Trump Versus Canada

Hi, I'm Avery Truffelman, host of Hark Daily, a new way to hear the best moments from the world of podcasts. Each weekday morning you'll hear five captivating clips from the day's news, culture, and more. All in 20 minutes. Check it out at harkdaily.com. CRM was supposed to improve customer relationships. Instead, it's shorthand for can't resolve much.

Which means you may have sunk a fortune into software that just bounces customer issues around but never actually solves them. On the ServiceNow AI platform, CRM stands for something better. With AI built into one platform, customers aren't mired in endless loops of automated indifference. They get what they need. That CRM was then. This is Service.

Hello, and welcome to the David Fromm Show. I'm David Fromm, a staff writer at the Atlantic. My guest this week will be Jason Kenney, former Premier of the Canadian Province of Alberta, former Canadian Minister of Immigration, former Canadian Minister of Defense. My book this week will be a 1904 novel by a Canadian writer named Sarah Jeanette Duncan titled The Imperialist.

which casts a reflective light on some of the themes of my conversation with Jason Kenny. Before turning to either, some opening thoughts on an absolutely astonishing story reported by the Wall Street Journal on January thirty first. According to the Wall Street Journal, four days before Donald Trump was inaugurated as United States President, A United Emirates businessman made a$500 million commitment to invest in one of Trump's family's companies, his cryptocurrency company.

a decision that r resulted in a payment of one hundred and eighty seven million dollars to the Trump family upfront, and thirty-one million dollars to the family of Stephen Whitkoff, the Middle East envoy. The investment, which amounted to fifty five hundred million dollars over a period of the deal, made no apparent business sense.

The company in which this astonishing sound of this half billion dollar investment was made, that company had almost no products, and its few revenue sources were outside the limit of the deal. It is impossible to understand how any of this could have made any business sense. But the businessman was a member of the royal family and a brother of the president of the United Arab Emirates.

uh and who oversees not just his own enormous wealth, but the very important state investment fund, this businessman committed this vast amount of money to these two p families in return for what? A potential answer to that question. Merged just two months after the$500 million deal. At that point, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration gave the United Arab Emirates access to 500,000 a year extremely high-tech computer chips.

Chips that could help build one of the largest artificial intelligence data centers in the world. This was a departure from the Biden administration's approach. Which allowed the United Arab Emirates a limited number of chips, due to concerns the chips could make their way to China. So there's a big deal allowing the United Arab Emirates access to tightly held chips.

coming so soon after a five hundred million dollar investment into a Trump family and A spokesman for World Liberty told the Wall Street Journal that President Trump and Steve Whitkopf, quote, had no involvement in the deal, end quote. And that, quote, the deal didn't grant either party involved any sort of access to government decision making or influence over policy, end quote.

White House counsel also told the Wall Street Journal, and I'm quoting again, the president has no involvement in business deals that would implicate his constitutional responsibilities. That's the end of that quote, and next quote, and Whitkoff, quote, has not and does not participate in any official matters that could impact his financial interests. End of quote.

A spokesman for World Liberty told the Wall Street Journal that President Trump and Steve Whitkopf, quote, had no involvement in the deal, end quote. And that, quote, the deal didn't grant either party involved any sort of access to government decision making or influence over policy, end quote. White House counsel also told the Wall Street Journal, and I'm quoting again, the president has no involvement in business deals that would implicate his constitutional responsibilities.

That's the end of that quote, and next quote, and Whitkoff, quote, has not and does not participate in any official matters that could impact his financial interests. End of quote. This is an astonishing story, a disturbing story, a story with implications not only for U.S. public integrity, but for United States national security.

I'm not going to comment more on the story because uh the story is much discussed already. You will have your own thoughts about its meaning and implications. I want to talk about the feeling of helplessness. that this story leaves behind. I think a lot of Americans read things like this and just say, What can we do?

You know, the Donald Trump administration, there's story after story of that seemingly r uh sh attests to corruption on a scale never seen, not just in American history, but in the history of any democratic country. You get big corruption, billion dollar corruption in authoritarian societies with unfree press. But where the press is free, where the uh Parliament or Congress is open, normally there is some restraint on this kind of behavior by high officials.

