The Ben Mulroney Show - Wednesday Political Panel – Carney admits tariffs will be part of any US deal.

Episode Date: July 16, 2025

 Guest: Regan Watts, Founder Fratton Park Inc., former Senior aide to minister of finance Jim Flaherty Guest: Sharan Kaur, Political strategist, former Deputy Chief to the Minister of Finance 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 sponsored by BetterHelp. If you've been following the news, like really following it, you know how exhausting it can be. Politics, conflict, uncertainty, it's a lot to carry. And for many men, there's this expectation to stay calm, stay in control and not talk about how it's affecting you. But the truth is, you're allowed to feel overwhelmed.

You're allowed to say, I'm not okay right now. And trust me, I have been there. Whether it's the state of the world stress at home, or just feeling like you've got to have it all together and have all the answers, you don't have to hold it in. Better help is here to help with the world's largest network of licensed therapists. They've already supported over 5 million people, you can connect with a therapist online from wherever you are, no waitlist, no office visits. And if it's not the right fit you can switch anytime it's time to put your mental health on the agenda talk it out with better help visit better help comm slash Mulrooney today to get 10% off your first month that's better help HELP comm slash Mulrooney

stop you know how fast you were going I'm gonna have to write you a ticket to my new movie the naked gun Liam Nees. Buy your tickets now and get a free chili dog. Chili dog not included. The Naked Gun tickets on sale now August 1st. This is the Ben Mulroney Show and thank you so much for joining us as we march through this week. It's Wednesday and we're having a great time. It's time to check in with our This Week in Politics panel. So let's jump right in with Regan Watts, the founder of Fratton Park, Inc., former senior aide to finance minister Jim Flaherty.

Hello there, my friend. And we also have Sharon Carr joining us, political strategist and former CEO of Fratton Park, Inc. former senior aide to finance minister Jim Flaherty. Hello there, my friend. And we also have Sharon Carr joining us, political strategist and former deputy chief to another minister of finance. So the both of you, I say happy Wednesday. Happy Wednesday. All right, we're gonna start with the news that is not surprising, but what we do with it, it

depends, I think, entirely on our political perspective. Our prime minister had to sort of throw his hands in the air and say, you know what, no matter what we do, this new deal that we're working on with Donald Trump is going to have some tariffs in it. And Kate Harrison pointed out, not for nothing, that there are more tariffs on the Canadian economy today than there were before the election. And so, Reagan, I'll start with you.

Yes, two things can be true at the same time. Donald Trump is an agent of chaos, and our prime minister set the bar really, really, really high and said he was going to bar really, really, really high and said he was going to clear it and he fell short. Oh, I can't hear you. So we'll start with Sharon. Sorry, Sharon.

All right. So listen, what I'll say with this is that I think that, yeah, he did set a high bar when it comes to dealing with Trump, but at no point did he ever say that there would be no tariffs. I think what we have to remember is that dealing with someone like Donald Trump means you're dealing with the inevitable. We know he wants something.

The whole goal all along has been to make the tariffs as least painful as possible for the Canadian economy. So him saying that there will be some tariffs, I don't think is him not following through. We always knew there would be tariffs. No, and I don't think the goal for anybody was no tariffs. But if you go back to the election campaign, he essentially said you either pick Churchill or you pick Chamberlain. And I'm Churchill. And I came back, I'm a wartime prime minister.

And if you look at the scoreboard, we're doing worse today than we were before the election. So, yeah, and look, it still can change, I understand. But I go back to, he presented a stark difference between an appeaser of Hitler and the guy who ended Hitler, right? But now what we're actually realizing is is there's no dealing with Donald Trump. And it really would have mattered if Pierre Poliev had won.

That's really what I'm getting. But that's not here. So the thing with that is that I don't think that's true because look at the scale of what he could implement. He could implement something that's like up here or he can implement something that's down here. We already knew that when Trudeau was around, Trump was coming at us super hard because he didn't like him.

And then we heard him say the same similar tone about Poliev. So I don't think it would have changed the outcome or the outcome would have been the same. I think tone and tenor matters. And someone like Carney, at least Trump, respects. So it means our impact could be minimal compared to what it could be.

