The Munk Debates Podcast - Friday Focus: Canada's existential election and a very concerning Trump interview

Episode Date: March 21, 2025

Friday Focus provides listeners with a focused, half-hour masterclass on the big issues, events and trends driving the news and current events. The show features Janice Gross Stein, the founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and bestselling author, in conversation with Rudyard Griffiths, Chair and moderator of the Munk Debates. With a Canadian election just around the corner, Rudyard and Janice agree that the most important question on the ballot is who is the best candidate to see Canada through this unprecedented period of economic warfare with the Trump administration. Rudyard thinks the outcome of this election could reveal cracks in the Canadian electorate that threaten the unity of this country. A win for Mark Carney could re-ignite Alberta's sovereign ambitions and ruin the Conservative Party. In the second half of the show Rudyard and Janice discuss Trump's interview this week with Laura Ingraham where he presents a deranged understanding of America and its relationship with Canada. Are we in a King George situation with a leader that has no inhibition, no guardrails, and no grand strategy?  To support the Friday Focus podcast consider becoming a donor to the Munk Debates for as little as $25 annually, or $.50 per episode. Canadian donors receive a charitable tax receipt. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue. More information at www.munkdebates.com.Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The following is a complimentary excerpt of this week's edition of the Friday Focus podcast by The Monk Debates. To access full-length editions of each and every episode, along with all kinds of great additional benefits and perks, become a donor to the Monk Debates. You can do that for as little as $25 a year, and you'll receive each and every year 50 Friday Focus episodes at full length. It's all available right now on our website. in just a few simple clicks. Triple W. The Monk Debates.com. Look for the Friday Focus option in our navigation bar, the top right of the website. Make your donation, and we will send you each and every Friday a link to listen to the

full-length edition of this program. Thanks in advance for your generous contribution. Welcome to the Friday Focus podcast for the 21st of March. I'm Richard Griffiths, the chair of the Monk Debates. I'm joined by Janice Gross Stein, the founder. director of the Monk School of Global Affairs. Well, Janice, looks like we are on the verge, 2448 hours. All reports indicate that Mark Carney will be going to the Governor General to request an election. It will, again, if reports are accurate, see us headed to the polls, a short, sharp election.

the minimum time allotted aloud. That would see you and I voting, along with the rest of the bunk of membership, on the 29th of April, 2025. Not a surprise, Richard. Neither is the timing. It would be literally at the 11th hour and 59th minute before Parliament comes back. So not a surprise. And I don't know about you, but if we think back two months ago, given all the possibilities, as Princess Diana famously said, we are going to get some clarity finally by the beginning of May.

We will have an elected government that gives somebody, I hope, a mandate, which we really need in these extraordinary times. Yeah. Before I forget, talking about support in Extraordinary Times, I do want to thank some new monk donors this last week. So Gail R., Melanie L. Derek D., Nicholas M., Bruce S. and Carrie K. Thank you so much for becoming supporters of the Monk debates and allowing us to have these types of conversations along with our main stage debates. Janice, if you had to frame a ballot question for the 29th of April, what would it be?

What is the big question or issue that Canadians want answered? I'm going to give me a one-cent answer and tell you how conflicted I am. Reddard about it. The one-sent's answer,

who will best see Canada through this unprecedented period where the United States has fundamentally declared economic war on this country. It has to be that because that just trumps everything else. And that's a really lousy pun. Right behind that are a set of issues which Canadians care about. The cost of eggs is the easiest way to express the underlying concern about inflation and higher prices, lagging productivity. There was a basket of economic issues that have not gone away, Rudyard. And I just want to put those on the agenda.

They're just completely overshadowed because the challenge from Trump is so much more now than just sent a. economic challenge. Yeah, we can get into later his extended kind of rant against Canada that provided some more confirmation indeed of a fixation the president seems to have about Canada and the 51st state rhetoric that he delivered on Fox News to Laura Ingram. But before we go there, I think we could see over the course of this campaign another ballot question emerge. I don't know whether it displaces the Trump one, but I think right now Canadians understandably are very focused on what they see as a threat from outside of the country.

