The Paikin Podcast - Everything Political: Carney’s Backpedal on Iran, WWIII, and the Middle Power Doctrine

Episode Date: March 5, 2026

The Everything Political panel with former MPs Martha Hall Findlay and Tony Clement discuss PM Carney’s initial support of American airstrikes on Iran, his recent comments about giving diplomacy a chance, how Canada was not consulted beforehand, whether this is an illegal war, whether the UN and international law matters anymore, and the viability of Carney’s middle power theory. Support us: patreon.com/thepaikinpodcastFollow 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.socialEmail us at: [e-mail]

Martha, you are quite obviously not at the University of Calgary today. That is a gorgeous background. Where are you right now? Thank you. I am in Revelstoke. At my age, they're cheap. I have a season's pass at the ski hill. So there's big incentive to come over here whenever I can.

Tony, yes, sir. That is a different background for you, too. Where are you right now? I'm in beautiful downtown Brampton right now. Oh, you are? Okay. Now, do I have this right? Do you really plan to fly to Egypt sometime soon?

Yeah, yeah. I'm very excited. A trip of a lifetime. What could possibly go wrong? Oh, I can think of about 100 things at the moment. No, are you seriously still planning to go? Oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm still, I'll take a, you know, a last-minute decision if things,

if World War III, which we're currently in, by the way, in my opinion, currently continues to escalate. I've been in four war zones in my time as a politician, so I don't get too worked up about these things. I'm quite happy being in Revelstoke. I'm not sure they're going to be bombing the Giza pyramid or anything. So I think it's going to be safe. That's my line and I'm sticking to it.

For your sake, I hope it's the case. And before this conversation gets any more depressing, let's move on and talk everything political. Everything political, presented by Bruce Power. Happy to welcome back. Our two former parliamentarians, Tony Clement, the former conservative federal and Ontario provincial cabinet minister, and Martha Hall-Finley, the former Liberal Member of Parliament, leadership candidate and director of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary.

Friends, obviously, good to see you again, and we have one massive topic, which, Tony, I think you're the first person who has suggested that we're in the midst of World War III right now. So let's follow up on that. Mark Carney's initial comments about what was going on in Iran were, I would say, somewhat positive. He was at that, the first time he said something, prepared to give the American administration the benefit of the doubt and say, if this is about getting rid of nuclear weapons, I'm on side.

In your view, were those comments well advised? So let me just start with my World War III thesis, and I'm not the only one saying this, but, you know, I guess you can take the point of view that World War II started with the invasion of Poland, or you can say World War II really started in 1935. when you look back at the historical progression. So I just think that World War III started with the invasion of Ukraine four years ago and we're seeing other aspects of it four years later. And, you know, it's not the biggest war ever in the history of the world, but it's getting there. So, yeah, I call it World War III. But that doesn't mean life doesn't go on, as of course was the case in previous conflagrations.

So in terms of Mr. Carney's statements, in plural now, you've got to help me out here, guys. You know, I obviously read the first statement within minutes of the commencement of the military operations by Israel and by the USA. And my first reaction was, wow, that's a pretty strong statement. And he did not hedge. He did not hedge. He did not make it conditional on anything. It was, no, this has to be done. And I, as the Canadian prime minister, support it.

And since that time, he's basically walked it back as far as I can tell. It's now he, it's regretful that it had to happen. And his foreign affairs minister is going out and saying, we prefer diplomatic. solutions. Once these kinetic things start, Steve, you're in for a penny, in for a pound. You're not going to do all of this and then look to diplomacy. The time of diplomacy has actually passed in my view. So I was in favor of his first statement. I'm less in favor of his second statement, I got to say. Okay, Tony wants some help, Martha. Can you offer him some help understanding what's going on? Well, I think Tony, the two of us are similar in sort of

amateur student students of the history, the pre-war history. I'm fascinated by the pre-World War I history as well as pre-World War II history. And what's shocking, and Steve, you had a fantastic podcast with Mark, Margaret McMillan. I'm back reading more William Shire right now. But there's so many books out there. There's so much history. And the one thing that just comes through over and over is humans are not sometimes, right? They just don't like stuff just isn't rational.

