The Paikin Podcast - John Baird: Should Canada Support the Iran War?

Episode Date: March 9, 2026

John Baird, Canada’s former foreign minister, joins Steve to discuss the war in Iran, whether Canada should support it, PM Mark Carney’s evolution on reacting to this war, and if it could turn out like another Iraq or Libya. They then discuss the internal deliberations within the federal government when a war breaks out, how decisions are made to support a war or not, and the tough choices Canada has to make as this war continues.   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] 

Hi, everybody. Steve Paken here. It has been fascinating watching Prime Minister Mark Carney's evolution over the past week and a half as he tries to figure out how Canada should be reacting to this war in the Middle East. It got me wondering, what is supposed to happen in these situations? Who should speak for Canada? Who should take the lead on whether we involve ourselves or not in international conflicts? From 2011 to 2015, John Baird was Canada's foreign minister. So I thought we'd ring him up. and get him to share his experiences on what happens when countries are confronted by a crisis and when Canada has some tough decisions to make. John Baird, coming right up, one-on-one on the Paken podcast. We are delighted to welcome John Baird, Canada's former foreign minister to the Pagan podcast. He is, of course, not only in the Stephen Harper government, but before that, he was a cabinet minister in Mike Harris's Ontario government, and today he is a senior advisor at the law firm Bennett Jones, and he joins us now from Toronto.

John's great to see you again. How you doing? Great to be with you. Pleasure. Let's just start with this. Do you have a view, first of all, on the advisability of America and Israel going to war against Iran in the first place? Well, I guess I'll say two things.

One is that the United States is obviously our closest friend and ally on security, on defense, on intelligence. intelligence. It is incredible. That relationship is incredibly important. It's not a blank check, and second, obviously, Israel, when under the previous government was a close friend and ally of Canada as well. So I would have strongly supported the initiative. I was initially very pleased with the prime minister's comments. But as you said, charitably, it's been a bit of an evolution over the last 10 days. We'll get to that evolution in a second. But when a regime collapses, for example, example, what generally fills in is not sort of Jeffersonian democracy off the top here.

And we have seen that over and over in places like Afghanistan and Libya, Syria, Iraq. You know, if you're sitting there as the foreign minister, what are you thinking about in terms of how this all works itself out in the wash at the end of the day? Well, you know, first thing, you could bring a strong knowledge of the file. the Iranian people, 85% of them, are radically against this regime. They are very pro-Western. They are very well-educated. And they are pro-Israel.

They want to have freedom from the handcuffs of the Mullahs that have ruled the country since 1979. So I think it's very different than the other situations that you described. And I think what's happening here is I think the United States and Israel are trying to degrade the regime so that the people can continue to rise up and hopefully overthrow the government. So I think it's a very, very different situation there. I certainly wouldn't at this stage be supportive of any land forces or boots on the ground. I don't think that would be helpful.

Regime change through invasion doesn't tend to work, particularly when there's really no civil society, in particular Afghanistan or Libya. there wasn't really a huge alternative government waiting. In Iran, you have three or four groups that could take the government, the National Council resistance of Iran, the monarchists, women's groups, teachers, students. So they have a lot of people to draw upon to establish a provisional government and then move forward with a transition to a more freedom-loving society. Now, I think I just heard you say you thought 85% of the people were against this theocracy.

but then I think I also heard you say 85% of the people actually like Israel. Are you sure? I don't know 85%, but I don't know if there's a, the Supreme Leader, the late Supreme Leader, was so focused on destroying Israel. That was really his number one goal. And there's really not a huge anti-Israel sentiment

among the average people on the street. That would be very different, for example, in other, in other Islamic capitals. Okay. But the fact, the fact, the fact, the fact that Israel could be co-leading, the military operation. Is there something that was unthinkable, even a few years ago?

