The Ben Mulroney Show - What is Donald Trump's Endgame with Canada when he mentions Economic Force?

Episode Date: January 8, 2025

Guests and Topics on Today's Show -Trump is open to using 'economic force' to acquire Canada as a state with Guest: Candice Bergen, former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada -Trump is open to using 'economic force' to acquire Canada as a state with Guest: Gordon Giffin, Former US Ambassador to Canada -Canadians challenge Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament: “no reasonable justification” with Guest: James Manson, Lawyer Charter Advocates Canada -Has the internet finally given up its war against Free Speech? with Guest: Mohit Rajhans Mediologist and Consultant, ThinkStart.ca -Do Trudeau's actions prove we need to make the Governor General democratically legitimate? with Guest: Fred DeLorey, Former National Campaign Manager for the Conservative Party of Canada If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-ben-mulroney-show Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The all-new FanDuel Sportsbook and Casino is bringing you more action than ever. Want more ways to follow your faves? Check out our new player prop tracking with real-time notifications. Or have out more ways to customize your casino page with our new favorite and recently played games tabs. And to top it all off, quick and secure withdrawals. Get more everything with FanDuel Sportsbook and Casino. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600. Visit connexontario.ca. Casino. Gambling problem call 1-866-531-2600. Visit connexontario.ca. With TD Direct Investing, new and existing clients could get 1% cash back. Great! That's 1% closer to being part of the 1%.

Maybe, but definitely 100% closer to getting 1% cash back with TD Direct Investing. Conditions apply. Offer ends January 31, 2025. Visit td.com slash DI Offer to learn more. Donald Trump yesterday leveled a serious threat to Canada's sovereignty, saying that he would use economic force, quote unquote, economic force to acquire Canada and turn us into America's 51st state. And the response in Canada has been disorganized to say the least. We've had tweets from the Prime Minister.

Doug Ford, the Ontario Premier, has done his best to present a positive vision of the future on Fox News last night. And concerns are myriad over what team is going to defend Canada in the coming days, weeks and months. Who is going to be at the table to defend our interests? to defend our interests. Because by proroguing parliament a few days ago, Justin Trudeau has triggered a leadership race to find his successor. And so many of us have questions about,

are you able to maintain your position of authority in cabinet all while running for the leadership? We're joined now by Candice Bergen, former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. And to put a finer point on it, former interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. One of the reasons I wanted to speak with Candice this morning. Good morning, welcome to the show.

Good morning, Ben. How are you? Well, I'm concerned, confused, looking for answers, to be honest. One of the reasons I want to talk to you is I remember that when you became the interim leader, it was conditional on you promising not to, that you weren't going to run for, that you didn't want to run for leader, correct? That's correct.

We have a number of rules in our party. One of them is if you serve as the leader in the interim of the party, you cannot run for the permanent leadership. So that was well known. Our shadow ministers also, those who were running in the leadership race had to

step down. We knew that they could not do their job properly. They could not focus on their shadow ministerial duties while at the same time running for the leadership of the party. So that wasn't even part of any discussion.

We've made that decision as a party quite some time ago. And of course, it makes sense. I mean, if you're a minister, you have staff and funding and the ability to communicate more effectively. People may want to curry favour with you. So fundraising may become a lot easier. And so in order to make it a more fair and open process, you would expect that if you're if you hold that position of power, you will relinquish it in the hopes of gaining ultimate power. Yeah, I mean, I could see where there would be an argument made

for the ministers would have an unfair advantage. But I mean, as a Canadian, I'm more concerned that ministers who should be focused on ministerial duties will not be. And we already have a government that is in such disarray. We're talking about ministers and high portfolios, whether it's finance, whether it's foreign affairs, industry. There is, as you mentioned, so much going on right now. Our main focus needs to be our relationship with the US and what's happening south of

the U.S. and what's happening south of the border. And we're going to have ministers who are focused on trying to get people to vote for them, raise money. They are not going to be looking at their portfolios. They're going to be only looking at one thing and that's trying to win the leadership. And we've got confirmation of that in real time. Dominique LeBlanc, the Honorable Dominique LeBlanc,

who is our current finance minister, as well as a minister of practically everything Else, just tweeted a few minutes ago, while I am extremely grateful for the encouragement and expression of support I have received from caucus colleagues and liberals across the country, I have decided not to be a candidate in the Liberal Party of Canada's upcoming leadership race. He goes on for a few paragraphs, but it's the final paragraph, Candice, that I'd love you to comment on. I look forward, oh no, second to last, the threat these tariffs pose to our nation's economic well-being

