The Paikin Podcast - World on Edge: Canada’s New Foreign Policy, Waking Up, and Carney the Statesman

Episode Date: October 9, 2026

Andrew Cohen joins Janice Stein on World on Edge to discuss Canada’s foreign policy, whether Canada is now “awake,” the peacekeeping era, Carney the statesman, whether his “middle powers” coalition is more than just speeches, Canada’s defence spending, and whether “soft power” still matters in the world today.They also discuss Arctic sovereignty, Canada becoming an “associate member” of the EU, to what extent we can go our own way without America, and Quebec’s recent election. 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.

Hi, everybody. Steve Paken here. More than 20 years ago, one of our country's top foreign policy observers wrote a book whose title said a mouthful. The book was called, While Canada Slept, How We Lost Our Place in the World, and it described a country that didn't really have its act together on the world stage. Well, here we are more than 20 years later, fighting with our best friends and trying hard to find new friends elsewhere. How's that going? Have we got our act together any better these days? Canada in the world, coming up next on World On Edge on the Paken podcast. Always delighted to welcome Janice Stein back to these parts.

She, of course, the founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, and our special guest this week, Andrew Cohen, journalist, author, adjunct professor at Carleton University's School of Journalism and the Norman Patterson School of International Affairs. He's written several books, including the aforementioned, While Canada Slept, which incidentally was a national bestseller and a finalist for the Governor General's Literary Award for Nonfiction. And like Janice, he is a Montrealer originally, so we may have to talk a little bit of Quebec election politics today as well.

Andrew, great to have you with. Where do we find you on this fine day? You find me off the coast of Maine, 13 miles out, excuse me, in the Atlantic. Not moving here, just this is where we spend summers and fall. Okay, I was going to say, you know summer's over, right? Yeah, not quite here yet. Okay, good. You seem to suggest more than 20 years ago that Canada was sort of sleeping when it came to foreign policy. How about today? Are we still asleep? Not sort of sleeping then. We were fast asleep then. I wrote that book in 2003. And my argument was,

if you looked at the arms or internationalism, defense, development, and diplomacy, we were much less than we had been. It was a generational decline, not the fault of one party or one period or one policy, but simply a decline over. one or two generations. I would say today is an extraordinary moment in our country. Two of those elements that I described, defense and diplomacy, are simply under the leadership of Mark Carney. We're in another world. We have recommitted to defense fast and with a lot of money. And our diplomacy is such that today Mark Carney representing Canada is the most talked about Canadian on the international stage, I would say since Brian Maroney or Pierre Trudeau or maybe Lester Pearson. Here we are the week of the Nobel Prizes, and it's not going to happen

from Mark Carney, but when was the last time we talked about a Canadian winning the Nobel Peace Prize? However, all that would be. What I'm saying, Steve, is that we are reinvesting in hard power. We are taking leadership in the world, as we've seen in the Prime Minister in those two lyrical speeches, one in Davos, one in Strasbourg, where we are, I think, becoming in a sense, the spokesman or spokesperson for a whole view, which is the post-Trump world. And that's something that is unusual for our country. And I'm watching with great interest. Let me get Janice's take on this.

Janice, do you accept the premise that we were asleep 20 years ago and are we awake now? We are awake now. and Andrew's absolutely right that there was a generational decline. Let me put that in a frame because it didn't, none of it happened by accident. The frame was that we were simply too comfortable. We made a decision to integrate our economy

with the United States. We did that. We slid into comfort and what we did was rational. We really, the investment that we made was more than enough to get us by. The rest was rhetoric. And we were free riders because it made good economic sense to be free riders, given the decision to integrate. What woke us up? We didn't wake ourselves up. Donald Trump woke us up. And that both explains Mark Carney's

premiership. That was why he was able to reverse the fortunes of a declining party. And it is possible for Mark Carney to carry Canadians with him because they're so outraged by the insulting behavior of Donald Trump. So this is a Canadian moment created by the United States. Andrew, you mentioned the name Lester Pearson before, who of course did win the Nobel Peace Prize and was a Canadian, and I guess ushered in an era that Canadians kind of love to think of ourselves as, and that is peacekeepers around the world. we're not in a peacekeeping era anymore. What would you like to call the era that we now find ourselves in?

Well, it's an area of re-engagement. And as Janice has said, it doesn't come from us. It comes from circumstances forced upon us. But if participation or engagement is forced upon us and we're accepting it, this is a good thing. And I think we're blessed to have somebody now leading this country with this extraordinary education, his extraordinary sense of perception,

his extraordinary standing, his ability to give a speech which is meaningful, and this is in itself in a world in which the speech as a political tool has long decline. He can do all that. And I don't want to overstate where we're going. We are Canada.

