The Ben Mulroney Show - The political panel plus Andrew Scheer on "the most important budget in Cdn history"

Episode Date: November 3, 2025

 GUEST:   Andrew Scheer/Opposition House Leader Guest: Max Fawcett, Lead Columnist for Canada's National Observer  Guest: Dimitri  Soudas, Former Director of Communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper 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. Is this really the best use of my time? Can my clients quick tax questions ever be quick? Is this really the best use of my time? Well, busy season always end in Barnhouse. Is this really the best use of my time? Do I have to turn down partner to spend enough time with my kids? With Blue Jay, you'll have more time to do what's important to you by completing hours of tax research in seconds. Get better answers to tough questions. BlueJ. A.I. for tax experts.

Hi, this is Ron McLean. If you want to make a positive impact on our community's most vulnerable, there's an event made to order. The Salvation Army's Hope in the City Leadership Luncheon. Join me December 2nd at One King West Hotel in Toronto to learn how the Salvation Army supports struggling Ontarians through programs which inflame hearts and illuminate minds. Sponsorship opportunities and tables are available.

For more details, visit hope in the city, Toronto.ca.ca. That's hope in the city, Toronto.ca. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroy. Michaud, thank you so much for joining us. Tomorrow's going to be a wild and wacky day. It's going to be weird, wild, and wacky. We've got the federal budget coming out. And tomorrow is the New York City election where it looks like New Yorkers are just

want to touch that stove. They want to touch that stove and get burnt. They can help themselves, but they are enthralled by the Democratic Socialist, who is Zoran Mamdani, and they want their state-run grocery stores. and free buses. So we'll have to see how that goes down, but we'll be covering all of that for you. Meanwhile, though, with this budget, how's it going to go? There are so many people out there with different scenarios in their heads that this budget that looks like it's going to contain a massive, massive deficit may cause the conservatives to vote against it. I don't

know, but I do know somebody who might know. Please welcome to the show, opposition house leader. Andrew Shear, welcome to the show, sir. Good morning. So at this point, we know that Pierre and Mark, Pierre Pallievin, Mark Carney, have both met. They've talked about this in the anticipation of the budget. But what does the Conservative Party know about the budget at this point? Well, all we know is what we're getting from some messages coming out of the government and some of the analysis that the parliamentary budget officer has given us.

So it looks like Mark Carney's going to run an even costlier budget than Justin Trudeau. That deficit number is going to be bigger than even what Justin Trudeau predicted. And also bigger than what Mark Carney promised Canadians when he was running in the election campaign. He had a budget platform that indicated the deficit would be about $42 billion. It looks like it's going to come in higher than that. Could be 50, could be 55. We're not sure, but it's definitely going to be bigger. And that matters.

You know, every time the government has to borrow money, it means they have to raise taxes either directly or through inflation. And they pay back that debt with interest. And you, the taxpayer, your listeners, a lot of your tax dollars now goes to the interest on that debt. Oh, every single penny from the GST, every penny. Exactly. The governor of Canada Nail spends more on interest on the debt than it does on health care. So imagine our entire health care system from coast to coast, you know, you could double the spending on health care if you didn't have to pay the interest on the debt. And the Carney liberals are going to drive that cost up even more. So Canadians are going to be paying for this budget for generations to come, really. Okay. So it's a defining budget for this government. We're finally going to really get a sense. They always say if you want to,

to know what a government believes in, look at their budget. And so this is a defining, a defining budget for them. But it felt to me, Andrew Scheer, after the election, that felt like Canadians really wanted this parliament to work. But there is a chance. There is a chance that enough people will vote against it, that the government would fall. Are those political considerations, the fact that if there is an election, somebody's going to look to somebody to blame?