and to the livelihood of a countless number of Canadian families cannot be understated. And as such, it requires nothing less than my full attention. So he's admitting that you can't do both. You cannot be a full-throated advocate for Canada in your role as a cabinet minister and run for the Liberal leadership. And yet, if you look at the front runners, they represent the most important portfolios

in our government, which means they would have to step down and who the heck is gonna, who's left in that caucus? Well, and as much as I'm grateful that Dominic has come to that realization that he can't run and serve at the same time, these are the same people that under Trudeau's leadership and

example have for the last year been insulting, ridiculing and trying to diminish Donald Trump and anybody associated with him. So for them to now think that they're going to be the saviors and figure this out, I think that's a great thing. trying to diminish Donald Trump and anybody associated with him. So for them to now think that they're going to be the

saviors and figure this out and try to bring some resolution to this in the best interest of Canadians, where were they and what have they been doing for the last four years? As I said, they've been insulting Donald Trump and

everybody associated with him. At the same time, implementing policy that has made us incredibly weak and vulnerable to a president and a man who does deals in whether it's his business's best interest when he was a real estate tycoon operating in New York,

one of the toughest places in the world to do business, or now as the president. Donald Trump is going to do what he believes is in the best interest for his country. And Justin Trudeau and all of them, I know Trudeau has resigned, but he's still the prime minister. He and everyone in that Liberal Party and caucus who have for the last four years plus been diminishing our country and insulting Donald Trump are in no way, shape or form in a position to try to fix this problem.

And Candace, I think it gets even worse than that by triggering what I think it was a self serving, cynical, selfish, liberal leadership race, rather than send us all to the polls where we could, we could finally have a government with a real mandate to go toe to toe with Donald Trump. He's wreaked even more havoc because by definition, if you are running for leadership, then you are trying to separate yourself from the pack.

You are trying to create a unique identity to say, I am different from my leader. I am different from the legacy of this party. I have different ideas. So it's about differentiating yourself, which flies in the face of what everyone generally agreed on about this incoming Donald Trump administration, that we needed a team Canada approach

of everybody speaking with one voice and rowing in the same direction. Definitionally, he has created havoc by having his ministers put in a position where they have to say something different. They have to be different. They have to take different positions. It's insanity to the highest order.

Absolutely. But when you look at what he has done and again with the help of all of his ministers, all of the people that are throwing their names in the hat or potentially throwing their names in the hat, everything that they have broken and then tried to fix,

they have made worse. Whether it's the immigration system, whether it's our fiscal situation where they're continually throwing money at it, whether it's truthfully the environment and trying to make a difference globally on the environment, everything they have done, they make worse. And Trudeau has led the pack,

but every single one of these people have gone along with it. And it's who's suffering? It's Canadians. And Canadians, we all wake up after what Donald Trump tweeted and talked about yesterday. We're all saying, where are we? And we have to look at how we got to this place. In order to find a resolution, we can't just say, oh, well, it's just Trump being Trump.

Absolutely not. It has been this leadership, this liberal leadership that has created a huge vacuum in Canada and created this scenario. So as soon as possible, Ben, we need an election. We need a leader who has a strong mandate. And you know, Donald Trump is, he's talking about Canada like this. He's talking about the Panama Canal. But his problem is with China. Let's like this. He's talked about the Panama Canal, but his problem is with China Let's be frank. Yeah, he is speaking to other there's a lot going on in the world right now and Donald Trump is trying to

Solidify which is the smart thing to do we've got to solidify we should have been doing this for the last four years I've got to ask though you know you talked about how you talked about a need for us to have an election and how we as Canadian voters and Canadian citizens deserve to hold this government to account. But what does it say to you that before Canadian citizens will be allowed to go to the polls, there is a very real possibility that non-citizens and non-permanent residents will be able to cast a vote for who will eventually become our next prime minister. We've got about 30 seconds left.

Well, I sure hope the Liberals make a change. I'm hearing they will be talking about it at their caucus meeting today. I hope they say we are not doing that. You have to be at least a permanent resident or a citizen and they should be selling memberships.