But my goodness, 50 years ago, when I was in Janice Stein's class in McGill University, we talked about the third option. We talked about Mitchell Sharp in the, contractual link with what was then the EC, not the EU. We didn't, you know, we were, as Janice says, to cover, we were always, in addition, we were distracted by the quote, constitutional wars, which obsessed us in the 60s, 70s and 80s and into the 90s, back well into the 90s. So we were distracted. We made a choice. We can't have that. We don't have that luxury anymore of deciding that

we're going to leave things as they are. What the prime minister is doing is saying, and we don't know how it will work, but we need to seek other friends, new allies. And if we emerge as a spokesman or a voice of that wonderful, I don't say we'll lead it, but if we understand that the international order that we help build, and that was our strength in the 40s, the 50s, and the 60s when we did, to use that cliche, punch above our weight, if we want to return to that, it's a good thing for Canada. And it doesn't mean all arms or internationalism. We're pretty much out of international aid or we're not doing what we might have done before.

But in defense, there, particularly as an expression of hard power, we are and will continue to be a player in that sense, or at least a position of respectability. That's something for us. And it's a sea change, a sea change that happened. The defense happened in essentially two years or less. the prime has just decided after his predecessors simply, whether they were conservative or liberal, didn't want to spend money there. And as Janice said, we thought we didn't have to. We could be a free rider.

Well, it's things have changed. Well, let me be a devil's advocate for you here, Janice, and say that the prime minister has given, as Andrew said, two really important foreign policy speeches. He has certainly presented a different vision and a different way of doing business. The question his critics are asking is, do we have anything? yet to show for his different way of doing business. So to be fair, there is always a lack here, Steve, between intention and execution. But execution is a huge part of this story. And it's not clear yet that we've overcome what I call.

I'm not concerned about the rhetorical deficit or the speech. I'm not as worried about that nor is impressed by that. I am worried about the execution effort. And there the story is far from written. We have committed to spend how much money has moved out the door. A hard look at those numbers is not encouraging, right? How many contracts have been signed in the two years? That is still a work in progress.

Virtually every announcement is an announcement of an intention to buy, but that is far from a contract and far from execution. The architecture on defense, which is a biggest issue, is still being worked out as we speak. This session of Parliament will finally give the new defense investment agency its spending authorities. We're two years into this. So I'm not the only one to say this. The Prime Minister has set the tone given the lead, make clear what he wants. that is the very beginning in a large democracy of the story.

This whole story is going to depend on, can we do it, can we execute, can we follow through? And I frankly worry, we've lost the muscle memory of how to do that. We have to build that from scratch. I think that is our most important objective. It is not to lead in the world. It is to rebuild the muscle mass to actually execute. Well, that muscle mass, I guess you would call a middle powers coalition. And Andrew, I wouldn't.

No, okay. Andrew, would you, I guess I want to know, this middle powers coalition that the prime minister seems to want to be, if not in charge of creating, then certainly supporting and moving forward. Is it happening or are we just hearing speeches? Well, these things, it's not unlike the process Janus' description. Procurement as we're doing it is a big thing. and we're not used to doing it. And Janice fully raises the legitimate question of, do we have the capacity to do it?

But for goodness sake, you know, I said two years. It's actually less than 18 months, the prime minister has been in office and less time than that that he's committed to do this. Let's give him some lab, some leeway. These things take a lot of time. The contract with the EU on, is it the submarines?

These things take time. But there's an intent there. a clear intent, and that's different. There was no intent before. Justin Trudeau simply was uninterested. I think he was uninterested in the world, but particularly uninterested in the military. That's different now. And I think we have to recognize that, in my case, celebrate that. Diplomatically, look, the EU thing is going to take time. We don't know what shape it will take. But again, there's an intent there. I don't know what associate membership will be. It will take years. the EU notoriously is slow to do anything.

And again, we already have a free trade agreement. So I'm not so sure exactly what form it will be. But once again, we're exploring. And yes, the prime minister is traveling around the world and he's signing. And essentially, MOUs, you're right, things take time. But my goodness, we're 18 months in, actually less if you look at when some of this started. So I think we need to be a little bit fair on that. No, no, I said that right at the beginning, to be fair, this is an enormous challenge to rebuild the Muslim mess.

But let me return for one second, Steve and Andrew, to the speech in Davos, because among many things that the prime minister said, there were two that relates to middle powers. And they're actually not the same thing at all, these two things. They're very different. The first of that was a wonky term that he used, which I loved. But, you know, this is not getting, will not get people in the streets sharing, let me tell you. He talked about variable geometry. And you might say, what the hell is variable geometry? But in many ways, it was the most important sentence in his speech.

And what does it mean? It means, when I want to get something done, when this country needs to get something done, I'm going to go around and find two or three other countries that want to get something done, that same thing done. and I'm going to form a flexible coalition, not permanent. We're going to work together. Nobody gets a veto, the ones who don't want to join, tough on them. We are moving ahead, and the others will follow if they like, when they like.

