The Munk Debates Podcast - Friday Focus: the danger of Canada’s “war” rhetoric

Episode Date: September 25, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney says he studied the possibility of U.S.-led military action against Canada in an hour-long interview with The New York Times. Meanwhile, politicians across Canada—from Doug Ford to Carney and David Eby—are enjoying a surge in popularity thanks to their “elbows up” approach to Trump. But is it time to call out this rhetoric as unhelpful—and potentially an impediment to finding a way for our two countries to work through this challenge? Rudyard and Janice agree: this is a trade dispute, not a war, and it is irresponsible for our leaders to suggest otherwise. Canadians should stop worrying about the prospect of war and focus instead on resolving the dispute.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.

This is consequential, but there's a big difference. There is a line. War is a problem of a totally different order of magnitude. And we have to be careful how we use that language. Welcome to the Friday Focus podcast for the 25th of September, 26. I'm Roger Griffiths, Chair of the Monk Debates, joined in studio by my co-host, Janice Grooste. Hey, Janice. Rudd, you just sent a chill through my spine when you said the 25th.

September. That means by next Friday focus, September will be gone and October will be here, not good news. I know. You are not a winter person, are you, Janice? What is that? You're a Montrealer, so you grew up in, you know, one of the toughest urban environments in Canada for bad winters. And now you're a wimp. I'm a total wimp. The only thing I can say, I must have been traumatized by those Montreal winters and still have PTSD because, I hate winter. Wow, we'll have to do something about that. Maybe we'll let you tape from the comfort of your cozy home on Friday's starting at least December

first. I think we can be tolerant that way. But great to have you in the studio again today. So much to talk about. Lots of stuff happening, a big Unga, UN General Assembly meeting, a whole bunch of speeches. We have the Trump G. Summit wrapping up. But before we get to that, a story. my eye this week. And I know you had a number of people email you about it. It's a topic that I've

had a lot of people reach out to me really since Donald Trump's re-election. And it was the reports in an interview that Prime Minister Mark Carney gave to the New York Times that he had, I was entirely clear, either instructed officials or officials of the Department of Defense had prepared a series of scenarios for how the Canadian Armed Forces would deal with a U.S. military invasion of Canada. What do you make of this, and why does this seem to be such a persistent worry for a not-insignificant segment of the public when the Prime Minister, in his own words, described this in using kind of financial speak as a, quote, tail risk, close quote. What he said, Radyard was an extreme tail risk.

So what does that mean in simple English? It means a very, very, very low probability of something that were to happen could be very damaging. So. I would think so. Yeah, that's the understatement of September 2026. So he then goes on to say. And this is his background, right? And, you know, as governor of two banks, you look at these very, very, very unlikely scenarios.

But oh, my God, if they happen, they could wipe you out. You have to look at them and try to understand how low is the likelihood. What would be a good warning indicator? What should you watch for along the past? But, Janice, this was more than this. This was specific military planning as to what we would do if U.S. troops invaded were physically in Canada, how we would fight that war. And before we get to some of the tactics that were discussed, because again, this just seems so out there, it's one thing to conduct a scenario analysis like this. And in fact, it may be the responsible thing to do.

But why communicate this publicly in the New York Times? no less. I mean, what is the role in function of taking something that could be a prudential, confidential, no doubt high security secret exercise, and then reveal that in the single largest, arguably media institution in the world?

First of all, by the way, I mentioned this story, was leaked to the globe months ago, and all these details were already published in the globe, and it was leaked by so-called military planners, which means it came out. the Defense Department in one way or the other. So it wasn't, this was not news to any U.S. official who clearly monitor what's in the Canadian press, but it is striking that he talked about this in an hour-long interview with the New York Times, where it gets played that it would never get otherwise.

Now, how did this happen? It's twice in a row, in a sense, that the prime minister has responded to journalists' questions. So he didn't bring it up. A journalist asked him whether Canada was planning. So here you are. You know this stuff has been leaked already. You can't say no. The military is not planning.

But he then went on and gave this answer, which said in English, yeah, and we've looked at it. It's not responsible if we haven't looked at it. But boy, this is very, very unlikely to happen. Now, I'm saying it in English. He said it in financial speak. Just to draw the analogy, when's the other time this happened, and it was etched in my memory, it happened during that famous press conference. The Saturday morning, after the trade negotiations fell apart, I watched that press conference,

mesmerized, of course, given the stakes, and he gave a very steely presentation, which signaled resolved. And so a reporter from the press pool said, But this sounds to me like Mark Carney is going to war with the United States. Now, if you're seasoned, you know, this has happened to you. This has happened to me. There's a question that is a framing question. You just push back.

