25 Burst results for "Stephen Harper"

How worried should we be about foreign takeovers?

The Big Story

07:41 min | 6 months ago

How worried should we be about foreign takeovers?

"There's an opportunity for investments from China into Canada today. The innovation minister was forced to stand in this. House acknowledged that he misled when he said that the company. He's selling our retirement homes to was Canadian. Under Chinese ownership. You could be forgiven if you missed some of the stories that inspired today's episode. I mean look. It's my job to be tuned into all the big stories. And I know I miss them. The fact that moves like this one. Don't register on. Most of our radars might be a problem. Right now obviously Canadian businesses are suffer. Not all of them are going to make it through Colfax now. And that makes some of them. A tasty target for foreign buyers who are looking to acquire assets in a stable and relatively prosperous. And in some cases, those investments are badly needed in other cases, though especially when the purchasing company has direct ties to a foreign government. There are real security concerns. I mean. Why would a foreign government have interest in owning a failing Canadian business? So much interest that they are willing to pay more than anybody else. What kinds of risks do we take on when we allow Canadian companies to come under control of state owned businesses. How can candidate government balanced the need for foreign investment especially during an unprecedented economic crisis? With the red flags being waved by our security and intelligence agencies. And also just. Why, don't most of us know or care about this? What part of the big picture is missing here? Jordan Heathrow, and this is the Big Story Stephanie Carbon is an assistant professor of International Affairs at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University. She also has a book coming out this fall on you, T. press, which is called stand on guard, reassessing threats to Canada's national security. Hi Stephanie. I want you to start. If you can buy explaining a recent deal that kind of put this question in our minds in his why we reached out to you, can you just tell me a little bit about The Hope Bay Gold Mine Project, and what it kind of means for national security in general, so the Hope Bay Gold Mine is a mine eighty S. he was a Canadian control. It was it was kind of being run by. by US t, T MAK RESOURCES INC and it unfortunately unperforming, it's one of actually three mines that have been unperforming recently where there's been some kind of take over, but this kind of raised eyebrows because it's been a basically taken over by a company called Shandong Gold Mining Company, which I also goes by St. Gold and the concern is that this company is considered to be a state owned enterprise. The Chinese government has a forty seven percent. Share in this company, and often when you at the other owners, the you can dig down and find that there's actually probably more links to the state. Generally, so this seems to be an a case of a Chinese state owned enterprise, taking over a Canadian natural resources firm something that you know has raised concerns in the past say in the last ten years and seems to be happening even in this Cova era or perhaps because of it. Why does it raise concerns? I? Mean pretend I know nothing what's wrong with them? So. This is a really good question. Canada is is a small country, right? We're a country, thirty, seven, thirty eight million people, and that means we. Need for an investment in order to grow our economy. especially up north I mean it's very expensive to develop things up north, and we know that successive governments have wanted to encourage business up north to try and improve the lives and conditions of people who live there, but we get concerned when we see these government, company or state owned or even state champion enterprises coming into the market in order to provide that foreign investment, and sometimes they are the only companies that are interested in providing that financial assistance to get these companies going. So you know the first concern is for a long time. We saw the government trying to get of business. Right privatizing various companies, but we're seeing. Despite the Canadian government getting out of these businesses, we're seeing other governments. Take their place, and this is something that actually Stephen Harper warned about in two thousand and twelve thousand thirteen. Canada has spent a long time. Trying to privatize its into industry, but not in such a way that we want foreign governments coming in and taking over those. Businesses instead, so this is. This is something that we've worried about for some time and. Part of the reason that these state-owned enterprises are problematic is that we often don't understand what they are trying to do in. You've taken a normal company right? McDonald's any other company. You know that they're trying to make money, right? That's what they do, but with state owned enterprises. Is there some kind of geopolitical or Geo? Objective that they have in mind. Particularly in the natural resources sector that we have to maybe be concerned about you know, are they trying to strategically placed themselves in such a way that they have control over Canadian resource in a way that perhaps maybe Canadians or the Canadian government would be uncomfortable with. Do we have any examples of that happening that we can look at and say you have this was A. A mistake we shouldn't have gone down that path so a really good example of this would probably be nexen people would point to next is of course a oil company. It's out in Alberta and in two thousand twelve. It was kind of putting itself on the market, and it was taken over by Seahawk. which is a Chinese state owned enterprise, a petroleum company and there was some concern that you know. Do we actually get want. These kind of government owned enterprises owning these businesses, and it paid well over the market price in order to get access to accent. A Louis. Some national security concerns that were raised at the time. Eventually, the Harper government did let it go through, but you know a lot of the promises that were made as a part of the deal. Really haven't gone very well. the business hasn't been as profitable as as was hoped. There's been some safety issues. Accidents with regards to nexen owned critical infrastructure, and even recently we've seen a number of layoffs. I mean. There's so many layoffs in that industry anyways in my heart goes out to the the oil workers, but. It. Really just hasn't performed as well as hopes, and this is one of the concerns that I think has often been raised. Is that state owned? Enterprises can't fail they are. Backed by the state. They're not subject to the same pressures as a normal company like again. Going back to McDonald's. You

Canada Canadian Government Chinese Government Hope Bay Gold Mine Project Shandong Gold Mining Company Stephanie Carbon Harper Government House Stephen Harper Carleton University China Colfax United States Hope Bay T. Press Cova Mcdonald
Will a Universal Basic Income finally get a real shot?

The Big Story

14:46 min | 7 months ago

Will a Universal Basic Income finally get a real shot?

"You can say one thing for the current crisis. It's given us a chance to try a lot of things that we might never have had the will to do otherwise I amongst those just giving people money okay not everyone but millions and millions of people in Canada and not forever but at least for a few months and this isn't a new idea. It's been around in some form or another for decades. You probably know it as universal basic income and you might associate it with the most progressive voices come the liberal side of the spectrum and you may also associate the opposition to it with complaints of lazy people want free cash instead of working but despite having a long history as a potential way to ease poverty and improve health. This has never been tried on a large scale or for a long time. So the people arguing on either side of it have never had enough evidence to prove their point. So it's been a political football until like with so many things. These days along came the virus and now getting money to people who need it quickly is absolutely essential governments around the world even the most conservative of them have done that and those who support or oppose that kind of policy have mostly agreed on the need for it. It's what happens next. And what we learned from that will determine if we finally give a universal basic income. A real shot. So we'll explain history of the policy small tests that we've seen on it be political behind it and whether or not it will stick around when we get out of this current mass. And we'll do that as soon as Claire gives the details on this current mess cargill is dealing with the outbreak at one of its meat processing plants. This one isn't Schambori Quebec southeast of Montreal. Sixty four workers have tested positive. There cargill had another outbreak a few weeks ago at a beef packing plant in high river. Alberta in that outbreak more than nine hundred workers tested positive. It reopened last week after a two-week shutdown also in Quebec schools in the western part of the province are set to reopen today but attendance is optional. Desks will be spaced apart. And there can be no more than fifteen kids in a classroom at a time. Ontario reported the lowest number of cases of Cova nineteen for the province on Sunday since March. Two hundred ninety four new cases. And this comes. The province reopens Provincial Parks and Conservation Areas. Although camping is still not allowed and things like beaches playgrounds and public washrooms are still off limits. And lastly schedule and is suspending the sale of alcohol in the Northern Community of La Lush to help control the spread of cove in nineteen. The alcohol store will be closed for two weeks. To prevent people from gathering. There will be support for those at risk of alcohol withdrawal as of Sunday evening. Sixty eight thousand eight hundred and forty eight cases of covert nineteen in Canada with four thousand nine hundred and seventy deaths. I'm Jordan Heath Rawlings. This is the big story Max. Faucet is a writer and a reporter for many publications including on this project for the Walrus. Hey Max he joined our. I'm doing as well as can be expected. Which is how everybody should hopefully answer that question. These days you start by defining What is a universal basic income Broad is that term. And what does it mean? Sure so I mean you know this is an idea that's been around for some time now and and there can be competing definitions and I suspect. We'll get into that in a second but the one that I adhere to the one that you know certainly I informed Andrew Yang's campaign in the United States and that has been informing most of the conversation about UBA. Right now is It has three conditions it's automatic. It's unconditional in its non-withdrawal. So basically that means it comes every month doesn't matter who you are you get it. You could be making a lot of money or a little money and you get it. And then it's non withdraw so It's not means tested. So it doesn't get clawed back you know as you as you make more money you know. There's much conversation on you know econ twitter about various amendments and adjustments to that formula. But I think that's a good way to think about it. Can you give me a little history of it? You mentioned it's been around for a long time Has it been tried for real anywhere where to come from that? Depends on your definition of for real right. I think people look at the idea of giving people money from the government. And they think well this must be a left-wing idea but actually the first real experiments with it happened in the nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies and it was driven by a Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman. Who is the father of supply-side economics? Yeah they saw it as a way to replace the welfare system and so they their idea of a basic income is not quite the way I just defined it. It was something called a negative income tax. And so let me. Just get a tiny bit. Wonka share the way it worked in their conception is basically they would give people a percentage of the difference between their income and defined income cutoff or like the point where they start paying income taxes so if they set the cutoff at let's say forty thousand dollars and the negative income tax percentage was fifty percent. Someone who made twenty thousand dollars a year would get ten thousand dollars from the government. They made thirty five thousand they would get two thousand and from the government so is this sort of sliding scale where topped you up up until a certain point and then it went away right. They cancelled it in one thousand nine hundred and you know the the the Reagan era kind of buried it under under Nixon's legacy in Canada. Did something called the men come experiment? Which was the Manitoba Basic Income Experiment? That was more that was closer to the basic income that that I described earlier in the one that a lot of people are talking about right now so that says that gave thirteen hundred urban and rural families in Winnipeg and don't Fan Manitoba with incomes below. Thirteen thousand dollars a year back then money. But by the time that the data was collected in nineteen seventy eight so they ran up from seventy five to seventy eight. The Canadian government kind of lost interest in and they cancelled the project. So we've had these these aborted attempts to gather a sample and it hasn't really provided any conclusive evidence In the in the American one. There's some evidence that it that it you know Negatively impacted people's willingness to go to work in the Canadian won the data suggested otherwise. But there just wasn't enough data to conclusively determine the impact of giving people money on their both on their willingness to work and on on the outcomes that the government's wanted to test. Which is you know better. Health Outcomes Better Labor outcomes better social outcomes so you know the jury was still out right. Will what kind of a sample size and study length? Would you even need to determine that because again we had one or at least something like one here in Ontario Under Kathleen Wynne. A few years ago and the next government came to power and it was immediately phased out. So you know. I don't think we got more than two or three years out of that either. So what kind of scale are we talking about? Yeah I mean to make it work. You would needs multiple cities multiple tests populations and a long duration of study. This is this is a a bold policy intervention but you need to be able to control for extenuating circumstances and factors the Ontario project. Was it had some really promising results. As it turned out there was a study group at McMaster that basically interviewed the people that participated in the program. Some of the data they had eighty percent of of people reporting better health outcomes. They were using less tobacco drinking. Less eighty-three percent said they had better mental health. They were feeling less stressed. They had a better diet And there was even interesting. Data around better labor market outcomes people were basically using the minimum income the guaranteed income to improve their jobs to look for better job. So it's disappointing that the government scrapped it after basically what amounted to one year and left us in the same spot that we've sort of always been with these things where we just don't have enough data for either side to conclusively prove that their argument is right and you know maybe not maybe now is the opportunity to kind of walk in that that longer sample size but you know the problem here is that. It's always tempting for governments to to start these programs and then abandon them or different governments to come in and cancel them. You'd need some sort of agreement by all parties that they're going to let this run. Its course and we haven't really seen that yet. So you mentioned that it's seen mostly now at least as a left-wing idea might have begun under Nixon. But certainly I think that's how most listeners would frame it as you know Whether or not you support it About the side of the spectrum that it comes from but as we've started to see government's realizing how badly they need to help people as the economy collapses during this pandemic have seen any movement On the other side of the aisle towards this kind of idea I think we've seen much more movement on on the conservative side than we have on the progressive side the beano progressives are are are very wary of guaranteed income proposals because I think you know quite rightly they remember certainly the academics who studied this. They remember that it was originally an idea that was intended to get rid of welfare and other social supports and that is always a concern that if you bring in a guaranteed income. Is it really just an attempt to shrink? The size of the state is an attempt to get rid of targeted support programs that that make people's lives better and I think that's a totally valid concern when I when I posted my article from the wall or something twitter. I got a lot of feedback from economists about that where they basically said you know. Oh here we go again. People people don't realize that this is a an attempt to slip in through the back door reduction in social programs. That's really interesting. Yeah but you know. Over the last few months we've seen a really array of conservatives. Come out and say that this is a good idea. Hugh Seagull. Who is a former senator standing red? Tory I WOULD. I would describe him as a thought leader. He's been he's been banging the drum for for guaranteed income for quite some time now but he was always sort of out there in the wilderness as a conservative suggesting that this was a good idea and he wasn't one of the ones who was saying that it should replace social programs. He was saying it should be an augmentation to them but in the states over a matter of weeks you saw people like Mitt. Romney coup is basically the Avatar of hedge fund capitalism. Coming out and and suggesting that this was a good idea that would support. Americans during the fallout from Cova and ultimately Donald Trump's government. It's not it's not a permanent basic income. But they sent a check to every American and that is sort of one of the hallmarks of a basic income. So it's interesting the degree to which we've seen conservatives rally behind this particular policy flag. I think that it is driven by shorter. Term political objectives American politicians having election. That they're looking at in November and one of the surest ways to get defeated is to be in being government while people are losing their jobs losing their homes losing their livelihood so I think it's more self preservation than a genuine change of heart but in from a policy perspective. You take the support where you can get it and you build on it from there. So you know I think advocates of a U. UB. I should take their support and and leverage it in order to build their movement if you can may be explained to me the thought behind the benefits of this applying to absolutely everyone including people who have job because that's really And we can debate in Canada versus the US for however long. But that's that's like the primary difference between what trump's government has done and what Canada's done with the baby. Yeah that's the tricky part. That's the part that a lot of people struggle with conceptually and intellectually as is the idea of giving people who don't need money more money right. Yeah and Ken Boston cool. Who is is a former adviser to Stephen Harper and Christy Clark? He's been kind of driving the bus in Canada around the need for a UB. I you know he's he is preferred that to the more targeted approach that the government has taken with Serb. You know his idea in the short term is we just need to get money into people's hands right. Now we need we need to stimulate the economy and ultimately will tax it back next year on people's income taxes that's the thing about a guaranteed income in the context of the system. We have here is if you're making sixty seventy thousand dollars a year. This is going to a portion of this. We'll get taxed back right and so it's not. It's not really free money. It's a little bit of free money and I suspect there would be some social programs that would get pulled back a little bit to to make the numbers work but you know at the end of the day. I don't think you can let the weaknesses in the policy that that might impact a few people. Override the benefits that would impact far more people. You know there's there's all sorts of data out there that suggests that a basic income would actually stimulate economic growth. There's all kinds of data that suggested improves. Health outcomes and Lord knows improving. Health outcomes would save taxpayers and the government a lot of money. Because that's where an increasing increasingly large part of our social budget is going and we'll continue to go in the years and months to come so you know it it is It's a tough idea to get past for some people that I find working already. Why should I get more money from the government but that money's going back into the economy and it stimulating economic growth that supporting jobs? It's reducing healthcare costs. You know I think there's a pretty good case for it and and you know it's one that we should be willing to explore. I am I am more than open to criticism about the cost factor that I suppose we can get to that in a second but I think we also need to look at the benefits and look a little a little bigger in terms of where those benefits accrue it. It's not just lifting people out of poverty. Although that's that's an obvious benefit it's improving people's health outcomes improving their labor market outcomes. Let's people who have a

