The Paikin Podcast - Everything Political: Are Canadians Ready for this Trade War?

Episode Date: August 27, 2026

The Everything Political panel with former MPs Martha Hall Findlay and Tony Clement discusses Carney’s decision to call off trade negotiations with the United States, whether this was a negotiating tactic, the possibility of a deal, whether retaliatory tariffs are a good idea, and a “united front” for Canada’s premiers. They also discuss the “good politics, bad economics” of being Elbows Up with Trump, Doug Ford’s comments, Trump’s zero-sum approach to negotiations, American booze on Canadian shelves, and the usual round of “Good on Yas. Support us: patreon.com/thepaikinpodcast Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastSPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/1OhwznCIUEA11lZGcNIM4h?si=b5d73bc7c3a041b7X: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.social Email us at: [e-mail] Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Well, hello, you too. You know, I always like to start these programs by asking a nice, neutral, lean, open-ended question to get started. So, Martha, let's start with this. In your political career, have you ever told anybody to kiss my ass. I have told somebody on the campaign trail, because I would never use language like that. Of course not. Really. But I have, contrary to what my children say, that I should clean up my language. I have said to somebody to different people a couple times on the campaign trail, you know, I really, really, you should vote because we should all vote,

but I really hope you don't vote for me. All right, Tony, let me ask the follow-up, which is to say, have you ever asked the president of the United States to kiss your ass at any point during your political career? No, I guess I'm old school. You know, you've probably noticed colleagues that in point,

politics now to prove your authenticity. You have to use F-bombs a lot and other forms of crude language. That's to show you're authentic. You're a person of the people, right? I'm still of the school that I didn't, I didn't cuss in public. I didn't call anybody asshole or worse. I didn't do any of that. So I know that's old school, but I was taught that you don't use that language. Well, first of all, you use it sparingly anyway, but secondly, certainly not in political debate. Well, let's just be clear. Doug Ford did not use any F-bombs against President Trump, but he did say that he could kiss the circumference of his posterior or words to that effect. Yeah, we don't like that, Tony?

Well, I just, do I like it as a political tool? it's a great political tool apparently it shows you're a man of the people you're not willing to take any crap uh it's it's a winner it's but i i grew up in politics where you don't use that language uh for friend or foe and um so that's but if you're asking me whether it works as a political tool and it's a communications device of course it works well but goodness didn't didn't we have didn't we have a conversation just in wasn't it our last podcast together about civility right like it's to me it's not the language even and I get it Tony I know it makes people people seem authentic I guess um but I think there are lots of other ways to make yourself appear appear authentic that seems to be a contradiction

there are lots of ways to be authentic publicly um and I just I go back to that great conversation we had about the importance of civility in our public discourse. Well, just in case you too weren't clear about this, Doug Ford did clarify that he said, and there is a lot back there that the president can kiss because you may have noticed he's a large person. So now that we have all that on the record, we can either talk about everything profane or perhaps more preferably, let's talk everything political. Delighted to welcome back after a brief summer break, Martha Hall-Finley,

former parliamentarian for the liberal party, head of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, and Tony Clement, the former Ontario and federal conservative cabinet minister. And I haven't seen you two for the whole month of August, so it is great to see you both again. Shall we do a very fast, just what did you do in the time that we haven't seen each other here? Tony, what have you been up to? Just mostly in Muscoca, I didn't do a lot of travel.

I dialed all that back. I had one trip to Calgary, but that was it. and yeah, just I'm a resident of Muscoca and it was summer. How bad could that be? You know, Muscoca's been having a moment. I don't know if you guys have been tracking this, but there's a kind of a young adult drama on streaming services called Sterling Point, which was filmed in Muscoca as Muscoca.

It wasn't trying to be the Hamptons or anything else. It was, hey, these people are in Muscoca doing Muscoca things. And it's having a moment. Jimmy Fallon called Muscoca the most beautiful place on earth. So there you go. And where can we see this? I think it's on prime, but don't quote me on it. It's like Crave maybe.

Maybe it's on Crave, but one of those two. Okay. Martha? Well, Jimmy Fallon just hasn't been to Georgian Bay. But then we love Georgia Bay so much and the islands that we really don't want a TV show to be made. about it. We're just happy to have it quiet. We understand. But I actually have been spending a fair bit of time in Georgia Bay. I'm in Calgary now. But as I think you know, the School of Public Policy was asked to do a major work by the government of Alberta on the economic and fiscal impacts of

a possible Alberta separation. So when we agreed to do the work in June, I think, I had to say to the team here. Sorry, but I think I've just destroyed our summers. I have to say there are people here who have just worked unbelievable hours, lots of wee hour in the morning stints, tremendous amount of work. We hope to have this published. It's just in the final, final bits. Hopefully it'll come out very soon. But it has taken a lot of work. The time that I've been able to spend not helping out with the team, luckily I'm not an economist. So they're the ones who've been doing the heavy lifting. Part of the roof of the place I live in on the island kind of fell in.