And he could have said, not at all. This is a very serious trade dispute that we're having with our biggest training partner. But he answered, well, we were attacked. Of course, we're going to war. And then the headline... Or we're at war, he said. At war. Yeah.

And the headline everywhere afterwards, Canada, all over the United States. Canada at war with the United States. So part of this is starting where press question leads you and not changing the field, frankly. Well, to engage in my usual role as skeptic on this program, there's also a lot of political. upside to talking in this way because there is a significant portion of the public who I believe have kind of hyperventilated themselves into paroxysms of paranoia that include what they believe are high high credibility threats that a U.S. invasion could be in the offing. And I just think at times the prime minister's language has been incautious because he's also a politician.

And politicians are, which he's good at, they know what the national mood is. They know what the touch points are that kind of elicit response. And I would think if you wanted to be a little bit uncharitable, and maybe I will this morning, just for the sake of debate. And I know there's a lot of people who watch and listen to this program who are ardent supporters of the Prime Minister, and that's terrific, and I think there's lots of good things that he's doing. But I do think that there's a tendency on part of this government to itself use hyperventilating language. It's done it again in this instance. It did it in the instance

that you said. There have been other periods where, again, the rhetoric has ratcheted up, and I don't think that that's coincidence. I think that there is a political, unfortunately, a political incentive structure in Canada right now. We're seeing all the premiers engage in it, which is, war drum beating about the Americans, either rhetorical or in the context of the trade war, is good for our political class. David Eby, the Premier of Alberta, has called an election out of the blue. The first word in his election call is Trump. Doug Ford has resuscitated poll numbers that were drifting into oblivion on the basis of

donning his Captain Canada cape. Mark Carney enjoys record poll numbers over Pierre Polyev and the other opposition parties in large part, if we want to be honest about this, because of Donald Trump, not necessarily because of his policies. Some of them, in fact, are unpopular with his own liberal voting constituency. So, Janice, I don't know. You definitely are the one who is more maybe expert at speaking politely. to the powerful, but at the same time, I think we need to call out this language, whether

intentional or not, it is a disservice to the larger challenge of ratcheting down tensions between Canada, the United States, and finding some way forward for our two countries, in the context of this trade war, in the context of the security relationship, in the context of all these bilateral interests, interests that we share together, things that Canada, the United States share together to figure out, to manage together, to work for it on. Look, Frederick, I agree with you that war language is harmful. As we describe our relationship with the United States, it really is not, first of all, it's not appropriate,

because we are not at war in any sense with the United States. We have a very serious, very serious trade dispute going on, which is existential for certain sectors of our country. economy for some of the, you know. And we didn't cause it. He caused it. They started it and I agree, that pisses me off. It pisses everybody off. That's right. And when you think about the number of workers involved, the number of small businesses involved here, this is consequential. But there's a big difference. There is a line. War is a problem of a totally different order of magnitude. And we have to be careful how we use that language. Let me just say one or two.

words about the scenario. That's a prime minister. Yeah, let's go there because it's pretty chilling. It seems like something out of like a Tom Clancy novel. Look, what this really says is, first of all, there's no evidence of any

intention that the United States, none, is preparing to use any kind of open force to invade. So, number one, everybody, take a breath. But the fact that we even have to say this, Janice. Take about everybody.

Chill out here, okay? Because I get asked us now all the time. Me too, a lot. And I say chill out, all right? Let's just take that. There's lots of things to worry about. That is not one we have to worry about. Second of all, if you were writing scenarios and they did, what would we do about it?

And here's the really amazing part. We get this from military planners and the wrong government. There's not much we can do about it. We don't have any capabilities to resist. So let's plan. a guerrilla war. Well, they quote, I guess, presumably Ukraine and how it responded to the Russian invasion. I think what's striking, if this again, is all true, is that it's not just Canadian

forces. In this memo, there's an assertion that there will be irregular forces. Janice, you and me with AR-15s, you know, lining up, I don't know, behind some railway track. I think that Tim Horton's. Yeah. I just, again, this is, even the planning to me is preposterous. Yes, that's right. As they described this scenario that we're going to.

Irregular forces. Irregular forces. Civilians. They say civilian. Me, and depending on me, boy, this country is really in bad shape. But there's no realistic. You know, we do have reserve forces. And, you know, tragically, we just had a horrible, horrible incident in Velvet

Ontario, where ex-military, were somebody who, and by the way, just as a segue, let me just call it for one moment, General Ryan Ear, who was the chief of the defense at that time, didn't have to say anything, but did, spoke out publicly about his regret and his sorrow that an ex-military engaged in this kind of... Who was drummed out of the service for refusing vaccines? I mean, this was a person that was evidencing some erratic. But still for an ex-chief of the defense staff, he doesn't, he came out openly and, you know, he expressed his sorrow and his solidarity. So I think that was, you know, that's the kind of leadership that is great to see, frankly. But coming back, this, the preparations made

the thing, the whole thing, the seem even more ludicrous. less likely. The fact is, you know, says it doesn't have to use force. And the prime minister said this was unlikely. He said, by the way, what's the scenario that the prime minister's talking about all the time? It is using economic coercion to break our spirit. And that's what you just described. This is serious?