Now, that is, I think, that was, to me, the most important line in the Prime Minister's speech at Davos, really, other than his diagnosis of the United States. And that is very different from the old concept of middle power. There's that, but he did also talk, and he has since then, also by the coalition of the middle powers. That is a slow, ponderous strategy because there was almost no unanimity on what middle powers want on anything. If you don't believe me, you look at the EU, which gives a veto to its smallest member and is paralyzed often for years because it gives a veto. take Ukraine. As long as Victor Orban was in power in Hungary, the EU had trouble providing financial aid to Ukraine because he would routinely veto it. That is the opposite end of the spectrum from

variable geometry. You need a significant number involved. The coordination costs are much harder. It's more cumbersome. So I'm all in on variable geometry. I'm not, very enthusiastic about middle power coalages. And I hope that we don't seduce ourselves into thinking we should leave that kind of effort. Okay, I take your point, but Andrew, let me try this with you. We live in a kind of a Trump-Putin era now where-She-Shi-Ping 2. And Shishin-Ping 2, of course, forgive me, where back in the day we used to pride ourselves on how much soft power we were able to exercise around the world. And yet we're in an era of Russia versus Ukraine, where if one country doesn't get what it wants, it just invades the other country. We're still

in an era of Middle Eastern powers at each other's throats. We're in an era where if you don't like who the leader of Venezuela is, you send a squad to kidnap the president and take care of business that way. Or if you don't like what Iran's doing, you start a war that you tell everybody's going to take two weeks and it ends up taking nine months. This is where we're at in the world right now. Does soft power matter anymore? Probably it matters, but probably not the way it did. And I think we recognize that by investing in hard power. We've invested in hard power in a generation.

And it doesn't mean we are going to be the world's most supple or effective or consequential military. But at least if we stand as a member of NATO, we believe in that, and we're ready to be in an unembarrassed way, eventually when we will we rearm and become serious again, where we realized that that is necessary. And the way Europe is realizing it. My God, who could have predicted even five or six years ago that Germany would be rearming the way it is and seriously has to, Japan thinking the way it is?

So we're in a new world and at least we are no longer bystanders or we no longer are content to be wise standards. What strikes me as interesting, Steve, is how quickly the prime minister seemed to bring public opinion along on this. There wasn't really a seminal national debate saying we are going to rearm, but we are. And as Janice has rightfully said, it will take time. And I'm not so sure we know how. But we're committed to it for goodness sake.

And that is an important difference than, say, five years ago or two years ago. We have always Janice talked a good game when it came to the north. But I want to know where, genuinely, what our action. indicate how important the Arctic is to Canada's foreign policy these days? That's a great question, Steve. And again, you know, detail matters here, right? So let me just fill in two missing pieces. Our submarines, which are diesel submarines.

It is not an EU deal. It is a Norwegian-German deal. It is made in a variable geometry. context rather than the EU context. Stand of the ice right now when we get one, which will probably be minimum because there are two that we can get more quickly. But when we get those two diesel submarines,

two and a half weeks, two and a half weeks. And then it has to resurface. We have to change some of the innards of those submarines so that they can stay underwater longer because that's just not adequate for what we need in the north. Okay. And that's where we have to, you know, these are really concrete issues where we have to be relentlessly focused. We all understand that the North matters to us, not as North matter to us. NATO wants us to invest in the defense of the Arctic because NATO is now all the Arctic powers except for Russia are in NATO. So this is where we can actually make a meaningful contribution,

as opposed to just be one more ship in a float to hell of 20, and we're 21. That is not going to get us there. So we've done one thing, which is really interesting, which is below the radar, but I think it's potentially important. We've said to the Baltic states, many are also Arctic states, we want to join the joint expeditionary force, the Jeff. That is a program that is promoted by the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, they're all in. And we've said, now to do it, we're going to have to commit manpower.

We're going to actually have to have a capacity to organize an expedition and contribute to it. But we've expressed willingness and an interest in doing it. The others aren't sure that they want us. Because this is really conceded as a northern European expedition reports, and we're not that. So these negotiations are hot and heavy. There's an important signal of intent there. But if we are admitted, we're going to have to put in place capabilities that we currently don't have and haven't even begun to contract for. And we'll be back right after this.

Canada is at a crossroads. Technology is transforming how we work, how we live, and how Canada competes. As AI accelerates that change, moving quickly is not enough. How we move forward matters. At Ontario Tech University, tech with a conscience is in their DNA. As Canada's number one undergraduate research university, they bring students and researchers together with government and industry to tackle today's biggest challenges with integrity.

From human-centered AI and energy security to health technologies, cyber security, nuclear innovation, and advanced manufacturing, their research is guided by purpose, delivering impact for people and our planet. They are developing talent with the skills and judgment Canada needs next. From hands-on learning with industry, upskilling, re-skilling, and executive education. Technology will change our future, and Ontario Tech is preparing the people who will shape it for the better. Learn more about tech with a conscience at this website,

ontariotechu.ca.ca. That's ontariotechu.c.u.ca. Okay, let's talk about the elephant in the room here. And the elephant of the room is being an associate member of the European Union. Andrew, do you know what that means and is it something we should desire? I do not know what it means.

