If Claudia Sheinbaum suggested that Texas and California should be returned to Mexico, they’d send in Seal Team Six. The member of Seal Team Six who pulled the trigger would have his face added to Mount Rushmore.
Mr. Hoekstra, Donald Trump's valuation of U.S./Canada negotiations is such that he cancelled them because of a television ad. I don't really understand the emotional reaction.
Firstly, thank you for the interview. Appreciated reading this interview.
Secondly, it is a fact the US administration is operating in a lawless manner. Their made up “emergencies” are transparent attempts to circumvent us law that would have already been struck down if congress or the Supreme Court were fulfilling their obligations to act as independent checks. So while it’s interesting to hear from the US ambassador, it is likewise depressing to read his ill informed or outright dishonest remarks.
The question you politely refrained from asking was how can Canadian business trust any trade agreement with US going forward and make long term investment decisions when the agreement may be torn up on the whim of the president?
Sounded much more ambassadorial than many other sessions I have reviewed. Thanks for these Paul.
I do have to shake my head at the comment that "I don't really understand the emotional reaction"!?
I understand that truth, humour and sarcasm within POTUS's communications are difficult to separate but I don't think the Ambassador would take kindly to a threat to take over his country no matter how it was couched?
The Prime Minister's chief of staff and half the ambassadors in Ottawa were at his Christmas reception at his residence. He's platformed whether I ask him questions or not.
Paul, you treated the boorish, ill-informed Ambassador with kid gloves. He’s an embarrassment to U.S. citizens like me who value our neighbour. Perhaps you intentionally employed a rope-a-dope strategy to let him beat himself with his own words in revealing his emotional IQ of 0 in terms of understanding Canadians, but you sounded tentative and afraid to cause offence, characteristics I’ve heretofore never associated with you.
Given the sensitivity of the current situation, I appreciate Paul's diplomatic approach. (I thought Hoekstra also exercised some restraint in declining to comment on internal Canadian politics.)
The Ambassador can say whatever he wants, it's Trump and his goons who decide what will be. The reality is USA is trying to crush us and turn us into a little Puerto Rico. Trump sees Canada has an asset to get no matter what. He is still trying to turn Canada into his 51st State. As for Free Trade well I am not holding my breath, it's gone as a negotiation. The USA will tell us what they want and that's it.
I get the impression that Mr Hoekstra is at base a believer in American exceptionalism, and as such, is incapable of understanding the emotional reactions of anyone who doesn’t see that their way is the right way. He doesnt appear to have any concern for the effects of their policies on “the other guy”. That’s not helpful when you are deaf to the other side of the negotiating table.
Paul: I Am interested, and frankly disappointed, that you didn’t ask him about the National Security Strategy’s view of Canada - how does one ask about the revival of the Monroe Doctrine? Would have loved to hear his take, or his denial.
I read this as a reasoned and well thought conversation. I do not agree with Mr Hoekstra on many things, but was pleased to read a response instead of a reaction.
I don't know what makes Mr Ambassador tick, but for the most part he stayed in his lane. Good interview, Paul, thanks. Nice that you have this kind of access.
Thanks Paul. While we might not like what the ambassador has to say, it is important to hear. Reading between the lines for the new year, it sounds like the odds are that CUSMA/NAFTA is dead as we presently know it.
Thank you, Paul, especially for your cautious yet probing questions.
Why the change from 'quite' to 'really' in the title of the second version, though? To my ear, he clearly said 'quite' (as in the transcript). Either way, Hoekstra saying he doesn't get us is about the dumbest thing he said in the whole interview (though there are runners-up).
Also, in the transcript with reference to the 22:40 mark, it says 'terrorists" when you actually said 'tariffs." You might want to correct that! (Your questions about potash, by the way, were brilliant.)
I would suggest that if any country threatened to annex the United States of America an emotional reaction would be an understatement.
In short, kindly take a long walk off a short pier Mr. Hoekstra
If Americans were capable of understanding non-American perspectives post-WWII history would be very different.
If Claudia Sheinbaum suggested that Texas and California should be returned to Mexico, they’d send in Seal Team Six. The member of Seal Team Six who pulled the trigger would have his face added to Mount Rushmore.