You'll recall when Saddam Hussein was launching missiles in Israel during the first Gulf War, Israel wasn't allowed to respond because the entire Arab coalition against Saddam would have fallen apart. And now you actually have Sunni Arab states shooting down Iranian missiles that are headed for Israel. It's something that we couldn't have imagined 10 years ago. All right. I want to draw upon your expertise as having been the Foreign Minister of the country

and get a better understanding of what's sort of going on in the corridors of power in Ottawa right now. Because, okay, America and Iran, excuse me, America and Israel attack Iran. Canada then has to make a decision starting with, you know, do we support this or not? What do we do? How should we be involved, if at all? Take us through how any government tries to figure out answers to all those questions. Well, it's funny, there shouldn't have been a surprise. I think back in 2012, I returned from a trip to Israel and met privately with the Prime Minister.

And at that time, I indicated that I thought that the Netanyahu government was going to move to in to try to take out the nuclear program in Iran. So we thought about it. The Prime Minister, I don't think, was convinced as I was, but then he was able to meet with the Prime Minister Netanyahu in a few weeks following that meeting. Is it Stephen Harper you're talking about? It is. And that was one of the reasons why we closed our embassy. So you should have really given this a lot of thought and know what you're up to. I think this regime in Iran is just the modern face of evil. It's a nuclear program.

One of the cornerstones of Canadian foreign policy is nuclear non-proliferation. We can't allow them to weaponize their nuclear program to their abysmal and deteriorating human rights. Successive liberal and conservative governments have led an annual resolution at the United Nations condemning the atrocities. on the human rights front. And three, their huge support for terrorism and intervention in the internal affairs of virtually all of the other countries in the Middle East. So those three things really make regime change only a positive, only a positive thing, particularly when it's being led by two of our closest friends and allies. Now, people have to separate Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu from Israel and the United States. I think too much focuses on the

personalities. But I think what would happen in thinking about this when you asked me to come on, you really look at, I would look at where's our caucus, where's our government stand on the issues? Obviously, we're a country that's supportive of a strong relationship with an alliance with the United States. Two, we're very supportive of Israel and it's right to exist. It's right to defend itself and to live in peace and prosperity with its neighbors. So those would be the cornerstone. So Ellie and McDonald, who was a great observer of Canadian politics, said a foreign minister has a client of one. And that's the prime minister. And so I think I was generally speaking fairly aligned, not universally, but fairly aligned with him.

And whenever I would make a big trip to the Middle East, I would meet privately with him and give him a debrief. And I would call it a signals check to make sure we were on the same page. Well, I think it's fair to say that your relationship with Stephen Harper was closer. and longer standing than, let's say, the foreign minister today, Anita Anand's relationship with Mark Carney, the prime minister, which is fairly recent, and who knows how close it is, frankly. It also would be the case that while you would be encouraging Stephen Harper to be supportive of what's going on right now, we don't know that that's the case. Certainly with the liberal backbench, if there are anything like the voters who put the liberals in power, they oppose the war. They are.

not fans of what's going on right now and they're certainly not as as pro-Israel as perhaps your caucus your cabinet and your prime minister were so how do they handle all that well it looks like because they have a new chair to we put it an evolving position they're they're flip flopping uh i think got counted four flip-flops since they uh and put their initial statement out obviously there the uh the position was not aligned with their caucus and obviously the uh the prime minister and the minister doesn't look like they had talked too much about it ahead of time. But they should have. Is that right? I think so. Because this was not a, this was not a surprise. I was on the Deb Hutton's radio show about six weeks ago. And I said, watch Iran. That's the

next, after the Venezuela and operation, watch Iran. That's the next operation. And we've seen, you know, 60, 70,000 Iranians killed by the regime since, since New Year's. So this was clearly leading up to it. And there was a 12-day war with Israel last fall. So, you know, they should have been, they should have been thinking. You also have to think with our bilateral relationship and the challenge, the huge challenges Canada is facing with the Trump administration? Is this an opportunity to support them on a worthwhile, on a worthwhile initiative? You know, we're not the only ones. I want, Australia did. Argentina did. You know, the entire Sunni Arab world is de facto supporting what's going on in Iran.

So we certainly wouldn't be alone. I gather Saudi Arabia gave the green light, actually, to the U.S. to go do it. Absolutely. And it's not, I think I was able to impart with Stephen Harper through, you know, there was so much going on in the Middle East when I was foreign, and North Africa and when I was foreign minister. I quickly learned the important alliance between Canada, the United States, and the Sunni Arab Gulf countries is incredibly important.