But in the United States, over the past year and a bit of the first second Trump administration, all the restraints seemed to have broken down. There seemed to be no rules at all. The New York Times has estimated the Trump family's made over a billion dollars in the this first year plus of the Trump administration. The New Yorker has an update in which they estimate the Trump family's take at four billion dollars.

Uh, whatever the actual number is, it again, it is an astonishing sum, never before seen in the history, not just of the United States, but of any pure democracy. Such such things are unimaginable or have never happened before. And we're left feeling, what can we do?

And uh the thing I wanna stress here is that while the laws are dormant, they are not dead. There are recourses that can be had, not just not immediately, because we have this broken Department of Justice and a supine Congress, but soon. There are relevant statutes that bear upon what seems to have happened here between the Trump family, the Whitcoff families, and the United Arab Emirates.

Now let me first remind you that the United States, it seems hard to believe, but it actually does have a law governing public corruption. It's Title eighteen of the United States Code, Section two hundred and one.

And I'm going to read from the United States J Department of Justice Explainer of 201. This is on their United States Department of Justice website. It hasn't been taken down yet. They've left it up. They may want to take it down later, but I'm going to read some relevant passages from it to you now.

Section two hundred one of Title eighteen is entitled Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses. The statute, says the DOJ, comprises two distinct offenses, and in common parlance only the first of these is true to bribery. The first offense, codified in section two hundred one B, prohibits the giving or accepting of anything of value to or by a public official if the thing is given with intent to influence an official act, Or if it is received by the official in return for being influenced.

The second offense concerns what are commonly known as gratuity. Section two hundred one C prohibits that same public official from accepting the same thing of value if he does so for or because of any official act and prohibits anyone from giving any such thing to him for such a reason. Now, the Supreme Court has sharply limited the application of sections 201, both the section on bribery and the section on gratuity. But it remains against the law.

for someone, anyone, an aff a public official, and a Middle East envoy is also a public official. for anyone who is a public official and a president is a public official to give or do anything of val uh any official act in exchange for something of value. If that's what's happened here, that is a crime. It remains a crime.

And it's a crime that, even if the Trump administration chooses not to act on it today, has a statute of limitations of five years from the last act necessary to complete the crime. some future Department of Justice, some future prosecutor were to deem that payment unlawful or a an effort to influence the behavior of the United States government from the day that the last payment is due, there's five years in which an action could be brought.

It is not hopeless. The law is not dead. It is just dormant. And meanwhile, there's another legal wrinkle that I invite people imagine that the United States will again have a more active Department of Justice and a more independent Congress to bear in mind.

Which is the United Emirates officials who made this purchase, whatever its purpose, and again, we're not going to use legal language here. We're mindful that nothing has been proven, but the the facts are suggestive. Um, the United th they are exposed to something even more formidable. Which is in twenty sixteen, the United States Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, a measure called the Global Magnitsky Act.

This act, named for a murdered Russian businessman, Sergey Magnitsky, gives the president and the president alone considerable power to act against non-US entities and persons deemed to be active in global corruption. Under the Magn Global Magnitsky Act, a future American president can take sanctions against any entity or any person, the businessman or a businessman, or any fund controlled by the businessman.

and can oppose the following economic sanctions, including blocking and prohibiting tractions on including blo including asset blocking and prohibit prohibitions on transactions. They can freeze any property held within U.S. jurisdiction and prohibit U.S. individuals or entities from entering into transactions with the designated person or entity. And they can impose visa restrictions to deny entry to the United States.

And revoke any already issued visas to any person that the President of the United States under the Global Magnetic Act, by executive action, deems to have participated in significant global corruption. So there is a lot of exposure here. There are a lot of remedies at hand. There are tools.

And the fact that no those tools are not being used today does not mean that they cannot be used tomorrow. Now Trump and those around him understand the danger to them as well or better than I do or than you now do. That could be one of the reasons. Why Donald Trump is so panicky to ensure that by any means necessary he retains control of Congress, both houses in twenty twenty six? And why he so covets a third term. Because only by overthrowing the electoral system of the United States.