I don't think the prime minister knows what it means. I don't think the Europeans knows what it means, but we're giving voice to this for other reasons. We need to ask Canadians to think differently about how we make a living in the world. And it's not as if we are going to reduce, what is it now, 75, 80 percent of our exports overnight. 72, okay. It is over 70. It is easier for, obviously, obviously, it's easier to trade across the street, and it literally is across the street, than across the ocean. But we realize the vulnerabilities in that.

And so what form it will take, I don't know. I don't think anybody knows. But I'm happy the Prime Minister has put us in that cap. I'm glad he's encouraging us or leading us to think differently. And if we, if we over a generation or over 10 or 20 or 30 years, reduce that dependence on the United States to maybe to 50%, which might be more reasonable, I think we've done a good thing for our country. And one day, I think we'll raise statues to Donald Trump for encouraging us to be serious players in the world again. So I agree with Andrew, but I would distinguish Andrew between Europe and the European Union. The European Union is the most sclerotic, purotic.

The regulation in the European room, just think about my favorite example, camom bear cheese, okay? All right, I won't go on what it takes to be designated camembert cheese. And God forbid, you're one kilometer outside the zone and you label your cheese camoom bear. You're in court for 10 years, right? Frankly, there's a last thing Canada needs.

We all know it. we have to undo some of the regulatory tripwires that we have in our own economy. So whether it's, you know, I really don't want us to go too far down the road of exploring what an associate membership is. I doubt what I said by your son, von der Leyen, the president, and we should let it go while we're focused, as the prime minister rightly said, on the complementary, of Europe's economies with ours, because that's what this is really about. Here, too, there are issues.

Europe is stagnating. There is not a growing dynamic economy in Europe right now. Nowhere. Germany, which used to, is going through many of the same trials and tribulations for many of the same reasons that we are because their car industry is dying. But they know it. They call it out. They understand it's in palliative care.

in their case because of Chinese EVs, not because of Donald Trump's tariffs, they have to re-engineer their defense base, and that's partly why they're moving to defense, and that's partly why we're doing it too. So we have to be absolutely strategically focused. Where are there opportunities? And I think the prime minister got this 100% writing in that last speech that he gave,

not the Strasbourg speech, which I'm not a big fan of, but the one he gave subsequently. In which she said, where can we work together to build some things that we can sell into global marketplaces? I think there are opportunities with Germany. I'm not sure. Look at France. Paralyzed by politics. Paralyzed by a system of supports that it can no longer afford.

The United Kingdom is in free fall. Its economy is, frankly, we don't want to talk about this, but it is in free fall. Self-inflicted wound. Self-inflicted wound. It's had seven prime ministers in the last decade. And we'll see how long, this one lasts. Italy. Italy is now one of the most of best governed members of Europe, which tells you where we are and has, you know, has sectors of its economy that are flourishing. So we have to be very, very careful, strategic and outcome-driven as we look at partnerships with individual Europe. governments and companies rather than fall prey to the seduction of the European Union. I get you, and Andrew, I'll follow up with you on this. Given everything Janice just said about the nature of Europe's economy right now, given our history and geography with the United States,

is it really possible to de-emphasize our relationship on the United States and increase or find new best friends in Europe, given everything we've just talked about? I don't think we need to, everything Janice says about Europe is absolutely true. Does that mean we shouldn't make attempts to forge economic alliances or allegiances with economies? Of course we should. Does it mean we have to be clear-eyed about it? Yes.

But we need to be clear about the United States, particularly the view among some Canadians that this is all going to go away in two years, which I don't think it will. It's not. It is going to go away. And I think the discussions I have with friends here sitting in the United States as I am is that very thing that it won't end then. So we're being prudent. We're not being polyanish about Europe. Everything, Janice, I spent a lot of time in Germany.

And I understand that's very true about the auto industry, heavy industry. My God, these were the biggest names in industry. BMW and Mercedes-Benz and my goodness, and they are being challenged. Does that mean we should make allegiance to alliances with some people in some places? Yes. And, you know, the prime minister is not limiting us to Europe. He's trying to find a way through with India. China is problematic, but he's trying to do something with China, problematic, dangerous in some ways, but also opportunities. So it's really not just Europe, but we are focusing on Europe now because I think politically and culturally we see an easy transition

there and that makes that there's a psychological advantage to that. I think that's right, Andrew. And, you know, I think that's where we have to be mindful. I think there are opportunities with some European companies to work together, but it's target-focused and it's variable geometry. I think India is a real opportunity. I think there are, I think the prime minister is doing a great job of reopening relationships with anything.

because it is such a huge market with a lot of potential for growth over time. The other area the Prime Minister has made a real effort on and I think it doesn't get the same attention as the stress force speech is the trips to the Gulf

to Saudi Arabia to the Emirates in Dubai. There are and as we develop our own infrastructure in Canada, partnerships with Dubai ports, partnerships on AI because in the Gulf right now, they are assembling all the elements to be a keynote in the global

economy of AI 10 or 15 years from now. So, you know, the focus that he has, where are the opportunities for countries and companies to work with Canadian companies is, I think, surgically exactly right. I understand the warm welcome in Strasbourg and Andrew, you're absolutely right. It's so comfortable for us culturally. We know it. And especially at time as we're met with unremitting hostility from Donald Trump right now, which is not pleasant. People are upset here. The warm welcome that he gets is wonderful and it feels good. But the future of, you know, growth is not in Europe. Let's be honest. It's just not in Europe. It's elsewhere in the world. It's in the and the Pacific.

