The Paul Wells Show - Exit interview: U.S. Ambassador David L. Cohen

Episode Date: January 15, 2025

U.S. Ambassador to Canada David L. Cohen gives a long and wide-ranging interview as his time in the role comes to an end. As Biden’s man in Ottawa, he was an important figure in trying to usher in a new era of Canada-U.S. cooperation. As he gets ready to head home to Philadelphia, Paul asks him about Biden’s mental acuity, Trump’s comeback, a potential trade war, Canada’s military spending, and more.    Season 3 of The Paul Wells Show is sponsored by McGill University’s Max Bell School of Public Policy.

The Paul Wells Show is made possible by McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy, where I'm a senior fellow. On the eve of a possible trade war, our American friend is heading home. You shouldn't have to inflict economic harm and adverse impact on the American economy and on consumers in America by doing things like shutting off energy to the United States to make your point.

This week, Joe Biden's Ambassador to Canada, David L. Cohen, gives his only long-form interview as he wraps up three years in Ottawa. And boy, did we have a lot to talk about. I'm Paul Wells. Welcome to the Paul Wells Show. On Saturday, two days before Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States of America, David L. Cohen will fly home to

Philadelphia with his law school sweetheart and wife of 47 years, Rhonda. With that quiet trip, Cohen will end three years as the United States Ambassador to Canada. He's been an important ambassador, far more of a detailed guy than ambassadors usually are. He got way into the complexities of files. He made a point of learning who really makes decisions in Ottawa. The short version is it's a bunch of people and he never forgot a face. He's been an important friend to this podcast too. He was my first guest when I launched this podcast in 2022.

And he gave me his last media interview and by far his longest exit interview shortly before heading home. and he gave me his last media interview and by far his longest exit interview shortly before heading home. My instinct is always to keep my distance from US ambassadors. Distance and breathing room are just about all I can offer to Washington's emissaries to Ottawa who inevitably have to put up with a lot of petitioners and hangers on no matter which president they represent.

With Cohen I made a partial exception. I just find the guy fascinating. He's an egghead and an incredibly hard worker. That's why he was indispensable as a right-hand man to Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell in the 90s, as a top advisor to the CEO of Comcast in the early 2000s, and as a Joe Biden confident in the decade before Biden became president.

He was supposed to help Biden usher in a new era of American confidence and a new era of Canada-U.S. cooperation. That turned out to be harder than it looked. In the end, the Biden presidency is ending just before Justin Trudeau's term as prime minister does, and the Canada-U.S. relationship has hardly ever seemed more fraught. I asked Cohen about all of it. We had an hour at the studio the National Arts Centre provided for us. I asked him about Biden's health and mental acuity, about Trump's amazing comeback, about Canada's military spending and its fitness as an ally in NORAD and NATO, and about Trump's threat of brutal tariffs,

and worse, against Canada. David Cohen is still a cautious guy. That wasn't going to change just because I was the guy asking the questions. But his answers betray tantalizing hints of his thinking at this crucial moment in Canadian and American history. ["The First Man"] David Cohen, thank you for joining me. and American history. David Cohen, thank you for joining me.

Thank you for having me on your air again. I'm very much looking forward to this. Let's talk briefly about your short-term plans. We're talking several days before President Trump is inaugurated again. Where are you going? What are you doing in the next few weeks? I am going home to Philadelphia. I have loved this job. I've called it the honor of my lifetime. Like many other jobs I've had, I view it as the best job that I've had for as long as

I'm holding it. But if there's one thing that I didn't understand in taking this job, it is just how all-consuming it would be, at least for me, and the way in which I think the job needs to be done. And as a result, I have really, for all intents and purposes, not been in Philadelphia at all, which is my hometown. It's a city I care deeply about that I'm very connected to. I never would have predicted that I would be in Philadelphia five times over a more than three-year period and almost exclusively to see my doctors. Not to see friends, not to participate in any way in the civic or professional life of the city. And I'm

very much looking forward to being back. Not that I won't miss Canada a lot, not that I won't miss my team here at Mission Canada. It's not gonna be easy to say goodbye, but it's also time for me to go home. And I'm looking forward to that. And beyond going home, I don't have a plan. I've changed jobs before in my life.