Canada Richard Nixon Ontario Cargill Cova United States Claire Schambori Quebec Provincial Parks Manitoba Mcmaster Twitter Winnipeg Jordan Heath Rawlings Quebec La Lush Alberta Kathleen Wynne
"stephen harper" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

10:34 min | 9 months ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"The FBI agent that was in charge of verifying the accuracy of information included in the FISA applications has been identified his name is Steven small more important that he was the FBI handler of Stephen Harper he was a former Cambridge professor who met with the and secretly recorded trump campaign aides Carter page Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos what's interesting here is that CMOS initial request records were rejected Baltimore they did get the FISA warrants they had evidence that was exculpatory the inspector general report said that small failed to disclose potentially exculpatory information that page and Papadopoulos told Harper he also failed to disclose the CIA told him on August fifteenth twenty sixteen that page had been operational contact for the agency years earlier so hurry I look at this and I say that in and of itself back to Dave exculpatory evidence they didn't bring it to light they went after Carter page they end up not trusting carpet for the did prosecute George Papadopoulos but anything for false statement to an FBI agent this smelled from the very beginning absolutely and it smells of a conspiracy Sir so my failed to disclose exculpatory information with respect to Carter page Carter page had been working for the U. S. government as a source of information and then they went after Carter page for it essentially relying on contacts which he had actually willingly shared with the intelligence community and then they say oh he is an agent why my view is because it was a pre textual move so they could spy on the trump campaign and claimed that there was a probable cause then they went out and they got these for FISA warrants again I would argue with I will probable cause in violation of Carter page's Fourth Amendment rights can arguably someone within the M. F. B. I. whether it's Stephen Selma whether it's Kevin Kline Smith or whether it's Kevin clients with this he was the FBI lawyer he that was alleged to have changed evidence that was actually submitted to the FISA court which caused by the court to issue two borders right calling for a review of everything because of basically tampering with evidence and so there is a series of seventeen errors these errors are actually repeated throughout these four applications and I think if you do that what we have is a total of fifty one errors with respect to the FISA applications and so this is fraud based on fraud aw and then the question becomes what is their pull cool by smell the IG claims on that he could not produce poof of political bias but in my view there is no other explanation for these errors our first month F. B. I. agent someone who is just starting should not make these types of errors in it the vigil who's just graduated from law school should not make these kinds of errors on the last what we're talking about is intentionality we're talking about malice and we're talking about culpability so according to the IG report the steel source referred to as the primary sub source told FBI agents that Steele misrepresented information attributed to him in the dossier including information about Carter page the FBI and DOJ of failed to disclose the information and final two applications for FISA orders on page the IG report said some of failed to disclose that exculpatory evidence west again you can't overstate how serious this is this guy was in charge of verifying information for everyone Spicer warned applications that's what he did for the FBI now he is putting information into it when he's in charge of verify get in courses he really deceived the court and won his first two five for more applications were rejected what does he do he changes the the the evidence in it he overstates something's amiss other things simply in order to achieve the end that he is seeking and I tell you what J. what this also brings into question this case is getting a lot of attention is under the microscope but the question that I think about is how many other cases might have been handled in similar ways how many other investigations into spice to warn applications have been tainted by agents like this man and others it calls into question the integrity of the whole process because that's why the FISA court issued those two orders which said that the they were misrepresented to they want to know what the corrective efforts are and they want to get to the bottom of the self we're talking the next segment about what senator Graham's doing because a step further so the primary sub sources still miss Rep misrepresented information this is the primary sub board yeah when they go to get the replication of the FISA warrants they don't bring that up they don't disclose that to the FISA court to a fraud has been committed on the court now the FBI has come back an apartment just come back and said they deem the two orders to be invalid because of the process but that retroactive acknowledgement Harry doesn't fix the problem no well first it doesn't fix the problem with respect to the violation of Carter page this writes a second it doesn't fix the problem with respect to creating a false predicate to maintain an investigation on the duly elected president of the United States third of the FBR through their message misrepresentations have at least impaired in in some cases crippled the ability of the trump administration to focus on other issues that would benefit the American people so at the end of the day the Democrats keep talking about for instance an attack on our democracy well it turns out that the FBI was leading the attack on our democracy the F. B. I. affected believe was interfering in our elections the FBI was undermining the integrity of our election system so at the end of the day to the extent that there was any interference in the twenty sixteen election that's what it was an inside job yeah robin Facebook says the cover a portion of the crime here well there was no crime I mean that's what they've been department the mother reports that there was no Russia collusion that can take place so the cover up is the F. B. I.'s on cover up of their dirty deeds let's take Ben he's calling from Maryland on the line to pay welcome broadcast from there why are you good Sir I totally admire you guys J. been watching you for years just completely love what you're doing but you know what after year so it's like how long we're going to March around Jericho destroy the place already we need some of the convictions we need people prosecuted we keep talking about the evidence day after day after day but nothing seems to be happening well there is something happening I mean you've got a whole investigation going on by U. S. attorney John Durham he's good doing a top to bottom up review of this the FISA court itself is doing a review which John Durham is digging deep into the find the origins of this investigation I will point out when he does his report if there are irregularities or violations of the law they'll be pointed out and I'm sure if there are but I don't know the contents of his visit I have no idea where his report's going but if it does if he does follow the evidence that he finds and if that evidence doesn't fact point to criminality I expect people be held accountable takes time that's where the process works so do you know don't lose don't you know don't lose hope if we've been able to point out the irregularities of this which should show that this entire thing was a part of from the very very beginning that's what this is all about and once I look at this you know you panel classified information before if you would have done this inside the military you've been court martialed absolutely and and if the average person did this if someone who's not in the FBI did this kind of thing and misled the FBI who misled a court it would be prosecuted and imprisoned apparently the only people that can lie to the FBI or the other FBI agents they can do it and get away with it but the rest of us can't know that apparently the case now there's frustration out there but these things as are uncovered and investigations take time you can people are getting impatient which I understand but the reality is you gotta cover a lot of material here this investigation went on for three years I think that is correct and so for instance if you look at all of the IG's report if you look at all of the pages are accumulated in Bob Muller's report if you look at all of the individuals all of the players involved there is a deep dive required in order to fully understand the depth of craziness that arguably win on both in the FBI and the department of trusts also keep in mind that these bureaucrats are incredibly skillful in terms of evading of being caught or being held responsible so I think we have to take all of that in mind and I think we need to trust in the process that Attorney General Barr has initiated through John I think that's right are we're taking a break we come back we'll take your calls one hundred sixty four thirty one ten we get into what senator Graham had to say about all this he's concerned as you can imagine we also encourage you to support the work of the American center for law and justice we've got two major votes going up on the Senate tomorrow on issues involving light your support allows our government there seem to be there front and center standing for life for the unborn so we encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ.

Steven Stephen Harper professor FBI Cambridge trump Carter Sam Clovis
How Canadas Anti-Abortion Movement Recruits Young People

The Big Story

09:02 min | 1 year ago

How Canadas Anti-Abortion Movement Recruits Young People

"There are lots of myths, and lies and assumptions at their regarding abortions, especially these days, especially in the United States, where things are not going great right now for those who believe and a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. The dominoes keep falling in the Bush to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Ohio governor signing today would critics condemn as the most restrictive abortion law in the country today. Missouri became the latest state to pass one of the order now becomes the third state since March to sign your loan, thirteen other states have introduced or advanced similar legislation to Alabama the lead. Est battleground in the newly energized abortion. But there is one myth in particular, that we need to talk about. And it's not about the medical procedure or who gets them or when or why it's about the people who oppose access to abortion. And this myth concerns, Canadians to it's very easy to look at the old white faces of the men in power in America who are imposing restrictive state laws and viewed them as the face of the anti-abortion movement. And that's fair. But it is not the whole story. And what you think you know about who exactly is out there in front of clinics or at their marches for life is probably wrong. So if you're a person who believes in the right to choose. And in the progress that has been made on that front over the decades, then it's important for you to take a really hard look at who is pushing the anti-choice agenda, and where they're doing their recruiting. I'm Jordan Rawlings. And this is the big story, Sydney Loni is a freelance journalist, she investigated the anti-abortion movement in Canada for flare dot com. Hi, said, hi, let's start with general question, how supportive are we of rate to choice in Canada? I always thought we were very supportive in this sort of non-issue. There was a poll in two thousand seventeen that found seventy seven percent of Canadians support pro choice, and that's a pretty good number. I thought it was on a low side. And if you compared to other countries like, France, it's actually eighty six in Sweden's eighty seven percent and support. So we're, we're still and we have a little ways to go. What is the typical image of the pro-life abortion activists anti-abortion activists in Canada? Gentleness conception out there that sort of, you know, angry white men yelling at side, abortion clinics. And when I did this piece, and I spoke to many anti-abortion. Vists. That's what they said that they wanted to sort of dispel, that myth at. That's what they are. And but I think that it's sort of persistent. We think that sort of a small fringe group. I know you know, when I was in university. It'd be the handful of people walk by maybe five or six people with signs you kinda give them wide berth, because there is sort of seen as these kind of weird outliers. And I don't think that that's the case anymore. What's changing, I think the biggest thing surprised me the most too, is just sort of the, the size of the movement now and the youth of the movement. It's, it's not it's, it's young educated women women university. Many of them when Wednesday spoke to many of the women, I spoke to are pursuing careers in healthcare, and that also surprised me, but these are sort of young articulate s- university, educated women. How do they come by these views because that does seem really in congress to me? Yeah. And that's a good question. I think one of the women, I spoke to some of it is based on religion. They've been brought up with these views and they say that their family is also PR. Prolife, but many, you know, in highschool, they've sort of set of tapped into this, and it sort of resonated with them. Many women, I spoke to said that they saw as being cool movement whereas really years ago. Yeah. Years ago, you know, the said that being pro pro choice was sort of the default everyone, you know, their grandparents are now pro-choice, and they see this sort of rebellious the new rebellion movement and whereas before it was cool to be pro choice. Now, they say it's cool to be pro life that seems so strange to, to be honest. Handle telegraphing my head around that one as well. But yeah, I think a lot of us who are pro choice or just in general progressive people. They see you, as the future of their movement. Right. Outta your member after the shooting and park land, Florida last year. There was this whole movement from these teens and the, the message around them from adults was youth. They're going to save us. Right. And, and it seems like you know, we see young kids fighting climate change and speaking out against racism, and I feel like abortion, just gets lumped in there, too. And maybe it shouldn't. Yeah, I, I think maybe I think maybe we've become complacent about it. I mean I certainly had no idea how big this movement was earlier in may that the March for life, which I'd never actually even wasn't really on my radar took place. And that sort of where I interviewed on these women who are preparing to go the March, and they're excited about the March when young woman, I interviewed was hosting a gala at in Victoria, the university after the March. So it's like a big it's a big cool party and the March started in nineteen ninety eight and were. Seven hundred participants in this last year, they were fifteen thousand and that's only an Ottawa. So the marches all over your city across the country, and it just shows the size of the growing Amenam of this movement. Tell me about a couple of the young women, you've met, if there are any who stand, particularly to you, and what they're like. Yeah. I think one woman in particular, she's she's eighteen eighteen and she was her first March. And she was just like a kid going on a trip. She was really excited about it. It was her first she's, she just graduated from high school. Her family is she told me was also antiabortion, but she was excited to be other people, our age who share those views, and she wanted to be part of the movement, and wanted to possibly in the future, maybe intern at some of these organizations. And that's the other thing is a lot of these groups have interns, who start very young and use of Ashby, where these people are coming from. They start out, you know, they were being recruited in high school to, to come into the offices and work there. And then they end up also out on the streets holding the signs. And the things that we do. See that was actually my next question is, is this, a conscious effort by anti-abortion organizations to get younger? I would say so definitely and even the place to everyone, who I talked to said that they had I'm been exposed to these ideas in high school and in some schools, one of the women, I didn't end up talking to her article, had followed her, and we had talked a little bit, but she actually goes into high schools and does talks about, you know, the antiabortion movement. And so there's that aspect as well. What are pro choice organizations doing to try to? They must see the tide turning than I, I don't know, if the thought that the right metaphor being possibly one woman, I spoke to was very concerned in and she had no when she found out, she wasn't an activist didn't think of his office when before the March for life. But then this was the first year that there was one in Toronto as well. And that kind of freaked her out a bit. And so she organized a counter protest in got on Facebook and got all these people involved to come out of warn people was happening part of it, and also to sort of. Have a have a voice for the other side for the pro choice side, and another woman in Berta longtime activists said that. Yes, there is momentum and that the people who are active in the movement are doing whatever they can about it. But the society is a whole has become a little bit on the complacence. I we don't really haven't really isn't on our radar, and we look so th and think, oh, that could never happen here. And I think the concern is, you know, if it can happen there, I can happen anywhere and you we have some very vocal pro-life politicians who've been elected, and people are electing them despite having them holding these views. So that is an issue. We did a podcast last week about Sam who Stor off who's, obviously interesting not female, but very young. And very vocally anti-abortion, and when we talk about this stuff, even people who are critics of him say, they would never actually change the law. Stephen Harper didn't change the laws. Andrew Scheer has no plans to change the laws. Right. So there is. It's not necessarily complacency. But there just seems to be a thought that this is a done deal. Right. I think that's maybe dangerous thought I think that the anti-abortion people spoke to said that their goal was to, to support pro life politicians into get into show them that they have a huge movement behind them, but there's also this sort of more insidious things terms of, you know, our, our side in tarot back to the nineties, and we're taking steps back everywhere else in related ways. And just how hard it is for women to access abortion in Canada. I think people don't necessarily realize that I mean, you've only been only got one MP is nineteen thousand seventeen and in other provinces. Well, it's not it's not easy there. It's hard to find clinics to find train doctors long wait times. So it's a lot of barriers that,