Can he feel that he has security from some of the legal risks to which he might be exposed if if the implications of these latest reports turn out to be vo valid and true? For Donald Trump, he may feel that his alternatives are power or prison. And for the rest of us, those feelings of Donald Trump should be a beacon to remind ourselves that the law is alive. The law matters.

that things that you think of as shocking and outs and outlandish and impossible and un American, other people have thought about them before you and have taken measures to make sure that they don't happen and that if they do, they are punished. Punishment Four crimes. is not something that just happens to five year old people who have overstayed their visas or never had a visa in the first place.

Punishment for crime is something that can happen to the most powerful people in the land. And indeed, it's more called for against the most powerful than it is against the least powerful, because it is the most powerful or also the most dangerous.

They have the greatest responsibility, they have the greatest visibility, they have the greatest position of trust, they have the least excuse for using their power to benefit and enrich themselves and to plunder the Treasury and to put American national security at risk. We again, this is a news report. There is more to be learned. None of this has been proven in court.

But it ought to be tested in court, and let's hope that if the American people are allowed the right to make their voices heard freely and fairly in twenty twenty six and twenty twenty eight, it will be tested in court in due time and by the executive actions allowed by the Global Magnitsky Act. And now my dollar. When was the last time you indulged your desires, felt true Range Rover refinement? When was the last time you drove in total serenity, the outside world reduced to a hut?

The last time you were confident on uncertain terrain, the last journey that made you feel at home, conveniently connected at every step. In a Range Rover, pioneering innovation meets leading-edge luxury to make every drive an occasion. Limitless, effortless, pureless. How far will you let it take you? Range Rover, designed for distinction.

Jason Kenny served as Premier of the Province of Alberta from 2019 through 2022, leading the province through the shock of the COVID pandemic. He held previously major offices in the federal conservative cabinets of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, including as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and as Minister of National Defense. This listing of jobs does not begin to do justice to Jason Kenney's importance to Canadian politics over the past two decades.

More than any other Canadian politician, Jason Kenney built the Canadian conservatives into a truly multi ethnic party. Competitive among Canadians of every origin, whether South Asian, East Asian, Afro Caribbean, or from the traditional immigration sources in Europe.

Since leaving politics, Jason Kenney has worked as a corporate director and advisor and a senior fellow at two Canadian think tanks, the Free Market CD Howe Institute and CARDIS, an institution that applies Christian teaching to industrial relations. I've known Jason Kennedy since his days as head of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation a long, long time ago, in a very different world, and it's a pleasure to welcome welcome Jason to the David Fromm show. Jason, thank you for joining me.

Great to be here, Dave. So let's let's start by talking about some very Alberta specific things that have been much in the news recently. which is that the Trump administration seems to be trying to foment an Alberta secessionist movement as a preliminary to annexing either the province of Alberta solo or the entire country of Canada. Can y can you help

the non-Canadians among us understand what's going on here. Why would the Trump people be trying to break up Canada and grab a piece of Well, a as you know, uh the Annex Canada stuff started uh in December after the last US election. uh when he was visited by Justin Trudeau and Mar Lago and he's apparently used this line, fifty first state, you'll be the governor as a joke.

uh to which Trudeau responded and he saw quite a uh uh that he rumbled Canadians, it got uh it got a lot of attention and I think he it s suddenly became a new squeeze toy for the uh president elect. So we spent much of December and January. of uh uh last year. uh twine with this idea, to the point where a year ago he was asked uh uh, Mr. President, would you use uh military force as you have it threatened to do with Panama and Greenland?

uh to annex Canada and make it the fifty first state and he said, No, I don't need to do that. I will just use economic force. And that became a pretty consistent uh rhetorical theme, which was then followed uh in uh February, March of uh last year. the imposition of prejudicial terrorist tariffs on Canada, treating us as though we were as large a source of uh narcotics and illegal migration as Mexico, which is of course patently absurd.

And it's been a b very uh bumptious relationship ever since. It c concurrent with that, we've had an emerging, well, there's been a marginal separatist movement in the province of Alberta for five decades. rooted in historical alienation, but really amplified by the ten years of Justin Trud Trudeau's premiership, which um uh was really uh a problematic for Alberta's large uh oil and gas industry.