There needs to be some way to track who is buying memberships. Let's hope there is so much going on, so many threats. The last thing we need is foreign interference in the Liberal leadership campaign. Candice, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate your point of view. You bet. Thanks a lot, Ben. We thought we were going to turn the page on the clown car that has been federal politics. We thought that was going to happen today. We were going to be able to focus on all the stories that we haven't been able to focus on over the past couple of days. But Donald Trump yesterday gave a press conference where he outlined

what some feel are expansionist visions, imperialist visions of American supremacy around the world. He wants to use military force. He's musing about using military force to take over Greenland, military force to wrest control of the Panama Canal. And well, let's hear what he had to say about Canada. Who would work under the assumption that you're serious about making Canada the 51st state of the United States? The leader of the Conservative Party in Canada said under no circumstances would ever be the 51st state of the United States. The leader of the Conservative Party in Canada said,

under no circumstances will it ever be the 51st state. Maybe he won't win, but maybe he will. To Dave's point, you had suggested that you consider yourself a conservative. Sir, if you were considering military force to acquire Panama and Greenland, are you also considering military force to annex and acquire Canada?

No. Economic force. Because Canada and the United States, that would really be something. You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like. And it would also be much better for national security. Don't forget, we basically protect Canada. We lose in trade deficits.

We're losing massive. We don't need their cars. You know, they make 20% of our mass. We don't need their cars. You know, they make 20% of our cars. We don't need that. I'd rather make them in Detroit. We don't need the cars. We don't need their lumber. We have massive fields of lumber.

We don't need their lumber. So that border is an artificially drawn line that you could just erase, but the one on his southern border, that's a big deal. I just, none of it makes any sense to me. No rhyme nor reason. I don't know what his end game is. So let's invite Gordon Giffin, former US ambassador to Canada, into the conversation. Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us on the Ben Mulroney show. Good morning, Ben. Good to be with you. I apologize for any background noise. I'm in the

Atlanta airport headed to Washington for Jimmy Carter's funeral. Oh yes, he was a, he spoke at my university convocation graduation in 1997, which is when you became the ambassador. Exactly, and you graduated from Duke, right? I did indeed. I did indeed, yes. Great times. But, and better times, our relationship with the United States has indeed seen better times. You were in Ottawa during one of those periods from 1997 to 2001, at a vital time when we came together after 9-11. And I remember, even though it happened after your time, Mr. Ambassador, in 2003, Jean Kretzinger,

our prime minister at the time, stood up in the House of Commons and said that he would not be taking part in the invasion of Iraq, in the coalition of the willing. And despite that, despite that break, our relations did not fracture or fray the way they have today. So I'll ask you the question I put to the audience. What is Donald Trump's end game here? Well, that's a very good question. His pronouncements so far have not been rational.

So in order to try and assess what the end game is, you have to apply some rational thinking to it and it's just not applicable. I mean, I have to disclose I'm not a big Donald Trump fan. I didn't vote for him. I'm an active practicing Democrat. But I mean, his performance yesterday and frankly not just with respect to Canada, but with respect to the globe was embarrassing and frankly unrealistic. He's not gonna wipe out the 49th parallel and you know we undertook to invite Canada to join us in 1776 and Canadians at the

time or British citizens said no thank you. And we tried a little bit in 1813 and that didn't work. So give it up. Yeah. Now yesterday there were three big topics. There was Greenland, there was the Panama Canal and there was Canada. And is there a case to be made that Greenland

under the authority of the United States would be of strategic and military value to the United States? Well, I suppose there's some theory for that simply because it's in the North Atlantic. But frankly, having an ally like Canada that occupies a substantial portion of the Arctic is equally as good, I think, and I'm glad he threw Panama in, otherwise you would think he's just obsessed with cold places. But, and this is where a lot of Canadians are confused, where we feel that he may have lost the plot. You know, the Trump effect of being an agent of chaos in order to bring

people in line to what you want. I can appreciate that that is a real thing. But he was getting that from Canada, the the chaos that he was throwing about with the 25% tariffs, he was getting us to that place, he got commitments, military commitments to get to 2% of our GDP, to fulfill our NATO commitments, strengthening the border, all those things. He was already getting those things. He was moving the ball down the field simply by leveling these threats. So a lot of us are scratching our heads saying, why continue down this path? Yeah, I think, well, one, you're right on the border and on the NATO commitment, although frankly, the NATO commitment's a little attenuated.