Canada United States Missouri America Alabama Intern Ohio Wade Bush Jordan Rawlings Facebook Sydney Loni Congress Andrew Scheer Stephen Harper ROE France Florida Sweden
Opposition MPs turn to ethics committee to probe SNC-Lavalin affair

The Big Story

23:44 min | 1 year ago

Opposition MPs turn to ethics committee to probe SNC-Lavalin affair

"Canadians will have yet another chance to possibly hear the full story behind the scandal. That has completely changed both the image. They have of their prime minister and the landscape of the coming election. So will they know probably not for a whole bunch of reasons. If you wanna know how things are really going in Ottawa these days track down your grade. Seven civics textbook. Flip it open to the section densely packed with the arcane rules of parliamentary procedure, and then realize that there are tens of millions of dollars worth of politicians, and lawyers and advisers and pundits. And editors all trying to decipher the implications of the same damn stuff that they ignored back in middle school. And most of them are screaming at each other while they do welcome to the SNC laflin scandal part. I don't know part thirty six the part where the opposition asks again, and the government refuses again, and we all wonder how the hell Canadians will actually get the answers they want. And as it turns out, there are a few ways that that could happen whether Justin Trudeau lakes or not. I'm Jordan heath Rawlings. And this is the big story for MAC mcsweeney is the parliament hill reporter for city news for Rogers radio for the big story too. I is it going it's going well, except that this is the scandal that won't go away. And something new is about to happen today. It's going on Tuesday in Ottawa. Well, the ethics committee is meeting this afternoon to discuss the SNC lavon affair. I it's the second committee. That's going to be taking a look at all of this. And the conservatives have put forward a motion to basically launch another investigation into this affair after the Justice committee probe was shut down by the liberal majority on the committee after hearing from several key witnesses in this controversy on budget day, the committee decided that they had heard enough that they didn't need to hear anymore. Testimony on the. This and they were going to move on without coming to any sort of final report. They just let sort of you know, these witnesses air their stories and left it at that. And so now, the opposition is pushing for more testimony more witnesses. They're also calling for the prime minister to further wave privilege in all of this. So that they can get the rest of the story if you will. And so that's what we're waiting on to see whether the liberal majority on this committee, and since they're majority government, they have a majority on these committees. Whether they will allow another investigation after shutting down the first one, why would I mean, not to be partisan or anything? But like if they shut it down on the last committee, what is going to change this time, Jordan, if you're betting man, the odds would be against the liberals actually allowing this investigation to go through. And if if they're lines from the last. Committee investigation, and the reasoning as to why they shut that down will be used in this one of then you can expect the liberals to just simply say, look we've heard everything we need to hear within Canadians can make up their own minds about what happened. It's time to move on the former attorney general had had the chance to fully tell her story on whether or not she was pressured into all of this. And and that's that. So I I just imagine that they won't, but we'll have to wait and see you can you can never fully predict something in politics. And this controversy is is is proof of that. Because I don't think last year at this time anybody could even have had the idea that we'd be in this situation right now discussing the liberals polling numbers dropping the conservatives. Well, ahead of the liberals over a controversy that you know, had pitted. He liberal cabinet ministers against the prime minister's office. I I don't. Anybody could have predicted something like this. So where we go from here who really knows. The odds are against the fact that the liberals would would agree to this ethics investigation. What does a committee investigation typically, look like any way, and how typical or atypical was the Justice committee when they often are related to public policy issues and not sort of surrounded by controversies like we're seeing here. So it is unusual in that sense where it's not a common occurrence where we're having these major scandals that committees are investigating, but the committees are an avenue for parliamentarians to investigate things like this, especially when there are serious allegations, such as what we have here that the prime minister's office was putting improper pressure on the attorney general to make specific decision in a case that was before the AG the allegations are serious, and where you fall on after the testimony. I mean, I guess. It all depends on who you believe in the end, but they're serious enough allegations at I think, it was appropriate and even the liberals agreed that it was appropriate that the Justice committee look at this topic. So the Justice committee investigation was ended and the liberal said at that point, the essentially there were no stories left to tell the conservatives wanted ethics investigation because they say, there are still stories left to tell what don't we know because I know Jodie Wilson rebel and Jane Philpott have both spoken about this. But the conservatives want them to talk about other aspects of the affair the ordering council that was given by the prime minister to waive solicitor, client privilege and cabinet confidence to allow Jodie Wilson Ray bold and others involved in the allegations of improper pressure to freely speak about all of this that only applies for the time that Jodie Wilson rave old was attorney general so in relation to the SNC case one. She left and was shuffled out of the Justice. File she basically couldn't talk about what happened when she moved veterans affairs and on that shuffle day. That's where the story ends both Jodie Wilson Ray, bold. And Jane Philpott another minister, she was treasury board. President does she was involved in that shuffle decided to quit cabinet because she had lost confidence in the government's handling of the essence affair, but both Jane Philpott and Jodie Wilson. Ray bowled say that there is more to the story and Philpott spoke recently with mcclain's last week saying there is much more to this that needs to be told and because the order in council that granted the waving of all the privilege only ends when Jodie Wilson. Ray gold's left the attorney general's position. There are still questions about what happened after that. What was said after that in conversations with the prime minister between a Wilson Ray Gould's. And Justin Trudeau or others in his office such as Gerald butts, his former principal adviser because there were questions about that Jodie Wilson rebel did say that she thought that she was being pushed out of the position because of the SNC decision all conversations that happened after she left that position. She can't talk about. And so that's the big question. Mark over this. What else is there to say? And we still don't know the only way we will find out is if we hear from Jodi Wilson rebelled or Jane Philpott if she decides to talk about this. And you know, the question now is will we hear from them? And what will we hear from them if they decide to speak out in any form, how could they do guys? So there are many different ways that they could we could have another ordering council from the prime minister's office that extends the waving of privilege to go beyond. Johnny Wilson Ray Boltz time as attorney general. So if the prime minister. Decides to do that you know that would give her the free and clear because as a lawyer as attorney general to Canada, you're essentially, the government's lawyer and solicitor client privilege means that discussions around things that are not allowed to be made public a campy made public on unless you get you know, the permission of your client, which in this case would be the government and the prime minister. So if he decided to do that that would give Jodie Wilson Ray bowled, the the chance to speak possibly Jane Philpott, as well, what are the chances that that happens given that they shut down the Justice committee investigation, while the prime minister's already indicated that he doesn't think that there needs to be a further waving of privilege. He hasn't said in those exact terms, I don't believe. But when asked about this several times over the last couple of weeks about further, waving privilege. He has come back to the fact that he believes that the former attorney general Jodie Wilson rebelled was able to address all of the. The issues on the question at hand. Which is was there. Improper pressure on the over the essence he case he feels that the initial waving of privilege answered that question or allowed her to tell her full story on that question. She says there's more to the story. But he he believes that enough has come out already. He's satisfied with what he's heard. And he says Canadians have heard enough to make a determination about whether or not. There was any improper pressure in this case. So does she have any other options than if she wanted to get her truth out? This is interesting because recently there have been more and more calls about what is known as parliamentary privilege, and this is the idea that you can say anything you want in the house of Commons as an MP, and you are not going to be held responsible in any legal way for what you say in the house of Commons. I mean, you could get kicked out of the house of Commons, but you can say almost anything. And you know, they're they're free from defamation. Lawsuits are free from any kind of legal consequences for what they say in the house of Commons. So with that being said the question has been raised recently by a number of liberal MP's who seem to be getting frustrated with this whole scandal saying, well, why don't they just stand in the house and say what they have to say if this is so important to the national conversation about SNC laflin and the functioning of our government than just get out with it. Stand up in the house and say something, but there are limitations to that. It's not as simple as that. When you get up to in the house of Commons. The there's a procedure here, and you have to follow that procedure. Otherwise, you won't be recognized by the speaker, and you can't get up and speak. It's not a free for all. So as much as parliamentary privilege trumps all other privileges, meaning that solicitor, client privilege and cabinet confidence. Don't apply when it comes to parliamentary privilege and speaking in the house of Commons. They can only speak at certain times. So they. Could speak either Philpott or Jodie Wilson Ray bowled, but let's focus on Wilson rebelled since she's the person at the center of ultras. She could give a member statement every day before question period. Members have a chance to stand up and give what's called an SO thirty one standing thirty one. Which means they have about a minute to say, whatever the heck they want a minute is not along though. I think she spent around four hours testifying so run minute is really not a lot of time to get to the heart of the matter. Another thing she could do is stand up in the house of Commons and raise a point of personal privilege. This goes back to the argument that if it is so important to the nation and given the allegations that the AG felt improper pressure standing up in the house of Commons on a point of privilege could be a very valid point to make and she would have more time to speak at a point of personal privilege, if she felt her privileges were, you know, breached in some way through this scandal, which seems to be what she has. Been talking about since the start since these allegations came out, so she could do that. But even then the speaker doesn't always let you just go on and on for four hours the other the other option that I just want to squeeze in here, the one that that could give them a little bit more time to speak, but it might take some participation of the opposition members. Which would just make things really weird and awkward considering these two members are still members of the liberal party. But if there is a motion, a when you speak in the house of Commons, it has to be relevant to what is at hand. So, you know, if you raise a point of personal privilege, what follows has to be related to that point. If there's a motion from the opposition. And there have been a couple of motions already so they had the option to potentially speak. If there's a motion before the house of Commons. They could get up and speak to that any MP really has a right to get up and speak to emotion that is before the house as a part of normal debate. And then they take questions from the other parties about. What they had just said in their statement. They're limited on time with that though, they could get, you know, consent to continue on speaking and opposition MP's could also share their time. So if they decided to speak, then maybe a conservative MP would say, you know, what I'm going to hand my time over to Jodie Wilson rebelled to allow her to have. Yeah. Keep going keep going. So that's one thing that could happen. But that takes some agreement behind the scenes, and it would be rather unusual for an MP of the sitting governing party to strike some sort of deal with position MP's to have more time to speak in that scenario on the the final one that could be, but is unlikely as unanimous consent to make a statement in the house of Commons, three unanimous, consent and peace can do almost anything. They want in the house of Commons. If all MP's agree then anything's possible. So if Wilson Rabaul says, I have a statement. Wanna make it in the house of Commons. I'm seeking unanimous consent to give that statement at whatever time if every single party an MP agrees. Nobody objects when that motion is put forward to the speaker. Then they could do that. We'll have to wait and see whether they try to take advantage of that. Because you know, there are other avenues that they could take. In the meantime, to to try and get their story out with so many avenues. And so many people kind of calling from his Wilson Ray bowl to to speak to what she says is still left to be told. It seems strange to me. And please correct me if I'm wrong that the prime minister is willing to let this be dragged out so much as opposed to realizing that it's probably going to be addressed anyway and an opening up a a way for her to talk does that I am I way off base here. Does that not seem strange to anybody else auto from the early stages of this controversy? There have been a lot of criticisms from pundits. And political experts. About the way the Trudeau government has handled. This the conservatives argue that the liberal story keeps changing every day. I I don't think that's fair because I think it's not that it's changed. It's just that. They only allowed little bits to come out. Yeah. In dribs and drabs, and that kind of helps keep this thing going and a lot of people were confused about why they chose that strategy rather than just the rip the band aid off strategy. Get it out there get it out all on the table. You've got months to go before an election. You can deal with the damage early on let some heads roll. And for people who might be responsible. If there's if there was any wrongdoing and then just move on. Because that's the, you know, as some political experts have said, that's the way you deal with a controversy like this in politics. There have been some questions about the handling of this from the Trudeau government, and whether they they handle this properly. The at all. But now we're in a in a situation where it seems like every few days or at least once a week. We've got a new thing coming out last week before the budget. It seemed like the Trudeau government was trying to put this to bed. We saw the clerk of the Privy Council resign on the Monday. The prime minister announced that he was going to appoint a new adviser to advise the government, and and released recommendations on how they can change the relationship between the government and the attorney general, which you know, the big question there is do you split Justice minister role and attorney general role. And then the budget was the day that the Justice committee ended the investigation into the SNCF air. We we've now found out that the the prime minister spoke with Jodie Wilson Ray bowled on the Monday about the next steps, and he called it a cordial conversation. So one assumes that he was giving her the heads up about the actions that were were happening. On the Monday and Tuesday. But then by the Friday, Jodie Wilson Rabo publicly announced that she's going to be giving a written submission to the Justice committee complete with text messages and emails which she had promised to produce. But also some new evidence in her possession. So whenever she decides to submit that written submission. It's going to put this story back in the headlines, and we're gonna be talking about it yet. Again, not only that but the opposition has done its work to try and keep the story in the headlines disrupting the budget by delaying the speech, and then when Finance Minister Bill more, no spoke, they banged their desks and drowned him out than staged a walkout on break weeks when it was feared that the liberals might get a little bit of a break from coverage. That's when all these emergency committee meetings are happening, including the ethics committee meeting that we're talking about. So the opposition has been doing its work to try and keep this in the headlines despite some criticisms that they. Of they went to extreme too fast with the calling of the resignation of the prime minister that they kind didn't have anywhere else to go. The they promised us every tool in the toolbox. And it seems like they're they're continuing to do that. And look we're talking about it. So I guess if that's their goal to keep us talking about it. Then they're achieving that goal despite whether it was the best way or not politically speaking, of course. Oh god. I means we're gonna talk about this till October doesn't chrome. Yeah. I fully expect, you know, there are questions about whether there's going to be an early campaign call from the prime minister, and that we'd be heading to the polls this spring, not the fall, which doesn't fully make sense in in the basic way that the band aid off a. Yeah, it just doesn't make you know, you look at the facts, the liberals are pulling at their lowest point, I think in Justin Trudeau's mandate, so far you've got months to go to repair the damage, including the summer vacation where a lot of Canadians just tune out of the news. And then tune back in the fall where you can kind of reset the narrative again, you know, there there are those options out there for the prime minister. So an early election, call would seem odd, but the conservatives are pouncing on on that speculation and trying to fundraise off of it saying we need money now there could be an early election. So the opposition parties are are enjoying this because they got the fundraise off of it. But you know, the prime minister's office has been clear has been asked many many times over. The last year. Will there be an early election? They've never wavered from the fact that they said that they're going to stick with the fixed election date that prime minister Stephen Harper had put in place of October. Although that's not technically binding, you can break it. And I think Harper did as well. So it's not technically binding, but Justin Trudeau promised in October vote. And I think this is going to be one of those issues that the opposition continues to hammer on the campaign trail so to answer your question. Yeah. I think we will still be talking about this in October, regardless of what the election results will be last question are these stories from MS Wilson, Rabo them as Philpott going to come out some way like it seems inevitable now to me and my wrong about that. What's your thought? Here's the issue. Both Wilson Ray bold. And Jane Philpott have said that they have their concerns in. They're very cautious about the issues of solicitor, client privilege and cabinet confidentiality. Now, we spoke earlier. Earlier about how they could get up in the house, and they could say anything they want in the house of Commons and be protected from any legal consequences when they speak in the house because they enjoy parliamentary privilege, which allows which trumps all other privileges, and confidences, etc. So they could do that. But there hasn't to do something like that Jane Philpott in her interview with mcclain's was asked. Why don't you just do that as she said? Part of the issue is is timing. Of course, an and we went through that pretty clearly that there are limitations on how long they can speak in. If they've got another four hours worth of testimony. It's not going to be easy to use the house of Commons as the avenue to get that story out so Philpott aside from timing Philpott also gave a very interesting answer about the dynamic in liberal caucus and her relationship with colleagues, which I think is another aspect to all of this is really focused on it was fascinating to hear. Because you don't always hear that. She was talking about how a lot of her colleagues. Again, she is still a liberal MP. And the prime minister has given no indication that he plans to boot either Philpott or Wilson Ray bolt from his caucus Philpott has said that her actions and her decision to quit cabinet has created a lot of uneasiness amongst people who used to be closer colleagues in caucus, and she feels that some feel that her motives are not that that she's doing something that sort of works against the party, and that's creating friction with people. She never used to have friction with. And so she opened up a little bit about the personal struggles that she has in doing what she's doing. But says she's trying to you know, do what she's always done in. That is a take a moral stand. She doesn't care about what happens to her as a result of that. But clearly those personal relationships are taking toll for Jody Wilson Ray bowl. You know, you have not only cabinet confidence as as a concern out of all of this. But you also have. Hitter client privilege, and so there's some caution there because they don't want to break this oath that they made to the country so lightly just because people are saying we'll just get out and say it in the house of Commons. There's a very serious oath that you take when you join cabinet where you agree to serve her majesty the Queen and to keep all of the secrets that are held as a privy counsellor it to keep those secret essentially os are not usually easily broken by people who take those oaths they feel passionately about what they do regardless of political stripe. So that's something else. It sort of weighing over both Jodie Wilson Ray bold and Jane Philpott about whether they just get out there and tell their story, despite the fact that there's personal privilege whether or not we got the full story out of this. You know, there are avenues for both the Trudeau government and for Jody Wilson Rabo than Jane Philpott to make the decision to get that full story out. Whether they take those those avenues is another question altogether. And we'll just have to wait and see.