And so when you see something like this happen, I'm not, you know, put it this way, Tony, I'm trying not to say that yet about World War III. But I can tell you I am glad I have a couple of places that I can go to that are relatively off-grid capable. Because I, this is, you simply history tells you humans are not rational. And then when push comes to shove and things get worse, worse, they can become even less rational. So, so, you know, if we think we're going to rely on diplomacy and I just think, so I'm with Tony, I just wanted to say a little bit in that regard,

where I, uh, with respect to Carney's statement, I too was a, I was actually a bit surprised it was so firm at the first one, but parsing it, he was very careful with his words about supporting it in terms of the Iranian nuclear program, right? Yeah, he limited his comments to that. He wasn't saying he was in favor of regime change. Exactly. He said, getting rid of Iran's nukes is a, you know, a very good mission to undertake. But I think where we get into trouble is we have a country that wants to rely on international

law. We have a country that I think so many people said Maduro and Venezuela, bad guy, like really bad guy. but probably didn't warrant an invasion and a regime change, right? From outside, international law would say, that's not so, you know, you're pushing a few boundaries there. Similar to this, right? And so, you know, then you can go into the history with Israel and all of the involvement. Absolutely.

But even if the Iranian regime is absolutely horrid, which it is. And my gosh, what's happened more recently is just a policy. it's still hard for Canadians in particular, and it's easy for us because we're not so close, right, geographically. But we tend to default to, but you know, we really want a diplomatic solution. We want to work this out. I think Canada just, frankly, has had the luxury of being physically distant from these kinds of conflicts in the past. And I don't think we have that luxury anymore, especially. not with cyber, especially not with technology. So I'm really, I'm frankly, I'm trying to figure

this out myself. Can I just add one thing? Let's, please, yes. Just one more thing on this. Again, trying to understand the situation as Martha is as well. But, you know, we had the Davos speech from Mark Carney talking about how middle powers have to band together to ensure that liberal the liberal international order continues at a time when the U.S. has abandoned. So that was putting a stake in the sand. And despite my criticisms of that speech, he did have a position that he wanted to take.

So the first international test of that is this fine, large international action by the U.S. and by Israel. and he immediately went to support it, which is not a middle power thing to do, I would put it to you. Then when the heat was raised, and obviously this is going to be not a quick war,

as in days, now he's kind of retreating to middle power internationalism at the same time that France and the UK are going from their middle power international, nationalism to a more supportive position of Trump. Yes. So we're kind of out of sync with what's going on. I know it's tough to be part of this environment where nothing is sure anymore.

But if those are Mr. Carney's instincts, they're not really serving him very well right now. Well, let's see if we can't be naive. Sorry, Steve. I just, I'm so frustrated with Canada. Canada for so long taking positions that are that are frankly naive. We've, you know, economic security is a given for countries that are closer to places that are sometimes challenging, right? But you know, how we've, you know, we don't want to build a pipeline. We don't want to capitalize on our natural resources as wealth. God forbid we should be, you know, seen as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Well, we're blessed with resources that the rest of the world, frankly, in some cases, literally would kill for. And yet we can. to just, you know, it's like a hope and a prayer. And I really find in conversations I've been having lately, the naivity among Canadians is even those with families who fought in World War I,

fought World War II, but we geographically were distant. We weren't in the middle of it. And I really think that has contributed to a naivity that we think, I think we have to really get over quickly. The thing I really want to understand from the two of you, though, is that because you two have sat in a caucus on Parliament Hill, you would have some understanding of how a prime minister is thinking or statements either do or don't change depending on the pressure that he gets from caucus.

And again, I'm reading tea leaves here. I don't know more than anybody else here. I've done some scouting around. I've talked to some people. I could be way off base here. But Mr. Carney's original comment, generally in support of what the American administration was doing, And then days later, his definite retreat from that statement and suggestion that let's give peace a chance or give diplomacy a chance suggested to me that the liberal caucus got to his people and said, what are you saying?

We don't support any aspect of this. This is a illegal war. And it's certainly not consistent with a liberal party policy for generations to support a unilateral American slash, Israeli military action if there's no United Nations good housekeeping seal of approval attached to it. So, okay, Tony first, do you think that the back bench made its views known on this? And as a result, the prime minister has somewhat retreated from his original position. I'd love to hear what Martha's going to say, but since you've asked me first, I would say it's possible. But you're dealing with Mark Carney here. He's 20 points ahead of Pierre Pollyev.

He's 10 points ahead in the party preference polls. You know, if he called an election now, it would be a 200-seat parliament for the liberal party. Can it? Why does he have to, you know, he's at the top of his game, I would argue with you. So why would that bother him? But Martha, help me out here. What's going on in the liberal caucus? Martha, just before you offer more help to Tony, and I'm glad he's seeking it out from his equal. Yeah, it's a beautiful thing.

