Jason Kenney sounds so much more compelling than Pierre Poilievre. And he was absolutely right that it is a disaster that Canada is in the teeth of a dangerous situation unlike any we've faced for many decades.
Justin Trudeau has much to answer for (as do those Liberals whose cowardice prevented them from moving against the outgoing Prime Minister years ago).
Love interviews with Mr. Kenney. He knows the in/outs of federal and provincial governments and has ethics in line with mine and likely the majority of Canadians. I would like to see him return to federal politics as he would make an excellent foreign minister/immigration minister. He really knows his stuff. Great interview Paul.
He's never offered a true apology for his lobbying to pass an ordinance in SanFran that would have prevented gay couples from visiting each other in hospital during the AIDS epidemic in the 80's. That was an objectively evil thing to do at the time, let alone by society's standards today. He bragged about it as late as 2005, I believe. Sure he expressed "regret", but a fulsome apology has never come.
According to Marco Rubio in an interview with Catherine Herridge, a Trudeau “blunder” at Mar-a-lago, where he conceded Canada’s weakness, was the inception of the 51st state idea into Trump’s brain.
HERRIDGE: “In a hot mike moment, Canada’s prime minister said that absorbing Canada “is a real thing.” Is it a real thing?”
SECRETARY RUBIO: “Yeah, look, you know how that came about? President’s meeting with Trudeau and Trudeau says, well, if you impose – if you even out our trade relationship, then we will cease to exist a country, at which point the President responded very logically, and that is, well, if you can’t exist without cheating in trade, then you should become a state. That was his observation there.”
Kenney is wrong on the US need for Canadian oil and gas. The US produces enough oil and gas for its own needs. It would take time and investment and retrofitting refineries, but Canadian oil and gas is not necessary. Today, basically, the US acts as a trans-shipper of Canadian oil and gas, and charges a large fee, through price differences because Alberta oil and gas is landlocked. The Canadian oil and gas that is used in the US allows the US to export equivalent quantities of their oil and gas. Thus, it would be foolish and misguided for Canada to use oil and gas or electricity as a weapon. Any short term pain that Canada could inflict would have devastating long term consequences to Canada.
So refreshing to hear a thoughtful Conservative with ideas he is willing to share, who leaves partisan swipes aside. Even his former boss couldn’t manage that simple thing recently and it diminished what could have been a powerful call to Canadians.
What a meaty discussion! I can see why Mr. Kenney is a frequent guest here. Great interview and I like how we got from a serious discussion to a quick sign off without the typical long good bye and extended summation of the discussion that you get on other podcasts.
I enjoyed the interview with Mr Kenney. I would like to add my opinion on Ukraine. Firstly, I believe that the reason there are sceptics in President Trump's circle vis-a-vis American engagement is that those people have seen the consequences of American involvement in the Middle East (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria). IMHO, they rightly recognize that billions of dollars were spent, and untold thousands of lives lost in a morass that American had to inevitably retreat from. The tragic situation in Ukraine could, and should, have been resolved diplomatically. The interference in Ukrainian internal affairs that started in 2014 combined with the inference that Ukraine would become a member of NATO was a red line that the Russians repeatedly warned the West that could not be crossed. This conflict has now lasted three years. The public has been misled from the beginning about the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. Now, after tens of thousands of casualties, (or maybe hundreds of thousands), President Trump has taken the realistic decision to end the conflict. It is regrettable that anyone who has expressed any doubt about the wisdom of engaging in a proxy war with Russia has been labeled a "Putin apologist". Russia has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Rational people should be doing everything in their power to reduce the threat of the usage of these weapons. Of course Putin is a dictator and a menace. However, his abilities are nothing like those of the Soviet Union, and no sane person in my recollection advocated a war with that authoritarian regime. Most of the current countries in Europe are advocating for a reduction in free speech and the implementation of a "soft totalitarianism" from Brussels, as recently pointed out by Vice President Vance. Europe is quite capable from an economic position of defending itself. The Europeans should come to a modus vivendi with Russia over Ukraine, and try to return to some form of peaceful co-existence. With respect to Canada's current contretemps with President Trump and American policies, I don't have an explanation, other than President Trump has a visceral dislike of Justin Trudeau and his ilk. I suppose the logical explanation is that America has decided to not have trade imbalances with any other country, although I am unsure of the feasibility of that decision. Obviously Canada has to try and stand its ground, although no doubt this has been a huge gift politically for the Liberals; one which allow them to paper over their decade of mismanagement and incompetence. Thanks again Paul for the excellent journalism you are providing.