for why we're going back to the polls? Are those considerations considered, even though a budget shouldn't necessarily be viewed from an electoral perspective? Well, we will definitely look through the budget through a principled lens. You know, is this good for Canada on the whole? Is it, you know, are things going to get better

or going to get worse than when Justin Trude was in government? And we are going to do that objectively, and we're going to, you know, look at it in good faith. Yeah. The frustrating thing is, you know, in minority parliaments, it does fall to the government to try to build that consensus. Well, that, you know what? And thank you for bringing that up because you have worked in a number of minority

governments before, and you've also been in opposition for minority governments. So it feels to me like the media has changed the rules of the game here, where they are putting the onus on the opposition parties to make it work with the government and not the other way around. Am I wrong in reading it that way? Well, there are definitely some in the parliamentary press gallery that like to cover for the government of the liberals. And yes, you're exactly right.

Say, well, you know, it's up to the opposition to pass the budget. As you just pointed out, you know, both in government and in opposition, I've been in several minority parliaments, and it has usually been the case that the burden is placed on the government. You know, what will you offer one of the opposition parties in order to secure their votes? That doesn't look like it's happening at this point. It looks like Mark Carney's going to come in and present a set of complete, you know, with very little back and forth. Yeah. So, you know, what we're going to be doing over the next few days is highlighting what all this will cost Canadians.

Because we know that every dollar that the government spends comes off of people's paychecks. Inflation is always caused by governments who flood the economy with brand new cash, you know, created out of thin air. We're going to be watching that very closely. I've got one to ask another question for you. By the way, I'm in conversation with Andrews here, the opposition House Leader for the Conservatives. We're talking about the upcoming budget. A procedure is always boring. but in this case, it's actually quite important.

For those of our listeners who don't understand, explain what happens when a government will tables a bill like this. Do opposition parties have the opportunity to propose amendments that could then perhaps allow both sides to put water in their wine? Well, it's, boy, there's a lot there. And by the way, procedures never boring to a former speaker. I might be in a small audience on that one. There's a number of different ways.

First, the House will debate a motion on the budget itself. And we absolutely have an opportunity to amend that motion to kind of put in key things that we believe are important. So, for example, we are calling on the government to lift the taxes on food, everything from the fuel services, sorry, the fuel standard, the industrial carbon tax, the packaging, regulation, all of those liberal policies drive up the cost of food. So we're going to be using our time in the House this week to be making the case. Let's help bring grocery prices down by eliminating those kinds of acts. So that's the type of thing we could put into an amendment. Then there will be legislation called the Budget Implementation Act. And then that's a far more comprehensive bill with lots of opportunities to make amendments and to try to change things

or insert things. So there's kind of two rounds of this. One will be the motion It helps this week, and then sometime later on in the fall, the actual legislation that attacks that. So it's entirely possible that what we see tomorrow may get the complete repudiation of the Conservative Caucus. But if everybody wants to make it work, there could be a pathway to tweaking it in ways that, you know, you might hold your nose and vote for it, but you may vote for it. Is that possible, plausible? Well, it is a possibility. There have been times, if you look at the Paul Martin government where they kind of had a significant rewrite with the NDP after they tabled their initial budget, it really will depend on Mark Carney.

Is he going to respect the mandate that Canadians gave this parliament, which is a minority one, which is a significant opposition where our party has the largest opposition in Canadian history? Does he want to work with us? Does he want to work with one of the other parties? You know, it really will fall to him. One thing I will say, though, is after this budget, if Mark Carney is successful in passing this budget, he's out of excuses.

This will now be Mark Carney's Canada. Every regulation, every tax rate will be as Mark Carney will want it. So after next week, he has no more excuses. If the cost of living keeps rising, if inflation keeps rising, if there are job losses, you know, these tragic job losses in the auto sector and lumber, If they continue, it will be a direct result of Mark Carney's policies. Oh, yeah. Well, there's news out of Lindsay, Ontario today that a furniture maker just shut down.

