The Ben Mulroney Show - This week in Politics -- Monday edition

Episode Date: June 23, 2025

Guest:  Michael Burns - Executive Chair Canada’s Valour Games Guest: Max Fawcett, Lead Columnist for Canada's National Observer Guest: Dimitris 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 Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. And after a very busy week, a very busy weekend rather, of news building up, it's time to end the show in style with our This Week in Politics panel, the Monday edition. Please welcome Dimitri Soutis, former director of communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Max Fosset, the lead columnist for Canada's National Observer, and for the very first time, but somebody I've known for over 20 years,

Michael Burns, executive chair of Canada's Valor Games, to all three of you. I say happy Monday and welcome. Happy Monday. Morning. All right, Michael, I'm gonna start with you because you're new to the panel and I wanna get you on record first. You know, people like myself, who might find myself on the opposing political side of our

government, I feel it's incumbent upon me to be skeptical when they take positions on foreign policy. I don't think the previous government necessarily got it right all the time. But I read Mark Carney's tweet following the military campaign by the United States against the Iranian nuclear threat. And I really like what I heard from Mark Carney. He started very strong. He said Iran's nuclear program is a grave threat to international security.

Canada has been consistently clear that Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. And then he goes into looking for de-escalation and negotiation. Look, it's not the position that Pierre Poliev took, which I thought was very much in line with me, but I like this. I like this. How do you see it? Yeah, well, first of all, great to be with you, Ben.

Look, I think the prime minister made it very clear even before he tweeted out his response that he didn't want to see Iran with a nuclear bomb. And what impressed me was how quickly Carney responded after the strike. He came out right away and basically said everyone needs to cool it and get back to the table. I think Carney is trying to remind the world that Canada can still play a role, perhaps not a power broker, but kind of a pressure valve.

And it's going to now wait, listen, is it going to change the outcome? Probably not. But the fact is, he said something quickly, clearly. And I think it says a lot about the kind of leader he wants to be seen as, which is measured, steady and diplomatic. Max, in this case, what I think I see is a prime minister who, like me, takes the world as it is, not as he wants it to be, and the world as it is,

is the United States did what it did. And after that fact, he said something that I think aligns very closely with the post-bombing goals of the United States, which is nobody wants us to escalate beyond what we just witnessed. Everybody wants Iran to cool their jets and negotiate. How do you see it? Yeah, you can definitely see the distinction

between Mark Carney's approach here to foreign policy and the previous sort of liberal approach. It is much more of a real politic way of handling it. Like you said, he's sort of playing the cards as they are on the table. I think he is aware of the fact that we are passengers on this ride, whether we like it or not, and the captain is paying attention to what the passengers are saying, and he needs to be seen to be, if not on board, at least not off board. I also think, though, that he is cognizant of the fact that we don't know where this is gonna go.

Senior officials in the Trump administration all said up and down, this is not about regime change. Hexas said that, Marco Rubio said that. And then Trump came out, I think this morning and said, it is about regime change. If the regime won't make Iran great again, he said, Miga, then maybe it is time for regime change. So I think Carney is wise to kind of keep as much of his powder dry here as possible because

we just don't know where this is going to go. And Demetri, you know, there are a lot of people who are attacking this decision by the U.S. administration because they're worried that Iran, the next iteration of Iran could be worse than the present iteration of Iran. And my sense, without being an expert in the area, is the threat of a villainous, murderous regime like Iran that currently exists is worse than a potential threat that might exist in the future? Well, I'd go a bit further.

I'd say we're not even passengers in this journey. We're more like spectators watching from a distance. It's funny because when Hillary Clinton said one of the things she'd do if she became president was going to be to bomb Iran. Everybody applauded. I think it has a lot to do with who is doing it, being Donald Trump. Barack Obama, when he was president, although he redrew the red line over and over and over

again with Syria, said exactly the same thing. The challenge with Iran is, unlike the situation in Gaza where you have pro-Palestine, pro-Hamas supporters protesting on the street against the Western world, in this case the Iranian community, the Persian community here in Canada and the United States is actually protesting in favor of regime change. Iran is the editor of funding for terrorist organizations like ISBALA. Iran being allowed to develop literally a nuclear bomb, where objective and number one is to wipe Israel off the map, it is quite possible that time has come to focus on it.

Let's be clear. If you're a woman in Iran and you wear a bikini, you'll be stoned. Yeah. Oh yeah. Listen, I take that. Max, I want to say something that I think might be deliberately provocative to you, and I want you to comment on this, on this by making this up on the fly. If you believe that there is a right,

every tool has a job for that, the right tool for the right job. Consider this, that we are in this one case of the United States or the West versus Iran, it is such a stark contrast between sort of the, you know the Western values and a nation that is so, seems so gleefully intent on wearing the black hat of the villain,

that in this one very specific case, having somebody who thinks very simply about the world, like Donald Trump in power, made this decision very easy for him. And in my estimation estimation the right decision. He was the right guy to be in charge of this situation. What do you think? I don't necessarily disagree.