Regan, counterpoint? Well, I disagree with you, Ben, and that's an uncomfortable position for me to be in. Not because Mark Carney has me purring, although he still does, but because I think Canadians are looking at the situation, and I think we need to step back back and they're saying a couple things. One, I don't think there's anybody in the country who thinks that Donald Trump is an easy guy to negotiate with.

And there's lots of evidence to support why that is. Secondly, I think they're looking at the fact that we have Mark Carney, a two-time central banker, leading on our behalf and saying, okay, well, at least we have somebody who has got experience and is capable and is the best guy we have or the best person we have for the job. And so on that basis alone, I think the government gets a lot of leeway from Canadians. I also think, and this is just a general point, and I'm not sure how Sharon feels about this, but, you know, the United States government was duly elected by the United States people and President Trump won a majority and the Republicans did extraordinarily well in the last election cycle. The American people chose Donald Trump and so if in their wisdom they believe Donald Trump is the right president and as president Donald Trump believes that, for example, a general tariff on all non- USMCA goods is a benefit of the United States, then guess what? That's entirely within the rights of the United States government to make that

choice. The world needs a strong US, and that includes a strong government with obviously a strong military, but also a strong fiscal balance sheet. And if revenues that are created from tariffs help the United States do some things to address their societal challenges, and make no mistake, they have them there just as much as we have societal challenges here, then good luck to them. And I think that 10% tariff on non-USMCA related items

is maybe the cost of doing business in the United States. And I think as low as that tariff can be, Mr. Carney will put Canada in a good position. All right, well, we will agree to disagree. Cause I, listen, I like to think that the stuff that you say on election, during a campaign matters. And when you present, and especially because we didn't know and relative to the, to other politicians,

we didn't know anything about him. So he was, he was introducing himself in real time and the introduction we got has not yet paid off. Now for sure, we're not at the end of the road. So this is not a final conclusion. These are conclusions that are written in pencil. But Sharon, we're going to come back to you here. What did you make of the Leader of the Opposition saying that now that we know what is in our prime minister's holdings, he should liquidate all of his assets and he should just take the cash and get to work.

Listen, it's so bizarre to me that we live in a world where we are trying to penalize and demonize success. When I was in government at Staffers as well, andan probably had the same thing, we also had to do disclosures and put stuff into blind trusts and all these things. The whole point of the act is to prevent conflict and they put screens in place. To tell someone to divest their personal holdings is another reason why we're never going to get good people like Mark Carney to come into office because you've got people like Pierre Pauliap who invest in Bitcoin. Well, that's a good investment right now. Yeah. Well, it's a really good investment.

Not every day, right? But like we're talking about trying to demonize people's success. And sure, go ahead and do that. But the ethics commissioners, they put screens in place and screens are put in place. And listen, I know people might not agree with them and think that divest, but at what point we want to get more people like Carney, more people with backgrounds like that into politics. And listen, I want people like him as well. I say it all the time. I want the most successful people in the world to leave what they're doing and look at politics and public service as that next great mountain to climb. And however, he followed the letter of the law

in terms of the disclosure, but nobody is ever gonna convince me that he followed the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is to allow Canadians to have the information they need to make the requisite decision. Then that was not, the Mark Carney situation was not planned for in those disclosure rules.

And so he did not. Can I ask you, can I ask you on your opinion on this Ben? Because that's not how the act, that's not how it works in government. People are not elected by putting their books out front and center, right? You've got a certain amount of days, the deadline for disclosure was actually July 12th to put your ethics documents in. People do not elect people based on what's in their bank accounts. And I know that because of the way leadership worked,

and he still had time, I think this is purely rhetoric that's been put out there by opposition. Because if you're telling me you're only gonna elect someone based on what his findings were, to me, that's just politics. That's not being reasonable. Ben, I'm wearing blue today because I'm trying to remind myself I'm a conservative, but I find myself also agreeing with much of what

Sharon has to say. I think it's important, though, to put some context here. The election took place, Mark Carney was asked several times during the campaign by media by Mr. Poliev about his assets and and the fact that assets was not something that was unknown. Of course not. And so, well, so I'm not really sure what the issue here is that it took Mr. Carney, whatever time it took to organize his affairs in such a way that it could be properly disclosed to the public.

