The Ben Mulroney Show - This week in politics - post Canada Day edition

Episode Date: July 2, 2025

Guest:  Tom Parkin   Principal, Impact Strategies  Guest Anthony Koch, Managing Principal at AK Strategies and former National Campaign Spokesperson for Pierre Poilievre 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

No Frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC Optimum Points on your first five orders. Shop now at NoFriills.ca. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show. I gotta say, I love these parts of the show. I love talking with people in the know about the politics that affect our lives. It's time for this week in politics, our midweek panel. Please welcome to the show Tom Parkin, good friend of the show, principal of Impact Strategies, who's again, like outdoors at the country. I'm stuck here. I would love to do this show remotely at some point. And Anthony Kosh, managing principal.

Yeah, managing principal at AK Strategies, former national campaign spokesperson for Pierre Poliev. And actually, I finally met Anthony in person a few weeks ago in Montreal. It's great to see you back in the box that I'm used to seeing you in. Likewise. Okay, we've got to talk about what we're calling the DST fallout, the digital sales tax that Canada

was adamant that we were going to bring in in order to protect Canadians and protect Canadian media. And not for nothing, it was going to bring $7 billion into the federal coffers. But the fallout of the fact that we walked it back, and there's not a whole lot of praise for our prime minister over how he handled this. Let's start with you, Tom.

Whether or not you liked the tax, it's gone now. How we got rid of it didn't get us anything in terms of concessions from the Americans. Yeah, it was giving away something for nothing. So that's a very bad feeling, right? I think there's a question, you know, this DST wasn't always popular, certainly wasn't popular amongst, you know, the business class in Canada. Exactly why I mean, they the argument tended to be that

it was something that inflamed Trump because it inflamed billionaires. So therefore, we should kind of take a lowball on it, which I think is kind of bad logic, but it was unpopular amongst the business class for those kind of reasons. And you know, that's where Carney's from. So you know, I see a lot of possibility here that he just never really liked it anyway. Yeah. And he used the negotiations as a chance to blow it off and kind of blame it on Trump or at least put the whip to his own party to get the, because the

legislation has to still be rescinded. So how he does that and how he does that in the minority, how he does that with a caucus that was 180 degrees different only a year or so ago, that theory makes sense. Yeah, Anthony, there are a few head scratchers here. Like this, it would have been very easy for Carney to say, yeah, it's a bad idea. It's not gonna work. It's pissing off our neighbors.

And it wasn't my idea anyway. And he could have done what he did with the consumer facing carbon tax. He could have done what he did with the consumer-facing carbon tax. He could have signed it away symbolically. On top of that, he could have gone into a room with the people on the other side of the table and said, all right, we're going to give you your win. I'm going to turn around and I'm going to get rid of this tax so you can go tell the American people you got something.

What are you going to give us? And the fact that this great negotiator who only came back into came into politics because this was the greatest threat to Canada in our history wasn't able to do that is shocking to me. 100% I think the more interesting part of this conversation too, I was reading yesterday or this morning that the Americans initial ask was only a 30 day pause on the DST for the purposes of conducting negotiations. Canada decided to grandstand, pump our chest and say the DST is not going anywhere. And then Trump put out his truth social statement saying, we're shutting down any and all negotiations until you guys figure out what you're doing with this. And now we've

said we're scrapping it entirely effective immediately. So we actually negotiated ourselves into an inferior position compared to what the Americans were looking for at the beginning. It doesn't make sense. And regardless, there's a thing. Do I like the DST? No. Am I happy that it's gone? Yes. Do I think the DST? No. Am I happy that it's gone? Yes. Do I think the circumstances under which it was removed are not a good reflection of our country in the context of the most important trade negotiations we've had in a very long time? It's frustrating. And that's the part that I find concerning, that I find frustrating. And again, elbows up. I'm still waiting to see the elbows. It just looks like a chicken dance.

Oh, we cut it on we cut our elbows off. And we literally gift wrap them and handed them to the president. I mean, if that if that was left, there's no elbows up. He's got our elbows. Yeah, yeah. I think the trouble here at the most fundamental level is now we're apparently foreign countries writing our tax policy. Even though we have a law passed by Parliament here in Canada that says this tax was supposed to come in on Monday, you know, that law is apparently voided because Mr. Trump or Mr.