I think maybe the simplicity of his approach to things made it easier for him to make the decision. The problem is what comes after the decision, right? Because there are now hundreds of other decisions that are going to follow from this. If Iran retaliates, how do the Americans, right? Because there are now hundreds of other decisions that are gonna follow from this. If Iran retaliates, how do the Americans retaliate? Do they wanna get further involved in the region? There's just so many other big decisions yet to come that have to be made not just by Trump,

but by Pete Haixeth, by Marco Rubio, by JD Vance. And I think it is reasonable to have a lot of skepticism about their ability to make those decisions correctly. And that's where is reasonable to have a lot of skepticism about their ability to make those decisions correctly. And that's where the fallout comes. I think we look back to Iraq, the initial invasion went swimmingly. George Bush unfurled that mission accomplished better. It was everything that happened after that where things really went sideways. And I think that is the risk here that is still yet to be seen. Mike, do you see it that way?

I don't know that the situations in Iraq are analogous to Iran, but there I'm sure are parallels in about 30 seconds. How do you see that? Yeah, look, look, we don't know what we don't know. And it is I listen, I agree with what's been said. I think the president did the right thing over the weekend. The question will be what is next. And look, Iran has a chip

in the game and they're going to play it. They're going to decide right now whether or not this escalates. And we're going to have to wait and see what the response is going to be over the next coming days and weeks. And Dimitri, the last word to you. And when I say last word, I mean like 15, 20 seconds. And seconds escalation can also mean bad news here at home, both in Canada and the United States, because one of the challenges we have is sleeper cells, sleeper cells of pro-Iranian regime supporters that needed to do that. That's right.

All right, well, listen, we're going to take a break. Don't go anywhere, guys. When we come back, we're going to talk about the life of a stalwart, someone who has been omnipresent in Canadian politics, the passing of John McCallum. Don't go anywhere, guys. When we come back, we're going to talk about the life of a stalwart, someone who has been omnipresent in Canadian politics, the passing of John McAllen. Don't go anywhere. This is the Ben Mulroney Show. The Ben Mulroney Show marches on and I am joined on this march by three incredible guests for this week in politics, Michael Burns, Max Fawcett, and Dimitris Soudis. Mike, this is your first time on the show. Tell me about Canada's Valor Games. Yeah, we're excited. We think that there's an opportunity and appetite

to expand on Canada having hosted now two Invictus Games, one in 2017 here in Toronto, and more recently in Vancouver, Whistler, which happened in February. Really the idea is to expand the opportunities for our ill and injured veterans, military service members, as well as their families to participate in these games that are going to give more veterans an opportunity

to use Adaptive Sport as part of their healing and recovery when they, after they've left the service. That's a, It's a wonderfully noble, and I think probably very meaningful initiative. And I wish you the best with that. We'll talk about that again later. I remember in the early days of the Trudeau government, I knew somebody who had met with a number of the people on the team. And I said, how was it? And he said, they couldn't be nicer. All these new ministers are excited to be there. They don't have a clue what they're doing. And I think on a lot of files that manifested.

However, that person no doubt was not speaking about John McCallum, former Liberal cabinet minister who sadly passed away on the weekend. And Mike, I'm going to stick with you real quick because you've been so staunch in your work with veterans and with the military. He held both of those files. Here was a man who was an ambassador. He was a minister for three different prime ministers.

He was an economist. I mean, this was a guy with a depth of knowledge. Did you ever have any interactions with him? Yeah. I had the chance to meet John early in my career when he was still the chief economist at RBC. And my impressions of him were that he ever have any interactions with him? Yeah, I had the chance to meet John early in my career when he was still the chief economist at RBC. And my impressions then were that this guy

was really decent down to earth, very engaging. And like you said, there's no doubt that he had an incredible career that touched almost everything from academia to the private sector and government. And I think more than anything, you know, this was not a flashy guy, super smart. And, you know, a lot of people arrive in Ottawa and don't know what to do. This guy got stuff done. And, you know, at a time when politics can feel more like

performative art, he really stood out. And look, I think he's exactly the kind of Canadian that we need more of on Parliament Hill and our legislatures across the country. Max Fossett. So this was a man who was more stake than sizzle. Yeah, I mean, I couldn't agree more with that description of him, that we need more people like that in public life right now.

In a lot of ways, he represented the best of what the Liberal Party was and is and can be, which is he was a business, very strong business mind, chief economist at RBC, but he had a deep interest in social issues, in justice. He was early on the same-sex marriage issue. He was sort of saying, if people want to do this, why would we ever stand in their way? And that was when there was large parts of the liberal party that didn't support that. He wanted to make Nelson Mandela an honorary citizen.