We didn't start it. They did. Maybe just to try to do a service today to lay this fear to rest for people. I think there's two ways we might do that. One, you could explain what would be the international consequences of a U.S. invasion, of a fellow NATO member, a... You're almost making me laugh as you go through this. No, no, but I mean, you know, the effect on things that the President cares about, like U.S. stock markets, U.S. bond yields that have exploded... U.S. energy supplies.

Energy supplies. I mean, you can go, you can go on and on and understand that the, that barring some, you know, Dr. Strangelove kind of moment. It's not going to happen. This is, but then, but why has it, why you get these emails, I get these emails. Yeah. Why do people, nonetheless, when you try to patiently paint a picture of just how unlikely this is because of the seriousness for the United States, of undertaking this act, whether or not they can conquer as quickly militarily or not. Before you go any further, and then it's interesting to talk about why the public is so

exercised and comes back to this story. What is there in the public mood? Let's talk about some evidence that would suggest this is just not going to happen. There was no more bellicose rhetoric than the rhetoric Donald Trump used about Greenland, right? We need to own it. We need to own it. And there's an argument about the strategic importance of Greenland which are very real. It's just a stride in Northern Root that really matters. Well, the result of that became public this week, although we haven't seen the tax.

This is as close to a nothing burger as you ever get. Right. Right. It's an agreement that allows the United States. The agreement to ratify the existing agreement. Yeah, exactly. And what's new, that Denmark and Greenland, one interesting one, if Greenland ever becomes a dependent,

that it's still bound by it, even though the agreement is with the Danish government, okay, and then beyond that, well, if there were ever forces, hostile forces, i.e. Russian or Chinese, what's the chance of Denmark ever agree? Zero. So, out of all this fuss,

out of a bellicose, warlike tone coming from the president that almost broke apart NATO, So we get an agreement that ratifies the status quo. So Canadians should stop worrying. This is all I could say. Just take it off your agenda of worries. Somebody asked me the other day, well, she has a nuclear war with the United States until I said, zero.

Between Canada and the United States? Okay, we don't have nuclear weapons, thankfully, nor should we develop them. That's another that we can get at. Canada should start a nuclear weapons program at Chalk River. Can we please get, rid of that idea too. I know I know some of the proponents of that.

We know who those people are. We will not embarrass them by naming them. No, we won't, but that is off the wall. So let's just say there's a sort of off the wall scenarios. And, you know, if you're a responsible official, you can never say never, but that was

we are as close to never as possible. Yeah, I think just one final point, because I've tried to look into this a bit when, you know, worried people have reached out to me to get my views on this. And the reality is that senior military officials, war planners, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they are bound by the Constitution and oaths that they have sworn to the Constitution. They are not able to follow illegal orders. And a presidential directive to invade Canada that would not have

congressional approval and would not be in response to any hostile action or provocation. on the part of Canada, I think has every indication of reaching the bar for those senior officers, because they are responsible for the chain of command, to classify that as an unconstitutional order. Now, that is a subjective decision made by each senior officer individually. Pete Higgseth has purged. And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs then came. So I just think it's, I don't know, maybe, again, people, say that I'm naive, but having met a lot of the senior officer class of the U.S. military over the last

25 years, I have been always singularly impressed by the apoliticism of these people, by their seriousness, by the extent to which they are consummate professionals, and I just have a hard time imagining that you would find enough of them to engage in a reckless illegal war of of this scale and type, when their own careers and potentially their own legal liability would be exposed if they agreed to act on behalf of an order of the president to invade Canada unprovoked. I'm less confident, because we have a demoralized military in the United States where they're senior, the two countries that are purging their militaries and losing their four stars and an unbelievable rate are China and the United States.

Now, I think in a paradoxical way, that's good news for the next two and a half years, because these militaries are not fit to go to war. When you have a change of command that goes that deep, it really demoralizes the officers that remain. And look, you can make the same argument that you just made. Well, they shouldn't have done it in Venezuela either. They had an indictment of their leader. that did not justify the use of force, frankly.

It just didn't. But they did it anyway. But they did it because they thought they could succeed. This is a post. That wasn't the invasion. I mean, that was a snatch and grab. I think the scale of an invasion of Canada versus the arrest and extradition of Maduro.