You know, it's one thing for people behind the scenes to sort of send a note to the prime minister's office and say, hey, what's going on here? He's way out over his skis on this. This should not be our position. But, I mean, Martha, you're in British Columbia. There's a British Columbia liberal MP named Will Greaves who said, who publicly said, Canada can't endorse the unilateral and illegal use of military force, the killing of civilians. or the kidnap and assassination of foreign heads of government, while also insisting that our sovereignty, our rights, and our independence must be respected. He didn't just say it in caucus. He said it publicly. How influential do you think that kind of thing is? Well, first, as a reminder, I don't know that many of the current liberal caucus members anymore.

There have been a number of people who've joined that caucus over the last 15 years, who were, I believe, further to the, I hate the spectrum, but further to the left in some of the environmental stuff, but I think also some of this geopolitical positioning. I would say if Mark has been listening, isn't it interesting because we're so used to being so critical of political leaders who don't listen to their caucus members, right? Like we, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. I would, I'll use an anecdote instead, though, here. When I was in office, I would get asked by members of the media, Steve, sometimes.

Well, but what do your constituents think? And my answer always was, I have 136,000 constituents. They don't think the same thing. If I get 23 people calling into my office, my constituency office, angry about something. something, that certainly does not represent the 136,000. We have representative government, right? The whole point of voting for an MP is to expect that person to exercise his or her best judgment for the best of the country, the riding. That's true for the prime minister, too. And so I think good if he's listening to people around him, but we also want him as prime minister

to do what's right for the country. And I think what we've seen. in the last number of days is Mark Carney doing what Mark Carney in all of his years of experience feels that he should do. And maybe Mark Carney, who is recognizing that as prime minister, he can't do things necessarily unilaterally and that it is important to listen to people. He might be listening to people who are not right. I'm not saying that. I just think it is important that he listen. At the end, he still needs to make the right decisions for the country. And that's a tough thing to do right now. Yeah. Tony, I can imagine a situation when you were in cabinet and Stephen Harper was perhaps on an international expedition of some kind doing Canada's business overseas.

And, you know, no doubt thinking, I'm doing good work here. I'm making progress for the country. But meantime, the next time he talked to his chief of staff, that person might say to him, boss, I know you think you're having a great time. But back here, you know, I'm putting out fire X, fire Y, fire Z. sorts of stuff going on. You need to know about it and deal with it. I think that might be what's going on here. I don't know. What do you think? Yeah, possible. I mean, what I harken back to was as a minister, I made a trip to Afghanistan in the middle of that war that affected Canada so much. and when I got back, I actually said to the prime minister, I said, we got to get out of here. Like, this is, this is not going to end well if we just continue.

And I said, furthermore, you can't stay in a war as a tribute to the families who lost people in the war. No. And I know I know that's what your heart feels like doing, but that's not a good reason to stay in a war because people have perished because of the war. So I said, you said that to Stephen Harper? I did. I did. Yeah. Yeah. How did he react? Well, he took it all in. And, you know, we eventually, we got out of that war. And I think that was the right decision. So it's, you know, Steve, we all know, wars are terrible. People get killed and affected. And it has. so many knockdown impacts. It's not a pleasant situation. I mean, I'm told that President Trump was told that, well, this is, again, the unintended consequences. As a result of the 12-day war, it last June, Iran's reaction internally was to speed up the redevelopment of their nuclear program and to get more ballistic missiles and get more ICBM quality. missiles as well and that they were 10 days away from nuclearizing. That was the briefing that the president. So yeah, I'd be with any president of the United States if they decided to

get that out of move those pieces off the chessboard as quickly as possible. I'm not saying the war, you know, these are all difficult decisions is what I'm saying. But I and I think any good prime minister is going to get a multiplicity of sets of advice. And as Martha has indicated, the prime minister would get all that advice and the caucus would give them advice and they'd talk about what's going on. And then he'd have to make a decision in the best interests of the country. I really do believe that. And I give Mark Carney the benefit of the doubt on that one for sure. Steve, can I can I just add, sorry, we're just going back and forth. Yeah, yeah. It's good. But I, and then and, and I, and, and I, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, I,

take no pleasure in saying this. And that's not just because I'm a lawyer. It's because I feel as though we've had decades where we've had a certain calm with more, you know, an awful lot of countries understanding the importance of what we call international law. I think the United Nations has become almost farcical in it from, from what it was originally intended to be. But I've always felt instead of complaining about it or getting rid of it, let's fix it. You know, Canada had a big part in setting it up in the first place. So Canada, here's your opportunity, right? Like, let's try and fix what was really a bastion of international law,

but I think has really lost its way in a lot of ways. I just think it's really, really naive for Canada to sit, to pull back and say, well, we need to adhere to international law when so many countries around the world aren't. Right. And I think we just, I'm really on this. Canada's got to look after its own best interests. And that's going to take some really tough decisions. But my goodness, we better start taking them.