130 jobs lost because the parent company in Utah decided that it makes more sense to bring those jobs south of the border. So the hits just keep on coming. And it's a sad day for the people of that town. I think they've about 22,000 people there. So, yeah, this is another. another one of those stories. We hope to have you back on, Andrew Shear, to talk to us after perhaps

you've had a chance to read the budget. We'd love to get the lay of the land as you see it from the opposition ranks. Thank you very much for joining us today. Thank you for everything on. Yeah, so it's a wait and see. Listen, it's not yet. It's not going to be a vote up or down on day one.

And what people say as soon as they read it could indicate how they would vote or there could be some procedures that would allow a meeting, not in the middle, right, but enough, giving enough to those opposition parties to rewrite certain parts that perhaps, perhaps that this government will still stand. I still think that the NDP are going to vote for regardless because they are not ready for an election. Okay, don't go anywhere when we come back. Dmitri Soutis and Max Fawcett,

the winningest team on our show. Join us for this week in politics. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show and welcome to Dmitri Soutis and Max Fawcett joining us for our inaugural Monday. It's not inaugural, but the first this week in politics of the week. Guys, welcome to the show. It's the inaugural of November. It's the inaugural of November. Exactly. And look, in both Alberta and in Quebec, there are two major new mayors that I thought, because I got one in each province of you, let's talk about these new mayors.

and Demetri, we'll start with you. Tell us who Soraya Martinez Farada is. So she is a former federal cabinet minister, federal liberal cabinet minister, who took over a party that had been basically locked out of power for the last eight years. Valerie Plont, the current mayor of Montreal, who announced she will not be running for a third mandate. She had defeated Danique Coder, again, former federal liberal cabinet minister. this new mayor now signals a shift a shift from the former mayor who was obsessed with bike paths so she seems to be running more any more pro-business agenda we'll see where that takes her

the only thing I'll note is she is the first ever mayor of Montreal who is not of francophone or anglophone descent she's actually a daughter of immigrants who only learned French after she arrived in Quebec. So it's quite historical. So she's not Quebecoise de Souch? Well, it depends how you define the Sush, or if you ask certain people, but she definitely doesn't,

she's not, her ancestry is not Samuel de Champlain, that's for sure. Purlaine. That's right. Okay. That's right. All right. Well, listen, listen,

the fact that she's, I think her tagline was listen and act. I like that. Listening is always good, and then action is good. And if some of that action involves, well, she's going to listen to an audit of the Bible.

the bike lane network to see if it's been run effectively and optimally for the city and then she's going to act. So I wish her the very best. All right, let's turn our regard to Calgary because Jeremy Farkas, shake my head, he was born in 1986. He's a baby. What do we know about Jeremy Farkis, Max? Farkis is a really interesting character. You know, he cut his teeth on council here in calgary as a sort of quintessentially conservative uh you know small small government low taxes no waste you know he refused to take the pension that was offered to him um you know he came up in the manning foundation uh stream and ran for mayor the last time and kind of got his butt kicked and had a bit of a uh you know a conversion on the road to damascus i guess where he realized

maybe he wasn't doing the right kind of politics and you know found that a lot of his conservative supporters had actually kind of abandoned him so he he moved into the middle a little bit he has this nickname now jeremy pathfinder farcus because he loves to climb mountains and you know search for paths but i you know i found his his uh his change really inspiring in the sense that you know and i don't i don't care if it's right to center left to center left to right just the fact that people can change is I think an important thing to hold on to in politics

and he is going to be much more of a conservative mayor he's going to focus on picking up the garbage he's going to focus on keeping taxes low but he is not the kind of right wing firebrand that he was the last time around well he was I mean listen he was very very young

in 19 four years ago I can't do the math but he was 35 35 years old that's that's young in political, in political terms. And I think on this show, we are going to try, correct me if I'm wrong, we're going to try to get both these mayors on the show. I would love to get their visions for their cities as well as the broader vision for Canada.