And so we've been too. And you're looking at the prime contractor, the prime, you know, the prime carpenter, the prime plumber. And so kids and I have been busy doing some demo and reconstruction. Martha, what do you charge? It's therapy. What do you charge, Martha? Because I think our place could use a little work as well. Yeah, really.

I'm glad to see that we haven't scared you guys away and that you're back. And Martha, of course, when your report comes out, you give us the heads up and we'll definitely do a show on it because that's going to be the biggest story in the country when it happens. The biggest story in the country this week is, of course, what's happened to our relationship with the United States given the cutting off of negotiations and the I'm bringing them home. I'm bringing them home. Mark Carney recalled our negotiators from the United States back to Canada, back to Ottawa. And let's just start with first principles here. Tony, was the Prime Minister right to call off negotiations when he did and how he did? I would say yes with some caveats. I think that as a tactical move, I would approve of it as a tactical.

move. I'm of the view that talks are ongoing and that there is still the possibility of a deal. So if this is a tactical move to get things moving in a better direction, it's in your grab bag of tactics. It's certainly one that you can deploy. I'm not sure you can deploy it more than once, but you can certainly deploy it. So the other caveat is that it's hard for me to, to make an assessment or a judgment without all the facts. And the fact that we don't know what the final terms of the deal are in any specificity leads me to conclude, A, the talks are ongoing because otherwise you could just release whatever you wanted and spin your side of the argument.

So I actually think that there is discussions ongoing. But it's hard for us to assess as Canadians. And so Canadians are giving Carney the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure they don't mind, you know, giving Trump a black eye. And, you know, that that, that you were just talking about kiss my ass and, you know, Lake Ontario being renamed Lake America. All these, all these things that are happening to get a rise out of the other side. So that's all fine as long as they're still talking. but Canadians can't really judge whether it was a good deal or a bad deal.

They're assuming it was a bad deal because Mark Carney says it's a bad deal. He also said that Gordy Howe Bridge was a good deal. So there's a little bit of salt I want to add to this because I'm not entirely convinced we know it all. Having said all that and answer to your question, given what we know, I'm willing to say that it's a perfectly legitimate tactic to walk away so long as we get a deal ultimately. I think it would be a really bad move to impose more counter-terrorismically. Politically, it's great. I mean, politically, the whole country is going to be on Carney's side. I get that. But as an economic tactic, it's very poor for Canadians to counter-terrorism. So anyway, I'm saying all this in anticipation that this is not the last word on the

topic because I think that there will be some attempt to make a deal come through before September 8th, which is when these counter tariffs would kick in anyway. Martha, your view on whether it was the right thing to do and the way in which the prime minister did it? I have no doubt that it was the right thing to do. But this is no surprise. And in fact, when you look at some of the other countries that have engaged in this kind of negotiation with Trump. It has ended similarly, right? My colleague, Carlo Dade, here at the school,

has done a fair bit of work of analyzing a bunch of the other efforts, right, with the United States, that this was not an unlikely event, right, that you build these trade talks, you hope something happens, and then at the last minute, somebody in the administration, whether it's Trump, whether it's Talar Dutnik, whether it's Navarro, comes in and blows it all up. And that's certainly what we understand to have been the case. So no surprise. And frankly, I do support the prime minister and the efforts here in saying, and he has been saying this all along, no deal is better than a bad deal.

Let's acknowledge, we already have one. It's called Kuzma, the USMCA, with the United States and Mexico. The president has never decided, since he's been re-elected, to adhere to that deal. we need look no further than the war in Iran, right? It's on. Ciswarr. It's on. It's Ciswarr. It's on. This guy, I mean, the prime minister himself said, you know, signature on a so-called deal is clearly going to be written in pencil. I think somebody else, and I forget whom and I'm sorry because I want to be able to attribute it, said, no, no, it's actually more likely crayon, which I thought was terribly appropriate. So, you know, all of this effort to build a deal that she says in quotation mark, it's not worth the paper it's written on. So way better, I think, for the prime minister to say, look, if it's going to be really bad, like, we're just not going to do it because even if it were good, we couldn't count on it. So how would you feel if there was an actual deal in place eventually? Would you feel the same way?