He met both the letter and the spirit of the law. And I think Mr. Poliev's comments, I have to tell you, show an enormous gap in sophistication, which is in part underscores the difference between he and Mr. Carney during the election campaign, suggesting that Mr. Carney should liquidate all of his assets. And by the way, in doing so, triggering what is likely a major tax event for Mr. Carney. I'm not suggesting that Pierre is right in making that suggestion. I'm I'm looking exclusively at the narrative that the Liberal Party was able to set about who he was based on our lack of information on where he's put his money.

I don't think the narrative is any different than who he is. He got elected because because he was an adult who was successful and had a resume. And Canadians looked at the situation with President Trump and said- But then, listen, I'm willing to live in a world, Regan, where you are 100% right. But if he believed that you are 100% right, then there's a whole lot of things

that would not have been said by Mark Carney and his team. And for example, I don't have any conflicts. Now you got 100 conflicts. Like that's, I'm sorry, that's a big deal. And he got very upset about that. And that's just one example. And we on the other side, we're operating with an absence of information.

Oh my gosh, we've gone over. We're gonna take a break when we come back. More on the Ben Mulroney Show. Let's take a look at the roads with 640Toronto Big Trouble Traffic. Welcome back to the show and welcome back to This Week in Politics featuring Regan Watts and Sharon Carr. Thanks to both of you

for being here. I did feel like I was getting ganged up a little bit on in the last segment but I know that's gonna change. I love you guys too. That's going to change right here because I think we're all going to agree on this. I think the number of First Nations are seeking an injunction to block Bill C-5 in the courts. They want they feel that they have not been properly consulted with and therefore not only do they want an injunction, they want, let's see if I can remember all this, not only is it nonsensical,

but to me it is, this is what would have happened for over the last 10 years. And these guys would have gotten their way. And Mark Carney is, I believe, I hope is gonna fight this and is going to show them the respect that they deserve in those summits that he has planned. But this cannot go, we cannot abide. is going to fight this and is going to show them the respect that they deserve in those summits that he has planned. But this cannot go, this can't, this, we cannot abide.

Well, I, so there's a couple things, Ben. First is I don't think this would have happened over the last 10 years, because as Sharon knows, the previous Prime Minister, the long national nightmare known as Justin Trudeau, and that never gets old, by the way, I will keep saying it, would not have brought a bill forward like this because he couldn't build anything. And so Mr. Carney deserves enormous credit for Bill C-5. And what we see here is, and there is this cottage industry of lawyers who work in particular in and around indigenous claims, who are always chasing, I believe the pop culture phrase is an ambulance chaser. There's this cadre of lawyers who are always looking? I believe the the the pop culture phrases an ambulance chaser

There's a there's this cadre of lawyers who are always looking for a big payday. Yeah when it comes to ground indigenous claims I expect mr. Carney because he is an adult will sit down with these First Nations groups including the AFN and others and trying to move forward the fact is and this is what mr. Carney has going for him on this issue And Canadians will look at this lawsuit and see it, see it as vexatious and for what it is. Canadians are supporting Mr. Carney to build baby build. And that's partly, partly why he's got the public latitude and the political latitude to do what he's doing with C5. I do expect him to come to common ground with many of the First Nations, Not all of them. And in the story that you know, that was on the CBC, I mean, 100 million bucks for what because some lawyer filed paperwork in a court like, come on. Wait, yeah. But I just I realized that that 100 million, it was because the lawyer wanted to get paid. There's this there's

no debt, you can't prove damages, there are no damages. Well, not only are there no damages, Ben, but Indigenous Services Canada transferred $38 billion this year on Indigenous-related expenses, a bulk of that going to First Nations directly. So again, this is a vexatious lawyer who sees an opportunity. Yeah, and Sharon, that's the number that we have to look at. If those First Nations want that money to keep flowing, then if that's the end that

you want, then the means for it are these big national projects. You can't take the cash and then not allow the country to go make that cash. Well, this is like, and again, yeah, we're all going to agree on this. If you've traveled around the world and you see the infrastructure that is in places and how, and the speed in which things are getting done and built and resources are going to market, we are falling so behind. So I have very little sympathy for this strategy here. I think there is a world in which we have to be very respectful and understand how do

we consult with First Nations and indigenous groups. But we are a G7 country that has so many resources that just don't get to market. I've spent so many days and months on the road trying to get Keystone and Energy East built. And I can't tell you how ridiculously bonkers our consultation processes are. Honestly, I think this is stupid. I think that there's better ways to engage the community. And this is some lawyer who just thinks that they have a gotcha moment to say, hey, this is how I'm going to get rich off of the backs of Indigenous people. And listen, this could backfire. I mean, if this sets a precedent for, if there's a legal case that says, you know what, you got like, no, your right to consult, we just figured out where the line is. We just figured out what the limit is, and it's in this case.