I think Canada could probably step up and have a shorter timeframe to get to 2%. Yep. The US is probably in the four to 5% range, not arguing that Canada needs to reach what the U.S. does, but that's at the core of his frustration, frankly. That goes back to his first term, and that's sort of generating a lot of his frustration. But frankly, I think he just gets carried away with he finds some lines that he likes,

and even though the facts may not uh... support those lines he just gets on a roll in continues to talk about it like he is with the idea of sending the military to greenland or to uh... panama it's just irrational not gonna happen but he's having fun with it. And people are paying attention to it. I have to say, I think, I think the Prime Minister's response to him. Now, snowballs

chance in hell. I thought that was a pretty good line. I mean, it sort of captured Canada in the winter and and and what the sentiment is. Yeah, listen, anything he says, I think we would have expected him to push back. But as I said on the show earlier today, we've got a government paralyzed in this country, a government in name only actually, because nobody's actually doing the work of governing right now. And so we're sort of in a there is a power vacuum at the top, which is exists due to circumstances that most Canadians didn't ask for,

but have been foisted on us by this government. There's a lot of resentment towards this, this prime minister and therefore he doesn't have he doesn't have a lot of authority right now. It's the worst of all worlds for us right now. Yeah, but that's short term, right? I mean, you prorogue parliament until the end of March, presumably you'll have a confidence vote sometime soon thereafter, and you'll go to an election and there'll be a new prime minister, whoever it is. I think it's important in the interim for those who seek the liberal leadership and certainly the current conservative leader to stand up and be clear what they think about all of this. And I accept that Mr. Trudeau is a lame duck, but I think his response was important.

You know, this ain't gonna happen. I only have a minute left with you, and I'd love to get your comments because we talked about Greenland. The Panama Canal, you're on your way down to Washington for Jimmy Carter's funeral, and the Panama Canal was handed back to the Panamanians in under Jimmy Carter. Talk to me about the strategic value of it,

if Donald Trump gets his way, talk to me about the strategic value of it for the Americans. Well, the reason we did the Panama Canal Treaty in the 70s, and I was in the United States Senate working for Senator Sam Nunn at the time, the reason we did it was because there was no way for the United States to continue to defend the Panama Canal without having thousands and thousands of troops down there, because the local citizenry didn't

want us running the place. So it was pragmatic, not just generous, for us to give it back to the Panamanians. And despite the fact that we built it and paid for it, it's an asset that we take advantage of. I don't think there's any set of circumstances where the United States could go back in there and either appropriately take it back or from a security point of view, be able to take it back and run it. Gordon, Gordon Giffin, I've got to end it there, but thank you so much for joining us, Mr. Ambassador. Good to talk to you, anytime.

We've been talking prorogation for the past couple of days. We said to ourselves that we wouldn't talk about it unless there was something new worthy of your attention. Well, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms is is providing lawyers on an urgent basis to two Canadians, David McKinnon and Eris Lavranos, seeking a federal court declaration that Prime Minister Trudeau's recent prorogation of parliament is unreasonable and must be set aside. We're joined now by James Manson, lawyer for Charter Advocates Canada. James, welcome to the show. And James, I'm assuming that you are part of this lawsuit. That's right, Ben.

Thanks for having me. I am the lead counsel on this application for judicial review, Ben. That's the mechanism that we're going to be going into court with. It's the federal court. And yeah, I'll be lead counsel on the matter. That's right. Okay. So give me the elevator pitch. Why do you think you got a case? Well this case really is important, Ben. It, it really invites the, the, the court to ask

and answer a question that we've never had before in this country, which is what are the limits of a prime minister's power to prorogue parliament. That's never been decided here in Canada, but it was decided about five years ago when Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the UK, he chose to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid some tough questions dealing with the Brexit negotiations, as you may recall. So the UK Supreme Court back in 2019 heard a challenge like the one that we're bringing here today. And they ruled 11 to 0 unanimously then, that Prime Minister Johnson's decision to prorogue

in those circumstances was unlawful. And what the Supreme Court said was, basically, you can't get in the way of fettering or limiting or in any way interfering with Parliament's ability to oversee the government and to supervise the government. Because, Ben, as you know, that is Parliament's job to oversee the government. And so what we're suggesting in our case is a similar thing is happening. When you've got a prorogation for 11 weeks, and you've got a prorogation where the reasons given by the