And um my successor, the current premier, has enabled through an initiative through a a uh uh a much more accessible uh citizens initiative referendum process, a referendum that looks likely to happen later this year. And uh so people in the Trump administration and certainly mega uh influencers are now uh toying with that. Uh perhaps if Canada is not willing to be annexed. Alberta is. Now, Alberta's always had a uh a large history of of American immigration.

Farmers and ranchers from the upper Midwest. The oil industry was often populated by American professionals. And so there are closer connections, and in many cultural and economic ways, those connections are very durable. But the vast majority of Albertans have no interest in this, but some of these marginal separatist leaders have been paying visits to uh uh Washington and apparently meeting with uh Trump administration officials. That's been confirmed now by the Financial Times.

And Scott Bessant recently intimated that if, you know, Mark Carney doesn't watch his uh manners and mind his Ps and Q's uh perhaps uh we'll invite uh Alberta to be part of of the United States. So you see this kind of growing momentum where and and I think it's time for uh Prime Minister Carney, if he's not already done so, to s to telegraph some very strong message.

It would result in uh significant uh sanctions. And I think we s should start, and perhaps this is partly what Prime Minister Carney's Davos speech was about.

start building a a Denmark style coalition which was very effective in uh forcing uh Trump's one eighty on on Greenland. I d I don't think we should over Heat this yet, but they need to know that if they actually play in this space and start making offers of you know, debt forgiveness and lines of credit and all this nonsense uh or actually offering uh uh prospective state status for Canada.

that that will be a long uh a bridge too far. L let me just go a little slower through what you just said, because some of this may be a little insider for any non-Canadians listening. It's when Trump and Bessent and others talk about annexing Alberta, that there is a mechanism by which they could really make trouble. There is a scheduled referendum.

The legal status of this referendum is very hazy. Quebec has had two referendums and the Canadian Supreme Court has imposed very stringent con conditions on whether those referendums would mean anything. But Alberta does have one. There is an opportunity to make real trouble if an American administration were minded to do it. And it sounds like this administration is with a view to breaking up Canada, detaching Alberta, which is the most oil wealthy part of Canada, and seizing it as an American

Puerto Rico or territ other territory of some kind. Yeah, I I don't think there's any realistic prospect of actually making Alberta a a US state. Require obviously a constitutional amendment.

And by the way, the same Republicans would uh pretty quickly calculate that Alberta was would most likely, even though it's the most conservative province in Canada, would most likely send two reliably two Democrat senators to Washington. So it actually doesn't make sense in in American partisan political terms. But you're right. What you know, uh Trump has often said he needs nothing from Canada, he wants nothing from

And yet he's always wanted to get Keystone XL built. Uh, the pipeline from Alberta, the perspective enlarged pipeline from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Context, as you've said, is that Alberta has the third largest. proven and probable oil reserves in the world, two a hundred and eighty billion barrels of uh crude reserves, uh uh accessible crude reserves, and the third largest natural gas reserves.

Uh, we are by far the largest uh supplier of uh imported oil to the United States. About six on a give any given year, sixty to sixty five percent. Of US oil imports come from Alberta. That's uh 10 times what you import from Saudi Arabia and five times from all of OPEC combined. It's a you know, for all of the noise around Venezuela's famous reserves, which like Alberta's are very heavy and therefore the right kind of product for a lot of the US Gulf Coast refineries.

Uh the truth is we have a well developed industry. We are producing six million barrels a day, unlike Venezuela, at 800,000 a day. And uh g given that the the technology and the human capital in Canada, much easier to increase that. So all of this, you know, this I notion that Venezuela is sudden suddenly going to become the major source, I think, is a misdirect. If if he was actually thinking in in avaricious terms, as he tends to,

Alberta would be an obvious target. Well, I I think so a couple of points that to amplify here. The United States, of course, is now by far the world's largest producer of oil and gas. It is net net totally self sufficient in petroleum products. But the United States imports certain products from Canada, certain heavier grades of oil, to meet the needs of certain refineries, even though overall the United States is not an importer.