We share the same interests on security, on prosperity. You know, we've been to war with the United Arab Emirates, I think six times in my adult lifetime. So that's an incredibly close relationship. And the Saudis, we have, you know, honest differences on values. But at the same time, on interests, we're fairly aligned. And that's why successive American administrations have worked so closely with the Sunni Arab Gulf states.

Help us out with this, though. When a crisis presents itself, as clearly the situation is today, I want to get a better understanding of who drives the bus. Is it the foreign minister who's sort of advising the prime minister on what to say and what to do? Or is it the prime minister telling the foreign minister, here's what we're going to do. Now go out and say and do this. How does it work? Well, I think what would have happened. We would have had a plan or certainly a gut instinct of what to do beforehand.

And then, you know, I would have spoken with the prime minister. We'd have a thorough discussion of the issue, and then he would make a call and give direction, not just to me as his foreign minister, but to our diplomatic team around the world. I, Stefan Dion was foreign minister for one year. And one of his senior policy, yes, one of his senior policy advisors wrote a book. And when he was writing, if he called me and he asked me, how often would you meet with Stephen Harper privately? not at a cabinet meeting, not at a caucus meeting.

And I said, well, regularly, you know, on a weekly, once a week, once every two weeks. And he was stunned by that because I don't think Dion had more than one private meeting in a year with Stefan Dion. So when you have no alignment between your foreign minister and your prime minister, that's a recipe for disaster. And around the world, whether it's with our friends or foes, you know, your ability to speak for the government, is driven by your relationship and with the first minister. And if you're not aligned, you really are not much used to our friends and allies. If you had a significant disagreement with the prime minister, is that something that a foreign minister should raise in cabinet or only privately away from everybody else?

I think in cabinet, you should feel free to speak your mind. I think if Stephen Harper's cabinet meetings were to be televised, people would be amazed at the significant debates and discussions we would have. He always invited people to give their best advice, their best position to speak freely. But at the end of the day, the government has to make a decision and we have to move forward. And there's not votes. We try to come up with a consensus and move forward. On an issue, this significant, we might have had a national security cabinet meeting

where you'd bring in the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Public Safety, myself, foreign aid, and other interested ministers to chew it over before you make a decision. We had a view that before we'd engage in any sort of combat operations, that it would require a vote in Parliament. When Barack Obama asked Canada to support the mission against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, we took it to Parliament and people had to go on the record and take a position. We did that in a minority situation, and we did it in a majority situation. I think that's only fair.

and only reasonable. You should make those decisions lightly. Yeah. Should there be a debate in Parliament right now about what the next steps forward for the Canadian government should be? Absolutely. It's, this is a,

I think this has the potential to be the most significant geopolitical, uh, change if it goes well since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Iran is such a source of evil in the world. Whether it's, you know, bombing a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires,

one of the reasons I suspect why the government of Argentina is supporting it, whether it's their involvement in virtually every single country, supporting terrorism. I think thousands of American soldiers have been killed because of Iran and its proxies. And they're the principal source of instability. Do we want a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East? Because I'll tell you, the Saudis will acquire nuclear weapons. Turkey will acquire nuclear weapons.

When Egypt is back on its feet economically, they will want nuclear weapons. I think that's the last thing we would want. for peace and security in the world is a new nuclear arms race in the tenderbox of the globe. Mind you, I was going to raise this later, but since you raised it here, somebody emailed me the other day saying it's pretty well understood and known that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though they've never confirmed or denied it. So if they're allowed to have them, why shouldn't other countries in the region be allowed to have them? Well, I think it's widely accepted, though they would never confirm it.

I think it's widely accepted that they do have them. And I think that there's been a reason why Iran has been careful in terms of its military strikes on Israel. Very few Israelis have been killed. But if they were to send some sort of a significant conventional weapon and see 10 or 25,000 people killed, I think they would know what the result of that would be. And they've governed themselves accordingly. So, you know, if Israel's nuclear program is probably a source of peace and stability in the region, I don't think the king of Saudi Arabia goes to bed at night, worrying that Israel is going to nuke him.