We have one, Tony. No, but I'm talking about these current negotiations. These current discussions, it would depend on what the content was, and it would depend on how confident we felt we could rely on it. And I, you know, we're not going to negotiate in public, but I don't think we should negotiate in public. I don't think if you're in business, you don't negotiate. No, you don't negotiate in public if there's something to negotiate.

But the prime minister is telling Canadians, there's nothing to negotiate. Trade talks are off. So if that is true, tell us what the deal was that we reject. I don't, I actually, I don't, I don't disagree. with you that there may be continuing talks. And I think there are an awful lot of Canadian businesses that would appreciate if there were continued efforts. My point, and I've been saying this all along, the best allies we have in this trade dispute are Americans, right? They're American businesses whose supply chains have become way more expensive. They're American consumers for whom

their prices have gone up accordingly. I think it was David From noted that in, that Americans are now spending $5,000 a ton for aluminum, whereas the Europeans and the Japanese are spending $3,000 a ton. And I think David's example was, not only does that make every can of beer more expensive in the United States, it makes every new hospital more expensive.

We have people, we have protests in Michigan, we have protests in Wisconsin, we have people in Ohio who are now really making their voices heard that they don't like these tariffs at all. And so I continue to say, look, we're not going to deal with the administration. They're completely unreliable. Let's continue to focus with the people, the American businesses, and the American customers,

consumers who do not support these tariffs either. Because Donald Trump's not going to listen to us. Let's acknowledge that. But he will ultimately have to listen to American voters. Tony, apropos of your comment that if it was a tactical move to retreat, you understand that as a negotiating tactic. guess I would harken back to about 40 years ago when Brian Mulroney's government negotiated the first free trade agreement with Ronald Reagan's administration. And Simon Reisman was our chief negotiator. And at the 11th hour, he packed up and went home too on the instructions of the prime minister, I think. And then, of course, shortly thereafter, we got a deal. So how confident are you that this was a tactical

withdrawal as opposed to, you know, we're leaving in a huff and we're taking our marbles with us? I'm very confident of that assessment. Again, I don't have all of the facts because the government has not shared that with the Canadians. And again, I'm assuming that that is the case because they're still talking. So to me, that's a point of evidence that there are still discussions going on at some level. But I think that Carney wanted to make a point. I think it was fair of him to make that point. And as you know, Pierre Polyev supported Mark Carney on that.

So there's unanimity or near agreement amongst the politicians that this was the right thing to do at this particular moment. But the other half of what Pierre Poliiev said, I think we should all keep in mind. And others have made the same comment too. We can only protect, if this is about sovereignty, we can only protect our sovereignty if we build our own sovereignty. And that means making better decisions on our tax regime, making better decisions on pipelines, making better decisions on critical minerals, all of these things increase the power of Canadians to make decisions about Canada, for Canada, by Canadians. So quite frankly, after the last 10 years, and I think Martha will agree with me, we actually

debased our sovereignty. The Trudeau Liberal government did not help in the current situation. situation because our economy faltered and when your economy falters, you were given fewer choices as a nation state. So now we have to build it back up. I think Carney understands this as well. The leader of the opposition, Pierre Paulyev understands this as well. So, you know, that's a near, that that's a medium to long term issue, but we have to get, we have to make some decisions that, that make this point because we, we're very slow at decision making on this. So yeah, and we're dealing with a bully and a bully administration, I'll just remind our viewers that not

every Roman emperor was Marcus Aurelius. So when you live in Gaul, you know, it's, you're going to deal with some wacky, wackadoodle emperors, right? So let's, that's the situation that we're in, but we're also, as Canadians, we're, we should play the longer game as well, for our own sovereignty, but also dealing with future administrations from a a position of greater strength. Okay, you raised the official opposition leader, and I want to bring all the premiers of the country into this mix as well in my next question to Martha,

which is to say Pierre Pollyev has been very supportive of the current government of Canada in its attempts to get a deal, and so far, as we sit here taping this today, the premiers have been, I think it's fair to say, quite united in their quote-unquote team Canada response to what the prime minister is trying to do. As you look at all of this, how would you characterize it all? I'm actually quite impressed as well.

And I totally agree with Tony. This is a huge wake-up call, and it continues to be a wake-up call for us to get our own house and order in Canada, economically in terms of trade diversification, all of the things that Tony Enunciated. I would just caution to say, we can't just blame the last 10 years. We've had 25 years in this country of... not being able to build major infrastructure, except, oddly enough, in the last couple of years, but it took, in the last 10 years, but it took forever.

But we didn't build anything of significance in the 10 years before that. We've had a quarter century in Canada of complacency. So I don't blame that necessarily on the political governments at the time. I think there are a whole lot of factors at work. But in that saying that, I totally agree. This is a moment for Canada to get its house in order and to really move on, because we cannot be more independent. We cannot be more sovereign if we don't actually have more independence.