Prime Minister on Monday were number one to do a leadership race, which our clients will argue, Ben, that that really has nothing to do with the business of government. Secondly, the 11-week, we're going to say that that's just simply too long. And thirdly, the other reason given by the Prime Minister, Ben, was to reset parliament. While my clients will be arguing that really the only legitimate and democratic way to do that is to have an election. Yeah. And so really what we're talking about here is when you look at all the circumstances,

this adds up to the government of the Prime Minister deciding to remove Parliament from the equation for a few months and to not allow them to supervise the functioning of the government. And we say that that's not reasonable. So some would argue, everything you say makes complete sense to me, but some would push back and say, tell me how this case and these circumstances are different

than the last time Stephen Harper prorogued parliament, because they are constantly being compared as one and the last time Stephen Harper prorogued parliament because they are constantly being compared as one in the same. Then I don't wanna really go into the Stephen Harper prorogation. I wasn't very happy with that either, truth be told. I wasn't a lawyer at that point and I didn't have the ability to challenge anything.

Fair enough. In 2008, but what I can say is that, had this argument been made before, you know, during the Harper time, had we had the UK decision from the Supreme Court, and you know, back then, there might have been a different outcome back then. All I can say right now is that we've got this judgment from the UK. Now, I want the listeners to understand, of course, that the UK's decision, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,

that's not binding, right, on our courts, of course. We're gonna have to invite the court here in Canada to accept the reasoning from the UK Supreme Court, which, you know, those are a bunch of very smart jurists over there. We're gonna be asking the court here to accept and conclude that the same principles apply because, you know, Ben, as you know, the Constitution of Canada provides that our constitution is supposed to be similar in principle to that of the UK.

And that's the linchpin. Yeah. So let's, I got some questions for you here and I don't want to run out of time because this is a fascinating conversation. Talk to me timelines here. When do you get to go before the court? When do they hear you? When do you expect to hear a decision? Well, we have asked the court to proceed on an urgent basis.

I will shortly be asking the, I'll be writing to the court. We'll be asking the court to, you know, set an expedited timeline. It's going to be up to the court to decide what they want to do. I hope that they will appreciate the gravity of the situation and that we can get going very quickly. But there's going to be some interest, I think, from, you know, maybe interveners. I don't know for sure, but it's possible. And that might slow us down a little bit, but I would hope that we can get this thing heard And that might slow us down a little bit, but I would hope that we can get this thing heard

well before the March 24th date. And so you go to court, does the government come in to defend its decision? How does it work? My sense of it is that it will be some lawyers from the Department of Justice of Canada, yes, who will come in and they will represent the prime minister, they'll represent the attorney general, yes, who will come in and they will represent the Prime Minister, they'll represent the Attorney General. Yes. And in the in the UK during the case that led to the decision

that you've been that is underpinning your action, how long how long was that case? How long did the the court take with that one? That was pretty quick. Ben, as you may recall, what happened in that case was there was a lower court ruling and then they jumped immediately from the lower court right to the Supreme Court. I don't know that we could do that in this case, but that's a different issue. What I'm trying to get at is that the UK Supreme Court was able to very quickly make a decision and they ruled, as the listeners may remember, that UK Parliament had never been prorogued because the whole thing was unlawful. So they were back in back in Parliament the next day.

Ah, see, that was going to be my next question. If you get the outcome that you're hoping for, what changes on the ground? Well, my suggestion to the court would be to similarly to what happened in the UK, to say that parliament in fact has never been prorogued and that therefore parliament can go back to work the following day and MPs can go and do the business of the country as per usual. And then of course it would be up to them to decide if they want to have a non-confidence motion or not, if they want to, you know, respond to anything coming from the states or, you know, President Trump or not,

and otherwise do whatever they think needs to be done. Well, I want to thank you for coming onto the show. I want to thank you for laying this out. It's, you know, sometimes the law can be confusing to people, but you were very, very clear about your goals and intentions and the history around this. So let, as this proceeds through the courts, we hope that you'll come back to the Ben Mulroney show with with regular

updates. We'd love to give you the microphone. Ben Mulroney That'd be my pleasure, Ben. Thanks again. Ben Mulroney All right. Yeah, these guys are doing yeoman's work. This is important. I the more I read about this, and the more I read about the consequences of this prorogation, we've talked about it on this show. We've talked about the power vacuum in Ottawa. We've talked about how this leadership contest is a distraction that we do not need as a country. We talk about how the role of being involved