And frankly, neither did Saddam Hussein or the Mullahs in Tehran, as long as they govern themselves accordingly. Now, of course, you were Canada's foreign minister. There would be a foreign minister in the United Kingdom, in France, in Italy, of course, all our NATO allies and beyond. When a crisis presents itself in the way that it has over the last week and a half, how much of the phone lines between or amongst all of you, all you foreign ministers in the West, how much of the phone lines being burned up at that moment? Sure, you'd be on the phone a lot. When I was there, we didn't really have the widespread video chats and video meetings that they can do today.

But you would obviously work with your closer allies. I think on this initiative, I would probably be looking to our friends and allies in the Middle East. You know, the United Arab Emirates is a very close friend and ally of Canada. This is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Same. Jordan, same. So I would probably be in the region meeting with my counterparts and colleagues. And look at you what we could do to support them. Obviously, the huge number of attacks on our friends and allies,

even the United Kingdom's base in Nicolae is a huge cause for alarm. and if there's anything we could do to support those friends and allies, we certainly would consider it. 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. I presume there is sort of some little bit of pushing and shoving behind the scenes in any government as to who is going to speak on behalf of the government of Canada as it relates to the crisis at hand.

Is it going to be the foreign minister who's going out to brief the media and make speeches? Is it going to be the prime minister? their staffs, no doubt, each have a view on how that works. How does that work itself out of the middle of a crisis? You know, I think it all depends on the alignment of the foreign minister with the prime minister and your team and their team. If you're fairly aligned, it's not a problem.

I had legendary fights with some of the PMO staff. Oh, do tell. Name names. Many. But generally on foreign policy, we were fairly aligned. There was a few. I was demonstrably more pro-enging China. I saw the Mexican bilateral relation was much more important, but on the vast majority of things,

we were incredibly aligned. The one thing that I would love to be the fly on the wall at Fort Pearson, the Foreign Affairs headquarters, there's no doubt that the Foreign Service will be completely against this type of initiative and would want the government to come wholeheartedly out against it.

It's almost like I look at the debates in the United States, going on on Capitol Hill. If Brock Obama did it, it's okay. If a Republican president does it, it's not okay. Well, let me tell you this. People talk about international law. When I was a senior member of the federal cabinet,

we had a close friend and ally of Canada, invade a third country and summarily execute a man in front of his wife and children. Who did that? Clear violation of international law, but we supported them. It was Barack Obama taking out Osama bin Laden. Clear violation of international law, black and white case.

But obviously that was an initiative that should have our wholehearted support of the Obama administration when they did it. The Obama administration did many high-level strategic operations in Somalia to come al-Shabaab. And I think, frankly, because of Obama's actions, the world was a safer place. Now, thankfully, on your watch, nothing this significant, like a war in the Middle East, happened. Well, we actually had the military operation, the NATO military operation in Libya when I was a foreign minister. And I think a foreign minister should be, get their hands dirty, should be, you know, up to their neck in it. So, you know, shortly after becoming foreign minister, I went, while Gaddafi was still in power, I went to Benghazi and met with the opposition. the opposition council had looked them in the eye and saw, are these people we could trust,

are these people we could work with? And I think that's tremendously important. You just don't, shouldn't be, you know, your briefing document shouldn't be foreign policy magazine. You should be able to look people in the eye and make your own assessments. And I think that speaks to being an activist foreign minister. And the second one is to establish relationships, like the relationships that I had with my counterparts. And for example, the UA and Saudi Arabia were very, very solid. And there was a,

you could build up trust and then align your responses to lead to a more effective outcome. When you did go to the region in that case and you looked in the eye, the people who were purporting to be able to take over, what conclusions did you come away with? In Libya, the opposition council I met with, I trusted. I felt comfortable in, in working with them. I'll give an example. Another example, Syria. We met with the Syrian opposition to Bashar al-Assad.