And how this works out over the next few days, I have a lot of confidence in the prime minister. I like the fact that maybe he's listening to people, but I also have a lot of confidence that he also is pragmatic and understands that he needs to be not naive. Well, he said that line that I suspect he'll be remembered for well after his prime ministership is over, which is, you know, we take the world not as we wish it were, but as it is. Right.

Or he probably said it the other way around. We take the world as it is, not as we wish it were. And, you know, as much as Canada has been a kind of, you know, has seen itself as being a potential moral leader in the world when it comes to international affairs. If you look at what the prime minister has done first on his trip to India and then, in the speech he gave in Australia, he certainly seems to be taking a much more pragmatic, realpolitik approach to foreign affairs. I talked to David from the other day for a piece I wrote for the Toronto Star, and he said the Pearsonian era of foreign affairs in Canada is over, over, and this prime minister has sort of put a stake in the heart of it. But Tony, I want to get you in on

this. And I appreciate that this is not a fair comparison, but I'm going to make it anyway. And that is to say, if you go back to the 19, I guess it was the early 1990s, George Herbert Walker Bush is the president of the United States. Brian Mulroney is the prime minister of Canada. And Saddam Hussein is a burr under the saddle of the American president. And President Bush decides that he's going to launch a war on Iraq. And he not only consults Brian Mulroney ahead of time, and he not only gives Brian Mulroney a heads up that this is going to happen,

but he asks Brian Mulroney for Canada's participation in that war. And we did participate. That clearly, none of that happened this time. No consultation, no heads up, and we are not participating at all. How should we regard all of that? Well, I think that's the new reality. One of the great stories coming out of that, by the way, was the conversation that Mulrooney had with President Bush. And he urged the president to get the French on side, which is hard to do,

let's face it, and these kinds of things, witness what Macron's doing now. And he said, Mr. President, when you're in Europe, when they refer to the president, they refer to the president of France, not the president of the United States. So you've got to phone him at four in the morning or whenever and brief him as quickly as possible. If you want, the French support. And that's exactly what Bush did based on Morini's advice. I love that little sequence of history being made. Obviously, we're in a different... Well, just shows you the Canadian Prime Minister back in the day was a far more influential player, obviously with the United States, but also on the international stage. Yeah, and I would say Stephen Harper the same thing. People

listen to Stephen Harper at International fora, G7, G20, you name it. And we were able to punch above our weight because the advice of the prime minister was listened to. And I think that Mark Carney is trying to emulate that and would like to see that again, obviously. I don't think that happened very often under Justin Trudeau. So where does that leave us? Well, we are in an age where the United States feels that it can and should act unilaterally. It didn't want to get, you know, gumbed up by endless consultations with the United Nations, for example, or even its NATO allies. It's very evidence. So I don't, I don't take offense that Canada wasn't consulted because I don't think anybody was consulted. Realistically and meaningfully, maybe the Saudis were. But, but that's about it.

So, so that's just the world we're in now, Steve. I don't take any umbrage on it. Martha, can I get a comment from you about what that says about the nature of foreign affairs in the world today? Well, I wouldn't put it all on the, on the personality. of the Canadian Prime Minister, although I do think I would say that was also true the American president. Behind the scenes in particular, Jean-Cretchen was very highly regarded, as was Harper, as was as was Mulroney. And I do think we're seeing that with Carney, but you also have a person in the White House who's not going to consult with pretty much anybody, as Tony said. Well, what's the line, right? We have our really, we have to take our relationship

with the American government the way it is, not the way we wish it were, right? Same challenge. I was on the gondola. I actually took a day off and was skiing. And there were four people. Clearly, this was their first time at Revelstoke. And I said, where are you from? And they said one couple was from Idaho and one was from Minnesota, but they were all

friends. And they said, Idaho and Minnesota. And we're so sorry. And they said something about, we can understand that people are, you know, hate Americans right now. And I said, careful. Like, we don't hate Americans. No.

We're just really not thrilled with your current government. But that also, too, is where I try to have some hope, is that the relationship that we have with the people of the United States can withstand some of these challenges. Martha, you have just echoed what Pierre Pollyev said in his speech at the economic club the other day. So that's very good on you. There's a good on you. Saved your good on you is for the end.