Okay, speaking of a broader vision for Canada, it looks like, you know, we're going to learn a lot more about what the priorities of this Mark Carney government are when we finally see this first and all important budget. What do you think we're going to hear, we're going to. learn about what this government values because I always say if you want to know what a government matters to a government take a look at their budget. Dimitri, what do you think this budget's going to signal? I think this budget will signal the 1995 Paul Martin budget and the 2009 Jim Flaherty budget. So 1995 deep cuts austerity. So public service is currently obviously very

nervous about tens of thousands of jobs that will not be renewed because one of the efforts that this government has stated wants to do is to drastically reduce the size of the public service that has exploded over the last decade. On the other hand, they are going to be drastically increasing the deficit, the numbers that are floating around, which is a wide gap anywhere between a $60 to $100 billion deficit. So on one hand, they will be spending like drunken sailors. And on the other hand, they will be acting like Scrooge McDuck. The big question is, are the opposition parties going to let this budget pass?

Well, let's throw it over to Max. Max, how do you read the tea leaves? I think it's fair to describe this as the most important budget in Canadian history because it will determine so much of where we go in response to the Trump threat. You know, in 1995 or the mid-90s budgets of the liberal government were responding to a crisis but it was very much about cutting you know it it was about we knew what we had to do it and was simply finding the willpower to do it we don't really know which direction we're going to go in this budget and and i think that's what makes it so interesting you know are we going to be making

major investments in defense spending in resource development in you know critical minerals where is the money going to go and how is it going to help us decouple from the united states as as Mark Carney has said, you know, many, many times, including recently in Asia. You know, how are we going to build these new trade relationships that our economy is is going to live or die on over the next 20 to 30 years? So I hope everyone treats it as seriously as it deserves to be treated. I think the government will survive. Yeah.

But I think we're going to be talking about this for the next few months. And, Dimitri, is there a conservative case to be made for supporting a budget, even with these big deficits, given the fact that, A lot of the promised spending that Mark Carney made, which is going to absolutely add to it, is for defense. It's for our veterans. It's for all of those things that we all agree we need. Is there no case to be made? Like, look, yes, we were promised smaller deficits.

But given the fact that these commitments are what we all want, and especially what conservatives want, could one make the argument that, yeah, you might hold your nose when you vote for it, but it's better than nothing for the military? So I don't anticipate conservatives will vote for the budget. I anticipate certain conservatives will abstain from opposing the budget. So to your question, Ben, the short answer is yes. A common sense response to the budget would be we just had an election six months ago. The challenge for Pierre Paulyev is the following.

On one hand, he's been accusing Mark Carney of being way worse than Justin Trudeau. And number two, a relatively important element of the conservative base wants the liberals out yesterday. So my question is then going to be, how will they react if conservatives all of a sudden, or at least some conservatives all of a sudden, sit on their hands and allow a budget tabled by a prime minister who is worse than Justin Trudeau to pass? because the other reality is when you Oh, I think we just lost we just lost him and we so

oh there he's back okay there we are and the only opposition party that's right now is willing to trigger an election is the block Ibekwa the NDP is slowly backtracking

talking about abstentions and I suspect that's where the conservatives may land unless they have a deal with the NDP where the NDP once again takes the fall for allowing a liberal budget to pass and Max look

if that if that were to come true if all of a sudden the base gets upset, then we all know what happens because the conservative party, in my opinion, is not necessarily, it's a party legally, but it's a coming together of factions. And what happens when one faction is not happy,

they take their toys and they go home. And it happens way too often. It's the tale of two completely different cultures. The liberals can hate each other and work together to get reelected. Conservatives don't play nice with each other certainly in the worst of times. And this could be one of those scenarios.

that's the pressure that Polly is under is, you know, if he wants to appeal to the sort of voters, he needs to win the next election, you know, sort of blue liberals in Toronto, blue liberals in Ontario, where have you, he, he would do well to find a way to maybe not support the budget, but find ways to agree with parts of it. You know what, we're going to do me fair. Hold on to that point. I want to absolutely have you pick up when we come back from the break. And then we're going to talk about all sorts of stuff, including should the government use the notwithstanding clause because child porn. Monsters deserve to spend a heck of a lot more time in jail. Check out the big stars, big series, and blockbuster movies. Streaming on Paramount Plus. Cue the music. Like NCIS, Tony and Ziva. We'd like to make up your own rules.