Any business person will tell you, you can never, you should never rely on one customer or one supplier. But that said, your question about the premiers and the United Front, yes, and I think that's true economically and politically. But I think on the economics, we're going to see to some, And as we're recording this, we know that very soon the prime minister is going to announce retaliatory tariffs. I am not, like Tony, not a fan of retaliatory tariffs. They hurt Canadians.

And if we think we're going to hurt the administration, your comment about 40 years ago in the negotiations, I think we were dealing with a rational U.S. government at the time. Well, that is the biggest difference, isn't it? So I don't think the playbook doesn't, I don't think really work necessarily now. But I do worry that how we impose retaliatory tariffs might bring back some regional differences, right? Electricity, oil, gas, right? Those are energy products. Different parts of the country, of course.

But there might be different perspectives on that. Well, there are different perspectives for sure. because, I mean, Doug Ford's already said he's open to an electricity surcharge on what he exports to the United States, and Premier Smith of Alberta has already said, no, we're not going to go there. And I don't know what Quebec thinks, right? Right. And I have also heard from a number of Quebec politicians concerns about what the retaliatory tariffs might do for small to medium enterprises. That's a big part of the Quebec economy, of course, for the country as whole, as a lot of,

a whole, but, you know, you could say we're going to impose retaliatory tariffs, but if they hurt even more small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, Quebec politicians are going to be pretty worried about that. So I'm appreciative of the United Front that we're seeing right now. I'm hoping that the announcement that the Prime Minister makes takes into consideration the importance of recognizing some of those regional differences. Yeah. It'll be interesting. Can I just to quote another commentator, Howard Anglin, who obviously was in the Harper government,

and now is quite a... Rights for the hub, I think. Is that right? Rights for the hub now, I think. Yeah, he does. So he made an interesting point about, you know, if we carry on with this trade war, if there is no deal and it spirals out to affect USMCA Kuzma as well. You know, then right now the polling indicates that Canadians are willing to go the extra mile, do the extra sacrifice to take on Mr. Orange and his administration.

You know, so that's all well and good, but okay, baby boomers who elected the Carney government, how about a surcharge on every house that's worth over a million dollars? and how about a surcharge on your portfolio investments, baby boomers, as a way to pay for all of these programs to help workers who are impacted by tariffs? Like, you know, the Carney government and the Ford government, we'll go the extra mile for workers who are affected by this. Okay. They're not going to do it that way. They're just going to borrow more.

You and I both are going to borrow more, which is, you know, bad economics, good politics, maybe, but again, how long are we going to continue to borrow? How long are people going to continue to lend to a Canadian government that is up to here in borrowings already? So, you know, okay, we want to sacrifice. What are the baby boomer generation going to do to sacrifice since they're all elbows up all the time? Just a question. You are a member of that generation. I hasten to add, Mr. I know, but I don't like my generation. I think they're a bunch of greedy assholes. So, yeah, yeah, that's how I feel. Didn't Tony, didn't Tony just a few minutes ago say that he does not partake in cussing and using words like that?

I amend my statement. I shouldn't say that about a whole generation. A lot of them give to the communities and are great people and blah, blah, blah. A very unparliamentary language for the former member of Perry Sam Muskoka or whatever the writing was called. We'll be back to the show in just a second, but first, this message. This summer, protect your home against wildfire. Cut the grass around your house, prune trees to create a two-meter gap above the ground, clear leaves and debris from your gutters.

Consider installing a fire-resistant Class A roof. One more safeguard. Insurance. Because the world doesn't work without insurance. An insurance works best with an insurance broker. A message from the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada, and for more information, go to this website, thebigif.ca. That's the bigif.ca. And now, back to the show.

All right, Tony, since you raised that again, let's put on the record here. The Premier of Ontario was in Stony Creek, which is a neighborhood in the city of Hamilton. By-election. Yeah, exactly right. There's a provincial by-election coming up there, but ostensibly the announcement was all about, there is a billion dollar fund that the government of Ontario has put aside called the Protect Ontario Fund. And the idea was he's going to top it up even more in order to help those who are affected by tariffs,

either by subsidizing their jobs or subsidizing their companies or whatever. During the course of that press conference at which he made that announcement, he did call Trump a loser. He says he's dealt with bullies like Trump his whole life. he made the kiss my ass remark on a radio interview earlier, but he said he's got more courage, he Ford has more courage and brains in his baby toe than Trump has in his whole body.