Prime Minister Jodie Wilson Ray Jane Philpott Jodie Wilson Justice Committee Attorney Justin Trudeau MP Trudeau Government Wilson Ray Jody Wilson Ray Bowl Johnny Wilson Ray Boltz Jordan Heath Rawlings Jodie Wilson Rabo Snc Lavon Affair Wilson Ray Gould SNC Ottawa
Resignation scandal mars Trudeau's shiny image

FT News

09:58 min | 1 year ago

Resignation scandal mars Trudeau's shiny image

"Trudeau swept into power in Canada in two thousand fifteen championing equality, openness and social Justice, but the resignation of his attorney general who will let's shoot face pressure to go easy on one of the country's biggest companies in corruption case has dented this image. Nikki Zena discusses the case in what it means for Trudeau in the liberal party with Ravi, Matt and Amy Williams. Amy, tell us first about the company involved. SNC lavaman will the company has a few things, but bowling engineering company that works mainly with mining and energy services. So in this case, it's been accused of bribing Libyan officials around the time when he was in power. This is not as I brush with bribery, allegations the World Bank, actually, blacklisted its main subsidiary from bidding on projects and its own global corruption policy and that happened in two thousand thirteen over a project. It was worth on in Bangladesh. The key thing about the company in the stories that employs around nine thousand people across Canada. Most of those are in Quebec, which is the home for just intruders constituency in Montreal what was the attorney general's involvement, which Wilson rape, bogey Torney general. She was in a position to come up with the prosecution agreement with the company that would basically have seen him set. Lots of court avoiding huge find so base. Would have paid some money but being allowed to keep trading and avoid the court fees and big legal costs that would put them out of business. And who does she say put her under pressure to agree to a deferred prosecution agreement and why did she end up resigning? Well, she said that it was several people in Mr. Trudeau's government specifically in his office, and including Mr. shooter himself and Khushi his top advisor, Gerald books. Her resignation is a bit murky and a little unclear but what we do know is that shortly before she resigned, Mr. Trudeau effectively demoted her in a cabinet reshuffle and this caused quite a bit of upset. She initially refused to take the first portfolio that she was offered. So she was attorney general and Justice minister, Mr. to try to move her to indigenous services, which she climbed she eventually ended up at veterans affairs, and she shortly afterwards resigned. What has Mr. Trudeau said about this mister Suto and also his adviser Mr. buck who gave testimony to the Canadian House of Commons. Have both said that they did not try to force miss was able to make any kind of decision. They just asked her the independent advice and get a second opinion on her decision because they thought it was really important case lots of jobs are at stake. Mr. Trudeau has insisted he spoke to journalists day after Mr Bush gave testimony he insisted. That he was only ever trying to defend jobs as all he's ever tried to do and nine thousand jobs is really quite a lot of jobs to be lost. I know you've been wanting to hear from me directly on the SNC Lebanon issue. I've taken time to review the testimony to reflect on what has happened over the past months and on what our next steps should be. What has become clear through the various testimonies is that over the past months? There was an erosion of trust between my office. And specifically my former principal secretary and the former minister of Justice and attorney general I was not aware of that erosion of trust does prime minister and leader of the federal ministry. I should've been in regards to standing up for jobs and defending the integrity of our rule of law. I continue to say that there was no inappropriate pressure. Bearing in mind that elections are coming up in October. How has this all gone down with Canadian voters rudely, they don't like it? This Troodos popularity has taken a hit. And it's not looking all that good for him the elections approach. However in Quebec the province. Montreal is people are less bothered about this. And actually his popularity's is kinda held up in Quebec, they're a little more sympathetic to the view that jobs were at stake around three thousand of those nine thousand jobs in Quebec. And they are less unhappy with MRs Troodos alleged actions. Ravi you've written that Mr. Trudeau is partly to blame for setting impossibly high standards. Can you explain what you mean? Yeah. I mean, there's a couple of things there. I think first of all what needs to go back and understand why he won and how he won the election in two thousand thirteen to become prime minister, we need to remember that Mr. wasn't actually expected to win. He was in third place turning to other party leaders and play the Blinder in the campaign and suddenly became. Came prime minister with a massive majority. And I think the first mistake they made was to misunderstand their mandate. They thought the massive majority meant they had licensed to invoke a massive program of change in fact, because they went by surprise by good fortune in that voters had got fed up with the incumbent Stephen Harper. They didn't realize there was a bit of a delicate balance to achieve their the second bit was they one of the back of a progressive agenda. Mr. Trudeau had a great brand he sold himself as a modern politician whose advertising a more kind a more gentle immoral open way of governing and dean with politics rather than the very fractious way. Things are done in many other places including at times in Canada. But by holdings of that standard. He also needs to meet that Senator in government now for the first few years that kind of words he did very well on certain policy issues. He accepted twenty five thousand Syrian refugees into the country from the war, which is a very popular mid both within Canada and in June. Nationally, but further into government, he made some missteps party. I would argue because of the hubris I came with that stunning election victory. First of all he started to do things that flew in the face of that cleaner than clean impression. He was giving for example in twenty-six fell foul of ethics rules for taking a private family holiday on the private island of the con, the billionaire religious leaders not only did that contravene the rules in place for politicians. But it just looked really bad. It looked very elitist. When he told the world that he was anything. But similarly in terms of the people who put in place around him, Amy mentioned Gerald butts who's as close as adviser, but Mr. bus was also his best friend. They know each other for thirty years they met at McGill University and invariably when you put your best friend in your office as your closest advisor, even the smartest person in the world will find it impossible to separate the personal and the professional. And that was certainly impression given and that chumminess once again went to undercut pretty severely, the progressive agenda that open of politics that he advertised when he campaigned for office, and indeed nearly years of his tenure so you've already touched on this a bit, but looking towards the next election, and how he starting to campaign now, what would you say are has notable achievements, and what are his failures while a couple of things. I mean, he has achieved things I talked with the Syrian refugee policy. He's also legalized cannabis which was a big campaign promise of his and he certainly tried to create a different impression of how poses can be done. But if you count all the things where he failed in the city meet the targets, he said, they include reforming the electoral system. He hasn't done that finding a way of building a pipeline from the oil signs of northern Alberta to the Pacific coast of BC. He has done that reconciling relations with indigenous populations. He hasn't achieved that so they're a litany of these things where he set. Very vicious goals, and he just didn't achieved. And so I think unfortunately, while he has made some serious achievements. Such as renegotiate NAFTA agreement with Donald Trump. They're also number failures that his opponents will hold against them. And how well placed is Canada's opposition to capitalize on Mr. Trudeau's weaknesses. Well, go into the election. I think that's one of actually his advantages. So eighty mentioned that Mr. Trudeau's poll numbers of taking a hit. And yet the liberal government the liberal party, which he leads still is more or less neck and neck with the obstinate conservatives, and I think one of the things that he has to best advantage is the fact that his opposition rivals are relatively new leaders in their own, right? And they suffer from their own credibility issues. So Andrea sherr of the conservatives and the leftist NDP's Jagmeet Singh are both quite noon to the job. And they too are having some issues around trying to prove to the public that there are credible alternative. So in terms of how well the opposition can capitalize on it. They're doing the best to make sure this as in the news there. Making sure that it's very hard for the government to talk about anything else. Every press conference at happens invariably, the tension terms to this topic around the essence see Lebanon scandal and the resignation so it's very hard to change the Genda. However, the weakness of the opposition does give Mr. to who remains a very charming character and someone who can certainly connect with people gives them a plausible chance going into the election. So Amy what happens with the SNC level in case after this? We could you will rape with decision was not offer the prosecution agreement which means they have to go to trial. So there's already a hearing underway and a criminal trial will probably happen within an ear. Yes. Data what AB said, although wasn't able to make sure this is going to trawl from what it seems the political stray hasn't ended a lot of pressure on the top civil servant in Canada. Who's also been drawn into the affair and his role there further questions the opposition is raising about whether they'll process of how cases like this handled is inappropriate. And whether in fact. An independent third party should Judy Kate over the process. So the politics is obviously very strong and carrying on. And the opposite is gonna do their best to make sure this stays in the headlines. And of course, our media colleagues are watching very closely in Canada too.

Mr. Trudeau Canada Amy Williams Attorney Prime Minister SNC Montreal Quebec Rape Mr Bush Lebanon Advisor World Bank MR. Bribery Bangladesh Nikki Zena Stephen Harper Mrs Troodos
Who is Gerald Butts? And what happens now?

The Big Story

09:05 min | 1 year ago

Who is Gerald Butts? And what happens now?