Um and then it exports other things. So th th th while it it's a a net exporter, there there's a category of imports from Canada. And I often think when people make this comparison between Canada and Venezuela, I think what the offer to an oil industry executive. You want to get more of this kind of heavy oil that comes from either Canada or Venezuela. So you have two places to put your net investment for your marginal return.

One, a place with a long history of confiscations, nationalizations, kidnappings, murders, guerrilla warfare, no electricity, in the jungle. Or the other place where you can stay at a Weston hotel overnight and drive out in perfect safety to the fields where there are no murders, no kidnappings, no guerrilla warfare, and lots of electricity. I exactly.

a US naval fleet off the northwest coast of British Columbia to guarantee security of supply. So we're the the obvious uh partner. And Dav and David, when I was premier, I actually helped to de-risk that was a provide government financing loan guarantees to get the Keystone XL project done.

Because it makes perfect sense for us to be selling war to the United States. It would be good for both parties. But Trump has had this bizarre contradiction where he says he doesn't want anything from Canada, doesn't need our energy.

Yet he's wanted a Keystone XL. That would add upwards of a million barrels a day. I think we should still, despite all of the rumbling from Trump, that would be a longer term project, we should pursue it. But the point is that that all of this I I think in the back of his um confusing mind, I am concerned at least, and many others. uh that if the we do end up with a referendum on Alberta separation later this year.

Uh that that's an invitation for a great deal of of mischief uh from President Trump.

where malign Russian actors do seem to have played a very big role trying to promote the breakup of the United Kingdom. making Scotland some kind of adversarial entity. Um, I as I understand it, the British nuclear fleet is based in um submarine fleet is based in Scotland, so if Scotland were to withdraw from the United

Kingdom, it would make it harder for Britain to be a nuclear power. And The Scottish referendum failed, but a lot of mischief was done, and now the United States seems interested in repeating this playbook against Canada only with the United States in the role of Putin's Russia.

And the complicating factor is that some of the separatist leaders here um have been quite clear that they actually prefer US state status as opposed to that of an independent nation. Because the whole Albert Independence Project it's is rooted in in ex totally understandable frustration. with um Ottawa. Some of this is rooted in Canadian history. Uh the uh Alberta and s our neighboring resource-rich province, Saskatchewan, which happens to be the largest uh source of

potash in the world and the second largest source of uranium. These two provinces were created as a bit of an afterthought in Confederation and had a history of being a sort of mercantilist uh outpost for central Canada. So that's part of our history. Amplified by the recent Trudeau government. And and I so that's f the people are using this as a uh a kind of uh opportunity to express their frustration. That's understandable. But the notion of turning Alberta into a landlocked stateless.

where people would have to get a work permit to go and work in British Columbia or other neighbor you know other provinces in Canada where We I Canad Albertans are fundamentally patriotic. They're happy to sing O Canada at the hockey games. They're they've they've migrated to the province from elsewhere in the country.

their kids uh have served in the RCMP or the military very often. So there's a fundamental detachment to Canada. And yet the the separatists who are kind of confused in their ultimate goals, some of them are are uh suggesting they can get a sweetheart deal from Donald Trump that will forgive our debts, give us some line of credit, facilitate us in a way that that uh our exit from the country. And for a a fairly small portion of our population, that's actually a a seductive proposition.

Yeah. Let's put this in the context of a larger US candidate relationship. Now w one of the things that is so bizarre about the Trump era. Because as you know and as I know, until Donald Trump, you could not get Americans to pay any attention to the US Canada relationship. whatsoever. It was Canada friendly neighbor to the north. It could not be a more boring subject because things just hummed along. I've given talks to uh office audiences of Canadian officeholders.

Where they would say, What do we do to get more attention from the United States? I don't know why I said Why do you want that? Uh, if if you have kids and and you've driven them an any long road trip in a car, you know, that there's one kid in the corners reading the comic book not bothering anybody, and there's another kid who's kicking the the mom's seat. You'd rather be the kid in the corner corner reading the comic book than kicking mom's seat.