He just had the right instincts. And yeah, he wasn't flashy. He didn't light up social media. I can't imagine him being a big Instagrammer. No, but the Liberal Party would be wise to find as many John McCallums as possible, as would every party. Demetri, if my timelines line up,

you were on the opposing side while he was sitting in the House of Commons. What were your interactions with the late McCallum? I met Mr. McCallum, was actually during the 2004 election campaign. Our campaign had decided to main street through Markham. And here comes John McCallum to intercept then opposition leader Stephen Harper in order to create a

distraction, give him some letter. I got to know John quite well after we formed government and after we both left politics. He went on to be an ambassador. Listen, a distinguished public service career. And I would note, one of his major policy contributions was as Defense Minister 2002-2003, where he actually oversaw the largest defense budget increase in over a decade. So that's a big job. It's easy to be Defense Minister when you're not doing anything, whether it's his academic and economic leadership, diplomatic service, at the core of everything. And I think the two gentlemen kind of echo that he was a simple person who got things done. And I can tell

you across all parties, everybody like John McCallum. Well, on behalf of everyone here at the Ben Mulroney show to his friends and his family and his colleagues, we hope that his memories are an inspiration as you move forward and you deal with your grief. We're very sorry for his passing. But let's now move to the here and now and the Strong Borders Act, Bill C-2. This is, it's fiercely contentious. There are people on the personal privacy side,

the upholders of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, who say that this is a bridge too far. It's gonna give the government way too many powers. Some say those powers already exist in other laws. Max, we'll start with you. Strong Borders Act, is it too much or is it what is needed right now? That's the test.

I mean, I think in this moment, politics is all about balancing competing interests. And we are in a moment where we clearly have security threats. We clearly have some border issues, certainly not as many as the president likes to say. It's important to be seen to be doing this. I think it's also important to be to be giving law enforcement tools that it needs in this sort of digital online era. And look, I think it needs to be tested for scrutiny, accordance with the charter. But someone said, this is basically giving police the same tools they had back in the day with a phone book

in terms of the information they're getting. So it is not the grab, but the power grab that some folks might wanna say it is. I think a lot of us are just, I think rightly apprehensive, Mike, that we've seen, if you believe what Pierre Polio said for years, that the liberal party under Justin Trudeau

was not about being liberal, it was about control, as much control as that party or that government could have, if you believe in that, then you look at something like this skeptically and say, is this necessary or is this trying to deal with a fly with a bazooka? Yeah, look, I think this is part of a bigger shift. I think Prime Minister Carney and his government

are really starting to take security a lot more serious, not just abroad, but here at home. We've been pretty relaxed about our borders and military footprint in the past, but I think we're now realizing that we can't assume everything stays stable forever. That's a significant mind shift, and in my view, it's overdue. Demetri, is this, you know, the Conservative Party said

that in this new parliament, they would support the liberals on issues where they thought there was enough alignment. Is there alignment here between conservative values and this liberal bill? Except for one. And one key conservative value is freedom. And I will say that there should be some concerns raised where law enforcement and CSIS are able to obtain information without a warrant. I totally understand and support the principle and the objectives of the bill, whether you want to enhance law enforcement powers, the importance of combating transnational crime, immigration and asylum reform. So the bill currently is at second reading. There is more work that needs to be done because yes, there is the component where national

security and giving the tools to police officers to do their job is important, but it's important to balance civil liberties as well. Yeah. And listen, I like the idea of taking more seriously, as Mike said, taking more seriously those things that we have perhaps skated on over the past few years, Max. But I think in Canada, we have a rich tradition of coming out of the gate strong and saying things and putting things down on paper and then not giving those

affected by these new laws the tools and the resources and the funding to do the tools and the resources and the funding to do the things that the law requires. And that will be the test here, as will be the test on Bill C-5, the major projects act. I think the Carney government has done a really good job of getting these things through, of delivering on their promises to move fast on this,

but the proof will be in the pudding. Do the police, do the authorities get the resources they need without infringing on charter rights, without overstepping? And do we get these major projects moving in the time and scale that we've heard promised by the government? That will be the next test. His government has passed the first one, I think. Yeah, I agree. Mike Burns, how do you see it? Is this a, it's one thing to say we need to take our border security, we need to take our national security more seriously. It's another thing to write a bill like this and to put it forth. But it's another thing to then do all the hard work to make sure that everyone, like all the players that are supposed to be beefed up because of this bill, have what they need to do the jobs that the bill requires. Well, that's the connected tissue and that's the challenge of governing. And so I think the prime minister

has made some big proclamations. He's made it very clear that he wants to get stuff built and done in this country. And we're gonna now watch and see whether or not he and his government have the ability to deliver and execute. That will be, ultimately, he's going to be judged on results.

And we're going to be able to watch and see how he does over the next number of months. Well, Max, Mike, Demetri, I very much enjoyed this trio. Let's do it again sometime soon. Enjoy your weeks, gentlemen. I'll talk to you soon. Thank you. See you next time. And thank you for joining me on the show.

Follow me on X, Twitter at Ben Mulroney. We'll be posting the podcast. We'll be posting on YouTube. Enjoy the rest of your Monday. We'll see you on Tuesday.