Yeah, we're not going to do those yet. Friends, I want to ask you about whether or not this war is illegal or how much international good housekeeping seal of approval it needs in order not to be considered that. But before we do that, we're going to pay a few bills around here, and I'm going to do an ad read. So get comfortable, have a sip of tea or whatever. While I say that Canada has a chance to lead the world in clean energy, and Bruce Powers's Bruce C project is paving the way. With a proposal to expand nuclear capacity by up to 4,800 megawatts,

Bruce Power would become the largest nuclear generator on the planet, and that means more energy security, more innovation, and more jobs. 12,000 created or supported across Canada over the lifetime of the facility and a $200 billion contribution to Canada's GDP. From powering homes to producing cancer-fighting medical isotopes, these investments will ensure a sustainable, prosperous future for generations, to come and you can learn more about the Bruce C project and Canada's clean energy future at this website, brucepower.com. And we thank the folks at Bruce Power for their support of our little venture here.

All right. Let's again, most of this coming out of the liberal and new Democratic Party caucuses. But what I am hearing reflected back is this is in a legal war. No one went to the United Nations to seek approval of this war. the Americans and the Israelis undertook it in unilateral fashion. To me, that raises a question, which is, should we in Canada never support a military action whose goals, some of which we may actually agree with, unless there is United Nations backing for said military adventure? Tony, you first. No, I think that would be ludicrous. The UN is a joke. Gutierrez, who took days and days to comment on the, the obliteration of 40,000 Iranians at the hands of the Iranian government over a weekend.

Didn't comment on that for days. Within hours of the intervention by the U.S. and Israel, condemned it from his perch as illegal and terrible and awful. So, yeah, no, I don't think anyone should listen to the UN. They have no credibility on this. This is the same organization that would have an Iranian representative as head of their Human Rights Commission and other strange, odd, stupid behavior. So what is international law? Well, you know, I think there's going to be a big debate about this, but I think you should be allowed as a sovereign nation. to preemptively strike another nation because if that nation has plans to nuclearize or has plans to develop ICBMs and other weapons of destruction. So this conflict meets that test in your view. In my view, it would. Again, there's evidence that they had evidence before them and that the Iranian diplomats, because they were having talks, the Americans were having talks with the Iranians, pretty well basically said, we're going to do what we want to do and, you know, up yours kind of stuff.

So should there be a diplomatic solution? I guess, hopefully, but there was going to be no diplomatic solution in this case. the Iranians were stuck on on getting getting ready for what they can they're an apocalyptic cult don't forget the the Mullahs who are in charge so that from from their point of view having the final showdown with the great and the lesser Satan is all part of their playbook that by that that I mean the U.S. and Israel and so no I think we are running out of choices as a as the civilized world the weak. in that case. And so I think that a preemptive strike was required and necessary. Martha, I obviously asked the question because famously in this country, Jean-Crentice stood up in Parliament and said, if there is no United Nations backing for President George W. Bush's attempted war against Saddam Hussein, Canada will not participate. And that was a very well-articulated test that the American administration had to meet and in Mr. Kretchen's view, failed to meet, and therefore we did not participate.

Is that the new standard for Canada's agreeing when military action should take place? I think it was viewed as the standard then, but I'll go back to my earlier comments about the UN. It has become a shadow of what it was supposed to have been. It's become farcical in some ways. I mean, when they have the Security Council that has permanent members, Russia and China, I mean, it,

it, I go back to, it was meant to help foster and maintain global peace. And Canada should be very proud of the fact that it was very much involved in drafting original documents and getting people together to do it. I suspect that now,

and let's, and that's just going back to the invasion, of Iraq. Like, there was evidence, right? And part of the challenge we're dealing with now is that it became clear eventually that the evidence was false. And so Tony, I suspect that the evidence that we have now is in fact real, but there is that thing hanging over us that, well, you said that before. Yeah, you're right. I would say, and I obviously can't speak for Mr. Cray Chan. But I suspect that in the same circumstances, Mr. Kraychamp might have, or a Prime Minister of Canada might have made that same decision without necessarily relying on the UN. I think it was the right decision at the time

because the evidence was not clear enough to the Canadian Prime Minister. And the Canadian Prime Minister could have said, we just don't believe that the evidence is there. And unless and until we do, we're not, we're not joining without having to rely on the UN. I think the UN piece helped Mr. Kray-Cham make that decision, but I would hope that absent the UN, he would have been able to take the same decision. The situation now is, I think, very different. I think the evidence is very strong. I mean, how do I know, Tony?

