had to go to the bank. Deposit it, and wait for it to clear.

Your pay really meant something. Payroll is incredibly complex. It's art and the science. It literally keeps the economy moving. Parole professionals do a lot for us. You know, it's about time we do something for them. How about we ask our leaders to name a day in their honor, a national day to recognize payroll professionals?

I got it. This is perfect. Why don't we explain to people just how important the roles are the payroll professionals play in our lives. We can even ask them to sign a petition. We can even ask them to sign a petition to recognize the third Tuesday in September as the National Day to recognize payroll professionals. We'll rally support and bring the payroll party to the nation.

National payroll party? Precisely. Sounds like a plan, you know, just one thing. What's that? I'm choosing the music. What? And I'm sitting in the backseat. The whole way?

When you're with Amex Plathom, you get access to exclusive. dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show.

And you know, it's really funny how every Friday we have the Friday edition of this week in politics. It's what a coinky dink. And welcome to the team. Let's say hi to Chris Chapin, political commentator, managing principal at upstream strategy. And Warren Kinsella, former special advisor to Jean-Cretzian and CEO of the Daisy Group. All right, you're out there, Warren, getting your steps in. Meanwhile, I just had a bunch of timbits a few minutes ago. go. I'm not feeling very good about myself. Where are you?

I'm in Nelson, B.C., so that's the Kootenies behind me. I'm heading into the interior. And so if we talk about BC Ferries, I've got lots of actual real-life examples to talk about. That's right. Well, before we do, this was a story that popped up late in our show yesterday, so we really didn't have a chance to get into it. I'm very glad to have you both here to talk about Sean Fraser's letter, the statement of Canada's intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada, trying to get the Supreme Court to add clarity to the use of the notwithstanding clause by the provinces, I suppose. So there's a couple of ways I want to attack this.

And the first way is, are they tipping their hand, Chris? Is this the priority of the justice minister when a lot of us were hoping we'd see bail reform, we'd see criminal justice reform. Instead, this is what's top of mind for them? you know ben it's a good question i actually don't know if i have the answer to that i i i found it perplexing i feel like this has really come out of nowhere i mean i i know what they've signaled it as as is you know push back on bill 21 in quebec i just find the timing very interesting it's not something mark carney or the liberals spoke about whatsoever on campaign trail they

certainly didn't bring up this uh you know anytime they were campaigning in quebec throughout the last election so yeah um i i think it's i i personally don't agree with it i think it's an overstep. And I think the notwithstanding clause is very important to keep our country together and the role it plays in giving some power back to the provinces within our constitution. But I find this, the timing of this announcement very, very honest. Yeah, Warren, maybe you can add some context to this, because I'm, this might, this might be a very, this might be a very simpleton comparison, but it feels to me like, like the Clarity Act 2.0. No. No, and I, like, I don't want to disagree with my conservative friends,

but I've noticed a lot of conservative friends saying how horrified they are by this. And we should leave the charter of rights and tell us why people shouldn't be horrified. No, I'm saying they shouldn't be. Yeah, I don't understand why people are. And, you know, conservative suddenly concerned about the charter rights and freedoms for the first time ever. But anyway, like, you know, going back to the beginnings of the charter of rights and freedoms, And it was, you know, a request made by Premier Lougheed from Alberta to have it in there as a safety valve. The non-obstante clauses, it's called in Latin.

And, you know, that was the condition to get all the provinces to sign on. The problem became, going back to when your dad was there and my guy, Kretzian was there, it was abused by the provinces, most particularly the province of Quebec, to use it. to trample on the rights of minorities. That's the problem with Section 33. Now, they have to go back every five years to renew it, but Quebec's had no hesitation in doing that. It basically is an abomination at the center of the Charter Rights. We don't really have a constitutional protection for minorities, as long as you have Section 33 there. So I think all of the Carney guys are doing is saying to the Supreme Court, can you tell us what the guardrails are for this particular section, we think it's possibly being abused,

and I think that's a reasonable question to ask. Look, I guess they can ask it if they want, and then, I don't mean, they can do what they want, but Warren, like, a majority for the Liberal Party goes through Quebec. And if this somehow has the Supreme Court comes down and circumscribes a provincial province's ability to use the notwithstanding clause,

I don't see how this doesn't stick to the liberal brand for a very long time in the province of Quebec. Like, this is a big gamble. On that, I absolutely, on that I agree with you. But that to me testifies to how legitimate it is. Like, there is for sure a significant political risk to the liberals in the liberals doing this. Yeah. Because in Quebec, it is not going to be popular.