And it's the way I've always changed jobs, which is I am 100% devoted, committed, and focused on whatever job I'm doing for as long as I do it. My experience has been that if you start entertaining offers or trying to start brainstorming about what are you going to do next, you start losing your focus? And you wander your mind wanders, and you know where near is effective my team tells me and I'm I'm not denying it They're assuming that

I'll probably be doing some business as the United States ambassador to Canada as I'm walking onto the plane on Saturday morning States Ambassador to Canada as I'm walking onto the plane on Saturday morning. So I'm looking very much forward to going back to my hometown, going back to Philadelphia, unpacking and getting readjusted to life in Philadelphia. I went back and re-listened to our first interview and I read what I wrote about that interview and what my readers wrote in the comments when they saw that I had interviewed the US ambassador. I've been following US politics all my life and I'm probably closer to the Democrats than to the current incarnation of the Republicans. And to me, it was Biden's new guy, new era in Canada-US relations, some bomb on the wounds. A lot of my readers were

angry at the United States and were angry at you as the new American and said things like, this guy's got a lot to answer for for the kidnapping of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. Basically, to hell with this guy, nothing has really changed. Did the job strike you as harder right out of the gate than you might have thought? I never found the job harder than I might have thought. Part of that is I'm not sure that I had a full appreciation of how hard or how easy the job would be, but I never felt put upon in any way, I never felt that the job was

harder in any sense than it should be. One thing I did not appreciate before I got into the job was the loss of trust that had developed between Canada and the United States more than just some readers reacting to an interview, but whether it was elected officials or business executives or representatives of civil society or just the ordinary public showing up and polling, that there had been a real loss of trust and a concern about where the U.S.-Canada relationship was

from the perspective of Canada and from the perspective of Canadians. And that was a surprise, and I viewed it as a challenge. I viewed it as a challenge and an opportunity. And adopted as a major centerpiece of what I wanted to do as the U.S. ambassador to Canada was to rebuild that trust, to rebuild that relationship, to make Canadians understand and believe that from the United States' perspective that we have no better friend, partner,

or ally than Canada, I pushed back continuously on the Canadian perspective of we know we're the poor cousin, making the argument that Canada's not the poor cousin. Canada is a partner, an equal partner, a valuable partner to the United States in everything it is that we try to do from a commercial and trade perspective,

from a defense and intelligence perspective, from a perspective of global leadership in the pursuit of democracy, and that we want to be and we plan on being a reliable friend and partner on a going forward basis. And for me, one of the great turning points in this argument was when the president came to Canada in March of 2023 And he said repeatedly the line that I say repeatedly Which is that the United States has no better friend partner or ally than Canada And when on the floor of Parliament in his speech to Parliament He announced to Canadians that the United

States will be there for you. We have your back and we will be there for you. I think we have really turned the corner on restoring Canadians' confidence in this relationship and rebuilding the trust quotient that has historically been such an important part of the United States- Canada relationship. I know I might be leading with a glass chin there, but we may get to this. Even so, as you were unpacking, as you were arriving, President Biden was setting up some important multilateral alliances, especially across the Pacific, that didn't include Canada's first-ranked partners.

The AUKUS, Australia-UK-US relationship and the Quad, which was an alliance across the South Pacific. Canadian military officers have wondered whether that is assigning Canada to a second tier rule in America's national security and its National Security Alliance Network. There's a different factual situation for each one of these examples. I don't think the United States thinks it has any more important military and defense ally in the world than Canada. AUKUS is a perfect example. AUKUS is a limited purpose alliance, really designed for the development of nuclear

submarines. It's just not a business that Canada was in. Canada would not have been a particularly valuable partner in that alliance. On the other hand, as we turn the page and enter 2025, the AUKUS partners have set forth a path on which countries who are not a formal part of the AUKUS Alliance can participate in AUKUS. And Canada is one of the early, that is in the top two countries, that is now having the opportunity to participate as an AUKUS strategic partner in the development of technology, which was the area of interest that Canada had

in participating in when AUKUS was created. And so I think today, Canadians in the know are pretty happy about Canada's engagement in AUKUS because Canadians certainly said to me our interest was not in developing nuclear submarines, it was in being a partner in the development of technology around nuclear and conventional submarines and that opportunity now exists for Canada to be able to do that. Quad is an organization of what at the time was the United States' perspective of the key allies in the Indo-Pacific. Not the allies, it was a quad.

It was four countries. It wasn't 12 countries who were Indo-Pacific nations. Canada was clearly in the second category, they were pretty equally clearly not in the first category, and that is why they were not a part of the quad. But when you look at the nature of the U.S.-Canada relationship, when you turn to North America, which is the most important element of our defense relationship, defending our homeland, and when you turn to North America, the most important defense alliance and partnership that we have is NORAD. And in that bilateral command, there are two partners, the United States and Canada, which I think demonstrates the respect and

appreciation we have for Canada as an ally to be one of two partners in the most important defense alliance that we have, for the most important priority that we have, which is defending the homeland. When I've talked to Canadians about AUKUS, I've always said don't forget NORAD, don't forget NATO, where Canada is a valued partner. When you look at the whole picture, it's just impossible to dispute the respect and appreciation that the United States has for Canada as a valued defense and military ally. On NORAD and specifically on NORAD modernization, you have often found yourself asking for more

detail and asking for firmer timelines on the Canadian project. Has it sometimes felt like pulling teeth? Pulling teeth might be a little bit of an exaggeration. And even if it is pulling teeth, I think it's pulling teeth with a heavy dose of anesthesia. So it is, I mean, it has not been a painful process. Look, I mean, I think we all operate in a financially constrained environment. And even in areas which are significant priorities for a country, you have to figure out how to pay for things. And I think it's less pulling teeth and more

a healthy byproduct of an ongoing dialogue and conversation, such as the conversation that can take place among true friends. And frankly, a lot of the NORAD modernization conversations we've had in cajoling Canada, maybe move a little faster, maybe put a little bit more of a priority on one substantive area versus another, are conversations that also include conversations about the United States, maybe moving faster, and Canada's interest in having the United States invest a little bit more in a particular area than the United States is doing.