Um but now there is this enormous attention and where does it come from? What is what is the possible basis for why Donald Trump has decided that Canada is maybe after Denmark uh America's leading geopolitical problem that must be crushed by military force? No idea it it uh where how it developed because it wasn't the case in his first term. It was never part of his public rhetoric. I I think he barely ever mentioned Canada in uh his last uh campaign, la i in in in twenty four.

Uh I you know, a lot of people th uh hypothesize that it was just that that he was irritated by Justin Trudeau, but Trudeau's long gone now. I in fact, Trudeau's exit was accelerated by all of these Trump threats. It sort of focused the mind in the Liberal Party and our politics more generally that we needed somebody uh capable of dealing with the tr with with Trump and his threat.

So if I, you know, I don't know why President Trump didn't say, look, I got I helped you Canadians get rid of this uh this clown Trudeau, but he's continued these erratic threats.

And and most recently, for example, David, uh Prime Minister Kearney welcomed uh Donald Trump's invitation for Canada to diversify our trade relations and so went to Beijing like most historic US allies are doing right now. to repair relations uh with the uh People's Republic of China. and made a fairly limited tariff deal to lower Canadian tariffs on electric vehicle imports in exchange for lowering Chinese tariffs on uh or uh effectively uh uh uh a blockade on on some Canadian ag exports.

So Trump, when presented with this, said good good for Kearney. He should do this. He should make deals. I make deals. He should make deals. That then Kearney gave his speech at Davos, which I thought was a fairly persuasive argument about how middle powers should work together to deal with this destabilizing threat. But apparently, you know, Trump I I think what happened was Trump was uh furious at being upstaged by Prime Minister Kearney at Davos and so immediately threatened 100% terror.

in response to Canada's China deal. So uh from day to day, we just don't know where this is going. We have the renegotiation of uh USMCA uh coming up this uh this summer, a deal that Trump once called the greatest trade deal in world history.

Which uh s uh Jamison Greer, the US trade rep, and uh Howard Lutnick have suggested they they don't need, they're just going to tear up. For their second largest trading partner, Canada's the most important trading partner for twenty for the fifty United States, as I say, by far the largest source of energy, the only source of fertilizer for your farmers, totally integrate integrated economies in many respects.

And we are now being forced to do things we don't want to do, like r re reengaging uh the PRC on a bunch of issues. Let me just underscore what happened with that PRC deal. So the the Biden administration I I think I forget the year, twenty-three or twenty-four, wanted to put big tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles.

and thought it would be much more effective if there were a united North American front on this issue. The North American electric vehicle admin uh industry is disproportionately located in the United States. Um Canada signed up and imposed exactly the same tariff on Chinese vehicles that the United States did at the American request.

The Chinese delayed their retaliation for a while, and then very cunningly took disproportionate revenge on Canada, rec recognizing Canada as the weaker link, who got less from the tariffs. And were more exposed, they imposed penalties on Canadian agricultural experts that were very, very painful to Canada, and that Canada absorbed as part of its alliance with the United States. And when Donald Trump came along and Howard Lutnick, who seems to be the designated blabber of this administration?

And said, you know, we're going to take the entire automobile industry away from Canada and relocate the North American automobile industry entirely to the United States. Canadians naturally thought, why should Canada suffer these agricultural punishments to protect

uh a North American industry that the the Americans are now pr proposing to take away from Canada. In that case, why not at least sell agricultural exports to to China? And that was the origin of the deal, as Canada said we'll we'll reduce its

Tariffs on Chinese EVs in exchange for some relief on Canadian agricultural exports to China. And that this this was a war that Canada did not start, Canada did not want, Canada volunteered to join, and that Canada took disproportionate pain for participating in. C all of that's correct. Uh y it l to be clear, you you know I'm one of the original Chinahawks in Canadian politics. So I I don't like the deal.

It it has all sorts of add ons, like it's you know, it's the of course the Chinese insisted that it be framed as a strategic partnership. It includes strategic cooperation on policing, on media. Lots of bizarre things, the kind of na nastiness you get that uh the Chinese require if you want access to their market.

uh in the long run. I I I I don't like this. And I th and um let me just say this, David. I think one of the great perhaps accidental achievements of the first Trump administration was his resetting the gl the Western policy paradigm on uh on China. Uh something that the Biden administration continued and in fact amplified.