Whether it's the prez-Cubecois or the Quebec Liberal Party, they're not going to like it. And they're probably going to be interveners in the reference case. But it's just, you know, I should emphasize that, it's just a reference case. case. It's not an actual case. It's what governments in Canada are allowed to do, federally or provincially, go to the Supremes and say, hey, what do you think? How will you rule on this if it actually ever becomes a real case? And I think that's a prudent thing to do. Mr. Chapin, you're shaking your head a little bit there? Well, I mean, I just, I feel like it's a slippery slope we seem to be on in this country that we leave so much up to the Supreme Court.

I do think that there should be some guardrail that Parliament's still supreme. And I think taking that away, taking, you know, asking the Supreme Court to rule themselves whether they should essentially be the supreme body in this country, I think is dangerous. Yeah, I did not see this coming yesterday. So I haven't had a lot of time to think about it. You know, like, and I just don't know where it came from. I don't know what the genesis of it was. I don't know what the where the pressure was mounting on the government to do this so early,

in this parliamentary session when it was not on anybody's radar. And this is a good faith question. Where did this come from? And if, look, if this is the beginning of the slippery slope, as Chris just said, there's no way it's not going to be traced back to, you know, if one day there is an inability for a government to use the notwithstanding closet any way that they used to before, it'll be traced back to this letter, which is signed by the liberal government. And they're going to have to answer for it in Alberta and in Ontario.

and in Quebec, where it is used the most. But all right, so this is the beginning of this conversation. Clearly, we're going to come back to it because I still have more questions and we got answers. Let's talk about what has happened over the past few days with so many liberals of great experience, especially since 2015, jumping ship. There are either jumping ship or they're being thrown off the ship. We're talking about Christa Freeland, Jonathan Wilkinson, Bill Blair, and Stephen Gilbo,

all being moved out of either seats in the House of Commons or a position within the government to then take some positions in the diplomatic corps. And again, I don't expect to see this at the beginning of a parliamentary session. This is normally something that happens at the, when a government's long in the tooth. Am I wrong, Warren?

No, you're not wrong. And it's, you know, they're not just leaving government. They're getting some pretty soft landings. So you're getting a lot of people. And it's what, you know, all political parties always say, you know, we're not going to stick our partisans into the public service or into the diplomatic corps because, you know, we value those systems and, you know, it should be responsible, experienced people. Here we go, you know, Wilkinson and Giebeau and Blair, you know, getting soft landings and big

diplomatic postings abroad. So they're kind of doing what they said that they wouldn't do. do, so that's disappointing. Next question you've got to ask yourself is, are they the right people for those jobs? You know, Bill Blair, to me, is a bull in a China shop going back to the G20. So he's not somebody cut out for a diplomatic appointment. Wilkinson, same thing. All he did for the time he was ministered, is alienate the energy industry.

Gie Bo was even worse. The only one, I think, who would actually, you know, be a welcome appointment. at an important appointment at this time at the United Nations is David Lamedi, a very capable guy close to the prime minister and he has that kind of persona. He's got that kind of patience for the diplomatic world. So that one is okay. The rest of them, I think are duds. I just, I'm trying to figure out the sequence of events.

Did these guys run in the last election knowing this was going to happen? Are they being asked to leave because there are some young, some young, some, young liberals that they want to put in these safe seats that they can then bring into the government with some new fresh blood. Like, I don't know what's going on, Chris. I don't either. You know, I don't pretend to have a line of sight into the prime minister's office. I think some of them make sense to a certain extent.

I think there's something to be said about putting your, your mark, you know, in Prime Minister Mark Carney's case, I think finally putting it up a stand for. Actually, you know what, Chris, I apologize. I'm going to stick a pin in that. We're going to pick that up as soon as we get back. from the break. We've got much more with our panel. It's this week in politics, Chris Chapin and Warren Kinsella. We're going to talk about that as well as what to make of our prime ministers a trip to Mexico. So there's that and a lot more to come on the political panel right here

on the Ben Mulroney show. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show and welcome back to our good friends Chris Chapin and Warren Kinsella for our Friday edition of this week in politics. Chris, before the break, you were making a point, and I will allow you to make it now. No, I listened, Ben, we were just talking about, you know, the Mark Carney's appointments of these positions. And I think there's something to be said about him certainly putting his stamp on some of these appointments around the world. I completely agree with Warren. You know, the David Lemetti one makes a lot of sense.