Since you have to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than provide a cogent response, I have to assume you don't have a valid response. Of course President Putin's attack was an act of war. However, was it any worse than America's attack on Iraq in 2003? Great powers will do what they feel is in their interest. I would mention professor Mearsheimer's compelling arguments about this matter, but I see his name has already been mentioned.
This is the main Russian talking point. “Ukraine forced us to attack their sovereign territory. Twice!”
Listen, Ukrainians weren’t in favour of joining NATO before Putin invaded Crimea nor were they on track for being accepted into NATO until Russia invaded again.
Thanks for clarifying the matter. I don't call people names either when I politely disagree with them. For those so anxious to fight, I understand Ukraine is looking for volunteers.
Another comment that closely resembles the "peace versus war" narrative peddled by the Kremlin.
If Putin and his crew want peace, start with a ceasefire.
Well, guess what? They unilaterally rejected, on 13 March, what the Trump administration had put on the table. It may be that Putin did so with a view to wrongfooting the Trump administration's negotiating strategy. It may work, as it is not clear that Trump ever had a "Plan B" that made sense.
Given the likelihood of a recession in the United States--and the likely unwillingness of Trump and company to proceed with swingeing sanctions on Russia for fear of economic blowback--Putin's rejection of a ceasefire could give him more time to kill more Ukrainians and take even more territory.
To reiterate, Putin has always been the one who could make peace happen. Every decision he has made over the past decade strongly suggests that the only "peace" he will accept is "peace" (and the destruction of Ukraine) on his terms.
I've met and engaged John Mearsheimer four times (thrice in Canada and once in Washington). His brand of offensive realism is compelling, but ultimately off-base, because it accounts little for domestic politics, the agency of individuals and the potential for coalitions of threatened states to push back against overweening super powers (Mearsheimer's failure to fully account for this also suggests, to me anyway, a lack of historical perspective on his part).
As for Jeffrey Sachs, I would argue that he seems to be consumed by his anger with the (admittedly hubristic and destructive) advocates of US unipolar power like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. In particular, I worry that his ongoing desire to castigate them for their push to ensure that the US destroyed the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003--and his desire for redemption after providing ultimately destructive economic advice to the Russians in the 1990s--has made him vulnerable to repeating the Putin narrative on Ukraine and NATO expansion.
It's weird how realists are so incredibly unrealistic about the true nature of the Russian regime and the certainty that any peace that doesn't stem from it's categorical defeat in Ukraine won't be lasting.
What else are they going to do? They certainly don't have the military capacity to attack Poland, or any other NATO country (excluding the Baltic States, which are completely indefensible). How is the Russian state any different from China, North Korea, or Iran? Are going to attack those countries too because we don't like them? The Soviet Union was a far greater threat, and we dealt with that regime through diplomacy. If we follow the same path with Russia, we will be successful and hopefully we can support a democratic leader after Putin is gone. Do you think Canada is in a position to fight a war with Russia right now? Whatever military capacity we have might be needed closer to home if things with President Trump don' change.
I'm pretty sure the Baltic States are still okay (I thought maybe they were attacked during this discussion). My point was that those countries (which are all quite small) share a border with either Russia or Belarus. They are over 6,500 kilometres away from us. That means they would be overrun long before we could do anything about it. If Canadians and other members of NATO think they can militarily defend them, great, I know we have some troops there now, and I'm sure they would give a good account of themselves. Maybe you have a better idea Paul on what will work.