There is a school of thought. You, it may be unfair to call it the appeaser class, but there is a school of thought. It appears in the National Post that we should assign the deal. With whatever was on offer, we should have signed it because of our doubts about Europe. Europe is sclerotic. Europe is in decline.

I don't embrace that view. But there will be that view. And if it gets bad, and it may, when they're more layoffs, see stelco already, but there'll be more layoffs, Yeah. There will be that view. There will be that view. And I hope it won't overtake the direction we're following now.

But there will be that view that we made a mistake, that it is the United States, whether we like it or not. I don't believe that, but there will be some Canadians who do when things get worse. So I think things will get worse. It's not only stalko. You know, it's 30,000 small businesses that are forecast to go bankrupt if we cannot break through with the United States. So that is a fairly, it's not catastrophic, but boy, I don't want to minimize it. I don't want to minimize it for the small businesses in this country that are going to

go through this restructure. But I just want to broaden the aperture. And it's not a choice between Europe and the United States. it's Europe, it's the Indo-Pacific, it's the Gulf. There are opportunities, and that's, it's just a corrective to associate membership in the European Union as a solution here. It's a part, I don't think it's a European Union, I think it's Europe, but I think it's so important to keep our eyes open to the rest of the world. And here I have to say the Prime Minister is an absolutely invaluable asset. when you travel in the Gulf, as I do, and in Asia,

everybody knows our prime minister. Everybody wants him to come and visit. I get asked all the time, when is your prime minister coming? So the reputation that he brings with him extends far beyond Europe. And I think there are doors to open all around the world that could really matter as we make this shift.

I'm with Andrew. this is not going away with the United States. It is not going away. He is right. The prime minister is right that this is a rupture. That is the word that keeps coming up. Let me get both of you to kind of put trade to the side for a second and focus more forcefully on kind of good old-fashioned geopolitical hard power

and whether we can't exert it on the world stage. And the question is, Andrew, you first, should we want to be, be more influential on the world stage, or is there a better argument to be made about sticking to our knitting as the expression goes back here at home? I think we do what we can. Understanding we are 41 million people, which by the way is bigger than all of Scandinavia, understanding that we are one of the strongest economies in the world, despite its weaknesses, we have many.

Our financial position is better. than a lot of other countries. We have blessings and gifts, and we've had them, we've had them for a long time. There was a time we deployed them and use them and channeled them and made the most of them. It's not to be something we can't be. It's to be everything we can be, given the diversity of our population. It's the depth of our education. All those things matter.

We didn't care about that. Justin Trude didn't care about that beyond a certain point. Stephen Harper didn't. Prime Minister Crutchan to a degree. When we build a sense abroad, we build at home. We make Canadians feel good about what we can do and we be the most we can be. It doesn't mean you have to be unrealistic. But my God, we've seen much smaller powers over the years project much greater power than we have.

And I look at some Scandinavian countries. So I think that it's a good thing. I think the prime minister is a person to do it. Everywhere I go abroad, it's extraordinary how much they talk about Mark Carney. With respect, by the way, understanding certain things, he is an extraordinary aspect. I don't think we can understate this. And so this is a moment. It will take time.

It doesn't mean we do more than we reasonably can. and procurement, we go back to what we can reasonably do. It takes time. But let's give it that time and hope we're putting in place the instruments and the procedures to do what has to be done. If we're not, we're going to be in trouble. And we'll be back right after this. Janice, I appreciate that I'm asking this question of somebody who's been teaching

international affairs for a half a century. But is there an argument to be made that we should have a much more modest approach to be influential on the world stage? My own view, and there are as many views as there are Canadians, frankly, my own view is that we will be most influential by being more focused. This is always hard in a country like Canada because we have in this country people from every other country in the world and everybody wants to see themselves and their own interests reflected in loyalties and identities reflected in our policy. We have to, double down and be serious in the Arctic.

And those investments are very large in order to be meaningful. Fortunately for us, NATO wants us to do this. So we are very lucky. And they will count as our NATO spending what we need to do for Canada and for Canadians in the Arctic. You don't get any luckier than that. But that requires focus and willingness to say, no, we're not going to do A, B, and C. We're going to do D because that's how. how are we are going to be most valuable to you?