He described Trump as the king of bankruptcy. I'm sure, I mean, we all agree, I'm sure it felt great for him to say all of that. But then I listened to Greg Brady on the 640 Toronto radio program this morning. We did a show with him at the Albany Club. You guys will remember a few months ago. and and Greg who ran for the conservatives in the last federal election said those comments demean the office of the premier of Ontario

they are not helpful they do not get you an exemption to whatever tariffs are on the books and they will not help a single factory question Tony is he right or wrong about that so I think the big problem right now is the politics undercut our our own long-term interests the politics Politics are very clear, Steve, very clear. The more you take on Trump, the more you call them names, the more you do elbows up, the more you say we're going to fight this fight to the last drop of our own blood. All of this, you know, is all great fodder.

And, you know, for Ford who is fighting by-elections right now, for Carney who's fighting by-elections right now, this is all grist for the mill. but is it in the long-term economic interest? I know we don't like the fact that 79% of our trade is with the US of A, but that is a fact. It's an economic reality. So the issue for statesmen rather than grubby politicians who will sell their grandmother for an extra vote,

the job of statesmen is to do something statesman-like and get a deal or ratchet down the situation or, or make a sacrifice politically that will help the country economically in the future, for future generation. And that's why I'm- Well, in terms, Carney's rhetoric has not matched forwards. Absolutely not. And I have to say, I think Mark Carney has, in fact, been that statesman.

He has said we're at war. But I don't think that's wrong. I don't think the gratuitous, you know, insults is- raises the temperature, it doesn't lower the temperature. Tony, I'm sorry, I disagree with you on this. I think Ford's comments were not necessary and not helpful. Sure, they might be good politically, but I don't think Carney is hurting himself politically

by not using that kind of language. I think, and the question is, is that kind of language useful? I think Ford's airing of the, remember the Reagan commercial in the United States might have felt good, but it did not help at all. it didn't help the prime minister in his discussions with the president. So no, Steve, I don't think that kind of language helps.

I don't think even in the long run it's ultimately political because it just seems to descend to the level of Donald Trump. And if Mark Carney is out there saying, we've decided that this was too bad a deal for us to do and that we are at economic war, I think he's being very statesmanlike, frankly. And unfortunately, you know, getting a deal back to the comment of it's worth what exactly, for all of the historical nuances, Neville Chamberlain is not regarded as the statesman

that Winston Churchill ultimately was. And so getting a deal, especially in circumstances where we have no confidence that any deal is in going to be, in fact, worth the paper it's written on. I do not think that that's less statesmanlike. I think, frankly, and this is not a partisan comment, I don't care what color party Mark Carney's in right now. I'm supporting the prime minister because I think the prime minister is doing what this country needs in terms of leadership and statesmanship. Well, just a couple of added things. First of all, Churchill famously said it is always better to jaw, jaw than to war, war. It's always better to talk if you have that option, if you have that

option, which is not always the case. Brady made a great point as well about the, you know, the status of Ontario's, i.e. Canada's auto sector, which is now producing 1.1 million cars a year. When I was Minister of Industry, we had three and a half million cars a year produced in this country. So there's no doubt in my absolutely no doubt in my mind that uh trump's plan is to make sure there are zero cars a year produced in canada and they are well on their way to that uh target uh and we have lost business we've lost plants we've lost workers and trump wants to ring out the very last uh auto worker and and and transfer that job to america no doubt let me ask you the follow up then which is, as a former industry minister, if you were in the chair today,

we're already subsidizing these auto jobs to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per job. How much more would you put on the table in order to hang on to this industry in our country? Well, it's not just a question of the direct jobs. There's also the hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs in the auto parts sector, for example, that are contingent upon those factories being here in Ontario and Canada. So it's a broader issue than that. And it's been us beyond that, like the restaurants and the dry cleaners who, you know, obviously provide services for all these people. That's right. And when I did the auto rescue, that was what I was looking at, the broader issues.

So, yeah, there are big concerns here. We know what Trump has made it clear, what his plan is. It's no secret that he wants every auto job he can get to. And he, we know this about Trump. He doesn't believe in win-win scenarios when negotiating. It's zero-sum game. 100% winner and you have to be 100% loser. That's the only thing he's interested in. So that's what we're dealing with.

And we're dealing with economic facts, however, as well, which do mean that if there is a palatable deal possible that keeps tariffs to a minimum, given the tariff crazy U.S. administration at present, then we should try to pursue that. I don't know a problem doing that. I don't think that means we cave in, but it does mean we continue to find areas.

You know, Besant was saying, you know, the Commerce Secretary, that it was 90% of an agreement here. So I don't know what happened, really. I don't know. I know what the prime minister said, but I don't, I wasn't in the room. You weren't in the room. None of us were in the room.