I think what we're less aware of and what maybe worries me a bit about the coming campaign is that we are going to see some very, very stark divisions revealed inside the country. our national unity is much weaker than we realize that the last decade of stagnant economic growth, the after effects of the pandemic, a kind of rough housing, at best, an abuse at worst, of national symbols, and kind of national pride has put the country. not simply in its usual touchy and kind of ornery mood that it seems

to greet the world most of the time. I think it's created some deep divisions between primarily Western Canada and central Canada. And that these divisions

are being exacerbated by Trump and tariffs and how we retaliate. Do we use energy? Do we not? Is the auto sector on Trump's radar? If it is, is there a national response to that that involves countervailing duties on energy? I think these types of issues will become very live and very real on April 2nd when the president unveils what I think there's every expectation will be fairly punitive tariffs on a variety of,

Canadian industries that will be specific to different parts of our geography. And Janice, I worry about a scenario, and I'll stop here, where the madness of kings, you know, descends. And we have punitive tariffs on dairy in Quebec, automobiles in Ontario, and an exemption on oil and natural gas from the West. In other words, we are thrown into a national unity election in a way that we're just not seeing right now. I think that's a real worry, I think you've got it in a sense. Supply management and dairy, this president has talked about literally from all the readouts of conversations that we have both in public and private all the time. Now, he agreed to the last deal, but it's clearly what I'm only bugging him.

That he did agree to that. And I have no doubt that's at the top of the list. The car sector, we know. The really interesting thing is what happens to oil and gas. And he's already shown us at the very worst. It will be a differential tariff. And let's just go on to the mix that Daniel Steele said, Mark Carney, a letter. I told him he had six months to get it straight, and here's what he needs

to do in the first six months. And I may not be quoting the words exactly, but the census right, if he wanted to avoid the worst national unity crisis ever. So I think you're right. That's lingering beneath the surface. I'm not sure, just to put another scenario on the table here, that April the 2nd is going to be quite what we think. And why is that, Rudyard? So let me take you down this wonky rabbit hole for one minute. Apparently, what we're all going to get is a number, which is based on the calculations that the Trump administration makes.

And it includes everything, you know, non-tariff barriers like the GST and other sorts of things. But they're very clear that is the beginning. of a negotiation. And the terms are clear. Remove this, like get rid of the GST, your tariffs will drop. So paradoxically, this election campaign,

just think about this one, short, is going to be fought during a period of, I'm positive of this, rhetorical engagement with the Trump administration on what's legitimate, what's not legitimate, as more professional negotiations are going on about the tariffs.

I don't think we're actually going to be hit with the tariffs during this election. Yeah. I still think there's some square that needs to be circled or circled that needs to be squared, which is that the president does want tariffs. He wants them for generating revenue. He wants them as a signal, a price signal for, manufacturers to relocate into the United States. So whether the tariffs come April 2nd or not,

I think what will probably be a very aggressive opening position will nonetheless create, in Canadians' minds, a sense that, yes, some of these tariffs can and maybe hopefully will be negotiated away, but that one, the relationship is fundamental. changed and second, I think there's a lot of interest on the part of the Trump administration for some serious net tariffs to remain at the end of this process. And what I worry about, Janice, is a scenario where our federal leaders in this election get into a bidding war

over who can be, you know, Captain Canada. And who can, in a sense, because I think all the political incentives would be to do this to say, we're not considering any reforms to supply management. We won't, you know, Brooke, any assault on our auto industry, which frankly has decreased in size in Ontario every single year for the last decade and a half. It's an industry that has been in serial decline and propped up by massive government. subsidies. That's a non-partisan statement because each and every federal government and provincial government has engaged in, you know, effectively of corporate welfare to the Ontario auto sector. And then you've got energy out west where if a certain politician is behind or head in a certain

region, there's going to be a lot of incentives to telegraph what indeed a party and a leader's policy is going to be with regards to Western energy. Will it form part of Canada's retaliatory response or not? So, boy, Janice, I just, I think we're, again, I think we're kind of missing the force through the trees right now. We're so focused on Trump. And I worry that the fault lines, the powder keg is actually inside Canada, not outside at this moment.