I think that's critical. And then I think we have to be equally focused on where we can be helpful to other countries with real capabilities. I don't think we're going to be able to invest in, and we have to invest in continental defense. You notice in the midst of all this noise and all the fighting and the ill temper

that we're hearing from Donald Trump, no American is saying we don't want Canada in NORAT in the defense of our North, right? And we have made significant financial commitments to beefing up our capabilities in NORAD. That is a significant amount of money. And we've got to do that and we've got to invest massively in defense of the Arctic

along with willing partners. That I think is going to consume and protect our oceans because we are a three ocean country, that's going to consume our budget. There's nothing left over. Even these massive amounts that Prime Minister Carney is talking about. But what, you know, Andrew talked about his capacity to deliver a speech, and boy, is impressive.

But I think equally impressive is his impatience. He has conveyed to Canadians a sense of urgency. We have to rebuild our infrastructure. that is connected to defense. If you can't move, if you can't, you know, in Europe, somebody said to me, if you can't drive your tank across the bridge because the bridge has decayed for 35 years and it can't bear the way of a modern tank,

it doesn't matter how good your tank is. We have to rebuild our infrastructure. So this is, you know, this is a concrete list of stuff that we have to get done and we have to move away from, we are world leaders and we are multilateralists. We are peacekeepers. That's myth-making, frankly, and not helpful to us as we move forward. But you see, peacekeeping, when we talked about, Steve, when we talked about roles we might play,

peacekeeping was a very convenient. It was never bigger than our NATO commitment. Never real. It was something we did. It was international vocation. We trained, you know, 10% of our budget went to. It was a defense budget. It was an extraordinary commitment we had.

That's gone. Aid. Aid. We could do certain things in certain places. we don't do that anymore. So Janice is right. You have to be shrewd. You have to make choices and be decisive.

You have to deploy where you can. But the idea that Steve is uplifting. And it speaks to what we should be doing and should be saying to Canadians that given our wealth, given our education, given our bounty, given our geography, given our history, we still have an obligation of the rest of the world.

It's our choice to determine where it will be realistically. but consequentially. That's our challenge. I cannot have two Montrealers on this show right now without asking them what happened in Quebec earlier this week. And so, OK, Janice, you weigh in first. What did Quebecers say the other night by giving the Parzi-Cquequeque a minority government, giving the liberals a much bigger caucus, giving the conservatives seats for the first time since 1935, and wiping out the former CAC government entirely?

This, you know, to Montrealers and Quebecers who no one love Quebec politics is the only way I can describe it because in many ways it's unique. This is a very familiar story. Third parties don't last in Quebec. They may get through two elections, but that's it. And then there's a reversion to the meet. Yes, there is an Ande Pondonty's party, which was a Pacti-KBekar, which I actually prefer to describe as a, Nationalist Party with a progressive social agenda. They've already delayed the promised referent and passed Donald Trump.

There's 20, I don't know what the figures are right now, 25 to 30 percent. It varies of Quebecers who support independence. I would not spend a moment of time worrying about sovereignty and the breakup and the breakup of Canada because Quebec is going to leave. I don't think that's where the part. politics are. I do think the prime minister is going to have a harder time dealing with familiar federalism issues between Quebec and Ottawa, in which Quebec will assert its power on on immigration and other kinds of classic issues that devel Canadian prime ministers. But to me,

this is just politics as usual in Quebec. I'm not one bit alarmed. I wish I could be, I wish I could be as sang when as Janus. And we, we, she may remember 50 years ago, we talked, it was October of 1976. The election had been called. The election was Lecunovam, the 15th of November. It brought the separatists, Rene Levack and the separatists to power for the first time. It's not that I believe, Steve, they're going, the Quebec's going to go. But it's the damage this government can do at a time when we need a sense of national unity.

It's the damage they can do. I think that this whole thing about the lieutenant governor is a sideshow. But they say now they don't want to sign the agreement with Newfoundland on the power generation. I worry about this distraction. And it will take, as Janice says, the prime minister's time. He's more popular than this government. They're down to 20. I mean, I would use it as it was all indecisive.

I mean, my goodness, the pay keys got 28% of the vote and they got, I don't know, six, seven seats sort of majority. the liberals get 40 seats on what 24% of the vote. It's a fractured system. But the capacity of Apicke's government, and my goodness, we've watched this all our lives from either Montreal or Toronto or abroad, it is not as well. I mean, I'm not as confident because I think we also know that support, when Rennie Levec arrived in 76, support for the separatist option was fairly low to, and they built it. Now, in 1980, it didn't go well.

They were soundly defeated by 1995. We'll all remember it was a half a percentage different, almost a rounding error. And that was the high mark of the Ande Pondis movement. But the capacity to make trouble is what worries me along the way. And it's a distraction we do not need now. And by the way, the forces division in the United States and the mag of movement, and I bet the Trump people are all over this now, as they're all over Alberta, because any time they can find a wedge or support a threat to our unity, they will.