It's the kind of healthy dialogue and healthy cajoling and healthy conversation that takes place between true friends, true partners and true allies. You will have noticed pretty quickly though that when this government, when Justin Trudeau's government announces a plan that's not always the end of the work. That implementation becomes at least as involved as the road up to the announcement. I have learned more than I knew when I arrived about the different stages of defense spending and procurement in the Canadian government.

There's the announcement of intention. There is the budget. There are then multiple season economic statements and defense policy updates that provide priorities within the budget. And then ultimately there are obligations of funds. And there's a lot of potential slippage at each one of those steps. By the way, the United States is not materially different, but I'm very comfortable that Canada today is delivering, is in the process of delivering on the vast majority, the bulk

of its commitments for in the defense spending context, and I have every confidence that that delivery will continue going forward in the future. One thing I caution reporters about, one thing that my team pays a lot of attention to, is when Canada announces a commitment to a particular initiative, they tend to have a press conference or issue a press release to do that. And then when Canada makes a commitment for a piece of that, a binding commitment for a piece of that, six months later they tend to have another press announcement and another press release. And then when a contract gets

awarded, they tend to have another press release and another press announcement. And if you're not careful, it may sound like or it may feel like Canada has actually committed four times as much as what they've actually committed because it's not always crystal clear that those subsequent press releases and press announcements are, in fact, announcements delivering on a prior commitment that has already been made. The U.S. government, we don't have a problem, we're tracking this. We know what's a new commitment and what isn't a new commitment. So we have no sense of any double-dealing in any way.

And frankly, there's a benefit to the way Canada rolls these things out in the sense that Canada helps to create a real sense of momentum and a real sense of Canada's commitment to truly investing in the defense of the homeland, to truly investing in support of Ukraine, to truly investing in the Indo-Pacific. And they'll take this the wrong way as a member of the media, but sometimes the media may need to hear the same thing

two or three times for it to sink in that it's actually happening and that Canada is actually committed to be able to participate in those programs. Yeah, part of that is attention span and part of it is we've had to get used to hearing something once and then never again. So it's kind of handy to hear it repeated on the NATO spending commitment, the 2% of

GDP commitment. The intensity around that conversation skyrocketed up in 24 like I'd never seen it. I mean, the 2% commitment was something that NATO members made when Barack Obama was president. He insisted many times he was serious. President Trump said he was serious. President Biden said he was serious. But I got the impression that Canada's defense policy announcement in 2024 the presidency announcement in 2024 did not contain a commitment to 2% spending on defense. And then when the prime minister showed up for the NATO summit in New York, he had magically reached a 2% commitment.

Is that something you can hang your hat on? So I want to take a step back because I've been quite clear about this. And frankly, I view it as one of our major diplomatic accomplishments of the United States, maybe led by Mission Canada, but going up to the Secretary of Defense and the White House. The position that I have consistently taken and tried to explain is

that you cannot measure Canada's commitment to defense and Canada's commitment to our alliance and our partnership by reference to any single metric. You have to look at a broader picture. And part of the reason for that is that it is the broader picture that actually defines Canada's commitment to defense and what it is the broader picture that actually defines Canada's commitment to defense and what it is accomplishing. Part of it is also because of my belief bringing no diplomatic experience to this job, but bringing fair amount of political experience and messaging experience, an understanding that I developed very early on that

Spending additional money on defense in Canada was a bit of a heavy lift Because it didn't capture the imagination of Canadians and if you're a Canadian Surrounded by three oceans on three sides and by the United States on the other side You can understand a lack of urgency about the need to invest money in defense as opposed to child care and health care and education. And one of my arguments back in Washington and here in Canada was that if you're committed to supporting defense, you need to figure out a better way to talk about it. When you talk about what Canada's NATO commitment is, it is 2% of GDP in support of NATO. It's a commitment that was made in Wales

and then reinforced in Vilnius. And if you're a Canadian, on the one hand, you have no idea where Wales or Vilnius is. We don't really understand what NATO is. I mean, what's NATO doing for Canada? What's GDP? They don't even define the acronym. And where did the 2% come from?