And I didn't feel comfortable. And Canada was one of the only major countries in the West that didn't recognize the Syrian opposition council as the legitimate government of Syria. We thought they were, as President Trump would say, bad hombres, that they were not people who would believe in pluralism, let alone, let alone, you know, a civilized society. And, you know, I think in retrospect, we were right on both, Syrian opposition that we were dealing with back in 2011,

2013. We're not worthy of Canada's support. How did you make that determination? I went, I met with them. I looked them in the eye. We looked at significant intelligence reports and just came to the conclusion that they were just inconsistent with our values. And the value, it's not always, you've got to, when you're dealing with diplomacy, you're dealing with, inherently you're dealing with where you have a conflict between your values and your interests.

You know, I support liberal democracy. But more important than liberal democracy is freedom, pluralism. Can people have different races, ethnicities, different religions live in peace and harmony. You think of human rights. You think of the rule of law. Those are all tremendously important. You know, the United Arab Emirates is not a liberal democracy. But I think it's a fair, you know, on its worst day, it's so a pretty, a.

effective government for the Arab world. And you've got to just become comfortable with that. You're not always going to be completely aligned. We'll be back right after this. Now, I know it is the case that, say, for example, a current premier would call a former premier or a current prime minister would call a former prime minister to get some advice on something

that was a particularly thorny problem. And I wonder if it works that way with foreign ministers. So, for example, would Anita Anon have called you at any point over the last week and a half to get your advice on something. I actually, about six, seven weeks ago, I called her and spent about a half an hour on the phone and gave her my thoughts about those on Iran's nuclear program,

on their abysmal and deteriorating human rights situation, and on their material support for terrorism. And I said, you know, this is something to watch out for, and it's distinctly in Canada's interests and consistent with our longstanding, conservative and liberal foreign policy. And we had a very good discussion. She's obviously a smart woman.

I don't agree with her on many things, but that was a good call. Christia Freeland or Melanie Jolie called from time to time, which, and you just give your best advice. Foreign policy is not particularly a partisan issue. I want to see Canada succeed. I want international peace and security to succeed. I want to see a peaceful and prosperous Middle East.

And I think that's something we would all share. As you have watched the current Prime Minister and the current foreign minister make public statements on what's going on in the Middle East right now, you know, you would understand the nuances of what they're saying and maybe if there's any daylight between their positions better than most. What are you seeing? I see the initial response was solid and good. I think, though, that obviously they're rotting from inside where the caucus is not behind the prime minister's statement. I expect the foreign service at Fort Pearson were flabbergasted by it and have pushed and pushed and pushed and push for change.

And you just see this going back and forth and back and forth. And that never looks good. There was a former conservative and then liberal county minister's name was Jack Horner. And Horner had a great line. He said, you don't look good in retreat. And I think that would be an appropriate statement for what we're seeing. Gotcha. And you know, sometimes you have to take a controversial position.

You know, listen, I am very pro-Israel. I don't apologize for it. We had a phenomenal relationship with the Sunni Arab world. Phenomenal. But in my constituency, I had 2,800 Jews. I had 11,500 Muslims and Arabs. So, you know, it didn't always make me a mister popular, but I think you have to stand up and fight for what's right and take the consequences.

Even though you were the foreign minister more than a decade ago, the prime minister at the time in Israel was Benjamin Netanyahu. What kind of relationship? And he was foreign minister. He was also a foreign minister. minister twice while I was foreign minister. So I have a, I continue to have a very close relationship. Maybe, you know, last time I was in, two times I was in Israel, I spent over an hour with him in the prime minister's office before that when he was leader of the opposition for that

brief interlude. And the relationships are really important because with the relationships come understanding and come trust. And that's, that's very, very important. And one of the things I think I've, I believe is that conservative and liberal prime ministers, they move around their foreign minister way too often. It takes about a year before you can establish the relationships that you can put to work for the country. And, you know, whether it's, you know, at one occasion, I went out for dinner with the Egyptian foreign minister on the sidelines of the UN. And two days later, we got two detained Canadians released. And it's though that relationship that can help deliver results. So I think it's a disservice to Canada by constantly changing the foreign minister. And that's a

conservative and liberal problem. It's not unique to this government. Do you, I mean, I don't know if you've had this conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but does he know that there are lots of people in this country who think he's a war criminal? He's very cognizant of his, of the public relations, challenges that he faces personally that Israel and the Jewish people face. Absolutely. He knows he can't come to Canada because there's a shot he'd be arrested? Well, shot, I mean, the prime minister has said he have them arrested. We have an arms embargo against Israel. We have effectively no bilateral at a political level, no bilateral relationship with Israel. I don't think that serves Canada well. Let me circle back to something you said a moment ago, which was that it's not beyond the