None of us were in the room, so we don't put it this way. There are quite a few, but again, saying we weren't in the room and we don't know what happened is frankly a little bit easy way, an easy way to point criticism. We're not going to be in the room. We shouldn't be in the room. And you don't negotiate in public. There is an effort to try and figure something out. And I think that's legitimate.

But again, no deal is better than a bad deal. and I have to put my faith in the current government that they are doing what they can. When you say no deal is better than a bad deal, what is the deal? Tony, let me go back to Steve's question because you didn't kind of answer it, right? Like at what point do we decide that the massive subsidization of our auto sector becomes no longer tenable? And we are producing far fewer cars than we used to. Let's not lump all of the auto sector together. I was there at the same time as you in the, and your, you called it a rescue. I still call it a bailout. It was not of the auto sector. It wasn't even of the big

three Americans. Ford did not accept bailout money. They didn't need it. It was only to a minute because they had managed their affairs in the prior years more effectively. Ford had made a big, gotten a big loan well before. Yeah. But Ford didn't take public money for that. No, no. They had a They had a banker loan when the banking sector was still available. They were running a better. They were running a better business than Chrysler or GM. And the Canadian taxpayers are still out $4 billion that were given to two major U.S. companies.

Toyota didn't take it. Honda didn't take it. They are pretty big participants in the auto sector here in Canada. I get your point about the auto parts business, but I think Steve has a bigger question that I think we need to start analyzing. The North American auto sector is in trouble, right? So, yeah, Donald Trump wants to take all the little bits he can

from Canada and make them American, right? But there is a larger question. I'm not supporting it or not. I'm just saying we should really be having this conversation because we have been subsidizing this sector at least some of the big companies for a long time. Australia, a number of years ago, decided to stop doing exactly that. They don't have an auto sector.

An awful lot of people in Australia will say that that was ultimately the right decision for the country because it could no longer be competitive. I think it's really important, though, that Canada continue to have a manufacturing sector. And if we lose the auto sector, you know, that's a big chunk of manufacturing that will leave forever. And, you know, if we make a decision as Canadians, we're out of manufacturing, I guess we could make that decision. I think that's the wrong decision. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, I'm saying the autos specifically. I know you are. Australia did not all of a sudden lose its manufacturing sector. Well, I don't, I don't think Australia manufactures as much as we do,

quite frankly. And they're a bit player. They, they are very good at mining and other things, but not manufacturing. We're good at manufacturing. We had an integrated market, North American market, U.S. market, which is now being rent asunder, but manufacturing good paying blue collar manufacturing jobs, I want that to be part of the Ontario and Canadian economies. I think that's good for us and good for our people. And I would not give it up willy-nilly just because the current incumbent president wants to take everything over. And I think there would be a crazy, important knock-down effects. If we lose that sector, what does that mean for our aeros? You can make the same argument about our aerospace sector. You can make the same argument about our robotics sector. I don't want to make

those arguments. I think they should be part of a properly functioning sovereign economy. You got to have manufacturing. So do not give it away. I don't know what the number is, Steve, and answer to your question, all I know is we should continue to support the sector, just like we support farming sector, just like we support through other means, other parts of our economy. Would I prefer to have an economy that has zero government supports for this? Yes, I would, but I'd also like to have a neighbor that is not acting as a privateer. And we'll be back right after this. Martha, I want your Western ears to interpret something that we all heard the other day at Premier Ford's press conference

when he said, I need every Premier in Canada to be on Team Canada. Now, in the province of Ontario, I'm not sure there's anything controversial about that. It sounds like the Ontario Premier trying to play a role that most Ontario premiers have tried to play in the past, which is to say we look beyond our boundaries and we look in the national interest. What does an Albertan hear when the Premier of Ontario says, I need every Premier to be on Team Canada? Well, first off, I think it's a bit arrogant for the Premier of Ontario to say that at all, especially a premier who has repeatedly not helped the relationship.