So they might get to a point where they have to actually consider withdrawing this, because otherwise, they're not gonna want, they'd rather live in a world where there are no limits on what it means to meaningfully consult. Like it hasn't been tested in court, right? This will be a test. All right, let's move on to one of the things I'm sure Mark Carney is not looking forward to. He's dealing with the hangover

of the party, the 10-year party that Trudeau threw, and we have the hangover and now he's got to deal with it. And that's going to come in the form of cuts. We always knew they were going to come. And now, and we knew they were going to come to the bureaucracy, but now they're going to come in the form of cuts. We always knew they were going to come. And now, and we knew they were going to come to the bureaucracy. But now, they're going to come to the Foreign Service. And I've got to wonder what the impact of cuts to our Foreign Service are going to be. Regan.

Well, I worked at the Department of Foreign Affairs for a couple of years and have enormous respect for the work that the diplomatic community and the diplomatic core undertakes on our behalf as Canadians. But I can tell you, Ben, there is nothing more ironic than the Chardonnay charlatans at the Pierce Building in Ottawa squawking about reductions in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Like, guess what? We all have to tighten our belts, and that includes every government department. And look, the Department of Foreign Affairs is filled with very smart, erudite, thoughtful, well-traveled people. But guess what, the budgets have to be cut for everybody.

And I respect the people, Senator Boehme, who was out, and Alan Kessel, who used to be the Chief Legal Advisor of the Department, very intelligent people. But there's nothing more Global Affairs Canada than global affairs Canada than global affairs retirees coming out and saying thou shalt not cut. I mean, it's just it's insane. But it's classic Ottawa. And Mr. Carney, to on a more serious note, Mr. Carney has a mandate to get things in order in Ottawa. And guess what? He's doing what he was sent to Ottawa to do. And the Department of Foreign Affairs, I suspect probably voted more for the Liberal Party

than they did the Conservative Party. And I think they're probably, through this process, they're probably, they should be thankful that Prime Minister Carney is the Prime Minister and not Prime Minister Poliev, because I know Prime Minister Poliev, if he were the Prime, Pierre Poliev, if he were the Prime Minister,

would have remembered the parade in heroes welcome that the diplomats at global affairs Canada through for Justin Trudeau just after the long national nightmare was elected for the first time in November of 2015. I don't know if Sharon remembers, but there was that the heroes welcome when he descended upon the global affairs building in Ottawa, where they greeted him like a rock star. And so they should be grateful for both their Chardonnay and for Carney. Sharon, your take, please. Listen, so I have a lot of respect for public servants, really so much of it having worked in government. But I can tell you, there are some really thoughtful, great, smart people. I could speak finance, GAC, foreign affairs.

You've got like the tax experts, you've got the Middle Eastern experts, the African experts, but good God is there's so much bloat there that is unbelievable. Like, hey, we're going to go for our 10 o'clock yoga and have our 15 coffees in the day and do XY and Z. And I kid you not, every budget season, I would always say, can we please look at the global affairs budgets? Because when they say they're gonna cut foreign service, they're not talking about getting rid of ambassadors necessarily. If you look at the actual department

and the bureaucracy of foreign affairs itself domestically, it is absurdly large. I don't know the exact number, but it's insane. So I'm here for cutting the public service down. I think they're being very conservative by the number. I'd say get rid of like 40% and I'm sure the public service union is going to send like a hitman against 40%. Ben, Ben, Ben, who's the conservative?

I know. Guys, I know. Look at that. Sharon is the one demanding to cut, like take it down to the studs. All right, Sharon Carr, Regan Watts, thank you so much for joining us this week on This Week in Politics and we'll see you soon. Bye guys..com. The all new 2025 kicks S front wheel drive for 280 monthly with 3,495 down at 3.49%. Includes 0.5% loyalty reduction for qualifying Nissan owners. Conditions apply. See Nissan.ca for details.