So it's not a good thing for me. They're not going to moral. There may not be a referendum of three years, but I worry about it. I think one of the reasons politics is so fascinating is that here's a new government in Quebec with the 20, whatever it was, 27, 28 percent of the total vote that they got. And yet Mark Carney, a day after the election, can absolutely look Quebecers in the eye and say, you gave me 43% which they did a year and a half ago they gave me a party 43% of the total vote fire now that's right personal approval over 50% that's right fascinating so i'm i'm inferring from that that he doesn't feel he needs to take a back seat to the pay kieists in terms of who gets to speak for

kebac no but i i i i i janice maybe you can explain this to me you know i'm sitting in a province right now as are you where since world war two we have only had i i i've had i i i'm just i i i'm liberals and Tories in power and one NDP government and two green seats. We have very static, non-dynamic politics in the province of Ontario. In my lifetime in Quebec, we have seen the end of the Union National, the end of the creditee's party, the end of the ADQ, the end of the equality party, and now maybe probably the end of the CAC. And I could name five other parties as well that have come and gone.

What is it about Yeah, well, what is it about Quebec politics that What is it about Quebec politics where they create and destroy political parties so often? You know, I look, Quebec politics is so much more fun than Ontario politics. It just is. It's dynamic.

It's full of passion. It's European at times in its flavors. and whereas Ontario politics is solid, right? Change comes very slowly here. It's tough and you're right. There are two dominant parties. So there is a lot more fluidity in that system. For good and for bad, as Andrew would say,

for good and for bad here. But I think there's one fundamental difference, which is important for all of us to keep in mind when it comes to Quebec in Canada. In the years, and I lived in Montreal for the first referendum, Andrew. I was in Montreal for that first one. And boy, I sweated that second one because it was so close.

During that period, Quebecers were very well disposed toward the United States. They saw it as innovative, dynamic. And even though Bill Clinton went out of his way to say that he did not, you know, he was strongly opposed to any independence movements. In all the polling that you looked at, Quebecers admired the United States. And I think that was the underpinning against which it was possible to think about an independence movement. Quebec doesn't admire the United States anymore.

Not today. No. Not today. And I think that is a fundamental difference in Quebec politics. Yeah, there's a discussion of sovereignty, but it's really kind of lame. And that's why the numbers in the 20s, and the very fact that Tamant don't wish, say I'm not having a referendum as long as Donald Trump is in power. And that's not going away, puts a ceiling on the disruption that this kind of movement can impose on the prime minister.

So that's why I'm structurally more optimistic. Okay. As they say, en vera, we shall see. I'm going to have one more question. Let me just have one more. Let me just add one. How worried are you two gentlemen about Alberta? Because Andrew is right that the MAGA people in the United States are aware and seek an opportunity to disrupt if there's any breach in Canada.

But Alberta is so much more fertile territory for them than Quebec for all kinds of obvious reasons. I'm a sanguine. I'm as sanguine about Alberta as you are of Quebec. I'm not worried about Alberta. I really am not. I think it'll be crushed. Okay. Well, now I get to play the other role.

Okay. I get to play the other role now, which is to say, the one thing, I'm not the boss, but the one thing that concerns me about Alberta is that the passion is behind the separatist side. And the folks who, I mean, every poll shows that probably three quarters of the people support the no side, meaning Quebec, Alberta staying in Canada, but that the people who are pro sovereignty are definitely more committed and more motivated to come out and vote. And if you see enough polls that say, oh, the no side's going to win easily,

maybe you don't come out and vote. That's the one thing that would concern. That's a real danger. And there's one other thing that's a danger, which builds up your point. I just spent an evening with some good friends from Alberta. They were here. And we were talking about this. And one of them shocked me.

He said, well, I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote yes in the referendum. And I said, are you a lunatic? What are you talking about? And I really, I was so shocked. And he said exactly what you eat. Something's not going to vote. Well, what a great opportunity to send a message to Ottawa.

Exactly. Right? Because the no side is going to win. So I want a respectable number of yeses because we'll only improve our bargaining position. That is the danger of referendum. I know so many Brexit voters who made that mistake and had buyers remorse. So I'm actually concerned about Alberta. Yep.

Yep. I've heard the same thing, Janice. And Martha Hall-Finley, the former parliament. who's now, of course, head of the public policy school at the University of Calgary. She was on this show last week saying that that's the thing she hears more than anything else, is that people who really are knows are going to vote yes because they think they need to give their government a better bargaining position with Ottawa. Maybe they should take their premier.

We had Grebeckers who did that, right? Yeah. And it was dangerous. In 95, came within one point. Okay, sit tight you two. I'm going to do a little housekeeping here. I'm going to have one more question for Janice and Andrew in just a moment. But first we want to remind everybody that we love it when you make a little financial contribution to this program to keep it going.

You can do that at patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast. One of the things we haven't talked much about is that when the shows come out, you get early bird access to the shows. And one that dropped earlier this week that I must say I really quite adored was I was on stage in Charlottetown Prince Edward Island at the Confederation Center for the Arts with former Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Silberman Abela. and former Ontario Premier and you and Ambassador Bob Ray. And that was, boy, if you want to talk about a delightful conversation with two brilliant, committed, engaged Canadians, that was it. That's something worth watching. You get early bird access to that kind of stuff if you join us. You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel and click follow wherever you get your podcast.