Trump's billionaire friends didn't want it. So, like, where is Parliament anymore? That's, I think, the kind of troubling part. Well, Tom, listen, this is one issue, but you got to, I'm not even reading between the lines. I am reading the lines. And in Donald Trump's truth social, when he said he was cutting off our all talks until we figured this out, in the preamble to it, to lead into it, he talked about how we are

stealing from them on dairy to the tune of $400 billion a year. He's literally telling us what he's going to go after next and we have handed him a playbook on how to do it. Right, so walk out of the talks and then demand something to keep talking, right? Which dairy next. something to keep talking, right? Which, dairy next. And Anthony, we have a law on the books saying that nobody can touch supply management of dairy. I'm not saying that that Mark Carney can't pull a rabbit out of his hat and get a great deal and somehow save supply management, but he's put himself in a terrible negotiating position. Correct. Cause you established a precedent now exactly like you said, Trump has now realized that he can do a truce, you know, diplomacy by social media, publish a new thing, say the Canadians are bringing us off until you make a commitment to get rid of this. We're not even going to resume

any sort of talks. So let's see. And it's, we're going to see what happens. I have my feelings about supply management. I know a lot of people do, but again, I think there's a very important distinction here that these conversations should be had by Canadians and be decided by Canadians. And it should not be rammed down our throats by Dick Tats of the American president. Can I ask you guys a question? Sure. I think you would know this better than me, but I'm puzzled by this. Mr. Carney on the DST, the digital sales tax, he doesn't have a majority.

So even if he whips all of his MPs, his liberal MPs, to say, well, you know, we agreed to this, I agreed to this, so you got to back me. I am 100% positive the Democrats and the BQ will not, and Green, will not be supporting this change. So this kind of puts Mr. Paul, you have a situation. But I think the way that it, yeah. So I'm pretty sure the way that it works, the existence of the actual tax as a matter of legislation, but the collection of the tax, it's similar to what you saw with the carbon tax,

where they can sort of, the tax still exists, it's still on the books. Or even like you saw Chris Jeffreeland when it came to the capital gains tax, they were able to defer it, they were gonna collect it later, and then it's the same sort of mechanism. Yeah, and I've gotta say, even if they had to vote on it,

to me, it's not very hard to message support of this when I'm pretty sure the Tories were on the record saying they thought it was a dumb idea in the first place. So this is yet again, them doing exactly what we asked them to do. But more to the point, I mean, there was a poll that came out that said something like 30%

of the elderly are still voting for or are firmly in the camp of Mark Carney. But young people, according to this poll, are still in very significant numbers standing with Pierre Poliev. None of that, we're gonna talk about that later, none of that really matters, but yet, because we're three and a half years away from an election,

but I'm watching this and I'm asking myself, I'm looking at what Mark Carney said on the campaign trail and how he is governing, and I'm seeing two completely different worlds here. And that's gotta be frustrating to a certain type of voter. And I see you, Anthony, nodding, so I'll go to you first. Yeah, so I hope it's frustrating for a certain kind of voter.

I don't think public polling so far suggests that that's actually the case. There's this weird sort of liberal voter phenomenon where no matter what happens, it's proof that Mark Carney is the person that we need to be Prime Minister of Canada, Right. You know, when Trump was saying nice things about us, and it seemed like negotiations were going in a positive direction, it was a demonstration of Mark Carney's incredible negotiations prowess. And then when Donald Trump takes out a bat and smacks us over

the side of the head, it's still proof that we needed the liberals because Donald Trump is a big you know, yeah. So I think in the in the long run, yeah, we will see some some of this but it's still proof that we needed the liberals because Donald Trump is a big Reno. So I think in the long run, we will see some of this, but you're absolutely right. You hit the nail on the head, the Mark Carney, and I wrote a piece of- Oh no, we gotta take a break. Tom, I'm coming to you next, right after the break, don't go anywhere.

Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. Thank you so much for staying with us. And I say that not just to our listeners, but to Tom Parkin and Anthony Kosh as well. Tom, there was a Nanos poll in April that found that 18 to 34-year-olds, almost 50%, still support the conservatives, with 30% supporting the liberals,

a vast majority of the older cohort firmly in bed with the liberals, rather. But that doesn't necessarily bode well for the next election with the liberals, but that doesn't necessarily bode well for the next election for the liberals, given the fact that some of those older voters will no longer be with us. And if stuff like this keeps happening, if the already cynical 18 to 34 year olds

who are looking at the liberals through a cynical lens and saying, you have to prove yourselves to me, if this sort of thing keeps happening, and when I say this sort of thing, I mean, not living up to what you said on the campaign trail that got you elected. And if their lives aren't markedly better at the end of these four years,

then that 49% is gonna grow. Well, a couple of things, Ben. The liberals have always been the party of older voters and nostalgia. Yeah. If you think about how they kind of portray themselves aesthetically. Oh, they're the party of the charter until the charter doesn't suit them and then they're the only party that's ever kind of thrown it out and declared borderline martial law.

So there's okay, but there's a whole situation there where it is a party of, frankly, higher incomes, older people, more settled people that have a view of Canada. So, I mean, when we put the label progressive on the Liberal Party, we forget that what this means is kind of limousine liberal progressive in a lot of ways. So there's that. And I think the second part is that Poliev's voting bloc was very much about big change. Big change. Things are not going well. Can't afford a house. Wages are falling behind inflation. Trump in the world. All the big change. People want real change in their lives around affordability, especially. And he was pushing in that direction. The New Democrats were pushing in that direction

too, but you know, they got folded in to the anti-Poliet vote in a weird twist of fate. So I think there's these couple of pieces that are going. There's this kind of more affluent, life is okay group, and then there a somewhat younger people who've been locked out feel that life is not being, you know, is not unfolding correctly for them. And the question is whether Mr. Carney in these nation building projects captures the mood that this is something for them, that this helps them. Now, I noticed that I don't think anybody's talking about a national house building program as a national program. We're talking about pipelines and hydro lines, so that's okay. But I think the thing that a younger 35-year-old voter would like to hear is that the price of rent, it is coming down. Let's keep it down. The price of houses has come down. Let's keep it down. Let's have some

longer time where wages are now ahead of inflation finally. Let's have some longer time where wait, wages are now ahead of inflation finally. Let's try and do that for a while. That's what they want. That's what they need. All right, Anthony, let's let. If Carney can deliver it, then Pollyanna is out of luck. Well, one promise that Carney did make that he did keep,

and not to say he's not gonna keep his promises, but sometimes the ball gets punted down to later down the calendar. But he did promise to open up the by-election for Pierre Poliev to get into the House of Commons at the earliest possible convenience, and he did so. So we know that that's all set up now.

So part of the equation is for the Tories to be viable in the next election, and yes, it's three and a half years out, that Mark Carney is going to have to control the things he can and the variables that he can't. He's going to have to come out on the better side of that. But one of the things that Pierre Poliev can control is reintroducing himself in a different way to Canadians, to voters.

And he's been quiet for a while now. That's good. You know while now that's good you know the man what do you think is going through his mind as he's gearing up for yet another contest I think right now he's just looking forward to getting back into the House of Commons and being able to face off against Mark Carney again but don't you think Anthony don't you think that the guy who faces off against Mark Carney has to be a different brand? It's got to be... He has to...

So I'll say this. Same guy, different song, right? Yeah, I'll say this. I think Pierre Paulia was a fine-tuned political machine that was basically bespoke, tailor-made design to go up against Justin Trudeau. And Justin Trudeau is no longer around, right? We're going to see Mark Carney, you're going to see Spitbull, but the failures and the difficulties of Mark Carney are not the same failures and difficulties that we saw with Justin Trudeau. So there's definitely going to need to be

a different approach in some respects. I think you're going to start seeing that again, there's a lot of moving parts, but we've got a larger caucus with new people, new voices that are adding to that chorus. But there's no doubt about it. We're not fighting against Justin Trudeau. I think we learned that in the last election as well. There's a lot of people who wanted to treat it as if we were still fighting against Justin Trudeau, which reflected in a lot of our taglines, just like Justin, Carney being Trudeau's advisor, all these things. And the fact of the matter is the electorate told us, yeah, thanks, but no thanks. We don't buy the argument en masse.