I like Jason Kenney and appreciate the yeoman's work he did on the immigration file for the Harper government. I disagree with him on the use of Alberta's oil and gas as a chip in the tariff war however. The Liberals have spent ten years trying to crush the oil and gas industry with their divisive taxes and policies, and now all of a sudden they want to wrap themselves in the Canadian flag and use oil and gas as a bargaining chip. I can go along with it only if eastern Canada reimburses Alberta for every lost dollar. Liberal voters in the east need to feel the same pain the Liberals have been inflicting on Alberta oil and gas.
Jason Kenney is excited about the country’s newfound energy for economic reform but in his long list of initiatives he somehow neglected to include one of the most important:
Cutting the taxes, processes and regulations that have created a housing nightmare in this country for anyone that didn’t get into the market ten or twenty years ago.
He said many reasonable things in this interview. I only pick on this one because is it absolutely indispensable for our economic future and the integrity of the social fabric.
Jason Kenney sounds so much more compelling than Pierre Poilievre. And he was absolutely right that it is a disaster that Canada is in the teeth of a dangerous situation unlike any we've faced for many decades.
Justin Trudeau has much to answer for (as do those Liberals whose cowardice prevented them from moving against the outgoing Prime Minister years ago).
Love interviews with Mr. Kenney. He knows the in/outs of federal and provincial governments and has ethics in line with mine and likely the majority of Canadians. I would like to see him return to federal politics as he would make an excellent foreign minister/immigration minister. He really knows his stuff. Great interview Paul.
He's never offered a true apology for his lobbying to pass an ordinance in SanFran that would have prevented gay couples from visiting each other in hospital during the AIDS epidemic in the 80's. That was an objectively evil thing to do at the time, let alone by society's standards today. He bragged about it as late as 2005, I believe. Sure he expressed "regret", but a fulsome apology has never come.
He also had his minions commit mass identity fraud by lifting customer databases from his supporters' businesses during the UCP leadership race, and only the incompetence or laziness of the RCMP/EPS saved him from that becoming a much bigger stainL https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ucp-leadership-voter-fraud-membership-lists-data-1.5091952
So while it's been fun to watch him get spicy with Trumpkins on Twitter, let's not give him too much credit for his ethics.
BTW, your intro and outro music makes me think of my university days, which is a fond memory. Thanks for that.
Thanks Paul… Sounds to me like the ever obsequious Jason Kenney sniffing around for position in a Pierre Poilievre campaign…
My favourite is when people are sure they know what's going on.
Kenney should return to federal politics in the next election. He's outstanding. Great interview, Paul.
According to Marco Rubio in an interview with Catherine Herridge, a Trudeau “blunder” at Mar-a-lago, where he conceded Canada’s weakness, was the inception of the 51st state idea into Trump’s brain.
HERRIDGE: “In a hot mike moment, Canada’s prime minister said that absorbing Canada “is a real thing.” Is it a real thing?”
SECRETARY RUBIO: “Yeah, look, you know how that came about? President’s meeting with Trudeau and Trudeau says, well, if you impose – if you even out our trade relationship, then we will cease to exist a country, at which point the President responded very logically, and that is, well, if you can’t exist without cheating in trade, then you should become a state. That was his observation there.”
QUESTION: “That’s how it started?”
SECRETARY RUBIO: “It is how it started.”
https://x.com/C__Herridge/status/1892973318145503692
Excellent listen. Merci.
Kenney is wrong on the US need for Canadian oil and gas. The US produces enough oil and gas for its own needs. It would take time and investment and retrofitting refineries, but Canadian oil and gas is not necessary. Today, basically, the US acts as a trans-shipper of Canadian oil and gas, and charges a large fee, through price differences because Alberta oil and gas is landlocked. The Canadian oil and gas that is used in the US allows the US to export equivalent quantities of their oil and gas. Thus, it would be foolish and misguided for Canada to use oil and gas or electricity as a weapon. Any short term pain that Canada could inflict would have devastating long term consequences to Canada.