Mr. Hoekstra, Donald Trump's valuation of U.S./Canada negotiations is such that he cancelled them because of a television ad. I don't really understand the emotional reaction.
Firstly, thank you for the interview. Appreciated reading this interview.
Secondly, it is a fact the US administration is operating in a lawless manner. Their made up “emergencies” are transparent attempts to circumvent us law that would have already been struck down if congress or the Supreme Court were fulfilling their obligations to act as independent checks. So while it’s interesting to hear from the US ambassador, it is likewise depressing to read his ill informed or outright dishonest remarks.
The question you politely refrained from asking was how can Canadian business trust any trade agreement with US going forward and make long term investment decisions when the agreement may be torn up on the whim of the president?
Sounded much more ambassadorial than many other sessions I have reviewed. Thanks for these Paul.
I do have to shake my head at the comment that "I don't really understand the emotional reaction"!?
I understand that truth, humour and sarcasm within POTUS's communications are difficult to separate but I don't think the Ambassador would take kindly to a threat to take over his country no matter how it was couched?
Que sera sera I guess?
Merry Christmas Paul!
I'll be honest, I don't understand platforming this man. He has shown nothing but contempt for Canadians.
This is not a serious person from whom we can glean anything of value from. He is a hired goon sent to intimidate but has ended up as more of a clown.
The Prime Minister's chief of staff and half the ambassadors in Ottawa were at his Christmas reception at his residence. He's platformed whether I ask him questions or not.
They have to do that, you don't.
Thanks for the reminder that discussions of "platforming" never go anywhere useful.
Totally reasonable and/or cautious answers. I wonder if he just got back from ambassador school?
Paul, you treated the boorish, ill-informed Ambassador with kid gloves. He’s an embarrassment to U.S. citizens like me who value our neighbour. Perhaps you intentionally employed a rope-a-dope strategy to let him beat himself with his own words in revealing his emotional IQ of 0 in terms of understanding Canadians, but you sounded tentative and afraid to cause offence, characteristics I’ve heretofore never associated with you.
Given the sensitivity of the current situation, I appreciate Paul's diplomatic approach. (I thought Hoekstra also exercised some restraint in declining to comment on internal Canadian politics.)
He's not a diplomat
The Ambassador can say whatever he wants, it's Trump and his goons who decide what will be. The reality is USA is trying to crush us and turn us into a little Puerto Rico. Trump sees Canada has an asset to get no matter what. He is still trying to turn Canada into his 51st State. As for Free Trade well I am not holding my breath, it's gone as a negotiation. The USA will tell us what they want and that's it.
Thanks Paul. He’s a goofus.
Happy Merry!
I get the impression that Mr Hoekstra is at base a believer in American exceptionalism, and as such, is incapable of understanding the emotional reactions of anyone who doesn’t see that their way is the right way. He doesnt appear to have any concern for the effects of their policies on “the other guy”. That’s not helpful when you are deaf to the other side of the negotiating table.
Paul: I Am interested, and frankly disappointed, that you didn’t ask him about the National Security Strategy’s view of Canada - how does one ask about the revival of the Monroe Doctrine? Would have loved to hear his take, or his denial.
I read this as a reasoned and well thought conversation. I do not agree with Mr Hoekstra on many things, but was pleased to read a response instead of a reaction.
Great questions, but also, I think , great answers.
you were.......... a lot nicer than I would have been in this interview situation lol
I don't know what makes Mr Ambassador tick, but for the most part he stayed in his lane. Good interview, Paul, thanks. Nice that you have this kind of access.
Thanks Paul. While we might not like what the ambassador has to say, it is important to hear. Reading between the lines for the new year, it sounds like the odds are that CUSMA/NAFTA is dead as we presently know it.
Thank you, Paul, especially for your cautious yet probing questions.
Why the change from 'quite' to 'really' in the title of the second version, though? To my ear, he clearly said 'quite' (as in the transcript). Either way, Hoekstra saying he doesn't get us is about the dumbest thing he said in the whole interview (though there are runners-up).
Also, in the transcript with reference to the 22:40 mark, it says 'terrorists" when you actually said 'tariffs." You might want to correct that! (Your questions about potash, by the way, were brilliant.)