realm of possibility that the initial comments made by Prime Minister Carney were as positive as they were because he may be thinking in the back of his head, if I give something here to Trump, maybe he'll give me something on something else that I care about. Is that how this works? In other words, you know, is it possible that trade negotiations are wrapped up in our saying something positive about this war in Iran? I think the bilateral relationship, it's like a toss salad. It's everything matters.

And I think given the challenges we're facing with the tariffs and with the relationship with the president himself, I would certainly pick my fights. You don't have to, you don't have to grow at all guns blazing. against everything that he does. You know, for example, did anyone, I mean, did anyone really think that he was going to invade Greenland? I mean, the hysteria on that, obviously that would be a red line for Canada,

but do you have to go to DuffCon 5 with every single tweet or every single pronouncement? So I thought their initial response was good for the bilateral relationship. But, you know, obviously it's, you know, the anger that Trump has personally towards Kier Starmor, towards the Spanish government, particularly towards the French now, is palpable. And that'll hurt when you're dealing with the bread and butter issues that you need.

You know, this is, I'm a very transactional type of guy. You know, we wanted to get in the Trans-Pacific Partnerships. So I was lobbying Hillary Clinton for Canada to be put in. And, you know, she came back to me here. There are three or four things we need. And they were all, they were all something, things that I felt I could support and went to the PM and cabinet. and we were able to work out a deal. I want to ask you how concerned you are,

given that this war started, whatever it was, a week and a half ago, between three countries. And now there are probably, I don't know what, nine, ten, eleven countries that have been, you know, on the receiving end of bombs from a variety of countries here, but mostly, obviously Iran, I think they tried to lob a bomb on Turkey the other day. So now we're getting into other NATO members as well.

How concerned are you? Well, let me put it this way. Your friend Tony Clement, with whom you served both at Queens Park and on Parliament Hill, he said the other day on this show that he thinks we're in this early stages of World War III. Do you? Well, no, I don't. I'm obviously concerned when we have, you know, like a British base in Cyprus being hit or a NATO ally, I think they were able to intercept it or a friend and ally like the United Arab Emirates. I think what you're going to see is this combat mission.

de-escalate probably within the next two to five weeks. Iran's defenses have been so degraded. Every time they launch a missile, I would suspect for every missile they launch, every two missiles they launch, the missile launcher is taken out at least half of them. So their capacity to send these missiles will be degraded every hour and every day.

There was a joke I saw online. What do Monaco and Iran have in common? Neither of them has a Navy or an Air Force. because they're in virtually their entire navy and combat capacity in their air force has been completely degraded and they basically only have the you know missile option and the IRGC and as this you know Israel was at war with Iran for 12 days didn't lose a single soldier airmen didn't lose a single aircraft so it's they just Iran's capacity to to fight for for much longer is certainly been degraded.

Well, having said that, Israel has now moved ground troops into southern Lebanon to go after Hezbollah, so this war is encroaching in other areas as well. What do you think of that? Well, that's not new. Israel has been fighting Hezbollah going back 30 years, 40 years. When I first visited Israel, I went into South Lebanon because Israel was occupying it, not for trying to conquer land or to oppress people, but to try to try. try to put a buffer zone between Hezbollah and Israel.

I think you've got to realize, though, that Hezbollah and Hamas exist for one reason, and one reason only, that Iran funds and trains them. And at some point, Steve, we've got to stop fighting fires, which is what Israel is doing in South Lebanon, and start taking the matches away. I think that's what this operation is all about. It's about regime change and stopping this terrorism and adventurism that Iran has in virtually every country in the region. In which case, if you were the foreign minister today,

what would you be whispering in the air of the prime minister to tell him to do in terms of what Canada could contribute to this? What I would do is I'd say, first, let's be supportive of the operation. Second, what can we do to support Israel and the United States? You know, should we convene a multi-la conference to build international support? We should certainly work with our friends and allies in the Sunni Arab world in the region, whether that's whatever we could do to help the UA, for example, or to help Cyprus.