It sounds arbitrary. So it's hard emotionally to get behind a commitment to spend an arbitrary 2% of something that people don't understand what it is in support of an organization that people don't understand what it is that it does. And my argument was that Canada would do itself good and would do our alliance good

to redefine its commitment to defense based upon existing threat levels, the change of those threat levels, the rise of China and Russia as real threats to Canadian sovereignty, and moreover to re-characterize its commitment to defense as a matter of continental defense and defense of the Arctic. Because ordinary Canadians, everyday Canadians view the Arctic as Canada, as they should. A big chunk of the Arctic is Canadian. And if you characterize the need to spend money because of increased Russian and Chinese threats in the Arctic, you will find yourself gaining more public support for spending more money on defense.

That is exactly what has happened. That is the way Bill Blair talks about increases in defense spending these days and has for the past year. And you can see the public opinion polls have changed. And all of a sudden, a majority of Canadians, a bare majority of Canadians, will answer a pollster that they're in favor of spending more money on defense. So Canadian defense spending, as measured by GDP, has risen from about 1% when Prime to 1.37% today, to a projected 1.76% by 2029 or 2030, and now with the Prime Minister's commitment

to get to at least 2% of GDP by 2032. So there's a date certain, there's a plan to be able to get there. You can see the increases in defense spending. And then you can just look at what's happened around the world. Number one hot spot in the world is Ukraine. And Canada has stepped up time and again to provide support for Ukraine. Four and a half billion dollars in military assistance since Russia's illegal invasion

of Ukraine. You mentioned NORAD modernization. Canada has stepped up, is stepping up, on funding its NORAD modernization commitments. You look at defense procurement. Canada has stepped up time and again in increasing its game with major defense procurements on an interoperable and interchangeable basis with NATO allies, including

the United States. And when you even look at last year's budget, where there's a 27.5% increase in defense spending in that budget, so this is not the press release announcing the commitment. This is now a budget, 27.5% increase in a budget that overall increased by 3 or 4%. I think that demonstrates a renewed Canadian commitment to playing its part in investing in defense and in pursuing defense. One last point is one of the other reasons why I choose not to exclusively focus on 2% of GDP as part of a Wales Vilnius commitment is because there are a lot of things that Canada does that

are really important to the United States sense of what Canada does well and where Canada's allyship and partnership is important. For example, Canada's investment in intelligence and in cybersecurity. Canada's work in this space is best in class. Canada is a major contributor to the cybersecurity of our continent and is an invaluable partner of the United States in this space,

almost none of that spending counts under NATO accounting rules as part of NATO commitment. Second category like this is space. The United States making major investments in space, both as a matter of defense and as a, ultimately a potential matter of offense, so is China and so is Russia. And we welcome and need Canada's partnership in investing in space, so we don't want to discourage Canada

from continuing to invest in these really important areas of cyber and intelligence and space because the dollars they invest there are not going to count toward meeting the Wales commitment. If the public opinion landscape is changing, greater support for defense spending, perhaps some of it is because Canadians are less convinced than they used to be that somebody else will protect us and that somebody else will fight the fights that Canadians value. And that's somebody else's you guys. There's a sense NATO-wide of needing to step up because there's nervousness about the American ally. I can't disagree with that and I don't know that it's unhealthy by the way. I do think

maybe best example of this was President Trump, the last time he was president, of calling out the importance of all NATO allies pulling their fair share. And I think that argument resonated with a lot of people in the United States and externally in the world. I have no doubt that there is a bit of a concern on Canada's part of whether NATO, and in particular the United States, will be there for Canada, given some of the public chatter around

Canada's under-investing in defense under whatever metrics are used to be able to measure that. So there's certainly some truth to what you're saying. On the other hand, I think most of the change in Canadian attitude is due to better education and messaging around modern threat levels being different than what they were

10 and 15, 20 years ago. One of the external events that really helped my argument, and that I think helped Canada turn the corner of this, on this was the Chinese spy balloon, which a couple of summers ago was floating back and forth over Canada for several months before Canadian radar even detected it. And then once it was detected and was determined to be Chinese in origin

and a decision was made to shoot it down, that Canada did not have airplanes that could fly high enough to be able to shoot down these spy balloons and thereby requiring Canada to be dependent on NORAD and in particular on the United States fighter planes to be able to rid the air of this threat to Canada. that Canada can't just hide behind being surrounded by allies on land and by water by sea. That's a hell of a note and it kind of clashes with your optimistic depiction of Canadian defense priorities and readiness. Canada did not have detection capability, it did not have response capability over its own soil for a balloon. Thank God it was a balloon,

right? I'm being serious. I think that's what Canadians said. Thank God it was a balloon, because people would laugh about a balloon. So in fairness, it shouldn't clash because these weaknesses were well known. They were well known to Canada, they were well known to the United States and there are solutions, there were solutions under development and in play to deal with both of those. The F-35 was the answer. I mean it's a fifth generation and the ultimate state-of-the-art fighter jet. And it is the jet that ultimately can fly high enough to be able to shoot down balloons