That would help us as well if you are inclined to do so. Patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast. All of our shows are archived at the website, stevepeakin.com. And now, you guys ready for my last question here? Can I chime in for one second? Oh, chime in, sure. What a gem that discussion was between Rosalieabella and Bob Ray.

So just give that one a plug for any listeners who haven't heard it. Make sure you do. You're talking about two people who have known each other. Yeah, and two people have known each other for 60 years. I mean, you want to talk about they could finish each other's sentences. Indeed. One would set up the punchline. The other would give it.

I'm telling you. Two great Canadian. They really are. They really are. Okay. Here's my last question. Andrew, do you first and then Janice, you play cleanup here. Who's the best foreign minister you've ever seen in your lifetime?

Canadian foreign minister. Mitchell Sharp. Oh, we're going way back. Okay. Great answer. Andrew. Why? Why?

Because I think he saw where we were going and tried to, in his modest way, try and push us in that direction. under a young and engaged Pierre Trudeau. Look, there are people could argue others. Paul Martin, certainly in the 60s, had a certain gravity test. But Mike Pearson wasn't that engaged in the world. His engagement in the world really came before he was prime minister. I'd have to think. I'd have to think.

Janice? I'll tell you what my definition of a great foreign minister is. It's a foreign minister who takes a hand. that is never that strong in Canada. It's just never that strong. And plays the card so well that he makes the west of the world believe that it's that strong. And look, Lord Axworthy was right there with a treaty on demining, with the International Criminal Court.

That legacy has not survived, as we know. And if you read what Lloyd Axworthy has to say, he is very, very unhappy. about it and I don't think that legacy will survive in the world in which we are in and even less so in the world into which we're going but there was somebody who you know he was just to put a little color

in this one the prime minister was Jean-Khichin there was no shrewder player in Canadian politics than Prime Minister Kretchen I just have enormous regard for him and so he ran all the big files himself in his discreet quite a way.

And he gave Lloyd Axworthy what he thought were some inconsequential unimportant files. And actually took those files and probably defined Canada's reputation for a decade with what he was able to do. Andrew, you want to come back in with, you stick him with Mitchell Sharp or what? Well, you know, I could argue Mike Pearson in the 1950s. Yeah, and he didn't do it. But you said in my lifetime. And so, yes, it does include my lifetime. So actually, I would make it Mike Pearson.

And it's not just to the West. Yeah. No, it's not because Suez is the most, you know, Mike Pearson's role in Suez is the most misunderstood. Yeah. It was modest. It was modest. But it reflected in Canada much more interested and engaged in what we were doing than. I don't believe that.

I don't believe that. I'll tell you what it was. Okay. I don't believe that. And now we have some really good documents from the arts. archives. With this wife was, oh my God, my two closest allies are fighting written in the United States. There could be a rupture between those two. That is not good for me, Canada. I better do something to deflect these two from open hostilities of the kind. We are now experiencing,

by the way, with the United States. That's what motivated him. And all the rest was fluff. it was his successors who bought that this was peace speaking. It wasn't. It was just managed the damn conflict between the United States and Britain. So we don't, so Canada, which benefited from the relationships that had with both. Managementhip, we did. Manage it we did. We understood what we could do.

Yeah. I don't get a vote here, but I would want to throw in one name for honor. Who's your vote? Well, I always feel I should leave it to the experts to vote, but I think, I think, I think honorable mention is due to a guy named Joe Clark, who was Brian Mulruna's affairs minister. Yeah. Yeah.

And, and who, you know, is a truly great Canadian, of course, was prime minister when he was 39 years old, still our youngest prime minister ever, and who worked on apartheid with Brian Malroney and, you know, who made some good things happen on his watch. So the hostage crisis in 1979 in Tehran when he was prime minister, you know, He had some abilities on foreign affairs, and that should be noted here. You know, just to chime in on Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney as a team, in some ways they were our most truly international. I mean, Brian Mulroney, Grimeoruny, you know, led, genuinely led in the Commonwealth on South Africa

and on apartheid, not because of Canadian self-interest, unlike Lester Pearson who was jammed in this conflict between Britain and Canada. But Rimele-a did it out of genuine belief that this was the right thing to do. Yes, that it was the right thing to do. And that's remarkable, frankly. Yeah. Hey, you know what? It's been tons of fun having you two Montrealers on this podcast,

which is based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Janice Stein, Andrew Cohen. Peace and love to both of you. And we'll see everybody next time. Can we have a music show next time about some well-known Canadian singers and we can talk about their politics, valediers? Who may or may not be related to Andrew Cohen, like Leonard Cohen, for example? Yes. Okay.

Our next show is about great. I'm a huge fan. A huge fan. I'm a great Canadian. We missed them 10 years later. Absolutely. Amen. Amen.

Until next time, everybody. Hallelujah. Wonderful to be on diplomatic community again. Ah!