Third, you know, in a post-conflict situation, they'll need to transition to a form of pluralism and freedom. So I think Canada could provide a lot of support there. You know, things like, you know, getting rid of Iran's nuclear assets. There's something that Canada could assist. You know, we've got a significant nuclear industry in this. in this country and were trusted and respected on nuclear non-proliferation. And the third is what could we do? What could Canada do with tracking the proceeds of terrorism

and ensure that those are all cut off? Those are three things that Canada would be great at. And I think the all parties would welcome. And being pro-Israel is not being anti-Arab or not being anti-Islamic. I don't think I had one single, in a bilateral meeting with a single Arab foreign minister where they ever gave criticism to Canada's, pro-Israel stance. Yeah, sure, when you got together at the Arab League or at the UN, they would.

But there was, you know, they might not always agree with us, but they respected that we took a position. Even with the Palestinians, I think I had 10 hours of meetings with President Abbas. And I was on one CBC interview and I said, why have you given me more problems for our position on Israel than President Abbas has given me in 10 years, in 10 hours worth of meetings? In the last two minutes, you've given me more hell for our position. And strangely, that Jewish a CBC reporter now sits around the federal cabinet table. Oh, who was that? Was that Evan Solomon? Correct. Okay. Very good.

But he seemed to have a bigger problem with our support of Israel than the Palestinians did. Well, let me repeat something I say to people all the time, which is you should not infer from the way questions are put or asked that that's reflective of anybody's personal views on things. Sometimes they're just doing their jobs. Can I say that? You can say it and I can disagree. I would, Steve, I would never. I would never say that about you. I don't know how I should take that, but okay. No, but the fact, the fact,

the fact that all political party leaders not only invite, but trust you to host the leaders' debates during election campaigns, I think speaks volumes to your credibility and the trust that people have in your independence. Well, okay, thank you for saying so. You know, it's a funny thing. Well, perhaps I shouldn't put it that way. It's not so funny. I wonder whether people's views on this conflict would be different if there was

a different president of the United States, a different prime minister in Israel, there is a great deal of antipathy to both of those men in this country. And I wonder if you could tell me how you think that affects the decisions that will be taken in the days ahead. I think antipathy is a very polite word. I mean, obviously, obviously President Trump does not enjoy the as high approval ratings in Canada as he does in the United States. And obviously, Benjamin Netanyahu is a very controversial leader. So that makes it demonstrably harder for many weak people to support them. Let me ask you one last thing, and that is you know you and Mark Carney have something very kind of intriguing in common, right?

What's that? I think you both represented the same riding. Yes. He represents Nippean, the riding that I lived in and represented for many years. It shows you how much things have changed. When Stephen Harper was in government, we won the four to seven. writings in Ottawa three times. And now it's completely red. And when I resigned my seat, Nipi and Carlton at Queens Park, it was the safest seat for the Ontario PC party. I had the

highest majority in caucus. And boy, have things changed in such a short period of time. Isn't that the case? Do you know Mark Carney well? I know him. I respect him. I trust him. I think he's a very smart guy. He's got a lot of experience. I certainly think he's a better a better leader than his predecessor. Having said that, I guess I'd be focused on one specific thing, results. And I think he's short on, he needs to focus more on results, less on announcements and more on deliverables. Gotcha.

I want to just before. But I'm Mark Carney. Like, I'm a Canadian. I want Canada to succeed. I want our prime minister to succeed. I think that's important. We can't be overly partisan on that regard. So, you know, I wish I'm not.

nothing but well. Just before signing off and thanking you for doing this program, I do want to remind everybody that we've created a little Patreon community here where you can get web-exclusive videos. We've got an interview with Rick Hillier, the former chief of defense staff that's exclusive to this show. And that'll be up there along with a bunch of other goodies that we hope people will check out at patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast. And of course, all of our shows are archived at Steve Paken.com. John Barrett, it's great catching up with you again. care and hope to see you down the road sometime. Great to be with you. And to everybody else, as I always say, peace and love, everyone.