You know, it is a terrible time to have an election. I think you and I would both agree about it. You're really terrible because you don't want to negotiate publicly with his president, frankly. But that's inevitable. As you rightly say, that is just inevitable because these two-party leaders seek to outbid each other in different parts of the country. So, you know, Mark Carney said yesterday, we have to do some. something about, and thank goodness he said this, we have to do something about building faster,

pipelines, infrastructure. I mean, this is a really bad story about this country, how long it takes to get anything built in this country, and he took that on. Well, certainly in the West, when you hear that, that's what you want to hear. It also happens to be a matter of national urgency that we, are able to get, I don't care what we're building. It can't take the time, you know, the length of time that is typically so in this country. But Carney also and Palliev, both of them, have toned down the rhetoric with respect to Trump, if you notice.

They're watching the international successes so-called than anybody is having with Trump. And my kind of maxim, don't bait him and don't be bad him and don't be. debated by him is fundamentally the space that they're both operating. But how hard, and here's where I completely agree with you, how hard is that to maintain when you're in a close selection in a very short period of time? It's, you know, I can't frankly see how both of them are going to be able to do that. And there's going to be a leader's debate, Redyard. I'm sure there will have to be at least one.

And so this, frankly, you know, from somebody like me who looks at it from an international negotiation perspective, wow, this timing is awful, frankly. I just hope that people around Trump get it that this is an election and they discount some of it and they wait until May. But I'm glad we're having a short election. I am absolutely glad that this is the fastest possible, shortest possible election we could have. Yeah, I think it's also what the outcome of the election is and whether that delivers on what Canadians fundamentally want, which is a strengthened position vis-à-vis the United States. I'm concerned that, you know, I would say an election held today probably produces a minority government of one form or another. And that would be one unstable on its own.

Second, I do worry and to build on your reference to Daniel Smith, the Premier of Alberta this week and her kind of harsh words for Carney after a meeting with him, basically asserting a kind of an agenda for what you might euphemistically call Sovereignty Association for Alberta in light of a liberal win, that we again could see if the liberals form government, either a minority or majority. And again, Mark Carney, by making himself prime minister

without ever having held elected office or having met the house or tested the confidence of the house, has the right as prime minister to meet the house first after the election, even if Pierre Pollyov wins more seats than him, provided pure poly have less seats than what's required to form a majority. So, you know, that could end up being an incredibly explosive situation where, let's say,

the liberals and a couple of the remaining members, the NDP party form, you know, reconstitute a supply arrangement or some type of agreement to govern. And then you have, I think, a volcanic. eruption out of Western Canada. And again, we're playing a kind of counterfactual history here, but you could see the 51st state become more than just an empty kind of Trump slogan. It could, in fact, become part of a rallying cry for Western, and particularly, a separatist movement that then emerges, erupts in Alberta.

So I think voters, you know me, I'm always a little bit, the glass half empty. I think we have to be pretty realistic about what this election is going to deliver for us, barring some significant change in the polls or in the framing of the campaign or in the ballot question. we're a weak country going into this election, and I'm not so sure we're going to come out of it stronger. Look, you know, the scenario you just painted, but you're very credible, very credible, because separatist or sovereignty association,

whatever language you want to use your tenancies in Alberta, have been brewing for quite a while. And that's why Danielle Smith, can send that kind of harsh tone. Can you use that kind of harsh tone in a letter. Let's talk about supply management. Dairy, that we know is right on. It is number one.

It's such a small issue, but economically. You know it. I know it. But wow, does cheddar cheese loom large right now in the relationship between the United States and Canada. But where's that going to hit? Quebec. And again, so the threats, yeah,

I think are first in Alberta, but don't discount Quebec. Don't discount Quebec. If it becomes clear, as I think it will be, that we are going to have to make concessions on supply management, on dairy. The country cannot be held hostage.