and to do anything else that Canada needs to do. And Canada made the decision to purchase 88 F-35s at a total cost of $19 billion, really permanently upgrading the Canadian Air Force and providing it with state-of-the-art capacity to be able to defend the homeland. I want to say a word about the people who are supporting this podcast. McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy is committed to the research, teaching, public outreach and practical advocacy of sound public policy

grounded in a solid understanding of the overall policy process with all its imperfections and limitations. With their one-year intensive Master of Public Policy program, they teach a principle-based design of policy solutions to important problems. Learn more at mcgill.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.ca.cgill.ca. I want to talk about a few files that have become salient in the last year and in the last month that are kind of rock and roll, but I've got one more nerd file I want to throw at you, which is the Canada US Clean Energy Dialogue. You and I have chatted about this before. It was announced during President Biden's 2023 visit, and it was to be chaired by Deputy Prime Minister, Christa Freeland, and by a senior administration official named Amos

Hochstein. And it wasn't an empty promise they met repeatedly and for as long as Madame Freeland was in cabinet but it has gotten almost no coverage and I think it's interesting both in what has been discussed and what hasn't. What can you tell us about the clean energy dialogue? I think the clean energy dialogue is one of the great successes of US-Canada relations over the past three years. The group that you were talking about actually has the proper name of the Energy Transformation Task Force. There you go.

It was chaired by Krister Freeland and Amos Hochstein. It did more than meet. It devised some concrete plans to execute and it executed them. One of the central elements of the Energy Transformation Task Force was to figure out how we could marry United States incentives for the energy transition with Canadian incentives for the energy transition with Canadian incentives for the energy transition not to compete with each other but for each of us to leverage what the other country is doing and so that our investments through these incentives are not just the US incentive not just the Canadian

incentive but we can join them together to create a larger incentive and a greater chance of success for that company. And the principal target for this was the Defense Production Act, which is the most flexible form of U.S. funding that is available. The president announced, in connection with the passage of the IRA and the rolling out of it, $250 billion of funding under the Defense Production Act that would be available to quote unquote domestic companies to help stimulate the energy transition.

Canada was defined as a domestic company for purposes of the Defense Production Act. And I think we are up to eight Canadian companies now who have actually received funding under the Defense Production Act and of those eight companies five or six of them have also received Canadian incentives and a number of those were announced simultaneously because we are talking to each other and we are communicating to each other and we are communicating with each other and we're identifying some of the best opportunities of Canadian companies

and US companies and we're both investing in them. We're announcing them at the same time and we are providing an incentive structure enabling them to be successful. I think we have succeeded in accelerating the energy transition by helping to stand up a number of US, but for purposes of this, Canadian companies that are going to materially move the energy transition. Second priority, which was sort of the year two priority, which we're in the middle of, is to advance civil nuclear as another source of the energy transition, clean energy. This is more a work in process

because we're only halfway through the year and then we had our election, Canada now has its election, but the Energy Transformation Task Force team is still working, they're working hard at this, lots of good conversations about advancing civil nuclear in Canada and the United States, a true collaborative effort of Canada and the United States.

So here's the thing that makes me crazy. While Canada and the US are talking about clean energy and nuclear energy, the United States has established itself as the world's leading oil exporter and the world's leading natural gas exporter. And I can't help wondering whether Canada got a little snookered in that. Like while we're talking about nice things, the United States is also permitting itself a massively lucrative export market that Canada is reluctant to engage in. First of all, I'm not sure how reluctant Canada

is to engage in that market. The number one export of Canada is oil and gas. To you guys, mostly. Well, a lot of it is to us, but it's because it's easy to export to us because of geographic proximity. And the United States position here is pretty clear. We do believe in a clean energy future.

We do believe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we're not turning off the spigot of oil and natural gas and fossil fuels any time immediately. We're on a basis where in the energy world we got to be trying everything. And when we're using fossil fuels, we are also investing in technologies and methodology to reduce the emissions that are occurring as a result of the use of fossil fuels. So I'll just take something from my last two weeks, which is I when I was out in Calgary Which you think oh Calgary. It's Alberta. He was there. Obviously. He's gonna talk about oil. I'm not gonna talk about oil

I'm gonna talk about hydrogen locomotives which KCCP the Kansas City Canadian Pacific Railroad probably the world's leader in the production and development of hydrogen locomotives. The emissions from a hydrogen locomotive are pretty close to zero.