The whole thing would be insane. Okay. It just would be insane, that's all. And look, one other thing, this is a post-Iran war military. You have a president now who may have figured out that a snatched grab didn't work in Iran. These things are tougher than he thought they were. And when your chairman of the Joint Chief says,

well, you know, sir, they might seize the straight of Hormuz. And he says, don't worry about that. That's not going to happen. Maybe just maybe he's learned something. This is not a toy you play with. But for every conceivable reason in the book, you can it's almost a Monty Python story frankly

you know it's great grist in the middle for a sadderst I'm amazed that nobody is that applicate on this one it would be so much fun we need a kind of Canadian black adder or yes minister to take us through this because you have your

finger on public opinion in this country in a way that I don't why is this such a public I mean why we getting these questions? What resonates? I mean, I understand how angry Canadians are at the United States. I really get that. There's a sense of betrayal. How could you do this to me? We were friends, you know, you've broken apart something that we valued for 40 years, but why go here?

Yeah. Well, I think of Benedict Anderson, the famous historian who talks that, you know, nations are, are in a sense myths. There are stories that we tell ourselves. And there was a very real U.S. invasion in 1812. There was an American Revolution decades earlier that saw a large influx of Americans, refugees, in fact, from that from that Civil War into Canada, who then for decades were singled out as potentially disloyal as a fifth column behind, in a sense, enemy lines. We've always struggled as a country with, in a sense, those founding chapters. of our history and the kind of echoes and reverberations. Now, I find that curious because, you know, over the last 50 years, we've become a mass immigration society that brings lots of people from lots of other traditions and histories around the world. And the extent to which

these hoary old events from a century or more ago can resonate now and elicit, you know, the same deep-seated fears, actually kind of undermines my argument. So I strongly, I strongly, struggle to understand the saliency of this issue, but it does seem like if history doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes. And people worry and often look at history as cycles. And I think that everyone is grasping at this moment, trying to understand where are we in this cycle? Where does this cycle end? Past cycles have ended in American invasion. And let's face it, the reason the White House is white is because British troops burned it down in the War of 1812. They sacked. They sacked Washington. So I mean, this goes this goes both ways. So I don't know,

Janice. History to me is the only explanation or it's just too much late night, you know, television on Netflix where we've created these imagined, you know, fantasies about being in a Netflix, you know, super thriller drama and we're right at the center of it and it's actually happening around us. Let me try and argue that on you because it really is difficult to make sense of. Because I do understand the anger and the betrayal. And that, by the way, comes. That's not Donald Trump.

That is directed at all the Americans who are not standing up for us and speaking up as this goes on. So I really, really truly get it. But there is something about a society. And we've always talked about this with respect to the big powers, the United States, Russia, China. They need an enemy to thrive, right? they need an enemy to unite and coalesce. And when you have an external adversary, boy, that does wonders of reducing the internal divisions in a country.

Because everybody from Doug Ford to, you know, to even get on board on this one. And I think it's in the public too. Having an adversary is such a solidarity-creating moment and you just let your imagination run. But that's in fact how this is not a new phenomenon in international politics where you see societies coming together. And that's how you get a threat spiral actually when this happens. And it becomes very difficult to de-escalate this. And people are literally on a war footing. And then how do you come to an agreement on a trade deal where every side, both sides are going to have to get?

You know, let me just take one more minute on this. Because it's fascinating to watch but worrying. if you read the whole New York Times interview, and that's the stretch today. Most people don't get to the end of anything. The Prime Minister talked about becoming a fertilizer, independent North America, working with the United States on what the advantage would be. And he said, again, there are real advantages in certain sectors to cooperating with the United States. He hasn't shut the door to working with the United States on,

sectors where he thinks it's in Canadian interest. But that gets lost in all the noise around this conflict that we're in. And it's important that we not lose that because we are going to live next door to the United States forever and ever. And that's the one thing I can tell you is forever. We're not moving and they're not going anywhere either. So we're going to have to find ways. of living in the best possible way with the United States. It's been our foundational struggles since we were created. Yeah, it's in our interest to figure it out. Janice, we're going to stop the show there.

We're going to have to pick up all the China, Middle East, and other news next week, but it was great to spend this episode dedicated to Canada and dedicated to, I think, again, a question that you and I get a lot and that I think needs a bit of debunking because it could really stand in the way. it could be an impediment to maybe some of the tougher conversations we're going to have to have together about how this trade war is ultimately resolved. Well, thanks for coming down to the studio today.

I'm Roger Griffiths Chair of the Monk Debates. Thanks for watching and listening to this edition of Friday Focus. You can get all kinds of great content on our website exclusive to Monk members. Pick the membership level that's right for you. Do that right now. triple-w.munk, Munk, M-K Debateswith-N-S.com. We'll talk to you again, see you again next week. Bye-bye.

The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerowitz are the producers. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.