So refreshing to hear a thoughtful Conservative with ideas he is willing to share, who leaves partisan swipes aside. Even his former boss couldn’t manage that simple thing recently and it diminished what could have been a powerful call to Canadians.
What a meaty discussion! I can see why Mr. Kenney is a frequent guest here. Great interview and I like how we got from a serious discussion to a quick sign off without the typical long good bye and extended summation of the discussion that you get on other podcasts.
Very informative
I enjoyed the interview with Mr Kenney. I would like to add my opinion on Ukraine. Firstly, I believe that the reason there are sceptics in President Trump's circle vis-a-vis American engagement is that those people have seen the consequences of American involvement in the Middle East (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria). IMHO, they rightly recognize that billions of dollars were spent, and untold thousands of lives lost in a morass that American had to inevitably retreat from. The tragic situation in Ukraine could, and should, have been resolved diplomatically. The interference in Ukrainian internal affairs that started in 2014 combined with the inference that Ukraine would become a member of NATO was a red line that the Russians repeatedly warned the West that could not be crossed. This conflict has now lasted three years. The public has been misled from the beginning about the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. Now, after tens of thousands of casualties, (or maybe hundreds of thousands), President Trump has taken the realistic decision to end the conflict. It is regrettable that anyone who has expressed any doubt about the wisdom of engaging in a proxy war with Russia has been labeled a "Putin apologist". Russia has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Rational people should be doing everything in their power to reduce the threat of the usage of these weapons. Of course Putin is a dictator and a menace. However, his abilities are nothing like those of the Soviet Union, and no sane person in my recollection advocated a war with that authoritarian regime. Most of the current countries in Europe are advocating for a reduction in free speech and the implementation of a "soft totalitarianism" from Brussels, as recently pointed out by Vice President Vance. Europe is quite capable from an economic position of defending itself. The Europeans should come to a modus vivendi with Russia over Ukraine, and try to return to some form of peaceful co-existence. With respect to Canada's current contretemps with President Trump and American policies, I don't have an explanation, other than President Trump has a visceral dislike of Justin Trudeau and his ilk. I suppose the logical explanation is that America has decided to not have trade imbalances with any other country, although I am unsure of the feasibility of that decision. Obviously Canada has to try and stand its ground, although no doubt this has been a huge gift politically for the Liberals; one which allow them to paper over their decade of mismanagement and incompetence. Thanks again Paul for the excellent journalism you are providing.
Utter rubbish, because you give credence to the Kremlin lie about "NATO expansion" being the reason for Putin's ugly aggression.
Promises were made not expand.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-ukraine-zelensky/
Since you have to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than provide a cogent response, I have to assume you don't have a valid response. Of course President Putin's attack was an act of war. However, was it any worse than America's attack on Iraq in 2003? Great powers will do what they feel is in their interest. I would mention professor Mearsheimer's compelling arguments about this matter, but I see his name has already been mentioned.
This is the main Russian talking point. “Ukraine forced us to attack their sovereign territory. Twice!”
Listen, Ukrainians weren’t in favour of joining NATO before Putin invaded Crimea nor were they on track for being accepted into NATO until Russia invaded again.
Please, let’s move on.
Promises were also made to Ukraine that if it gave up its nukes it would be protected.
Ad hominem? I called your comment rubbish, not you. Stop accusing people of doing things they have not done.
Thanks for clarifying the matter. I don't call people names either when I politely disagree with them. For those so anxious to fight, I understand Ukraine is looking for volunteers.
Another comment that closely resembles the "peace versus war" narrative peddled by the Kremlin.
If Putin and his crew want peace, start with a ceasefire.
Well, guess what? They unilaterally rejected, on 13 March, what the Trump administration had put on the table. It may be that Putin did so with a view to wrongfooting the Trump administration's negotiating strategy. It may work, as it is not clear that Trump ever had a "Plan B" that made sense.