"His resignation, the typical political scandal narrative swirled around Gerald butts, a political stunt up from Ottawa one of the prime minister's most trusted advisers, a longtime friend Gerald butts has resigned amid allegations the prime minister's office interfered to help Quebec engineering giant SNC loveline avoid a criminal prosecution statement butts flato denied any wrongdoing saying the allegations have become a distraction from the prime minister and the government's work. So he stepping aside except Jerry butts, isn't your typical political staffer resignation not at all as much as this move will dominate headlines all week. And of course, it indicates that the SNC level and scandal is probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The most interesting story from this is about a break-up. You see Justin Trudeau has never won anything without Jerry butts. And now he's got an election in eight months and butts walked away from his partner and his friend at the time. He was needed more than ever. So why? Who is the man that every insider on the hill has used as an unnamed source at one point or another how much Justin Trudeau's policy came from him. What will the prime minister of Canada do now without his right hand, man. I'm Jordan heath Rawlings. And this is the big story Holwell's is a senior writer at Maclean's. He knows more about the personal relationships at play in politics than anybody on parliament health. Paul who is jailed butts. He was until. Minister's principal secretary, which is which is a job title looking to have many meanings over time. He was the prime minister's right hand Ranya was his right hand since long before he was the prime minister he co managed the campaign in twenty fifteen. He went to McGill University Justin Trudeau in the nineties and they've been nearly inseparable ever since. I mean, I I was hearing rumors guesswork from people who the both of them better than I nearly twenty years ago. Just try to prime minister Sherry butts wants to make up and he did it and then he walked away. Yeah. He there is around town that Jerry butts doesn't have hurt in the job as much lately as he had those rumors are from before Christmas from last autumn. And so to some extent as amazing is not a huge surprise. This is not somebody who was in the middle of new adventures and was looking forward to the next grade accomplishment. There was there was a sense. That but says been a little listless and not not as deeply engaged with files as as yet been for. That's kind of interesting because the first thing that everybody went to is the timing and the relationship to the scandal you're saying that that this might have been brewing for some time. Well, it's pretty clear that the scandal has something to do with it. But it's easier to get someone to give up on a job, if they are have already in toying with the idea, you know, and and a lot of quite reasonably a lot of speculation a lot of the reaction to the announcement of his resignation was people say, well, look if he's done nothing wrong. Then why is he quit if you know if there's no fire than wildest smoke. And I think it's possible that possible we'll find out, but that the resignation was kind of an expression of to hell with this. I don't need. I you know, I made my best friend minister he's been prime minister for three years. I was in all the meetings. I was at dinner with Barack Obama off I go, you know, there's still there's still way more unanswered than. Answered questions around the sessions, he level and business. So I'm hesitant to speculate with great certainty, but that's a that's a looking supposition. What was to the best of your knowledge people around the hill. Anyway, what was their working relationship lake? How how close were they I I mean, I know they were really good friends. But but how did it work between them important decisions were made by the prime minister is chief of staff, Katie Telford and its principal secretary Gerald butts all three of them together in meetings that they would have a few times a day. And you know, sometimes the the circle would be extended is probably ten or a dozen people who would be frequent make frequent appearances at those meetings. But if they were all in the same city together and Telford or would never be absent from those big decision. They were at least as necessary to the process was the prime minister. Maybe who is he is a guy if you spent any time with them, you hang out with them. Remember the first time you met him. I don't remember the first time I met him. But I'll tell you an early extended. That a time. I spent with him was on a big maybe both in the Arctic for a week in probably two thousand eight why the hell did that happen? Because even Harper was would have the Canadian forces do annual sovereignty patrols in Arctic waters. Right. And I was interested in that as a journalist. He's coming Stephen Harper throw budget that point was the head of the World Wildlife federation for Canada, and he was interested in it for climate change. And so I asked the harbor PM. Would you put me on his boat? And when I got there Jerry was there, and so he and I spent a week on the deck of a Canadian navy boat in the art looking at icebergs, and what was he lying? What struck you about him? He he's a low T. He's not emotionally demonstrative. He is friendly to everybody he encounters. He is not nearly as sort of confrontational and abrasive in person as us on Twitter where he's very act and where. Since long before the election every night. He would cheerfully Perec journalists on on his perception of the flaws in their reporting and analysis, which is when I had a bit of a falling. But in person he seeks agreement rather than confrontation. He doesn't pull rank particularly he doesn't say, you know, look, I'm I'm Justin Trudeau in. You're not his competitive advantage in history comes to the fact that when when else these he's in the room until recently, he wasn't room with the leader with the prime minister. And so he he gets the last say, but in the moment, he doesn't he's not look looks for fights. There's been a ton of discussion since he resigned about him kind of being the man behind the curtain when it comes to Justin Trudeau. Do you have a sense of how much power he wielded there? And how many how much of of Trudeau's actions kind of came from him, or is that just kind of the typical stereotype people tend to exaggerate the roles of left tenants for people who are. Supporters or members of government. It's a way to criticize the leader with criticized leader, criticized the people around and for Ponant of the government. It is a handy way to make it look like the prime minister staffed himself up with monsters as having many times with conservative and liberal prime ministers people used to claim that Stephen Harper was we're in for a university of how profit and Tom Flanagan and then for the last seven years. Harper was prime minister was was well known that he wasn't even speaking time finding his angry. He didn't need the supposed send galley was controlling. Similarly, look, I expect that Justin Trudeau will be able to function as prime minister for the rest of this calendar year without without journal butts around, but even people in the gone, even people whose future was bound up with Justin Trudeau's continued electoral success would complain about the extent to which biggest then get made until Jerry butts got around to getting the file and and the decision. This government is not a super fast that decision. And since the beginning large part of perceived reason for that is that Jerry butts and or Tito for half to personally find off on every important decision. And so there was just this huge bottleneck. It was not a discentralising when he came to power Justin Trudeau announced that cabinet government cabinet is none other words ministers have power to make their own decisions. Everything I hear says that hasn't been true you've covered a lot of governments. Do you have a sense of how rare it is for it to be structured that way and decisions to made like that? It is everyone complains about excessive power in in five ministries EM Brodie who was chief of staff to Stephen Harper for a while. We're really interesting book that outlines all the reasons why that's kinda needs to be the case. Why important decisions have to go through the? But I mean, there could be six or eight people who make those decisions the definition of what is the decision. So important that it has to go through the pm couldn't does change from government to government and the combination of very elevated executive decision. Making power in the hands of prime ministers to principal tenants, and the very close personal relationship. It's not unprecedented. But it's very it's very novel. I mean chief of staff John tape phone after back city Christian and Peltier went to seize up together, you know, in the stone age, and so there there have been cases where personal relationship translates to a functional relationship in office. But Harper was not buddies with any of his chief of staff, so if a bit of a pendulum, and and and it can it can go both ways. Do we have a sense yet

Prime Minister Jerry Butts Justin Trudeau Gerald Butts Stephen Harper Sherry Butts Principal Chief Of Staff Canada SNC Barack Obama Mcgill University Jordan Heath Rawlings Secretary Partner Twitter Ottawa Arctic
"stephen harper" Discussed on Monocle 24: Midori House

Monocle 24: Midori House

04:53 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on Monocle 24: Midori House

"Stephen Harper tweeted for India to realize its potential it needs the courageous and visionary leadership of prime minister Modi Mody quite a conservative himself, and perhaps more drawn to a conservative Harper in two thousand fifteen the Canadian Prime Minister at the time hosted. The Indian prime minister the first sitting prime minister to visit Canada and more than forty years because of a very sour relationship between the countries. So is he played an important role. Do you think Carlos eat just carrying on the former Canadian Prime Minister Harper's carrying on in sort of making sure the country still have a good relationship or do you see this as sort of a strange one? I think it's easy for us to from from afar. And without insight into what's going on in administrations. It's easy for us to look at situations. Like this and say that things are amiss. And that it's a it's a reflection of how the current government doesn't have a certain situation under control. There must have been some coordination, whether whether it's by the civil service or actually with the with Trudeau's government to make sure that at least some of the right messages are being sent to India. And so I think in this case it's because we also have this just to go back to Trump Roku really quickly. You know? Again to take your southeast Asia. As example in southeast Asia all of the real signals to local leaderships were being sent by Mathis. It was not from the president. It was not from the department of state in that case, I think people on the ground had no idea whether or not there was a connection between what matters was actually saying in when Trump was actually going to deliver in this case where you have a situation where their political differences. But in fact, the you have fairly a far more normal situation in terms of how of Canada's foreign policy is being governed. I wouldn't have been. So I wouldn't be surprised if actually Harper's visit was to relay certain things that may have gotten lost in the Trudeau Trudeau earlier. I think that that is that something that actually X heads of state ex-politicians of very useful sort of flying under the radar knowing the scene, maybe having better contact than the administration in power all those things make them quite useful. But also there is quite often a certain ambiguity there. And we've seen very very recently with Tony Blair, Tony Blair has not only taken it upon himself to become a sort of chief advocate for known Brexit in the UK or for limiting the damage, but there was a time. I mean in the last few weeks where he went to Brussels, and he was apparently received by top people in the European Commission. And it wasn't a clear whether he was doing that as it were. Some sort of special envoy below the writer or whether he was doing off his own, and it was actually extremely irritating. An annoying to to resume on the Brexit is in the British government. And we don't know that to this day. Tony Blair did actually sort of defended his saying, well, you know, he had contact there. And he was just trying to explore what that the might be some others were variants of of a solution to to difficult is the tourism is having with the deal with Brussels. But we don't know whether it was welcome or whether it was very unwelcome, perhaps we will find perhaps we won't in any case. I want to just make sure we have time for this last one this evening and interesting row brewing between France and Italy Italian politicians have been ruffling feathers in Paris in recent days with populous leaders lending their support to the chalet. Joan movement in France. And now there is news in Italy. That's people. There are refusing to lend France are works for a Leonardo Davinci exhibition due to take place at the Loof, the director of the physi- galleries and Florence pointed out that the Loof Netherlands the Mona Lisa. So why would they don't anything from Davinci? What do you think of that Carlo? Well, I think it's it's a really interesting cultural politics going on a couple of weeks ago on this show. We talked about how the report in France that talked about or called for the live to repatriate tens of thousands of objects in their collection. And here we have a similar dynamic, except it's between European states. And I think what's interesting about this story is that we never see this. This these type of global cultural fights take place within Europe. Usually it's always about north south relations..

Tony Blair Stephen Harper prime minister Trudeau Trudeau France Prime Minister India Canada southeast Asia Brussels Carlo Brexit Modi Mody Trump Europe Davinci president Mathis Leonardo Davinci
"stephen harper" Discussed on Monocle 24: Midori House

Monocle 24: Midori House

04:53 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on Monocle 24: Midori House

"Stephen Harper tweeted for India to realize its potential it needs the courageous and visionary leadership of prime minister Modi Mody quite a conservative himself, and perhaps more drawn to a conservative Harper in two thousand fifteen the Canadian Prime Minister at the time hosted. The Indian prime minister the first sitting prime minister to visit Canada and more than forty years because of a very sour relationship between the countries. So is he played an important role. Do you think Carlos eat just carrying on the former Canadian Prime Minister Harper's carrying on in sort of making sure the country still have a good relationship or do you see this as sort of a strange one? I think it's easy for us to from from afar. And without insight into what's going on in administrations. It's easy for us to look at situations. Like this and say that things are amiss. And that it's a it's a reflection of how the current government doesn't have a certain situation under control. There must have been some coordination, whether whether it's by the civil service or actually with the with Trudeau's government to make sure that at least some of the right messages are being sent to India. And so I think in this case it's because we also have this just to go back to Trump Roku really quickly. You know? Again to take your southeast Asia. As example in southeast Asia all of the real signals to local leaderships were being sent by Mathis. It was not from the president. It was not from the department of state in that case, I think people on the ground had no idea whether or not there was a connection between what matters was actually saying in when Trump was actually going to deliver in this case where you have a situation where their political differences. But in fact, the you have fairly a far more normal situation in terms of how of Canada's foreign policy is being governed. I wouldn't have been. So I wouldn't be surprised if actually Harper's visit was to relay certain things that may have gotten lost in the Trudeau Trudeau earlier. I think that that is that something that actually X heads of state ex-politicians of very useful sort of flying under the radar knowing the scene, maybe having better contact than the administration in power all those things make them quite useful. But also there is quite often a certain ambiguity there. And we've seen very very recently with Tony Blair, Tony Blair has not only taken it upon himself to become a sort of chief advocate for known Brexit in the UK or for limiting the damage, but there was a time. I mean in the last few weeks where he went to Brussels, and he was apparently received by top people in the European Commission. And it wasn't a clear whether he was doing that as it were. Some sort of special envoy below the writer or whether he was doing off his own, and it was actually extremely irritating. An annoying to to resume on the Brexit is in the British government. And we don't know that to this day. Tony Blair did actually sort of defended his saying, well, you know, he had contact there. And he was just trying to explore what that the might be some others were variants of of a solution to to difficult is the tourism is having with the deal with Brussels. But we don't know whether it was welcome or whether it was very unwelcome, perhaps we will find perhaps we won't in any case. I want to just make sure we have time for this last one this evening and interesting row brewing between France and Italy Italian politicians have been ruffling feathers in Paris in recent days with populous leaders lending their support to the chalet. Joan movement in France. And now there is news in Italy. That's people. There are refusing to lend France are works for a Leonardo Davinci exhibition due to take place at the Loof, the director of the physi- galleries and Florence pointed out that the Loof Netherlands the Mona Lisa. So why would they don't anything from Davinci? What do you think of that Carlo? Well, I think it's it's a really interesting cultural politics going on a couple of weeks ago on this show. We talked about how the report in France that talked about or called for the live to repatriate tens of thousands of objects in their collection. And here we have a similar dynamic, except it's between European states. And I think what's interesting about this story is that we never see this. This these type of global cultural fights take place within Europe. Usually it's always about north south relations..

Tony Blair Stephen Harper prime minister Trudeau Trudeau France Prime Minister India Canada southeast Asia Brussels Carlo Brexit Modi Mody Trump Europe Davinci president Mathis Leonardo Davinci
"stephen harper" Discussed on Between The Lines

Between The Lines

03:30 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on Between The Lines

"Well, big difference between a carbon tax cuts the carbon emissions the flushing that a common tax does that that is the funding problem now the carbon tax has two major problems. The first is it's not really an environmental policy. It will not cut emissions unless it were at an extraordinary level. It is a revenue policy government's bringing carbon taxes. Principal because they find a way to get revenue. The other thing objectional boated is the carbon taxes are championed by big interests, including big corporations to be blonde because they know a carbon taxes away a passing on the costs of environmental burdens and regulations to ordinary people. And that is why they are so objectionable, and so objectionable when combinations of big government and big business or the ones behind them, and we should stress that Donald Trump veasley doesn't have a context and US emissions coming down pretty fast carbon tax is not going to reduce emissions. You know, I can tell you. There's all kinds of economic studies that demonstrate this. I'm an economist. And if you want to reduce emissions there are better methods. Conservatives need to adapt to these issues as you've discussed, and if I don't you'll point his a lift wing populist will mealy ride populism snakes live on Tom. My point is this that anybody who thinks that you know, because say Brexit fails, which really could happen. Donald Trump fails that people are. Going to say what was that all about? Let's just go back to the way. It was all the establishment. They had it right? All along that isn't going to happen. The populist movement is not going to go away or these populist movements these new options, they're not going to go away until the concerns that have been driving them are affectively addressed those are concerns about markets in the economy about trade vote immigration about globalization. So my fear is that if we don't actually listen to this wakeup call. We are going to end up not with the Donald Trump's and the Nigel garages where going ended up with the Bernie Sanders, Jeremy corbin's whose response to the problems of globalization. And and the things I mentioned will be to pursue explicitly socialist or market Marxist economics, and in my view, pursuing that kind of agenda in today's globally competitive economy will cause our western countries to go on an irretrievable downward spiral. Okay. But what about history's lift of as the? Digitally ditched. If you're a truck driver and in the next five to ten years, you lose your job because of technological China. We have draw trucks, how should conservatives public policy. Mike is deal with that. There's not a short answer that I talk about in the book how our policy should be growth-oriented and better prepare our labor force for the jobs that are coming. What I will say this is an economist and an economist with training and economic history literally since the beginning of the market, Connie, the industrial age every generation people, including some of the best minds of their time have been predicting that the next wave of predicting that the next wave of technological change will eliminate all kinds of jobs, and in a sense. They've been right. What they've always forgotten. It will create many more diverse jobs, many more high paying jobs, they're not simple trade offs. I I'm less worried about the whole concept of driverless cars and trucks whiting out a bunch of jobs in the immediate future. We could fly airplanes now with pilots, and we don't. It's one thing to have a vehicle that has a Thomas control. It's another thing of vehicle that doesn't have someone in it responsible for its operation. I'm quite skeptical..