How do we know? But, but, you know, what happened in Iran is, is like, thousands and thousands of people. I mean, it's just so and then and then what illegal and legal? What's the world done about Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine twice now? The world just stood by in 2014 when the annexation of Crimea. The world is it's just, it's a fascinating thing to see countries and people say on the one hand, well, we can't do that because it's not legal. And yet other people are doing things that are blatantly illegal and we don't have the courage to step up and say, that's not okay.

I think what Martha is saying is that people are hypocritical. No. Thank you, Tony. That never happens in politics. But hopefully I've given it color. I just go back to the naivety thing. The UN right now has to be changed completely. Let's do one more round here.

and then I got some other business that I want you to attend to. But I do want to talk just briefly about the prime minister's event that he held in Australia on this trip that he's on, in which he really gave the middle powers doctrine, as I guess we're calling it now, a bit of a test drive. You know, this notion he first laid it out in Davos and then he did it again in Australia. The notion that, yes, America, China, Russia, they have all kind of decided that the old rules-based international order has come to an end, if it ever really truly existed, but that we middle powers, you know, we Canada, Australia, Germany, France, England, other European nations, we actually can do something in terms of moral leadership in the world and in terms of political force in the world

if we can get our act together and act in synchronicity. That's the theory. I guess it's getting a test drive right now. Tony, what do you think? Do you think it has any legs? I don't. I'll be honest with you. It's an interesting theory, but in practice, you're going to be under this theory running from pillar to post. So part of part of this seems to imply that you can as a middle power do some deals with the hegemen's without being in their orbit. So we can do a deal with the United States, but we also have to deal with China. as the other hegeman. And so really? I mean, I don't think Canada's future. We can trade with China. Don't get me wrong.

But there's no way from a geopolitical aspect, we want to be next to China. You know, our future is in North America. Ultimately, we're going to have to do a deal. I know I know Canadians don't want to hear that. I know Canadians want Trump to go away and America to go away. But ultimately, we're going to have to do a deal. And that's for our economic future, as well as the geopolitical realities of it all.

So I take all of this with a massive ton of salt, this middle powers stuff. And who are the middle powers? Australia, great, great country, love the people, and so on. But the other middle powers don't have their crap together, Steve. Does France, is France a great middle power? No. Is the UK, you know, a great economic and political power right now? No. Having tough times right now. Yeah. They're all and you know, Mertz is, he's the Chancellor of Germany. He's got very low pole standings and has very little room to maneuver. So, you know, when you look at it in realistic, you talk about Realpolitik, there's not much there there to ultimately you're going to deal with the hegements. That's sort of as as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as.

Martha is indicating we got to stop being naive about this stuff and deal with the two elephants in the room. And in my view, China is not really an avenue for us. They will eat our lunch at the next available opportunity. So ultimately, despite how Canadians feel about America, how it's run right now, ultimately we're going to have to have a solution to that. Martha, what about it? Do you want to take this middle powers doctrine out for a test drive? I first want to address, we need to deal with the United States. We already have a deal with the United States.

We didn't have a free trade agreement before the 1980s, but we had immense trade between the two countries. We have a deal. And that's called everything we do economically, culturally, and travel tourism, whatever, with the United States. We can't change politics. That will always be there, right? So that will drive so much of what we already have.

So I already have a deal in that sense. Do I want to see a like NAFTA 2.0 revisited and done well? Of course I do. But like I said, pre-1980s, we still had an extremely thriving relationship on so many levels. The middle power doctrine, I would say it's incredible what happens when push comes to shove. And the last time we had a really strong coalition of the willing, if you will, was called the Allies. World War II. And when that was the middle 30s, when things were happening, I don't know that people would have necessarily said, oh, Germany is going to be a hegemon. We're, you know, we're going

to have to deal with this. But when things actually became clear, countries rallied together. And I do think that that is really important. And was Canada a major power then? No. Was the United Kingdom, yes, but it was still pretty tough. But when countries rallied together, yes, of course, the United States as well, but when like-minded countries actually need to get something done, I think history has proven that that's quite possible. And I would suggest that Mark Carney is laying the groundwork for if we need to pull together, we want to know who we're going to pull together with. And I think, so I think, is it in place now? I think, I just think Mark Carney is doing absolutely the right thing in setting the, setting the stage for if push comes

to shove, who are we going to work together with and how. The Insurance Brokers Association of Canada is all about protection. This spring, they will be in Ottawa to advocate for a consumer first approach to federal initiatives around natural disasters, cybersecurity, and other risks that Canadians face every day. Insurance protects families, homes, and businesses when the unexpected happens. Brokers are your trusted advisors, helping you choose the right insurance to safeguard what you value most. Canada's insurance brokers. Their slogan is, we know what's worth protecting. Okay, friends, let's do some other business here, starting with one of the features that I've come to really enjoy on this program, which is to say, we ask each of the two of you to give a kind of a good on you

to something that you saw and admired in public life over the previous two weeks. So Tony Clement, fire away. Who gets your good on you this week? My good on you goes to John Tori, who decided just before this recording that he is not going to run for mayor. I think that was a hard decision for him because I think every ounce of him wanted to redeem himself and run again. and I know what it's like, believe me, to want that political redemption. But I think this was the right decision for him.