I refer again to the famous or infamous Reagan ad that Ford had played in the United States. It did not help Canada. Calling Donald Trump names, debasing, I do think it debased the office. I don't think being more like Trump than Trump is at all helpful. And so for that Premier to then say, I want all of the other premiers to be on the same team, it rings a little hollow for me, frankly. And I have a lot of time for Premier Ford on a lot of other stuff,

but on this particular issue, I'm concerned because as a Canadian, I don't think it's helpful. On the question of other provinces, this is a vast country with very different regions, very different cultural regions and very different economic regions. I think we need to be careful about how Quebec is seeing this idea of potential retaliatory tariffs or restrictions on electricity exports to the United States. States. I'm not sure I have not yet heard how Premier Eby of British Columbia would respond to that. We do have a Premier in Alberta who has now a number of times said, you know, hang on a second. You know, Tony, to your point, the last 10 years have not been terribly welcomed by Alberta. In fact, many Albertans have felt that Alberta was being treated very badly, specifically by

Ottawa and then all of a sudden, Ottawa and Central Canada, by the way, right, anti-pipeline sentiment in Ontario and in Quebec. And so for an Albertan, and I am, you know, but as an Albertan, to have the Premier of Ontario now say, in a way, we've been dumping all over Alberta for 10 years, now, wait a minute, we need your help, is not resonating terribly well. I do believe that most Albertans right now are very keen on seeing solutions to seeing the things that we need as Canadians from an economic perspective, and that includes a good relationship with the United States. But I do think when Premier Ford said that, I, as an Albertan, responded a little bit, well, you can tell by the tone of my voice. I found it a little bit, a little bit maybe misplaced. That's why I asked the question.

I had a feeling that was the answer you were going to give. All right, let me put something else just, I'll put this out there for discussion, and then you tell me how crazy an idea this is. If, in fact, Premier Ford has sort of got out too far over his skis with the latest examples of rhetoric that we have talked about on this show, is there an argument to be made that now is a good time for a good faith temperature lowering gesture and as an example tony what about the lcbo the liquor control board of ontario putting american booze back on its shelves good or bad idea i i always the um the the the greek side of

of me never wants to give away something uh that you can you can you can hold on to out of spite. So that's the Greek side of me. So it's a no for you right now. To give something for free like that, I'm not sure. It's very clear it's sticking in the craw of the U.S. administration.

No doubt about that. They keep raising it and raising it. The U.S. Ambassador to Canada raises it everywhere he goes. So it is a card, to use Trump's terms about cards, It is a card to be played. If I were a negotiator for Canada and I was certain that that would lead to reciprocity on something, then sure.

Do it. I mean, how much booze are Canadians going to buy at the at the Lickbo from the U.S. anyway? And open question, maybe there will be a little bit of California wine that is consumed. but, you know, but it's not going to be big numbers. And so, yeah, it could be a giveaway, but I wouldn't give it. I just, I just can't do it. If you're asking me personally to give away something in the hopes that may be some point in the future,

that'll lead to something else. That isn't the way the Trump administration plays anyway. They don't play that way. So, no, I think overall, unless I'm certain that I would get something almost, immediately, a nanosecond later in return, I would not go that route. Martha, you know, restocking. Right. Martha, one of my favorite traditions when I'm up here at the cottage on Manitoulin Island

is around 4 o'clock every afternoon, we have what's called snorting time. And by that, it's nothing illegal, I can assure you. Just everybody, calm down for a second. No, we have a good snort of Jack Daniels. That's been our tradition here in the past. You have a Jack Daniels or a JD on ice or JD and Coke. And we haven't done that at all this. I don't think we've done it at all since Trump came into office.

And of course, you can't get it anymore anyway. And I don't mind saying I miss my daily Jack Daniels and Coke when I'm up here. But even if they put the JD back on the shelves of the lickbo, as we nickname it here in Ontario, I'm not sure I'd be buying it right now anyway. Well, I'm sure I would not be buying it right now just because we're so upset with the treatment we've received from the American administration. Having said that, I'll put the question to you, Martha. would it be a good, good faith gesture for the province of Ontario to put American spirits, wines, beer, whatever, back on the shelves?

Well, one, I think you should just modify your tradition. There's some fantastic distillers in Canada now. Oh, yeah, we've done that. Forty Creek out of the Hamilton area. We do that instead. Yeah, and there's some fantastic whiskeys coming out of Alberta. Like, it's actually really interesting. As you would know, Alberta did not decide to do that, but said very clearly, it's up to

Albertans to decide whether to buy American products. And we've seen that. Canadians, no one has said Canadians don't travel to the United States, but an awful lot of Canadians have stopped traveling to the United States. And I have to say, I like the attitude of saying, you know, we're not going to make this a rule. this is something for Canadians to decide. And that's certainly what the Alberta government did.

It said, you know, we're not going to make this a rule. Don't forget we also have a much broader alcohol regime in Alberta. We don't have a lickbo. It's completely private. So there's all sorts of different outlets that can stock American products. It's up to Albertans to decide whether to buy them or not. And I quite like that approach. Hey, Martha.