I think they are up to eight hydrogen locomotives now that are in service. They're on the pathway to 20, and ultimately on the pathway to much more. So that's in the locomotive space and aviation. I've had the opportunity to meet with multiple companies to deal with Aero Montreal and to look at the advances that are being made on biofuels and on more environmentally friendly aviation fuel where Canada and the United States are leading the world in

the technological advances in that space that still needs oil. It still needs oil and gas to be able to work but the point is we're trying to be more sensitive and we're investing in ways to reduce the environmental impact and then you've got carbon capture and reutilization so it it's okay, I think, I'd argue, to continue to pursue fossil fuels as long as you're aggressively pursuing remediation technologies so that you're reducing the carbon footprint of using those carbon fuels. And I think that's the balanced

policy that the United States is trying to implement. I don't think Canada's being snuckered. 60% of the oil that the United States purchases comes from Canada. By the way, 98% of that comes from the province of Alberta. And that number has not come down. And I find it ironic and interesting

that President-elect Trump refers to what I'll call the trade deficit between Canada and the United States, what he calls the United States subsidizing Canada, but that trade deficit is being driven exclusively by the significant energy trade that exists between the United States and Canada. Without the energy trade, the United States would be in a substantial positive position with respect to its trade accounting

with the United States. I'm getting ahead of myself, but would it not be educational to the president-elect if Canada turned those pipelines off for a week? So I don't wanna, I I mean I don't really, I'm not really comfortable commenting on this dispute. I am President Biden's personal representative in Canada. I am more than happy to defend any President Biden policy in pursuit and have done so, some of which are popular, some of which are not popular.

For me to deal with policy matters that are being set forth by the president-elect is, first of all, hypothetical. And you know how much I hate answering hypothetical questions. It almost always gets you in trouble, doesn't really advance the ball. and I hate to say it, it would also be presumptuous on my part to try to represent the reaction of a new administration to a policy, a position, an action taken by Ken. It's not my job. They're not talking to me, I'm not talking to them. The one thing I will say on a hypothetical basis answering a

hypothetical with a hypothetical is that you shouldn't have to inflict economic harm and adverse impact on the American economy and on consumers in America by doing things like shutting off energy to the United States, to make your point. The data should speak for itself. Industry, United States industry, should be in a position to be able to advocate with the United States administration about how bad this would be for the United States economy,

for United States jobs, for United States workers, for United States companies. And I think you're more likely to have this debate play out in that kind of a context than by actually having to shut off energy and create energy shortages, inflation, layoffs, adverse quality of life impacts for the workforce in the United States. I don't think we should

ever need to actually execute on those actions to be able to make our point. And just to make sure that it's clear that I understand what a hypothetical is, it's worth emphasizing that the Alberta premier has no interest in ending those oil exports and that the Alberta population is on red alert against even the notion that that might be contemplated. I think that's right and in fairness this is the problem of hypotheticals because since Premier Ford who I think was in the lead of making this suggestion came out with a suggestion that he'd be prepared to shut off

energy exports from Ontario to the United States, he has a refined position now. He now, I mean this week is advocating for a new energy policy of a coordinated energy development policy between Canada and the United States that would be done in partnership and that would be providing irresistible energy supply and resources to the United States through that type of a coalition and an organization.

So, I'm not saying he's backed off of cutting off the energy, but I'm a former corporate executive. I know that corporations are not really interested in cutting off the nose to spite their face. Any energy boycott of the United States, are not really interested in cutting off their nose despite their face. Any energy boycott of the United States, the pain being felt by Canadian companies and Canadian workers would be real. It is much better to work together to figure out a way to maximize cooperation and energy

exports from Canada, imports to the United States, and to protect American workers, Canadian workers, American businesses and Canadian businesses, and take advantage of the relatively plentiful sources of energy that are available in North America. You said that you were Joe Biden's personal representative in Ottawa. Did you see any signs before that Biden-Trump debate last June that the president's physical health or mental acuity were in rapid decline?

So my easy answer to that question is that I did not. To be fair, I didn't have daily contact with the president. I had infrequent contact with the president. I had infrequent contact with the president. And when I had contact with the president, I found him to be fully engaged, I hate to say this, the smartest person in the room. My best example of this is around the president's visit to Canada,

where I did have the opportunity to participate in several briefings for press conferences for appearances where the best and the brightest in the Biden-Harris administration were in a room from a press perspective a national security perspective a defense perspective prepping the president for what was about to happen. And in every single one of those meetings, the president was the star of the room. He knew these issues backwards and forwards. When talking points were suggested to him,

he says, well, that might work, but what do you think about this? And nine times out of ten, his talking points were better than the talking points that the team had provided to him. That's March of 23, which is the last time I've really had a detailed in-person engagement with the president, but I think there was the opposite of slippage as of March of 2023. That debate in June of 24 must have come as quite a surprise then. So dirty little secret, I don't believe in watching presidential debates. So the good news for me is I didn't watch that debate.