It's the right decision for the city. The city can move on and a new champion can go up against the current mayor, who I would argue, I'm not a Toronto citizen, but looking at it, I think there has to be someone who's capable of replacing her. and so I think this this clears the decks for that. And it's going to be a very interesting few months in Toronto city politics. So good on you. John Torrey, you made the right decision.

And you've got a great legacy regardless. So that doesn't change. And interestingly enough, the current mayor of Toronto, Olivia Chow, who would not have been the mayor, of course, had not John Torrey resigned his mayor and opened up the possibility of a by-election which she won. she has not yet indicated whether she intends to seek re-election. But of course, she doesn't have to because you don't have to file your papers till the 1st of May. So lots to keep an eye on there.

And I have no doubt we'll be talking about that race in the biggest city in the country as we count that down. Martha, who gets your good on you this week? A bit of a consistent theme here about my amateur student of history, especially pre-war, interwar. I'm so focused right now on the years and I highly recommended Shire's book The Nightmare Years. These are memoirs. S-H-I-R-E-R-E-R-S-H-I-R-E-R-S-H-I-R-E-R-R-H-H-I-R-R-E-R-R-E, who is the

rise and fall of the Third Reich. But these are memoirs. So this is a much more personal story from him. But there's so much out there about the interwar period, the 30s in Germany. It's not just him, but it's, It's just to get focused. My good on you, I know you're going, where is she going with this?

My good on you goes to all of the Republicans in the United States who are starting to finally stand up and say, we're not, this is not the United States that we want to maintain. And it's tough for them because it can be pretty career limiting for a Republican right now to be outspoken. but my good on you goes to them. Gotcha. We have a couple of viewer comments and questions here that I want to put to you to right now. And I don't think I gave you a heads up on this stuff, guys. So you're going to hear it for the first time right now. And the first one here's for Martha, where Alessandro Sisti, who is part of our Patreon community, came in and said,

I'd love to hear about the upcoming renegotiation of Kusma, what the U.S. wants, what we as Canadian should want. This will be a great opportunity, he says, to let Martha Hall-Finley talk about dairy supply management, which is, I think, one of her favorite topics. Okay, what do you want to tell, Alessandro, about supply management in Quebec? Well, it's not just in Quebec. It's in Ontario. And frankly, because the dairy lobby is so strong and spends hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing, somehow everybody across the country thinks that this is sacrosanct and is, you know, the photos of the, you know, the cat.

and the guys in their wellies and the barn and the straw. I mean, it just, it just, we are so bamboozled. And frankly, my view is an awful lot of, especially some of the smaller dairy farmers themselves, are also bamboozled by the marketing. It will come up in these negotiations. But fundamentally, we should actually move away from supply management, which is the only, you know, sanctioned cartel in Canada. dairy poultry and eggs, the beef people, the canola, the, you know, the pork people don't have this, right?

Like, this is why is this so special? The average, you know, the dairy, average dairy farmer is multi-million dollar, multi-millionaire. There are ways to move away from this. Australia did it. And so fundamentally, this is something that Canada should do for Canada, something Canada should do for the dairy farmers themselves. if you look at the success of the dairy industry in Australia, New Zealand now compared to Canada, I mean, we're just, this system is keeping a small, very small number of people wealthy, but preventing significant success on the world stage.

So you know what? Let's take advantage of the negotiations and do something for Canada that is the right thing to do for Canada. Oh, my God. Alessandro, look how animated you have got her. That is, she's on fire. Tony, let me do the follow up with Tony. When you were in Stephen Harper's cabinet, and I know it's all about protecting seats in Quebec, which is why no one moves on it.

I know the industry is nationwide, but it's very much been seen as a, we can't do this. Otherwise, we'll jeopardize whatever support we have in the province of Quebec. And frankly, it's how Maxine Bernier lost the leadership of the federal conservative party to Andrew Shear, because the dairy farmers in his own home province of Quebec went against him because he agrees with Martha on supply management. But anyway, my question, Tony, is, did you guys ever seriously discuss getting rid of supply management when you were in government. I mean, it was, how serious was the discussion? I mean, there's, you know, how many, how many ways do you want to blow your brains out?