in a leadership contest runs counter to what we absolutely need from our government right now, which is having one voice, having a leader at the top, and having the most vital members of his cabinet working in concert with him to achieve a goal. And instead, what we're going to have is a lame duck prime minister and individuals who if they keep their portfolios,

will not be able to do both at 100 percent and if they resign their portfolios then somebody of a lesser caliber and I don't even know if that's possible will be assuming those roles and those people who were former cabinet ministers will be trying to identify how they are different from everybody else around the cabinet table. So you're gonna have a cacophony of noise and and a cacophony of self-interest when you should have one voice and one interest and that interest is the people of Canada. This is a an absolute it is a mess of the highest order. It is chaos of the highest order. You know we talk about Donald Trump being an agent of chaos. Has anybody sown more chaos at the federal level than Justin Trudeau did when he prorogued parliament?

I would submit that no. In my lifetime, I've never seen anything like this. And I love that these lawyers are trying to come in and restore order. I'm really happy that we're gonna turn the page on politics for just a little bit. And we're going to talk tech. And we're going to talk tech with the person the only person I really want to be talking tech with is Mohit Rajan's

Mediologist and Consultant for thinkstart.ca Mohit, welcome to the show. Nice to hear you. So look, a lot of us raise an eyebrow when Zuckerberg made his way to, I don't know, kiss the ring at Mar-a-Lago. We thought, oh, this is interesting. Facebook making nice with Trump. And now it seems to be coming even more in alignment with the priorities and values of Elon Musk that he brought to Twitter by claiming to promote free expression.

Let's listen to what he had to say. We're going to move our trust and safety and content moderation teams out of California and our US based content review is going to be based in Texas. As we work to promote free expression, I think that will help us build trust to do this work in places where there is less concern about the bias of our teams. Yeah, so Meta is ending its fact checking program in favor of a community notes system. This is quite a surprise. What do you make of this?

I question three things. One, the timing of it. I mean, I don't really understand why Mark Zuckerberg thinks now is the most opportunistic time to get out of the fact checking news world. Second, I really do suffer a little bit with this idea that over 20 million people in Canada alone are connected to the meta platform. And if we think about how those numbers alone compared to how news sources are consumed, there's a potential problem in the middle here.

And then the third, which is probably the less obvious problem, is what is Zuckerberg going to do with his entire actual platform now that he's already bowed to the what seems like political pressure? Well, let's stay with the meta conversation for a moment because there was they've been they've really doubled down on AI. And there's there's news that they had they had AI character accounts that they had AI character accounts that they had created that they're removing

because people called them creepy and unnecessary. Can you break this down for us? Cause this is a new story for me. So basically what you're seeing on all social media accounts, not just Meta, is this use and introduction of early generation AI, AGI. You know, just you can create fun characters, you can create moments from your

various pictures that you've had. Meta took it one step further and they said, well, you can create your own characters and characters that you can publish and will support AI generation on our app. Because to be honest with you, we're training their products, right? And so Meta basically said, have fun training it, we're going to play around. But the truth is, eventually it got to a point where people weren't able to necessarily decipher between what they were seeing

and what was driving these experiences, for example. Why all of a sudden you're seeing this cartoon cat doing a bunch of dances when you normally see cat videos. And it brought up a logical point, which is if you're going to start to develop an actual product that is going to introduce synthetic media without announcing that this is going to be a part of your feed, so to speak, it's going to be problematic. It seems like that comes into line with the first story we talked about, that they're

going to, you know, that there's a push in meta to sort of be more be more free and be more authentic and less top heavy top down in terms of the promoting free expression. Yeah, that's a good point. And so let's just put it like all asphetist bait here. Metas out of the news game, they're basically saying, right, I have been in situations where news agencies have tried to build relationships with meta. And they're saying, you know what, we're out. We don't know how we're gonna be able to answer to all these potential litigations and

lawsuits, etc., etc. We're building AI on the backs of all this data, you know, and there's no secret that the 20 years of Facebook information is going into building some of these products that they're definitely accelerating on when it comes down to their competitive advantage. He doesn't want to be in front of Congress every week answering to how they built things 10 years ago. And I think he's making it very clear that he's onwards and upwards with his products and wants no accountability for some of the changes that people come to him

for. You know, you and I have talked a lot in the past about how new technologies are, they're tools. They're not good, nor are they bad. It depends on the intent of the user. And we've also talked about how when you create a new technology, you also inadvertently create, you create the possibility of all those negative things.