On the other hand, the news coverage of the debate, which is what I tend to watch, was not a very pleasant experience. It's funny, we're the last two guys in North America who didn't see that debate. I was at a concert at the New Montreal Jazz Festival. Well, good for you. When I got out of it- A much more productive expenditure of your time. When I got out of it, my phone was exploding as various friends were texting their dismay

and I finally decided not to watch it. But there followed a crisis in the Democratic Party, which is not directly speaking your job? Did it affect your ability to do your job? So I think the basic answer to that is that it did not. Part of the reason for that is that making a bit of a judgment here is that the major implications of that were electoral political implications. of that were electoral political implications. There was never a moment that I'm aware of where there was any risk of President Biden stepping down

as President of the United States. He was going to be President of the United States until January 20th of 2025. And we do have this proposition, this value in the United States, you only have one president at a time. And I never felt any risk that there was gonna be more than one president in the United States, you only have one president at a time. And I never felt any risk that there was gonna be more than one president of the United States.

Happened to be the guy who nominated me, the guy whose personal representative I serve as here in Canada, and that continued at every moment and didn't really impact the way I did my job. Have you spoken to him since he announced he wasn't gonna run again? I have. About that, how'd that go?

I mean, you're tight with the guy. This will not surprise you. One of the things I'm not going to do is to describe private conversations that I have with the President of the United States. I don't describe private conversations that I have with you. If you do that and people find out about it, it's the last time you have a private conversation. So I'm not comfortable talking about that, but I will say one thing, which is that I left those conversations remarking to myself and to my team about what an unbelievable human being Joe Biden is.

It was a reminder to me about his humanity, about his honest vulnerability, about his values, about what he stands for, about his fearlessness in maintaining the positions that he knows and he believes are right for the United States. And following those conversations, I've never been prouder to call myself a friend of Joe Biden's and I've never been prouder to serve as Joe Biden's personal representative in Canada. Events have taken a surprising turn on both sides of the border. You're the concierge of the Trudeau-Biden relationship. Surely you must have suspected at some point that it would last longer than it has. And in fact, both men are finishing their political careers at nearly the same time.

Did the turn that Prime Minister Trudeau's career has taken surprise you? So in addition to absenting myself from political commentary on the United States side of the border, both for reasons of the Hatch Act and because I think it's unseemly, I don't think people expect their diplomats to be political consultants or political advisors or to be involved in the in the political process. I equally try to avoid political analysis and political commentary on the

Canadian side because it's sort of none of my business. That's not my job. On the other hand, part of my job is to follow what's going on and to pay attention to what's going on. And it is not a surprise to me that there is a transition going in the leadership of the Liberal Party and in all likelihood in the leadership of the Canadian federal government. I could be equal part surprised that it's taken this long and that it's moving as quickly as it is, which leads me to believe that the right answer is that it's happening right about the pace that

it should be happening. Hey, you are a diplomat. And I also make the point that I think what we saw play out in the United States last November in the election, in the elections, and I think what we're seeing playing out in Canada, there's a part of me that is heartened by it because in both those cases it's a fantastic illustration of democracy working. And I've always said democracy can be ugly, but in the end it sort of works itself out in a very powerful and a very good way. And as Joe Biden said, even though to be fair I think I used this line before he said it publicly, but now that he said it publicly I always have to credit him with the line, which is if you believe in democracy, you can't only believe in democracy

when you win. The chips will fall where they may and in both the United States and in Canada I believe in democracy and whether I agree or disagree with the results that are being created, whether I agree or disagree that things are moving too quickly or they're moving too slowly, democracy is working and I think that's the lead. And it's the most important thing in terms of Canada and the United States and their relationships surviving and growing and ultimately thriving is that democracy works. You are the second US ambassador appointed by a Democratic president to

have had to be out on the town on election night when Donald Trump got elected. Your predecessor Bruce Heyman was at the Chateau Laurier when Trump was elected the first time. To the astonishment of most people in the room, you were at the Metropolitan Brasserie on election night last November when Trump got elected again. Was that a rough night in terms of hanging onto your poker face? It wasn't the easiest night in the world. And I have to be careful. And I was careful leading up to it and by the way I have my own suspicions going into the night as my

team will tell you so I was not surprised let me just put it that way I had plenty of time to get used to what ended up being the result but again I have to I maybe I'm taking refuge in this and maybe it's a defense mechanism, but I was not and am not fundamentally depressed by the results. Because I do think it is a demonstration of the power of democracy. Democracy is about having free and open and fair elections. We had a free and open and fair elections. We had a free and open and fair election. We had either a record setting or a near record setting level of participation, and there was a result.