Tulsa King. We want to take out the competition. The substance. This balance is not true. Working. And the naked gun. That was awesome. Now that's a mountain of entertainment.

Paramount. You know what's better than the one big thing? Two big things. Exactly. The new iPhone 17 Pro on TELUS's five-year rate plan price lock. Yep, it's the most powerful iPhone ever, plus more peace of mind with your bill over five years. This is big. Get the new iPhone 17 Pro at TELUS.com.

slash iPhone 17 Pro on select plans. Conditions and exclusions apply. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show. Thank you so much for sticking with us. Max Fawcett. I'm going to give the mic back to you. You're in the process of talking about the needle that Pierre Pollyev has to thread. Yeah, it's a tough one because in the next election, whenever it comes, he needs to win over those blue liberal voters who see a lot of good

in what Carney is talking about and what will likely be in the budget. But if he says nice things about that or if he supports the budget or doesn't oppose it vociferously, he upsets the base, mostly here on the prairies, who he has to face in a leadership review in January. And so he has to walk these very, very difficult paths to get past January. And so I think, you know, I think Demetri's point about maybe them agreeing with the NDP to find a way to get this through without looking like they're supporting it is the most likely outcome. But that pressure is not going to go away, even after the leadership

review in January. He still has that tension between the base and the voters he actually needs to win next time. All right. Well, a path that should not be hard to walk is the path leading directly to the notwithstanding clause and using it against what a lot of people feel is a morally repugnant and indefensible decision by the Supreme Court that said a minimum mandatory sentence of, what, a year for somebody in possession of the most vile child pornography is unconstitutional. Like to me, this is a gimmy. This is a layup. And, but I don't, it's a layup for someone like me. I don't know it's necessarily a layup for people who've made it their cause in life to constantly marginalize anybody talking about the use of the notwithstanding

clause. Dmitri, what, what should the government do here? So the government also has the option to draft legislation that imposes mandatory minimum jail sentences for those who are found guilty on child pornography. And note in that legislation that that ridiculous hypothetical situation of an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old or a 19-year-old and an 18-year-old exchanging pictures that that would not apply, obviously. But so there's good news that the Supreme Court was not unanimous. It was five Supreme Court judges versus four who believed that mandatory prison sentences for those who are found guilty, full child pornography. So the other option is to use the non-withstanding clause. But I think the path of least resistance is to rewrite the legislation. Fair enough.

But Max, listen, I'll be honest, as a kid and growing up, I didn't spend as much time focused on, you know, these sorts of issues. When I would read the news, I gravitate to whatever was important to me at the time. That being said, it feels like more and more we have these conversations about the use of the notwithstanding clause. And I guess either politicians have become more brazen in their willingness to use it, or we do have an issue with a disconnect between our, sort of our, the, the laws that we have on the books and the judges who then interpret them. Like there's, or it could be a combination of the two. How do you see it? Yeah, I think it's a bit of column A, bit of column B. You know, this decision, you know, Demetri makes, I think, a very

good point that the way forward is the legislation. You know, I've read sort of legal interpretations of the decision and I suppose they make sense, but it feels very academic on an issue that is not academic for a lot of people and that is that is the moment where the notwithstanding clause needs to be in vote that's what's what's for is to give democratically elected legislatures the ability to override bad decisions by courts and ultimately those legislatures will be held accountable in the court of public opinion you know that that is the compromise that we struck with our constitution i think it's a pretty good one the problem is when you get politicians using it for situations where that is not the case.