So I think that that is coming and that could ignite a political tsunami in Quebec as well. What's the big saving grace here, Roger? I think there is one. Trump is so vitriolic. You just referred to that a moment ago. He is so vitriolic toward Canada. It's obsessive. He comes back to it again and again that the external threat,

is kind of the unifying glue right now that actually is papering over these differences. I don't expect that tone to change. Janice, you know, in the absence of a federal leadership over the last 90 days, because Justin Trudeau ragged the puck, you know, too long and then had to spring a liberal leadership on the country, when all this should have been resolved and we should have had an election and we would have a government now, majority, minority, whatever it would have been. We would have been going into April 2nd with a federal government able to react. And instead, the entire country had to take a time out while Justin Trudeau shut down parliament

and the liberals did what they needed to do, which was have a leadership. That's created and empowered these premiers as we discussed on last week's show in ways that we've never seen before. And they are, you know, feeling their oats, as the saying goes. And I, I don't think it's just supply management. I think it's Doug Ford in Ontario. We'll be seized on auto tariffs. He'll be demanding, you know, in the event that these tariffs are not lifted, that, you know, countervailing duties be imposed on, on not just American, imports, but Canadian energy exports. And good luck, the politician, again,

that tries to square this when, if the polls are right and they remain as close as they are now, Ontario and Ontario voters will be potentially the deciding block in the election. So you're forced as Mark Carney or Pierre Polly, into some kind of Faustian bargain where you have to capitulate to a hugely damaging in terms of national unity demand

by the Premier of Ontario to publicly signal that yes, you will do whatever it takes to eliminate tariffs on Canadian automobiles imported into the United States. I just think we are walking into a buzzsaw

over the next 36 days. And it's kind of of our own making. Again, the country is weakened. The regions are ascendant. The politics of division are rife in this in Canada right now. And I hope cooler heads will prevail, but this is an existential election, especially for the conservatives.

The conservatives lose this election. I don't think there's a conservative party that exists on the other side of it. I think the conservative party would fracture. You'd have a return to something at best that looks like the Reform Party out of Western Canada that just gives up on the idea of conservatives ever forming government. And that's the best option. The worst option is an outright separatist party emerging. like the Block Quebecois out of Alberta.

I mean, these are, this is an existential election for the conservatives. And Pierre Pollyev will have some incredibly tough choices, you know, as will Mark Kearney. Yeah. Look, I agree with you, Redd, the domestic politics of this election are just as important as the international. It is a very, very consequential election. I want to go back to a comment that you just made because you're right. This election is going to be won or lost in Ontario. How new is that in Canadian politics, right?

And that is an enduring sense of frustration in Alberta. That's where the numbers are. That's where the voters are. And in close elections, given our electoral system, you'll win or lose elections in Ontario. That's a problem for Polly-F. as you just said. It's a problem for Carney. That's where the election is going to be one or lost.

And when you put that in the law, and by the way, let's just say, wait for one second to talk about Trump's comments about Doug Ford. He made some quite nasty comments about Pollyette. And there were people who think that's just a setup because the Trump fury is so high in this country, that the best thing it can happen to a political

leader in this country is to have Trump and talk you, and this was all organized and a Trump setup. Well, the next day, it's not. It's not, let me tell you, nobody manages Donald Trump that way. So let's take that one off the agenda for sure. Okay. But then what does

he say? Oh, there's one strong guy out there. There's one tough guy out there. It's stuck forward. And the President of the United States noticed boom, not the leaders of the federal party. He noticed the Ontario Premier. That's who's on his radar.

And so you're right to draw attention. And what's Doug Ford doing in Washington talking about tariffs? Frankly, that's the job of the federal government. Yes, he was surrounded by federal officials and by the minister of financing. into provincial trade, but come on. Doug Ford is now Captain Canada, and that's going to play in the election for sure.

So I think there are two big stories for these, for the long month of April that I hope comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb is all I can say. It's how we manage Trump and how kick the rhetoric down,

the man. Thanks for listening to this excerpt of the Friday Focus podcast to get full-length editions of each and every episode of this program. Simply go to our website, www.com. Click on the Friday Focus tab in our navigation on the top right of the site. Make a donation as little as $25 a year of 50 cents an episode and we'll send you not only the full-length editions of each and every Friday Focus podcast, but all kinds of special offers, perks, access to events, and additional content. Again, you can do that right now by becoming

a donor to the Monk Debates at triple W. Monk Debates, MUNK, DebateswithanS dot com.