And it was a pretty clear result. It was a very clear result. And now we're having an orderly and peaceful transition of power. That's what great democracies are all about. And so as someone who is first and foremost a fan of our form of government and a fan of democracies, I took a lot of pride in what was happening that night, whether I like the result or not. And that was just not something I was going to comment on

and not something I was going to focus on. I was happy to focus on the power of democracy working and what a thing of beauty it was. The president-elect has only said that Canada should be the 51st state. He has only said it repetitively. He's made it a kind of a compulsive habit. He refers to Justin Trudeau as Governor Trudeau. He said the border between the two countries is an imaginary line and random GOP Congress people are being interviewed on the TV and saying things like Canada should be honored to be welcomed into America's embrace. Canadian public opinion is kind of on high alert at this unprecedented situation,

unprecedented since 1814. And I'm wondering what you make of all of this, what advice you have to Canadians. So we're rapidly crossing into an area, even though we're beyond the hat-jack, where I'm just not comfortable. Because again, you're basically asking me to comment on the position of a future administration

that I'm not comfortable speaking for. It's really easy for me to give an answer to that, which is I represent the Biden-Harris administration, which is not supportive of Canada being the 51st state. And so that's not part of the agenda that I'm pursuing when I'm in Canada. With a little bit of reluctance, I will go a step further. And I will tell you that I honestly don't know how serious that suggestion is.

Not saying it shouldn't be treated seriously. I think it is so unlikely to occur that wasting a lot of brain cells on it is probably not productive. So I will say that. But the other thing I will say is that I do think this conversation is to some extent a style difference between Donald Trump on the one hand and Joe Biden on the other hand. I mean look we have our differences, we have our areas where we'd like Canada

to do more. We have our concerns with the way in which Canada conducts itself. We choose to deal with those concerns privately, we choose to deal with those concerns through more traditional diplomatic channels and diplomatic efforts and initiatives. Donald Trump has a different style. And I will say this is not on the substance because his style may end up being effective in being able to accomplish objectives that he has that I may even agree with those objectives. What I will say is what I'm concerned about, and this is a personal statement,

but it is also the way I think in which Joe Biden thinks about his role and his relationship with Prime Minister Trudeau and with Canada, is that I think all of our partners, all of our allies, deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. And I do have a concern whether this persistent teasing and provocation is showing appropriate respect for a country which is a sovereign nation

and has sovereign rights. I could say the same thing about Greenland, I could say the same thing about Panama, it's just not stylistically the way in which I would choose to make my points Again, there may be agenda items that president Trump has and this may all be designed to further those agenda items to soften Canada Greenland and Panama up for president the president-elect to pursue certain agenda items once he is president.

It's hard for me to disagree that that's an inappropriate tactic. But I do think showing respect for fellow sovereign nations is something that we could come to expect. You know, I say this to you, I put it in terms of the Biden-Harris administration. Last week, the United States had the opportunity to celebrate a day of remembrance for the passing of former President Carter. And as I went through that day, I was reflecting, as really I did from when he died, on the fundamental decency of Jimmy Carter, and on his embracing approach to working with allies and with partners. And this is true both when he was president of the United States and after he was president,

of the civility that he brought to government, of the respect that he always brought to the negotiating table, regardless of who else was at the negotiating table. That's my model for diplomacy, for foreign policy, and for international affairs. It is a model of mutual respect of... I mean, we agree on everything. It doesn't mean that you can't be tough in negotiations, but bringing respect and civility to the relationship, I think, is something

that Jimmy Carter brought to the table and that the whole world had an opportunity to remember and to celebrate last week. Unlike you, I'm not a diplomat. And so I can put up kind of a finer point on things. I was in Finland a year ago. Finland has a land border with Russia. And when Finland's neighbor is insulting, dismissive,

or aggressive towards Finland's national sovereignty, the Finns call that hybrid warfare. And they have developed military doctrine to respond to it because you don't have to invade a country to undermine its sovereignty. Do you see the analogy? I will limit my comment but I will not defend disrespectful behavior on the part of the United States to any country, let alone to a country that is a close friend, partner, and ally like Canada. country that is a close friend partner and ally like Canada. So I'm not trying to do that but it is hypothetical and it is not going to happen. I'm saying this

is a case of just turn the other cheek and take it but to some extent having a bit of a thick skin and realizing that this proposal is not going to happen. You've been generous with your time and I've tested your generosity almost to the limit. I think we'll wrap it up there. David Cohen, thank you for spending time with me today and thank you for everything you've done to improve relations between the two countries. It's been a great pleasure getting to know you. Thank you for having me on your air again.

This has been multiple times and thanks for what you do to show the best of journalism and the impact that a great journalist can have on political and societal discourse. People ask me what I'm gonna do when I go home to the United States, I will, on your air, I'll tell you one of the things I will do is to continue to read Paul Wells. I'll take it.

Thanks for listening to the Paul Wells show. The Paul Wells Show is produced by Antica and supported by McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy. Thank you to the National Arts Centre for letting us record this interview in their studio. My producer is Kevin Sexton. Our executive producer is Stuart Cox. Laura Regehr is Antica's head of audio. If you subscribe to my sub stack, you can get bonus content for this show, as well as access to my newsletter. You can do that at paulwells.substack.com. If you're enjoying this show,

give us a good rating on your podcast app. It helps spread the word. We'll be back next Wednesday. Thank you.