But I would also say from Tony's perspective, even if it felt like it would help right now the talks are off and first one of the first rules of negotiation you don't give something up if you don't have something available in return and so right now I would say you know I like the Alberta approach but I also don't know that it would be worth giving something up if we didn't have, I mean, we're not in a position to get something in return. Talks are technically off. Hold on to your powder if you have it. So, Martha, do you know, do you know, have sales of U.S. liquor products gone down in Alberta? Do you know that?

I believe they have, just same as Canadians have traveled to the United States, a whole lot less. I don't know the exact numbers, but now I'm curious. So I'm going to see if I can find out. It's a little bit more difficult just because the alcohol sales industry in Alberta is so spread out. There's so many small mom and pop. Sure. Great. Okay.

You two get comfortable for a second because we've got one more question coming up for you in just a moment or so. But first, we haven't done this in a little while. So we want to thank the people who have decided to shell out a few bucks every month to help us do what we do here on our Patreon page. and I'll remind everybody that it's patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast. And we've had a lot of comments come in during August, the month that we haven't been doing this. For example, Leanne Page Lewis from Toronto says, the podcast has become an excellent driving companion.

I'm glad you and the team are undertaking this new little venture, which is what I like to call it, our new little venture. Peter Ryan out of Montreal says, I love your content and binge every episode. Peter, thank you for that. Karen Whitney Vernon from Toronto has become a pageant, Patreon subscriber and Karam, we're grateful to your support. Shane Moorhead out of Ottawa said,

when you, meaning me, signed off from the agenda on TVO last year, I have to say I was disappointed, Shane says, so I was delighted when you started the podcast. Shane, that's why, because I missed you. Andrew, Cerdella, I hope I'm saying that right. My Italian-born wife, I better be saying that properly. Andrew Cerdella from Toronto, says our podcast manages to be objective and entertainment.

at the same time. We love all of that. Anyways, once again, Patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast in case you want to help us out by shelling out a few bucks a month to help us keep this thing going because I think we all love doing it. And from the comments that we're getting on YouTube, on Apple, on Spotify, on all the social media platforms where this thing is located, people seem to like it. So that's a good thing. Now, let's finish up strong here, folks. We'd like to something we call Good On You at the end of every episode. And that is where Tony and Martha look out in the political world over the last few weeks and find something that actually was not awful, was not death and destruction, but actually was kind of good. And even better

might be from the party from which they are not currently members or previously members. So Tony, who gets your good on you this week? So British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who's a labor leader, just knew in the role after the coup d'etat that got rid of Kierre Starmer. Another fine British tradition. Anyway, his first foreign trip was to Ukraine. And he brought some, despite the bluster of Putin saying that Britain is at war with Russia now, you know, the Brits are not folding, which is great from my perspective. And he, I got to say, he was former.

mayor of greater Manchester. I was born in Manchester. I'm trying hard to dislike him, but it's really hard. So he, uh, he ended up playing guitar to, uh, on some, some podcast in, in Kiev. Uh, and he played a Smiths, the Smiths is a great Manchester band, from the 80s. They have a song called Rush Home Ruffians. So he played the chords to that, uh, which I thought was pretty cool. So, uh, even though he wasn't playing Oasis, which is the, number one Manchester band, the number two band, the Smiths, I'll go with that and give them a good on you for that. I think Tony's having a little bromance with the new prime minute, with the seventh prime minister in the last 10 years of Great Britain. Exactly. It's hard.

Very good, Tony. Well, I love, just to call it. I love, and the content, Rush home ruffians. It's perfect. Mine actually is also international, but it's to, Republicans in the United States. It's been a difficult time for a lot of folks. And I have been very critical over time of the number of Republicans who have seemed unwilling to stand up to Donald Trump. And my good, Anya, is now going to the increasing number of Republicans who are giving their heads a shake and saying this is not the future of our country. And we need to

reinforce things like the rule of law. We need to reinforce things like free trade with Canada. We need to reinforce the things about the United States that made the United States, let's be honest, the envy of the world for so long for so many reasons. And, you know, not saying Canada is less valuable or anything, but the United States has been a success for centuries. And we've been watching that deteriorate so badly, so quickly. And I have been seriously critical of a number of Republicans who have just bent over backwards and said, my job is more important. My political career is more important. I'm not standing up. We're starting to see more of them do so. And so my good on you is to those Republicans in the United States who are

standing up for their country, frankly, and against their current president. Good stuff. Well, my good on you goes to you too for joining me again. I've missed you over the last month where we took a month off, but we will be back in people's inboxes or on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, and so on on every two weeks going forward as we discuss everything political. All these shows are archived on the website, Steve Paken.com. Great to see you again, kids. Peace and love, and we'll see you next time. Peace and love. Peace and love.