And now we find ourselves once again under a liberal government. So there's no doubt that there's going to have to be an adjustment on many fronts, but I'm optimistic about the ability for the party to absorb those changes and deliver a win in the next election. All right, my last, we just got done with Canada. I hope both of you were able to celebrate in any way that matters to you, but I was having a debate with somebody at the radio station here about whether we are living through a time of renewed Canadian patriotism or whether it's simply economic nationalism that people are assuming is patriotism.

I believe the latter, some believe the former. You know, I see as many divisions on our streets. I see people shouting at each other, I hear echo chambers. I don't, and the stuff that has been, has befallen the Canadian character over the past 10 years, I hear echo chambers. I don't, and the stuff that has been, has befallen the Canadian character over the past 10 years, it's still there. And I wanted your take on that. Tom, what do you think?

Are we more proud to be Canadian today than we were five years ago? Or is it something else? I think it's a little bit something else. I think what, usually the idea of nationalism or patriotism isn't something generated internally in a lot of cases. It's something that is because one country has some sort of impact with another country.

Poland is nationalistic because it's beside Germany, right? Which is a kind of scary place to be. It's got Russia on the other side. So we're going to be Catholic as heck and we're going to have our own culture, right? They're going to grip onto things that bond their society. Well, we're in this weird situation with people we thought were our friends for a long time, with Mr. Trump, that we don't know where he stands. We don't know where he stands militarily with NATO. We don't know where he stands with attack, like we're under attack economically. So nationalism exists and patriotism exists in that context. So it will die down if we can get back to, you know, a mainstream US government,

but it will increase in intensity if Mr. Trump continues to attack our country. And I think that's just a normal reaction, is if we're getting attacked from one side, we have to find other ways to try and prosper and work together to make that happen. So patriotism is a bond that lets you work together to make it happen. Anthony, your thoughts? Yeah, so it's very, I think a few days ago was actually the 60th anniversary of the publishing of a book by George Grant called Lament for a Nation. And he wrote it in the 60s. And he decries the loss of a distinct Canadian identity and predicts our inevitable subsummation culturally and socially by the United States of America, the beast to our South.

So I'll say, Ben, I don't think this is about people being more proud to be Canadian. I think unfortunately in our country, this is a manifestation of anti-Americanism that is under the Canadian flag. I'm always happy to see Canadians wave the Canadian flag, especially so there was a dumb op-ed that came out in the Globe and Mail saying that the Canadian flag had now been redeemed and reclaimed from the hooligans of the convoy. Like again, is that the kind of things that people who love their country? Right? I don't think so. So I want to see renewed Canadian patriotism, but I think again, this is just the next manifestation of a very long line of Canadian anti-Americanism. And I want

to see Canadians start to be proud of ourselves on our own terms internally in positive discourse, not just as a backlash or a retaliation against the Americans pumping their chest. Tom, you get the last 20 seconds to Tom. Okay, I just, you know, I think you make some points here, but honestly, I just don't think that's the way that patriotism and nationalism works. Just go back to my earlier example, when Poland has a negative experience with Germany beside it, it isn't like, yeah, they're anti-Germany for sure.

That's the way they're feeling because they're under attack. But they also, they'd use that as an opportunity to think about what Poland can be. So it's not just blindly- Tom, so back to that point, we had an experience with Donald Trump before and we didn't recognize that he could come back and therefore we should do everything we can to bolster our economy. And then he sensed weakness and capitalized on a weakness that we created.

That's my take on it. Guys, thank you so much. Enjoy the rest of your day and we'll see you soon. Thanks. Okay, take care. hiring for all healthcare roles across all its regional centers in beautiful British Columbia. Join a dedicated team committed to ending cancer for good and experience the lifestyle you've always dreamed of in stunning BC. We're curing cancer here. Are you in? Apply now at jobs.bccancer.bc.ca