Donald Trump US Principal Brexit China Bernie Sanders Tom Thomas Jeremy corbin Connie Mike Nigel ten years
"stephen harper" Discussed on Between The Lines

Between The Lines

04:34 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on Between The Lines

"You also concede in your book that the foreign policy tobacco's in the post nine eleven era contributed to this angst and Trump tapped into that especially in the United States. The United States has spent untold billions on those conflicts. I would argue to this day that not only was the Afghanistan intervention good. It was actually unavoidable. We can argue about how kind of the nation building Cise happened later. I think it's more debatable. But the fact that matter this cost American a lot of money and a lot of treasure and a lot of blood at a time when people were hurting at home. And so I don't think there's much doubt that. That frustration was one of the things Donald Trump tapped into and I think what surprise people is how tapped into it in the Republican party. That was actually where he got some of his biggest support now on that note about the Republican candidate in twenty sixteen. This is April twenty sixteen. Donald Trump is addressing the center financial interest on an America first foreign policy, no country has ever prospect that failed to put its own interests first, both our friends, and our enemies put their countries above hours, and we well being fair to them must start doing this same. We will no longer surrender this country or it's people to the false song of globalism the nation. State remains that true foundation for happiness and harmony stone Trump in April twenty sixteen Stephen Abba. There's actually much in that statement. I'd agree with there's a tone that Donald Trump often. Adopts when he says those things of anger, or what appears to be even hostility to other countries, including that, I don't agree with. But I do think it's the responsibility of leaders to put their own countries. I now as leader of a major country, I not only put my country first. But I look for opportunities to work with other countries with whom we share interests and advance those interests co-operatively, but I think that's a reasonable position. I also think that for those of us in places like Canada, Australia. I think we have to come to terms with the contradiction to realities we've long been talking about one is we say that America has overwhelming responsibilities in the world, including by by the way, responsibilities swords, our countries, and yet we're no longer a multipolar world and United States really can't expect to lead. It's one or the other. And I think the truth is that Trump in the people around recognize American power is not what it was. And it doesn't make much sense for the United States to act. This stem cly as it once did that it is going to as a matter. Of course, make it's one inch interest more prominence foreign policy, and then the way to engage in the United States is to show that we can bring assets to the table on shared causes. But isn't nationalism guiding my mental and isn't there a diner? He I mean, let me get your response to Emmanuel Macron, the French president he mocked the hundred anniversary of the end of will will one and he rebuked this Rausing nationalism. Cooling, quote, a trial of patriotism warning against quote, all demons coming back to wreak chaos and death. Yeah. I obviously don't agree with that. Certainly the way he put it. I think this distinction between nationalism and patriotism is is the kind of meaningless in nation state, nationalism and patriotism being the same thing. Should we worry about extreme? Nationalism. Course, absolutely. We know that extreme nationalist extreme anything has wrought problems in the past. I think the bigger problem today is that many elites are guided by what I would call an extreme anti nationalism that is simply out of touch with working people and out of touch with their needs. Working. People are ordinary citizens are proud of our countries, they're Canadian nationalist, their strategy nationalist, and they expect their leaders to believe in their countries. And if Macron is saying something different than that. I think that would explain why his popularity so low at France, it's your Singley Trump has har- approval writings than Tereza my in Brisbane Macron in France Merckel in Germany and Scott Morrison and Australia maybe Trudeau in Canada as well. I think we all know the problems that extreme nationalist generated, but to suggest that a leader of a country is not first and foremost, the nationalist about his own country. I think is a disconnected ideological position that isn't going to hold people in office, very long..

Donald Trump United States Emmanuel Macron America Canada Australia Afghanistan Republican party Brisbane Macron Stephen Abba Scott Morrison Tereza France Trudeau Germany France Merckel one inch
"stephen harper" Discussed on Between The Lines

Between The Lines

05:24 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on Between The Lines

"I mean, I really couldn't tell you this remarkable light he bloodied and unbound battles on yusei. My guess is payroll born he's from the UK daily mile, and we're talking about MRs my and Brexit now the deal has been dismissed by the colorful, Briggs not bars. Johnson. He dismisses it as a vassal state stuff and to be fair to Johnson under this agreement. I understand that Britain would remind within the EU customs union, it would accept some a U regulations. And Bryn would have limited ability to negotiate. Own trade deals, how can this possibly get through the Commons? It may not the moment. It looks quite difficult because something like eighty conservative MP's thing they'll vote against it. She doesn't even have a majority and have a majority could squeak away parliament. She hasn't supported this party Democratic Union from northern all in the ninety thou- vote against it. That said she's something to remind me of Dini. China gauge. Position that my get out of it. So now every time the the critics give her the kiss of death. It's master math resuscitation. Yeah. What actually happened? I'd be right. All alone. Eight China is. She'll survive. Yeah. He's not eventually, maybe I'll get wrong. But. She's remarkably well what happens if Britain leaves the European Union? What's the deadline March twenty nine without a deal? And we're all too often tall. This is the worst of all possible outcomes. Is that your sense? Was that not even be what will big killed by the government? And quite a lot of people in business that chaos will ensue the, you know, the French would immediately put up. Effectively customs blockades, the Buddha business would hold all kinds of other malls. And backed up trucks business in flying that I you have to ask the experts about that. But I just sort of rage punter. You hear over this is not something, Sean. Want to take race? What about the border between northern on which obviously is part of Britain? And all and to what extent when on the Good Friday agreement from twenty years ago. Well, I think this is very important and not just because of northern Adam. So you get a no deal you immediately to a customs points har- boulders. They call it between northern southern allergy would have just checks at the border, which is country. I believe to be easy posing for. She's against the agreed at all the Good Friday agreement that for the sake of seven islands air up has the right to say, look, we we weren't accept this as any EU Member State, the real issue, but through the threatens the integrity of the United Kingdom and no prime minister. I'm not MRs may wants to do that. Well that brings us back to my and her standing in the pot. He room. We'll these Brexit rebels, and I mentioned them from the outset led by rees-mogg Boris Johnson and whatnot. These the so-called, Tori, Bassett's as John Maija famously dubbed him you recall that paid back in the nineties IVA Mostra will they now focus on preventing a cliff edge, Brexit that is a leap into the unknown. Well, that is what Mitch. Wants to focus on a clipper budget, cliff edge Brexit, getting late Karen. Here in Britain. Now the middle of the night. Now, the as far as the circle rebels are concerned, they say that it very relaxed actually thought too much big made about the risk of no deal and the. Scare got out by the British establishment. You know, these people step up lips. And again, we loved them clubs and also democracy, the sort of pulling getting sky, and they relaxed brave kids are a very, very relaxed. Indeed, the rest of the country next relaxed paid always great to have you on the shy. A real pleasure. Thank you. Peter. I calm us with the dial Email you can read he's Cullum every Saturday on the mile online on Iran. The seas between the lines Tom Smith south. Well, we all too often hear that the rise of populism across the western world is a dangerous thing and how various nativist and populist movements. We will know that I've drawn overwhelmingly hostile criticism from across the political spectrum who can forget Hillary Clinton's denouncement of the great unwashed in the two thousand sixteen US presidential campaign, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right..

Britain Dini Boris Johnson Mitch EU customs union Buddha business China cliff edge Brexit UK Bryn Democratic Union Tom Smith Hillary Clinton Briggs European Union Sean Brexit Peter EU
"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

04:06 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"What I call alien ISM the opposite of nationalism our cultures wrong. Our values are wrong. The other guys always right? And so I support Israel take the isra-. The situation. I support Israel US. Tell people might use are not religious in nature, and it's not a biblical interpretation. I support Israel because I see Israel's part of the western democratic society nations. Vital ally in the most dangerous part of the world. And I see a retreat. Are us retreating are abandoning Israel in that position of the world has detrimental long-term to our own basic national self interest. I think it is critical that western countries support Israel. I think it is incredibly myopic and dangerous politicians who for various other political expediency reasons want to abandon Israel. But I think the reason you see so much antipathy to Israel on the left is for precisely the same reason, they see in Israel, the society like ours, and they want to blame it for all the problems of the region, which is nonsense, and you know, there's this deep dislike of our society of the United States of the west and they see Israel's manifestation of that. So that's the part. And I just I say every liberal thinks. Like this. But I see this. You know, we we can point to extreme examples of this extreme examples, but examples that are common. You know, perfect example is I I saw recently on one of your TV shows a liberal talk radio hosts talking about, you know, supporting the right of Muslim women to cover their face because no man should tell the woman how to dress. Well, what do you think that is? That is a man calling the wo- telling a woman how to dress. But you know, you choose in your liberal mindset to see that as the as the valid manifestation of some other culture, just because it's another culture, and somehow it then becomes a good thing that you see is you see as western feminism. Instead of is is as is lamb is kind of extreme form of of the of the anti-women aspect of of Islamism. But you see this all the time. And so this is the part of the modern left, and you see it all through foreign policy. We are always to blame. We are always at fault, and we have nothing but to kind of big. Forgiveness and learn from other societies, and I have a very different view, and I'm not going to say western society or Canadian society is has been or is faultless. But these are the most successful freest prosperous societies in the world. And they've also been the most dynamic resilient and adaptable societies. Also, the ones most likely to admit and correct there and the idea that we should somehow be ashamed of our societies. Or that we should kind of going to go out into the world with perpetual, self-doubt and five juillet Shen. I just think is an aspect of modern liberalism. I can't accept. I mean, I think it's very fundamental to all of the foreign pulse. I I mean, I obviously agree. And what's it was kind of fascinating? Those you actually do see the strain in some elements of American libertarianism and even in populism this sort of salaciousness te withdrawal from the world mentality. What do you make of that? And wh-, why do you think that there's this sort of horseshoe effects that you go far enough in one direction you end up back at this isolation. See less isolationism in. Kind of what's happened with Trump and kind of American populism than some I think it's more accurately described as unilateralism than isolationism is very different. And and I don't think it's not with Cernan's. I don't on the other hand don't think it's always the case the multilateral institutions have been working really well for the United States or even for the west as a whole. So I I do think in new balance needs to be struck. But you know, look, it's still important. United States may told people I very pro American as you know, United States is the most powerful and important country in the world, and certainly to Canada, it is the most important and powerful country in the world. But that doesn't mean the United States can go into the world with no allies, and no friends and expect to prosper in the long term. I do think unilateralism index extreme is as bad as multi-lateralism in the stream. Well, prime minister Harper, I you have one more question for you. I want you to grade President Trump. But if you want to hear prime.

Israel United States President Trump prime minister wh Canada Harper Cernan
"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

03:48 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"I just think that's not a realistic option either. So I it sort of feels you know, like, it's it's difficult to draw lines. It sort of sounds like, of course, Potter Stewart take on pornography when I see it. Yeah. So how much how much is too much government intervention? That's about what being a conservative is. The reality is a conservative is that you recognize that reality is really complicated. I mean, one of the reasons we like them market we like markets. These markets can deal with a lot of complicated complex, micro decisions in ways that government can't. But the reality is that reality is extremely complicated. And we have broad as conservatives. I think we share some broad social and economic values. But the fact of the matter is we'll find different cases where different policies are appropriate. And that's not. Not just base. The -portant thing is that's not based on political expediency, that's based on dealing with the reality of the economic and political and social situation in front of you. I mean to certain extent times says the same thing though, I mean political expediency being, you know, dealing with the situation in front of you in the best possible way. Meaning that well, they can be they don't have to be. You know, look, if I theoretically, I guess in two thousand and nine I two thousand eight two thousand nine I could've said I'm not bailing out the auto industry, it only operates in one part of the country the rest of the country will cheer the problem is that I knew forget about the loss of political votes from some people the gain from others. The problem is I knew that the outcome of that decision would be very bad for the economy as a whole, and would I think probably everybody would eventually have hated me making that decision. So you can call that political expediency, but that's actually reality. This is one of the reasons why we are Democrats, right? One of the reasons we are Democrats is that how people think in. Feel and react actually matters as opposed to just our blueprint view of the world. And this is one of the reasons why I'm very much on board with the founding fathers vision of democracy is as you know, that I got a check it. So that didn't just mob rule because obviously there is a line to be drawn between the passions of the public, and what is legitimate policy and invasion of rights. Yeah. Let's talk for a second about foreign policy because some of the most controversial decisions you made when you were prime minister had to do with foreign policy, and we are seeing when you talk about splits in foreign policy in in terms of left and right. No. Are we seeing this more broadly than than on foreign policy runs right now? Why do you think it is that the left has moved so far in one direction on foreign policy? I don't just mean with regard sort of open borders immigration, but with regard to the Iran deal with regard to with regard to the Middle Eastern policy. It seems like you're in the obviously as a as ju I was very familiar with your record on Israel as prime minister of Canada, very grateful for it as well. Why do you think it is that the left has moved so far in the anti Israel direction? So. That's a good question. And one of the there were many things that caused me to gravitate from being a kind of a liberal guy when I was really young too conservative as an adult, and it wasn't all the experiences of national energy program. You know, my father would have been considered a liberal in his air. You know, he was he was a vocal opponent of anti semitism and anti some of those was strictly common in Canada. You know, he was a vocal supporter of civil wrote. We would call civil rights of, you know, movements of blacks and others to have to have voting and other rights. He would be very vocal as this young, man. But I think by the time I became kind of him by the nineteen eighties. I started attack that modern the modern, liberalism or modern left side of the spectrum. Even in the center was going in a different direction. It was no longer about. You know, actually empowering people who had been downtrodden is third become more fundamentally kind of a hatred of our own society..

prime minister Potter Stewart Canada Israel Iran
"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