Given the likelihood of a recession in the United States--and the likely unwillingness of Trump and company to proceed with swingeing sanctions on Russia for fear of economic blowback--Putin's rejection of a ceasefire could give him more time to kill more Ukrainians and take even more territory.
To reiterate, Putin has always been the one who could make peace happen. Every decision he has made over the past decade strongly suggests that the only "peace" he will accept is "peace" (and the destruction of Ukraine) on his terms.
So you’re calling John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs liars?
I've met and engaged John Mearsheimer four times (thrice in Canada and once in Washington). His brand of offensive realism is compelling, but ultimately off-base, because it accounts little for domestic politics, the agency of individuals and the potential for coalitions of threatened states to push back against overweening super powers (Mearsheimer's failure to fully account for this also suggests, to me anyway, a lack of historical perspective on his part).
As for Jeffrey Sachs, I would argue that he seems to be consumed by his anger with the (admittedly hubristic and destructive) advocates of US unipolar power like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. In particular, I worry that his ongoing desire to castigate them for their push to ensure that the US destroyed the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003--and his desire for redemption after providing ultimately destructive economic advice to the Russians in the 1990s--has made him vulnerable to repeating the Putin narrative on Ukraine and NATO expansion.
Yes, Sachs is a well documented liar who did everything he could to mask the failure of many of his development projects.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/smart-guy-jeffrey-sachs-nina-munk-idealist-poverty-failure-africa-65348/
For someone who doesn't like the term "Putin apologist", you sure make a lot of apologies for him. Look at what everyone else made him do!
I'm a realist who doesn't think incinerating the world is a good idea.
It's weird how realists are so incredibly unrealistic about the true nature of the Russian regime and the certainty that any peace that doesn't stem from it's categorical defeat in Ukraine won't be lasting.
What else are they going to do? They certainly don't have the military capacity to attack Poland, or any other NATO country (excluding the Baltic States, which are completely indefensible). How is the Russian state any different from China, North Korea, or Iran? Are going to attack those countries too because we don't like them? The Soviet Union was a far greater threat, and we dealt with that regime through diplomacy. If we follow the same path with Russia, we will be successful and hopefully we can support a democratic leader after Putin is gone. Do you think Canada is in a position to fight a war with Russia right now? Whatever military capacity we have might be needed closer to home if things with President Trump don' change.
We just lost Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. Busy day for realism. "He's absolutely not going to attack more than three other countries, tops."
I'm pretty sure the Baltic States are still okay (I thought maybe they were attacked during this discussion). My point was that those countries (which are all quite small) share a border with either Russia or Belarus. They are over 6,500 kilometres away from us. That means they would be overrun long before we could do anything about it. If Canadians and other members of NATO think they can militarily defend them, great, I know we have some troops there now, and I'm sure they would give a good account of themselves. Maybe you have a better idea Paul on what will work.
Kremlin talking points.
I like Jason Kenney and appreciate the yeoman's work he did on the immigration file for the Harper government. I disagree with him on the use of Alberta's oil and gas as a chip in the tariff war however. The Liberals have spent ten years trying to crush the oil and gas industry with their divisive taxes and policies, and now all of a sudden they want to wrap themselves in the Canadian flag and use oil and gas as a bargaining chip. I can go along with it only if eastern Canada reimburses Alberta for every lost dollar. Liberal voters in the east need to feel the same pain the Liberals have been inflicting on Alberta oil and gas.
This is the best substack being published from a Canadian POV. Thanks so much Paul.
Great interview. I thoroughly Liberal but want Jason Kenny in Fed politics wherever he can find a spot!
Jason Kenney is excited about the country’s newfound energy for economic reform but in his long list of initiatives he somehow neglected to include one of the most important:
Cutting the taxes, processes and regulations that have created a housing nightmare in this country for anyone that didn’t get into the market ten or twenty years ago.
He said many reasonable things in this interview. I only pick on this one because is it absolutely indispensable for our economic future and the integrity of the social fabric.