Bill Blair being the ambassador in the High Commission in London is certainly a perplexing one. I think, and I mean, we might still get to the topic, but I think the more interesting one certainly was, as Christia Freelands, what I would call far less soft landing. And I think that's the more interesting thing that hasn't been talked about. Even though I think they've creatively and well-timed these appointments to put the more respected people in those offices, I think her appointment in Ukraine is far more perplexing. I just, it's the sheer number of people all leaving at the same time so quickly after an election. That's what I don't get.

I'm trying to square that circle because were these discussions happening prior to the election? if so, why did they run? Because now we've got four or five by-elections that we're going to have to gird for. So to me, there's just still a lot of questions. None of them bad. I just want to know the sequence of events. That's it.

All right. Let's move. Sorry, Chris, go on. No, I couldn't agree more. I think that there's certainly some very perplexing appointments. I mean, you think about, you know, somebody like Naderston Smith, who was convinced to run again. He clearly thought he was getting back in cabinet, for example,

example, and he was left out. So, I mean, there's been very, very bizarre decisions by the Carney liberals since they took office. Well, one thing that that has been consistent is our prime minister saying that we have to go out there and we've got to diversify our trade. And he's made some trips to Europe. And now he's gone south of the United States to our trading partner in Mexico to, you know, solidify the trade we have and expand the trade that we don't. What are your, what's your sense of how it's been going? And I'll start with you, Warren. You know, looking at Kearney and President Scheinblum, it feels like I'm watching two kids at lunchtime who've been picked on by a bigger kid.

They're trying to forge an alliance about how to ensure their lunch money doesn't get stolen anymore. So, you know, how durable are these alliances? Like in the case of Mexico, we know when Trump came back at us in yet another terrorist. wave a few weeks ago. Mexico was given a get out of jail free card and was given 90 days to negotiate further with the United States with no penalty. So, you know, that's the problem with these alliances, particularly in the Trump era. They're really not worth the paper they're printed on. You know, we have a USMCA with the United States of America and Mexico already. And Trump has violated it with his bogus claims of fentanyl or whatever. So,

Like, to me, it really comes down to not the deal, you know, not the piece of paper. It comes down to the leaders. Yeah. I regard Carney and Shinebloom as as more stable type leaders. So probably something will come out of it. Yeah. I guess we'll have to see what it is. But our level of trade with Mexico, as we all know, is nothing like what it is in the United States.

No. But Chris, like any option, like if it's a zero-sum game, if the trade that we're not doing with the states, we have to do elsewhere. And so if there is an opportunity to expand trade with Mexico, I think it's incumbent upon our Prime Minister to take that opportunity. I suppose, Ben, I think the challenge and Warren summed it up perfectly at the end there, I think our exports are something like 1%, maybe 2% of our total exports are to Mexico. We really do not do that much trade with them. And so I think it's a box.

I suppose Prime Minister Carney had to check. I thought it was very interesting when I saw the news, though, because I mean, if you look back to kind of the start of when things all really started to fall apart from a trade perspective with the United States, you know, the one person I think President Trump kind of stood in, I won't say in solidarity with, but was he thought was, you know, very strong on trade was Mexico and often used us as the counterbalance and said, you know, Canada's so bad with us on trade. And so I thought that was very interesting, a very interesting choice. It kind of felt like Carney was poking the bear a little. it. I thought they've done a decent job keeping the rhetoric very quiet on trade, whether that, whether you agree with it or not, I actually kind of do. I think, I think keeping the temperature low, keeping the noise low when it comes to the president's a good thing. But I, I felt like this was kind of poking, poking the president a little bit and saying, you know, we're going to, what is it? We're going to work around you. We're going to somehow have trade that, you know, are we just going to ship it down to Mexico and not drive it through the United States? Yeah. No,

it's good. It's a good point. I mean, and you never know how the, the, the, the, president is going to receive anything. He could, the most innocuous comment can be turned into an attack that he will use. Watch it, Jimmy Kimmel. All right. Okay. Warren, you told us, you're in British Columbia. You can look back there and you can see, you can see ships and boats and possibly