02:49 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"I had to do it because the United States had decided that this integrated industry would be bailed out and if. Candidate did not participate in that bailout a half a million jobs would have been moved across the border and less than a year, the United States, I could not risk that that was not a realistic choice for me. So the choice was if the United States which owned eighty three percent of the industry was going to bail out the industry governor candidate would have to Bill it its portion. That's just the reality doesn't that incentive structure exist in virtually every industry. I mean, everybody is subsidizing someone. So where do you decide to draw the line as far as okay these jobs deserved to be saved? These jobs don't deserve to be saved. This industry deserves. Generally, generally speaking, I you know, I didn't do a lot of bills, and I don't like bailouts generally speaking, you want the market to kinda work out who's going to who's going to grow and who's gonna fail. The problem in that case was a said, I face the reality that due to actions of another government beyond my control. I was going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada. If I did not act that way, and you can say, well, then the real problem was in the US US should not have build at the industry US should've let chapter eleven bankruptcy takeover, except that that was a theoretical possibility. When the entire financial system was not functioning. So you could save the financial system were functioning properly. I think you could've made an argument in the United States. Yes, you could make an argument let the marketplace sort this out and probably would have but in late two thousand eight early two thousand nine there was no possibility of that happening. So as I say, a conservative you deal with the world as it is does some of this offend my idea. Of what is ideal economic policy? Absolutely. But you have to play the cards you're given and you just can't wish them away. Well, it seems like, you know, obviously and exigent circumstances. You're gonna have to do what you're going to have to do. But in non exigent circumstances right now, we're not experiencing circumstances right now. We now we have a very solidly growing economy, particularly in the United States, we have wage growth for the first time in a long time. It seems like now it'd be a good time to sort of fundamentally restructure people's understanding of what it is. The government is supposed to do for them and fundamentally restructuring the legal lay. What bailouts are available to say. It's just tough. When people knew that things were really bad, and you bail out the wealthy to tell them. Now the rest of the time. I know the problem is that at some point the rationally works in on direction right in this. So look as I say, you, you know, you expect we obviously can't have a society where nobody's responsible for any aspect of their lives. That's -ociety will fail. It will inevitably fail. No matter. How wealthy we are. And that worries me on the other hand. I don't think it's realistic given the nature of a modern economy. How? Complex. It is what that does the underlying social and family dynamics to expect that government will not be involved in anything won't help you with your education that won't help you with Mobilia will help you with anything else it won't provide you tax incentives anything to help you in your life..

United States Mobilia Canada eighty three percent
"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

03:04 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"Gonna stay in my dying town, no Hieaux, and and be angry that my factory went to Mexico. And there's no doubt that in. There is no doubt that that, you know, in our democratic societies there's often, and this does concern me often rhetoric that kind of seems to absolve everybody of responsibility. Not just the, you know, anyone from a worker is lost his job at all the way to kind of a mass murderer somehow wasn't their fault an end, look, I have problem with that. But it's not as if policies don't make a difference and don't really affect people's lives. And let me give once once again, go back to the example of trade with China. You know, people will say, well, this was inevitable. Well, first of all was not inevitable that our market would be widely open to Chinese competition that was a policy decision. But even more importantly, it was certainly not inevitable that we would open it in a way that did not pry provide our workers with the opportunity of selling products. They would make into China. But that's what happened, and that's a legitimate complaint, and that has resulted in the loss of millions of jobs that kind of. Decision. Now does that absolve the individual from you not being educated or not trying to find opportunities in an of him or herself? But look, we shouldn't you know, we shouldn't. I it same time. When you're an elected person, you can't be little people. I mean, people have real challenges real problems and not everybody has the ability to make their own life from scratch. You know, we do depend on family and community and sometimes from government assistance. That's not all terrible or all something we should not expect to some degree. So let's talk a little bit about the problems on the left who spent a lot of time talking about sort of the internet and philosophical battles on the would actually argue on the on the left what I actually was saying my book, and if you look around the world, the rise of this populism is actually proving to be much more problematic on the left that on the right because what you had in the post globalization world is, you know, once we kind of develop the basic underpinnings of a market economy, and we kind of accepted that in principle after the fall of the Soviet Union. You had. These new wave liberals come along. Tony Blair is in the Bill Clinton's many of whom I know and like, and they kind of propounded a more kind of elite corporatists market-friendly economics and program will what's happening now with the rise of populist economics. Those coalitions are being pulled asunder in sometimes in ways that are destroying the socialist party in France, social, Democrats, Germany, you've got people, you know, people are sticking to that kind of kind of elite liberal market oriented Halsey people are going back to socialism, and then those who are attracted by by kind of right wing conservative social values combined with protectionism. So you've got those parties shattering in three directions. So this is actually a much bigger problem on the laugh than it's actually on the right? And seems like it's leading to a tremendous radicalization of the left and the left is getting more left faster than the right is getting what's what's happening? It depends on the country. So I think you see certainly extreme example, b the labor party under Jeremy Corbyn, which is turning into a marks. Party, which is now purging anyone who's, you know, not far left..

China Jeremy Corbyn Soviet Union Mexico Tony Blair Bill Clinton Halsey France Germany
"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

03:31 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"But I think I think you're on your, you know, it's just fundamental of concept of a democratic society is that the people's views are fundamentally legitimate. And that is the job of rulers to address them. See this is why I'm so glad Macon's Hendrix. I frequently tell people that are concerns are completely illegitimate. So I have an easy job. I get to say this. This is where this sort of would say you asked me about my political history. There's was this got beaten out of me because you know, I became as they said my early twenties, I became a conservative got disappointed by seeing a centrist conservative government kind of pursue ineffective. Water down policies, and then I helped found a new party will the new party was fundamentally populous because we had no support from the corporate sector or very little. We were fundamentally built on ordinary working middle class people. And the only way you could raise money was by getting them to give small amounts of money and getting them to donate their time. So you very quickly realized that as in any other form of activity, you're essentially in a marketplace in a business, and if you don't dress the concerns of your market, it's you who is not legitimate. Not that I mean that that may be true, you know, in terms of marketing, but in terms of morality, I mean, when whenever as my kids, there's some times where my kids have a completely illegitimate grievance. In fact, it happens on a fairly regular basis their grievances that, you know, they want candy, and they can't have it or they don't want a brush their teeth as my daughter did not last night, and she needs to brush your teeth or she's going to get cavities. There's certain when is it possible? Like you like you. I'm a man of faith. So, you know, as a matter of faith, you believe there are certain got his constantly either things that are morally, right and certain things that are more. The wrong. But I guess what argue as a more pragmatic politician is that most things that are morally wrong are actually pragmatically bad for you over time. And that's why we as conservatives. Don't advocate them. We advocate instead solutions that may not always be what people want to hear. But they've got to be things that at least address their concerns when somebody says, let me give practical example from the last campaign, and why Donald Trump won when somebody says, you know, we've had the industrialization of my entire region. My kids have no economic opportunities, no jobs at cetera. And your response to them is. Well, I'll cut the high marginal rate on taxes. It doesn't really address anything. They're worried about. So you've got to come up with policies that address their concerns. And that's that's where I talk about the pragmatism. Right. And the and this is where I get worried and Kanye, and can you know, what I promise? Well, move your factory back. No. Because I know I can't do that. But could I make sure you don't face competition that would cause your factory to leave when it doesn't have to? You know, the the problem with some of the traditional center, right? Some of our traditional conservative friends arguments is they'll come in. They say, well, this loss of this was obvious or inevitable because of automation. Yeah. Except that. I know my factories actually in Mexico right now. So we'd actually didn't get automated. That's a practical problem. How many problems do you believe are brought about by individuals decision making so in a free country? It seems to me that for example. There's Brookings institute study basically says that if you do not want to be in permanent poverty in the United States. You need to do three things you need to finish high school, you need to get married before he had babies, and you need to get a job any job anywhere, basically and hold it down, and you won't be in permanent poverty in the United States. And a lot of the folks who are having problems have made one of these three mistakes at the very least. And we are now seeing folks who seem to be using the excuse that it not even consciously they're using the excuse that this is a very rich country, and so are owed something, and so I'm not gonna I'm not gonna go to North Dakota where there's fracking job..

Kanye United States Brookings institute Donald Trump North Dakota Macon Hendrix Mexico
"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

03:54 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"But that's a theory, and that theory isn't panning out real well at the moment. Let's talk a little bit. I know we're jumping around a fair bit in terms of what you do. But yeah, exactly. Let's let's talk a little bit about the the situation in Europe. Because what we've been told? I mean since we're talking about populism. Yeah. We we'd be remiss not to talk about the rise of populist movements in Europe. Yeah. I'm reason I wrote the book it's not just the United States virtually every western country except Canada has seen the rise of a populous movement. Do you think that all those populisms are similar meaning that Donald Trump's populism? Do you see that similar to the rise of populist movements in places like Germany or France or Austria or the Nordic countries or is it of a different kind? So none of these populisms are identical. Some I would call, you know, I think the Trump phenomenon certainly the Brexit movement UK these would be fundamentally kind of set a right populist movements. Obviously in Italy, five star movement clearly on the left, there are left wing populist movements and are populist movements on in Europe that would be anti market, the kind of visceral ethnic. Nationalism. You're talking about that would be of a totally different nature more extreme right type. So so these movements can be different. But I would say that a lot of them have commonalities and the commonalities they've tended to have in this era is raising questions about the functioning of market economies questioning trade and trade agreements questioning a globalization, certainly and European Union in Europe as a form of that and questioning immigration now the way they questioned the types of solutions. They advocate, I think distinguishes them, but those are the common threats, and so what do you make of the the argument that's made by a lot of folks, particularly on the left. There's something specifically threatening about the rise of these populist movements that it's not just reaction toward conservatism. You know, a movement away from the left and toward conservatism in reaction to open borders, leftism or globalization based leftism, but that this led to this dangerous rise in Xena phobia. It's led to the rise of far-right. I think it's a really an over generalization. First of all, I I guess I. Argue that fundamentally most of these populist movements today, they're they're largely on the right? And where I think they should attract your attention, as in many cases, they're garnering what would have been considered mainstream centre-right or even left voters. And that's what should concern us. I tend to think as I am I think there'd be surprising conclusions. The guy ran a governor. That was pro-market pro-trade pro go away station pro immigration. I said if you actually look at the complaints of these populist movements, and you look at facts, the facts, actually tend to bear out that they have legitimate grievances. I think it is in the solutions that we can sometimes get concerned. And the reason I wrote the book is I consider these things today. More wakeup calls than dangers. You may not like Trump, you may not like Brexit. But these are people Donald Trump Nigel Farraj, these are people fundamentally trying to fix what they see ailing democratic capitalist societies that is very different than the Bernie Sanders. Jeremy corp. Bins that wanted to destroy democratic capitalist societies. And that's that's where I draw the line. So where I tend to look at these so-called populist movements or nationalist movements in Europe. Are they are they movements that are responding to kind of genuine concerns about how the European Union functions or how ordinary people are doing versus countries that are kind of demanding a form of ethnic right wing socialism, which I think is entirely different beast. And then that is I think the big question right now. So I remember during the twenty sixteen election. There are a lot of arguments about this because president from talked about populism. He wasn't super clear about what he meant by that is this created a serious rift between sort of the conservative side of the Republican party in the populous. I wanna talk about that. And whether that is America's specific or whether you think that that is breaking out in other places too. I we have to talk about that face of yours. I mean, come on the saggy jaw line, ladies and gentlemen..

Europe Donald Trump European Union Jeremy corp Republican party United States Italy president Canada Germany UK Bernie Sanders America Austria France Nigel Farraj
"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

02:39 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"I think if you look on balance his record today would indicate that he is a guy using protectionist measures to open markets rather than to pursue protectionism. But I think there's the jury's still out on some aspects. I think that's right. I think that whether he intends to or not that's what he is doing meeting that I think that you know, in his head from everything that he says he sounds like a guy who doesn't actually get basic Ricardian economics. But but his trae people do and so they're able to he he is also a businessman, so he gets the the practical issues of whether it matters that you can actually sell products as opposed the theoretical arguments about trade. So it seems to me that so possibility one ease those those measures in order to lower the trade barriers in places like China and possibility number two is that he actually as many of his advisors sees China as a as geopolitical threat, and he feels like hell. Ping them grow. Their economy is actually a geopolitical problem that the goal shouldn't be necessarily at the Chinese markets American goods in creating a better reciprocal trade relationship. Maybe the goal should actually be to curb Chinese power in the region. And so when he says national security is rationale for trade policy. He actually means it actually means that we'll look here. Here's I discussed this issue in my book. I think the history with United States, it really stems from post World War Two in the mar in the Marshall plan American policy, essentially has become we promote, you know, since Marshall plan, we promote open trade and open markets because first of all even if we give on equal access where the United States and the relationship where the bigger guy had benefits us anyway. And Secondly, the effect of open trade and open markets is to produce open and democratic societies than ended up being American, friends or allies. Now, I think that theory is really being tested with China. Because here you have a country that could conceptually be in fact. Probably will be a bigger economy than the United States. But Furthermore, the entire practice of its economic policy is explicitly for the purpose of not opening up the governing structures of the country. It is in fact to preserve the constitutional. The the the authoritative monopoly of the communist party and its method of governance, and I would argue to be a strategic rival the United States, certainly if you believe Xi Jinping, that's exactly what the intent. So I think these things get mixed up. Now, would I say that it's I would still be in the key Henry Kissinger school that if you can engage in a genuine relationship that opens up China in time that is bound to make China, even a much bigger China a society more like western democracies and more friendly unless confrontational with western democracies?.