For example, when the airplane was created, you also invented the airplane crash. When you created the car, you created the possibility of all those negative things. For example, when the airplane was created, you also invented the airplane crash when you created the car, you created the car crash. And and so with with those two comments as a backdrop, I want to talk about the the the two terrorist attacks that shook the United States and indeed people around the world earlier this year with the Las Vegas cyber truck explosion, as well as the New Orleans attacker. And they both use technology in ways that is surprising everyone. Let's almost start with the cyber truck, how he used AI to plan a blast. Yeah, so let's, let's talk about this

very quickly. Because if you read the details that were reported, they're basically saying a search history of ChatGPT had indicated that the plan was hatched out through the use of ChatGPT as research, which if you think about it, millions of people would do around the world for different reasons, et cetera, et cetera. So that's where the AI is proving out to be the topic of conversation. But it's just as simple as his Google search would have been, whether he had a quicker way to form this evil or not is really not-

Well, you know what, Mohit? I'm gonna push back a little bit. I mean, let's say I was writing a book. I want to write a novel. And in that novel, there was a well-orchestrated, well-planned out terrorist attack. I believe a chat GPT would be the perfect tool to help me figure out what that would look like.

Say I'm writing a book and it takes place in New Orleans and my antagonist wants to kill as many people as possible using technology and using a car, X, Y, and Z. Tell me how something like that could go down. I mean, my use of it is innocuous. I wanna write a book that would be entertaining, but that could also be a highly effective way for somebody to plan out a mass casualty event. And

Google, I don't think Google can provide that. Okay, well I do agree with you in terms of the use case scenario that you just mentioned. Without the guardrails that are currently in place, there are not guardrails in place when it comes down to searching for certain types of information. And you allude to many of the problematic things that AGI comes up with, including false information. But I think in this particular case, what we'll end up seeing in these two terrorist attacks, what we've noted through the use of technology is for in the first one, we've

noted that there's a wonderful amount of confidence that everybody in the world all of a sudden has through the use of AI can be doing anything from plagiarizing entire texts to understanding and plotting some very harmful things that exist. We have to acknowledge that. It's part of what we have to fix on the other one, the VR side that we wanted to talk about. Yes, the meta glasses. Yeah, please. You've got about a minute left. Yeah. And so the meta glasses one scares me in particular because there's video surveillance that he had done prior to the attacks, which ended up actually in public in public domain

somehow I'm assuming through the meta system. And then obviously was used to understand how he could actually plan his attack more meticulously. What that also points out to is the fact that law enforcement will have to start to become diligent about people wearing glasses when it comes down to how they're surveying situations. And also where does meta responsibility lie when it comes down to information like this

and turning it over to authorities? Yeah, well, exactly. And whatever guardrails exist right now, we've blown past them by the use case that we just experienced. Hey Mohit, I want to thank you very much. Always love chatting with you. Because when we talk tech, it's not always about tech, it's what it means to us and what it could mean to us in the future. So thank you very much.

Take care, man. And I'm very pleased to have Fred DeLorey, the former National Campaign Manager for the Conservative Party of Canada, the Chair and Chief Strategy officer for North Star Public Affairs on the show, Fred, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me on, Ben. So to our listeners, the reason we wanted to talk to you is because you've got a I read on your Twitter yesterday, do

Trudeau's actions prove we need to make the governor general democratically legitimate. And I want to drill down into that conversation. Tell me why you feel the governor general is democratically illegitimate. Well, that's the, it's an appointed position right now. You know, we have a monarchy. We are in a mess of a situation where we have a lame duck prime minister,

a paralyzed parliament, and we're facing the biggest economic threat this country has ever faced with president Trump and his tariff threats. Yep. We need an election, but if the governor general was to call an election that was to see what's going on and call an election, that would cause another issue. Um, that she was not democratically elected.