ferries, the BC ferry deal that, you know, it was a, it was a new story for a day that exploded into a, you know, a mini scandal when we found out that, what, was a billion-dollar loan was given to a Chinese company. I can't remember exactly what it was. But now our former transport minister, Christia Freeland, is going to be held to account for what happened. Talk to me about how you see it, Warren. Well, very quickly, Chris's point about Freeland's appointment, I totally agree with him. I don't understand why she accepted that. But anyway, she's not the ambassador. She's some kind of special envoy to Ukraine now. And she's gotten out in the line. of fire on this bc ferry story like i've lived in bc i can tell you like it's beautiful

problems one of the most beautiful place in the world and ferries are a big big deal here without a functioning ferry system this province grinds to a hall and so i understood uh david eby the premier's desire to get you know the ferries that he needed to keep his province running and he wanted to do the deal with uh canadian companies and apparently none of them bid they say that he set up up the terms of reference so that they couldn't bid. It's hard to know what the truth is, but the one thing we do know is what the federal government was saying publicly was not how they were dealing with the story privately. And, you know, they were facilitating a deal that Freeland had condemned. It's just a bad look. It's messy. It didn't need to be. But out here,

you know, I think probably people don't care. They just want to get the ferries and the ferry system running. So, so Chris, so by sending her off to Ukraine, she doesn't have to testify. Is that right? Oh, I don't think it's that, Ben, as much as I think, you know, into Warren's point about he's not sure why she took the position. I'm, I'm pretty confident. I'm starting to get a clearer picture on why she took it. I think it very well might have been a situation where they looked at her and how bad she bungled this file and said, you know, this might be the first person we give the boot out a cabinet to set an example. And so I think there was a very high likelihood that that very bizarre position she took, unlike these high

profile ones her colleagues were appointed to. I think this thing stinks to the high heavens. I mean, I get Warren's point completely that, you know, the importance of the fairies to the British Columbia, you know, economy. But that said, I think this deal, she's gone backwards. I mean, now these, you know, this new, you know, report basically has her lying to, to the legislature. We only have a short period of time left. So I want to get your take on where things stand in the United States with this Jimmy Kimmel thing. What are your thoughts? Was he censored? Did he step over a line? What are your high-level thoughts on what transpired in the States?

Warren, go first. Well, I'll go first. Yeah. You know, you guys are conservatives. I'm not. Like, I just, I thought conservatives believed in free speech. And like the Charlie Kirk's murder, his assassination was tragic and horrible. And, but what Jimmy Kimmel said, said, I didn't, you know, it was comedy. He's a comedian. Maybe it was a little tasteless, but they didn't, you know, they shouldn't have censored him. But that's what the concern. So he,

he lied on the public airwaves. Like, that's to me the biggest. How did he lie? He said, he said, in the setup to his joke, he said that the MAGA crowd is going to be working over time to just to lie to you and tell you. To take advantage of his, his death. No, no, no. No, no. No, no, no, that's what he said. He said, they want to, they're going to lie to you and tell you that the shooter wasn't one of their own. That was the setup to the joke. The jokes themselves, I actually laughed at the joke. Okay, so he deserves to be fired for that?

No, I, no. He deserves to be taken off the air for that? No, I didn't even, I didn't say that. I said, what I said is, is I personally find lying on the airwaves like that, the public airwaves should have consequences. I don't know what those consequences are. Well, I don't think it's a lie unless somebody can prove that he deliberately and willfully set out to tell a lie. Maybe it's just a mistake, but either way, like over on Fox, there's a guy saying

let's go shoot the homeless. I know. That SOB still got his job. Correct. So like, I'm sorry, but the conservative established in the United States used to believe in free speech, they don't anymore. I'm not going to listen to conservatives talking to me about free speech anymore because it's all BS. I didn't even have a chance to talk there, Warren, and neither did Chris, sadly. We didn't say anything. But anyway, thank you both for being here. We'll talk to you soon. I dare you to pay attention. I dare you to speak up. I dare you to try something new.

I dare you to challenge what you think you know. I dare you to think differently. I dare you to show up. Paul and Blurview dares to shape the future of disability healthcare for kids. Together, we dare. Donate today at togetherweedare.