China United States Xi Jinping communist party Henry Kissinger school
"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

03:05 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"And then using that capital in order to expand your your military dominance in the region. So look, I would say there's aspects of Chinese economic policy are not sustainable over the long term and the building empty cities. Well, not entirely I've been to all those pretty fall. The fact of the matter is these, you know, they've created tens of millions of jobs and some of those tens of millions of jobs have been created through not through direct subsidy some of its direct subsidy some its international some of its intellectual property theft. But some of his just by having access to a market and restricting access to their own market keeping cash in the in China and bringing more cash into China. So the idea that we should never worry about a surplus. No matter what the circumstances. I just think defies economic logic. It's tariffs are that good? Why don't we using them? Meaning that if China every country uses tariffs all the time. I mean to the extent that the Chinese are. So meaning that that China is obviously terrifying. American products, you say to up, but it's more than I think the real problem in China's. Greater than the tariff. The real problem in China's that the Chinese government basically sanctions entry into your market with or without a chair tariff. Unless the government says you can sell in the market, and you continue to sell you cannot sell period, which which by the way, I think is where the Trump administration is likely to head over time if they can't get the Chinese market more open. I think they're basically establish a manage trade relationship with China where they say, okay, we can't enter into your market some of your products. You're just not going to enter into our market, and you're starting to see that in some of the technology space. So do you think that the end goal should be to get the Chinese to get rid of these tariffs on our product the end the end goal should be for China have its market moral, but not just tariffs down. But have a more open marketplace. There's no reason for instance, that American and Canadian consumer product agency should be able to sell freely on Alibaba, which they can't today. A no reason that should be prevented and by the way, and we're we're Margaret both is being ecconomic logic. It's not that the Chinese don't want these products. Right. They'll pay a premium for these products. They want our products. So we should have an opportunity there. So yeah. The obviously, I would never support me. I would never support the idea of the administration pursuing any kind of trade war in with protectionism as the goal but the goal to be reciprocal market. Opening is completely reasonable. I think the challenge Ben is that the whole nature of the Chinese economic structure and the nature of the government's role in the economy raises questions as to whether they can really truly open their markets in the way, we're expecting were there always reserved the right to just shut them. They're drop of a hat, and this does raise the question of security risks. So it seems to me that if you're going to direct trade policy for the United States or for any other western country with regard to China that as you say there should be a couple of goals, and this is sort of been Larry cudlow point inside the trade relationship that he's basically running trade for for Trump. Trump keeps saying he likes protectionism. And then Kudlow says no what he really means is what he really means that he wants to use our trade policy in order to lower tariffs and trade barriers in other places. Which seems correct. And then that seems I think in fairness I mean, I've been like you I've been critical of many things about Donald Trump especially during his run for the presidency..

China Margaret Donald Trump Chinese government Alibaba theft Kudlow United States Larry cudlow Ben
"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

03:30 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"The fact is that we've gotten a lot of cheap products out of China, and people tend to see that as a bad thing. But the fact is that consumer prices have been going down in the United States consistently. But that's, but that's a terrible argument. You know, it's terrible argument. First of all the question of whether the tariff policies affective is different question. But the the argument made by the apologised for the current Chinese trade relationship is look. Yeah. So we've lost all these jobs. So we've lost you know, all these. Stories and everything that move to China, but we get cheap products. But you know, what I get the self stuff to you. And you get the buy it. That's not a trade relationship. That's a purchase. And that's that's not the justification for trade. You know, even people these libertarians will jump up, and quote, David Ricardo and classical communist, David Ricardo didn't say it would be a good idea for Britain to open its markets. If it couldn't sell its goods anywhere else. He made the argument for reciprocal trade. And that is the core of the argument for reciprocal trade. And the idea that a trade relationship, no matter how badly structured his son how good for you losing jobs losing well-paying jobs by the millions to get cheap products. Which by the way, in most cases, you could get from places other than China is not an argument for the kind of trade imbalance. We have seen and the kind of economic oh flows. We've seen. That's by the way, you know. Obviously there's a separate question about China being geopolitical and strategic rival. But even leaving that aside that's not a good economic relations. Ship and the president my view the president. Normally is right. The president deserves a first a lot of credit is the first president willing to take on this. The current trade relationship with China is beneficial to a few well-connected American corporations who get the operate in China, but it's not beneficial to the musical hall and something has to be done about that. Or we are going to see a situation where the Chinese is the largest China's economy is the largest in the world with a grossly unequal trade access the United States, and that's not in anybody's interest. I mean, the fact is again, if they have grown equal trade access to the United States, we still are, you know, getting cheap products much cheaper than they were thirty years ago. The three with the three to four hundred one now close to four hundred billion dollar outflow. Right. We'll get the capital account surpluses. I mean that money has to go somewhere and presumably it's going into buying all of the debt that we're selling them. So I just think it's a nonsensical argument. It's contrary to common that contrary to communist deficits, always bad. No trade deficits are not always bad and trade deficits under many circumstances. Would be expected. We know is you know, I know was an economist it's likely the poor country will have a trade surplus with the richer countries, simply the richer country could buy more goods. It's also, you know, I would argue the case of Canada Canada in the last few years has tended of small trade surplus with the United States why because of the energy trade vital commodity that the United States is a special has had a special need for. But is I trade is trade deficit in and of itself. Nothing to worry about look anybody who thinks that trade surpluses don't matter as far forgotten to tell the Chinese because they are building their economy into a powerhouse through a delivered strategy of running trade surpluses with western this. This is the real question. Do you think they're building their communist power house or where they building themselves into a military geopolitical powerhouse with that extra cash both meeting? It's it seems to me that there are there. Ecconomic cleanser unsustainable subsidizing certain industries and cutting out other industries as results is not a sustainable path for any country that wishes to be growing into the future. And and actually developing into the future, but it is a good path for centralizing capital right now..

China United States David Ricardo president Canada Canada Britain four hundred billion dollar thirty years
"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

02:48 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"Ben, Shapiro dot robinhood dot com. All right. So let's go to trade because we actually may have some some differences of opinion on traits of President Trump has been quite antitrade in his rhetoric and policy less. So because he's been moderated by a lot of members of his own administration. The populist conservatism. The question is whether that's gonna be a pro-trade conservatism. You talk about how your pro free trade there's certain areas. However, where you're a lot more restrictions entree, particularly regard to China. So where where do you fall down on sort of the trade divide for just by background the government, I lead negotiated virtually all of Canada's contemporary trade agreements except for NAFTA except for then obviously the new US MCA. So I think in fact, I probably have a record of signing more trade deals and just about any leader in the free world alive today. So I I don't have much trouble saying that I'm pro-trade, but look President Trump came along. I remember when we had this debate in the election, you came along, and he started talking about good deals and bad deals and people went, oh, you know, some some quote, economists start saying, oh, wow. He's a protectionist bad deals. He could be a protectionist. But can you have a bad trade deal? Absolutely. You can have a bad trade deal. I mean when when companies let's forget about government's when companies do a commercial deal with another. Company. Why do they have dozens of analysts and lawyers and accountants working over these deals because any deal would be a good deal. I mean seriously you have to really know what you're talking about. When you negotiate something as complex as a trade deal, the United States when the United States allowed China to enter the WTO, we set up a situation candidates as in the same boat where the Chinese have wide ranging unfettered access to almost all of our economy, and we can only sell to the Chinese when where and in what quantity and for how long they say we can and obviously in that kind of situation. What have we seen? We have seen massive imbalances imbalances, by the way. Yeah. You know communists, will say a poor country like China's bound of trade surplus with the United States, but it's not bound to get bigger as China gets more wealthy, which is what is happening of this is because you have a bad deal that provides grossly unequal access and the consequence has been the outflow of millions of jobs from. The United States from candidate to China with no discernible benefits to our working population. So as a populist conservative, or frankly, I would say as a conservative, you don't sign deals like that you signed deals where you know, that overall you're going to benefit and that lots of people in your economy are going to benefit the countervailing case has been made by particularly libertarians on trade has been why would you tax your own citizens by essentially terrifying, Chinese products in order to punish the Chinese? I mean is the goal to have them lowered their own tariffs or is the goal to cut them out of the market because they're quote, unquote, sucking our jobs out..

China Trump United States President Ben Canada WTO
"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

02:22 min | 2 years ago

"stephen harper" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"No matter what that having, you know, caravans of people invading the country would be good thing or that you can live. Frankly, what I would consider the libertarian delusion that people will come in to the country, but somehow they will no access to social services just never going to happen. So, you know, it's gotta be a it's gotta be a policy rooted in what we have seen to be successful over the decades. One of the arguments that's happened sort of inside the Republican party. Here has been an argument between sort of the Tom cotton wing of the Republican party on immigration, and maybe the Ted Cruz wing Ted Cruz very much in favor of for example, what we call H one visas people coming in for high tech jobs for and he says, okay? Well, you know, you and bring talented bring talents in those folks can work area. It makes our economy more competitive, Tom cotton says those are jobs that are being taken away from people who live in the United States, we should restrict immigration along those lines where do you stand on that? In terms of economics. Well, I think that's an empirical question, I think the truth is that, you know, certainly, if you look at the Canadian labor market, I would suspect the same thing is true in the American labor market that you have lots of jobs and occupation where the economy has needs right away. And there simply aren't the kind of numbers to fulfill them and bringing into the country people are educated are going to fit in with a job right away. And be productive citizens. That's a positive thing, obviously. And this is this is a big problem. I have with American immigration policy. Today. Fact is that American immigration policy through family connections through legal immigration is often bringing in low skill labor, tons of low skilled labor at the very time in history where we know there's there's never been a time in history. We're low skilled labor is under more pressure downward pressure on it's on it's on its wages, and it's living standards and its opportunities because of the economy, why would you why would you bring in that kind of labor as opposed to kind of labor the economy needs? So. As I say, I think it's an empirical question. I I I would really doubt that there's an argument to say the US has no need for immigrants and that there's no immigrants who could possibly help build the American economy. I think that's a a nonsensical position what's happened in the United States. And this is what happens where you have unpopular or illegal immigration public opinion turns against all immigration. And that's what I say a good conservative approach would seek to avoid well in a second. I want to ask you about the trade policy that you would like pursued under sort of a populist conservative rubric..

Republican party Ted Cruz United States Tom cotton
USMCA trade deal: Who gets what from 'new Nafta'?

Think Realty Radio

00:41 sec | 2 years ago

USMCA trade deal: Who gets what from 'new Nafta'?

"Last month, the United States and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free trade agreement. President Trump was never a fan of NAFTA. So much is called disaster. The new NAFTA will be replaced by the US MCA the United States Mexico Canada agreement. Stephen Harper is a former prime minister of Canada, he talks about how this deal will benefit the United States think from the standpoint of the United States the gains on the auto sector, there's both content requirements and wage provisions a number of other things that really should help over time tilt new production back to the United States. I really always felt that this was the only real grievance that I thought was legitimate about Mexico, Canada and the United States. We bailed out the auto sector during the global financial crisis. And the next thing we see the movie production tobacco. So I think that was a legitimate thing for the president to be concerned about and I think this helps tilt that back next to former prime minister talks about the trade differences between us and China. I think the problem with Chinese straight is actually more fundamental. We've ended up setting up system post WTO. I can criticize this because it happened before. I was there. We're really, you know, the Chinese can have wide ranging access to our markets. They can sell an awful lot here kind of when they want where they want and what quantity it is the opposite. In the case of us. When we go to China, we only saw what the Chinese say we can sell when we when they say, we can sell it. And in what quantity

United States United States Mexico Canada China Canada Prime Minister Nafta President Trump Stephen Harper WTO Mexico
The USMCA keeps Canada in America's thrall

As It Happens from CBC Radio

04:40 min | 2 years ago

The USMCA keeps Canada in America's thrall

"Do not call it NAFTA two point. Oh, or the marika's trade deal has a new name. The name US MCA does not have the same flow NAFTA. We've been making quite a meal of that tonight, but Canada's liberal government says that the deal itself, the new US Mexico Canada agreement is an improvement to the old document. The conservative party of Canada is not so sure. Today leader, Andrew Scheer, said, Canada, quote, failed to achieve progress on key issues while giving ground to the u. s. Peter MacKay used to be Mr.. Cheers colleague, his former cabinet minister in prime minister, Stephen Harper's government. We reach Mr. MacKay in Toronto. This McKay Canada's liberal government is calling this trade deal, a victory for all Canadians. Is that a fair assessment in your I? I don't think so. It falls short of what we had, but it's. Certainly brings back census some stability and certainty in perhaps we can now move to other important economic matters around direct foreign investment and Canadian capital and taxes. But as far as this being a win, it's clearly a win for Donald Trump and the Americans just the just before we get to some some criticisms of what's in this and I wanna go through those with you. Is there something you can point to what is the largest chievements that day that the Canada has come out of these negotiations with well, and I don't wanna be completely negative. I was like everybody else. It's Team, Canada, we, we needed a win here. So to answer your question, chapter nineteen, the prime minister has pointed out was preserved. It remains intact. Chapter, eleven, the investor state dispute resolution mechanism. I understand will be phased out, but we're not in a place we were as when the process began. Let's be clear Lisa. What happened with President Trump when he decided this to well, just turn over all the tables and chairs in the room and say, were all this is up for grabs is nothing. We can't you. Nothing is predictable here. We want to toss out this NAFTA deal. This is over scrapped and you come back to me was something I may or may not consider it was it was hard ball, right? So what we can point to is that we survived it is that is that the best we can say that we actually came out with not as many cuts and bruises. We might have survival. Carol is a good way to describe it. The bombast and the personal acrimony animosity was there for all the see the threat of tariffs on autos was a very looming, very serious one. And there was reason to believe it. We still have the tariffs on steel and aluminum place, which is another related issue as we come to a close of the NAFTA discussion, but look even calling it the US. Mexico Canada agreement is devoid of the word free and trade which is notable. But the politics of this are such that the president can go back to Wisconsin dairy farmers and others and say, we won. We we Rabl to get concessions from both Canada and Mexico, and we're in a better place today as a result of my President Trump stewardship of this process. Arguably the Mexican gave up more than we did, but nobody is talking about what the Americans gave up, which was quite frankly, nothing other than giving up on other demands such as a sunset clause. There are some things we complain too. There is now a seventy five percent of North American auto content must come from the NAFTA region and that's up from about sixty two percent forty, five percent of the content must be made by workers earning at least US sixteen dollars per hour. I mean, these were these are beneficial. Canada, these concessions, right? Yes, they are. And that is part of the the whole modernisation one would say and bringing about greater sense of equity. It helps Mexico to Mexican workers. So to to the extent that the auto sector remains whole and perhaps enhanced, that's a good thing, but calling it a win or suggesting that was a good day for Canada. Does preclude what the dairy sector might have to say about this? What retailers might think about the personal exemption or the minimus piece intellectual property, some of the other more granular, but for those sectors, important considerations that are found in the detail of this agreement.

Mckay Canada President Trump Mexico United States Canada Prime Minister Peter Mackay Nafta Marika Andrew Scheer Stephen Harper Toronto Lisa Wisconsin Dairy Farmers U. S Rabl Carol