Let's, you know, so you got to, you got to choose which hills to die on. And, like, I, I agree with Martha. And as do more, as do almost all of your colleagues, as did almost all of your colleagues in the day, too, Tom. So, yeah, I, I, so. I'm hoping that there can be a resolution of this that, you know, protects the farmers, you know, their incomes or their assets and moves us forward in a consumer-friendly way. So, yeah, there is definitely voices like that, Steve.

But, you know, again, you got to choose the hills you want to fight on, right? Right. You too will remember that a couple of weeks ago we had Linda McQuag on about her new book in which she would like billionaires and people who are, I think, worth more than $25 million to have to pay a wealth tax. And Tony Clement, dear viewer, dear listener, actually supported that position. And we got some feedback on that, Tony. Here's from Febriam Boudemann, who said, Steve, in response to the watcher that said

Tony Clement never agreed with liberal points, because you got criticized for that, Tony, right? You're always so negative about the liberals, so others said. Febrian says, he just agreed with the concept of a wealth tax. it may not be a policy that the current version of liberal support, but it's progressive policy that not many conservatives openly agree with. So you got some props from February and Butymund. And here's Karen Leahy who also said, I was very happy and impressed with what Tony had to say about inequity. Even though I'm a complete lefty, it wasn't something I expected a conservative to say. Tony, that horseshoe is getting, you know, closer to being a complete circle.

You're coming around, I guess, eh? Well, I mean, I just think that we've got to help the working people of this country. We've had manufacturing losses for decades and we have the highest food prices, food inflation in the G7 right now, Steve. We haven't talked about that, but I'd like to talk about it at some point. And if we're not helping the working people, what are we doing? You know, they need help right now. And we've got to listen to that as a society and as as a political class. So thank you for the, thank you for the feedback.

I appreciate it. Good. Those were people who have joined our Patreon community, which you can do at patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast. And if you do that, you know, give us a few bucks a month to help keep the lights on and do other stuff here. We can tell you you will find web exclusive videos. And I should also say that we just posted an exclusive interview that I did sometime. time ago with the former chief of the defense staff of the military in Canada, Rick Hillier,

who is a very, I have to say, not only a sharp guy, but a very entertaining interviewee, how do we work with the United States, given the current president? Should we buy the new fighter jets from the Americans or from the Swedes? We're going to be spending a lot more on military procurement going forward. How should all of that roll out? He's got some definite opinions about that. And if you join our Patreon community, you'll be able to see that interview with Rick Hillier. and pitch story ideas and guest ideas, which we take you up on. And in fact, let me take this opportunity to say that we got a number of comments from people who said we would love to see sort of more head-to-head debates on big controversial issues

on the Paken podcast. And as a result, we started that in the last couple of weeks. We're going to call them red line debates. And we had Candace Malcolm and Justin Ling debating the advisability of what was achieved with the Ottawa Convoy. It was four years to the month ago that we did that. So that debates up there on our website as well if you want to go find that. So we'd be happy to take your ideas on future redline debates.

I know that we're considering a couple of ideas right now, but happy to hear more from all of you. So once again, patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast. All of our shows are archived at stevepaken.com. You two got any last comments before I sign it off? You know, like and subscribe, folks. Like and subscribe. Like and subscribe. Like and subscribe.

But I just, I, I think it's fantastic to see how many people are actually tuning in. I know Tony, you're the same. I'm getting so many comments from people really enjoying it. So good on you, Steve, for, for starting this. And thanks to both of you for including me. I think this is a great fun. It's a very, it's a very happy way to spend our time, I think, I must say. And to that end, let me thank John Rasmussen.

and Wendy Wilmot and George Jenny, who have also joined the Patreon community in the last few days. And I want to give absolute props here to Shelley Lewis. Shelly, I know Tony, you know Shelley. I mean, she's a, her nickname is the vice president of fun because she's always an enjoyable person to hang out with. She has come in as a Patreon community member

at the highest possible level of donation, which will allow us to do a lot more than we're currently doing, which we want to do. We want to be able to do more things. So, Shelley, What would Doug Ford say? You're a champion. You're a champion.

And yeah, thanks so much for all of your assistance and support for what we're doing here. And with that, we'll see you next time on the Pagan podcast, everybody. Peace and love. Peace and love. Peace and love.