She doesn't have a mandate truly to do that. I know she theoretically has the power to do it, but it would really cause a lot of issues, I think, if she was to go ahead and do that. So what I think what we should consider is having an elected governor general. Let's legitimize that position. We can continue having a monarchy, a symbolic head of state and the king, and we can have the people choose who the governor general is instead of the prime minister. And then that gives that person legitimacy to step in when warranted like it is right now. Fred, wouldn't that require reopening the constitution? Oh, I'm sure it'll be, I would think it could actually, let me back up. It may not. There could

be a simple solution. If you look at how the prime minister appoints senators right now, he set up a committee that advises him. He then goes to the governor general and appoints the senators through that. Before that, it was just done. The prime minister just came up with a name and submitted it. So you could have an election and then whoever wins that election would be appointed by the prime minister. Right. Or given the name to the, to the, to the king, to the monarch. And that is who that person would pick from instead of the prime minister being the only person who chooses. So I think there is a much simpler way to do it without going through the whole constitutional change. Well, that's certainly a problem. That's a solution

for the future. What is the solution for the crisis we find ourselves in today, Fred? Look, the liberals are now in a leadership race. I hope that party understands the crisis we're in and chooses to have a quick race. And I would assume all of those leadership candidates will be pressed hard to call an election immediately. Go get a mandate from the people because we need a government in place to negotiate and deal with the threat of Trump. Right now, the way things are looking, like we may not get a functional government until November.

Like this is crisis mode. And look, I'm looking at the tweet that Justin Trudeau put out yesterday in response to this economic force argument that was sent our way. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States, it goes on. And then Elon Musk trolled him and said, girl, you're not the governor of Canada

anymore. So it doesn't matter what you say. There's he that is an entirely disrespectful thing to say, but our prime minister commands no respect. That's the problem we have right now. And it's funny, it's, you know, true, finally weighing in on this stuff. Like Trump's been talking like this for months. And now that Trudeau's leaving, he's now weighing in, which is interesting. But that's the problem we have. How is he going to negotiate right now with Trump? He can't. He has no true mandate anymore.

He's giving that up by announcing he's resigning. So Fred, yesterday, Andrew Coyne, the journalist, said that this is a crisis and the prime minister has to stop messing around and he needs to rescind prorogation and call back the House of Commons. Do you agree with that? And I'm not even sure of the machinations and how it works, but can one rescind a prorogation?

Look, I guess he could ask the governor General to just call the House back earlier. But even then, I don't know what the pro, like the government would be defeated, then would go into an election right away. Yeah, and from what I understand, the shortest possible campaign would be 36 days. So we could have a new government. If he did that, we could have a new government in place. And let's blue sky this. Anyone can win an election. That's why we fight them. That's why you have election campaigns. So while I believe it's a mathematical certainty that Pierre Poglia forms the next government, you still have to run the campaign. So let's do it. Let's see who the people

decide want to sit opposite Donald Trump at the campaign table or at the negotiating table. Exactly. That's what I was, I've been saying this for months. Trudeau should just call the election if he truly believed in his program and his platform. And if he believed Canadians believed in it as well, let's go and put forward the best team possible to deal with Trump.

And if Trudeau thought that was, I know obviously he's given up entirely. So he's out. So that's again, the mess we're in. But he, like, he's left it and put his party in this country in such a bad spot by resigning now, weeks before a new president comes in and just pushes off all of this potential change that we need desperately for months and months and months. Well, I've got to say that if you had told me that Justin Trudeau's negative legacy would continue to be written after the days after he resigned, I wouldn't have been able to come up with a scenario to explain that statement. And yet here we are.

He continues to write like he finds new ways to write new terrible chapters in his political legacy. It's amazing. It's astounding. He is going to go down, um, as one of the most or the most unpopular prime minister. And look, prime ministers, we know tend to leave office unpopular. It happens most of the time at some level. Um, but his legacy, I mean, all of the programs, all of the stuff that he's put in is so brittle and breakable. It's going to be all undone as soon as the new prime minister gets in. So his legacy is going to be this dysfunction. Yeah. Yeah. Listen, Fred DeLorey, thank you so much. Thank you for highlighting what you

see as a sort of a flaw in our in our constitutional system. I appreciate it. I hope you have a great day. Thanks, Ryan. BC Children's Hospital is one of North America's top pediatric care hospitals, leading the way in groundbreaking research, treatment and innovation. We're pushing the boundaries of what's possible so kids of all ages and health challenges can have the best opportunity to thrive. We're treating today's patients and we're shaping the future of pediatric care in BC, Canada and beyond. Amazing people wanted. Must love kids. Apply now at jobs.bccildrens.ca