And I think here in Alberta, where they used it preemptively to legislate teachers back to work who were striking and basically took away their right to strike. That is not a good use of the notwithstanding clause. And I think- But hold on. Max, let me just bounce something off you. It's not even playing devil's advocate. But you just said before that that they'll use the notwithstanding clause and then it'll be

up to voters to determine whether they liked it. Wouldn't that same dynamic be at play for Danielle Smith? And if people have a problem with her use of the notwith Stanley Claus in the next election, well, that's hers to own. Yeah, I think that's fair. And I think, you know, that is certainly a possibility. But there is just, I think, a risk of overusing it to the point where it loses its importance. And it's importance in terms of signaling that something was wrong and something needs to be fixed.

If it just becomes another tool in the government, in the arsenal of a majority government, then we really are looking at a situation where the rights of minorities, the rights of smaller groups may be infringed upon unnecessarily. And I don't think that's a road we want to go down. But the road that we're on, yeah, go ahead, Demetri. Well, I would say the flip side of the coin on the notwithstanding clause is, for me, it's as simple as saying that those who are ultimately supreme, are those who are elected. Those are the ones who are ultimately accountable. So remember, Doug Ford used the notwithstanding clause

or tried to use the non-withstanding clause during the teachers' negotiations. And there was heavy pushback and he backed away from it. The challenge is that once a court rules something, be it the Supreme Court of Canada in this case, regardless of public opinion, there is no recourse. And I'll just take you back in my native province of Quebec in the 1970s and 1980s.

the Quebec government, because it did not sign the Constitution back in 82, it actually put in place the notwithstanding clause in every single piece of legislation. I think that what is ultimately important to decide as a society, and the nonwithstanding clause is not some tool that exists in some locked box somewhere. It's in the constitution of this country. It was actually the main reason that provinces ratified the repatriation of the Constitution back in the 1980s. they ultimately wanted to ensure that it is elected officials, not the courts, who have the final say. And that's the issue. Again, I'm not, I don't pretend to be an expert on it, but I have been paying attention in recent history.

And it feels like the road that we're on is one of constant charter challenges to the authority of the legislatures, be they provincial or federal. I can't remember a time where there was this moment. much pushback at a charter level for seemingly simple things like in the province of Ontario, bike lanes. Apparently cyclists have a charter right to feel safe on the roads and everybody does, but taking away a bike lane doesn't necessarily signal that you're taking away a charter right. It feels to me like we're almost in the theater of the absurd and we need some sort of level check and level set. Well, I think I think the decision in Ontario on bike lanes was actually explicit in saying that they were not interpreting it as a as a charter right to have access to bike lanes.

So I think some folks have drawn a correlation there that doesn't exist, but I take your point. I think there is tension and friction between a court that wants to expand rights for as many people as possible and legislatures that perhaps would prefer that that not happen because it interferes with their ability to legislate. to legislate. And I think that tension is healthy. I think it's, you know, that is, that is what we are supposed to do in a democratic society. We are supposed to test limits, establish limits, and manage limits. And, you know, this conversation is fascinating to me as someone who, you know, who is a big fan of our Constitution. And I think, I think we will get through this in a way that is productive in the end. But, you know, I don't think the just the simple existence of charter cases

or rulings that establish new rights or new interpretations of rights is a bad thing. I think if you look back in history, it's actually a pretty good thing. The last word on. The ultimate point, though. The ultimate point is the decision we must make individually is who do we want to have the final say, those we elected or those that were appointed by the elected. And I'm of the school that final say should be those. who are ultimately accountable to people

every time there's an election. So parliament should be supreme, not courts. Dmitri Soutis, Max Fawcett, always great to start the week with the both of you. I hope you have a great one. Thank you. And that is it for our show. Gosh, you know, when we end with the guys like that,

it's always supercharged to me for the rest of the day. Canada's oil sands produce the energy the world needs, but it's the benefits that flow to all parts of our country, like hundreds of thousands of jobs in oil and gas and along the supply chain, and revenue to invest in roads, bridges, our national defense, and more. You see, we're building more than a strong oil sands sector. We're helping to build a stronger Canada. We're Pathways Alliance, six of Canada's largest oil sands company,

working together to help grow Canada's economy. Learn more at Pathwaysalliance.ca.