And Canada, by the way, David, it's not the first time we've been through this, having to pay a steep trade price with China for being loyal American allies. Several years ago, we, at the request of the United States Department of Justice, uh detained the daughter of the CEO of Huawei, uh, who was charged in the US with various kinds of fraud and embezzlement. And uh in response, uh, the Chinese kidnapped a couple of our diplomats, uh, detained them uh for years.

and slammed uh a a uh embargo on a bunch of of our major uh ch Canadian exports are again agricultural products. So I think they're entirely unreliable, and I keep telling Canadian exporters, if you think this is a reliable market, wait until uh Z uh launches his planned uh invasion or blockade of Taiwan and we all have to stop exporting to them. So it it it's I think it's very regrettable, but here's the President Trump had an opportunity. I think to double down.

On the new Western policy setting towards the PRC by creating a free trade alliance against unfair Chinese trading practices, industrial espionage, political interference, territorial aggression, and all of that. Instead, he took his He has inexplicably done the opposite by creating a rupture in his in the historic political and trade alliances of the United States, forcing Europe, Canada, and others To turn back towards China and And reverse the progress that he had made.

in isolating China to some extent in his first administration. So I don't know how these guys like Bridge Colby at the Defense Department, these people who have given some veneer of delect of intellectual respectability to Trump's geopolitical strategy feel when in fact

He's doing the opposite of their stated intent. So the the situation that President Trump inherited in 2025 was a lot of mood in Canada that said we want to particip cooperate more closely with the United States for protection against a common threat. And what Kearney's trip to China represented was Canadians saying, or at least important parts of Canada, including the Prime Minister and his government saying, We've decided that of these two threats the more immediately dangerous.

is the United States, not China anymore. That's a that's quite an achievement. It i it is, and we're not the only ones. You've seen the the train of European leaders beating a path to the door of of Beijing recently, and it I I it's just It's uh it's it's so terribly unfortunate and counterproductive for the for the interests of the United States. And by the way, we see t Trump made his own tariff deal with them. He's given them access to NVIDIA advanced NVIDIA chips to help them

uh catch up to the United States in the AI arms race. And he says he wants a mega deal. He admires Z and the invas uh whether Z invades Taiwan is up to Z. So we're watching this saying, well you're gonna impose 100% tariffs on us. for a mi minor sectoral a tariff deal. When you want a grand bargain with the same country, i i it's very hard for us.

like other US allies to unpack how to deal with all of this. Well let me ask you about your former portfolio, national defense. So um Canada has been admittedly a defense laggard for a long time that now seems to be changing and there was a c a program over m uh many years to b make a major command Canadian commitment to American airframes.

for defense of the skies over Canada and the Arctic. And that that now is one of the potential casualties of the Trump created crisis. Tel talk a little bit about what's happening to US Canada defense and especially to the F thirty five fighter program. Well first in context, uh Canada a as you know used to have a very robust

uh a post-war military. I mean, we had played an oversized role in the second war and in the early half first half of the Cold War. My dad was a Canadian uh fighter jet pilot in those days. And we we were very, you know, we had a very robust Arctic defense through NORAD.

But regrettably, since uh Pierre Trudeau's administration, there's been this a drawdown in our defense. We like the European countries, uh took a very big piece dividend and ended up averaging 1.5% defense expenditure on GDP for the past uh, let's say 25 years, although we did punch above our weight again in Afghanistan, demonstrating uh uh our our reliability as an L.

Now, credit where it's due, uh Donald Trump's been right about calling on his allies to pay their dues on Alliance Defense. And so Mark Harney has responded remarkably. with a commitment to go from, you know, roughly 1.5% to 2% to 3.5% with an outline c commitment to go above that. So we're doing this huge expense uh defense uh enlargement.

Predating that was this commitment to replace our fighter jet uh fleet, where there was it was a long and protracted process that settled on the F thirty five. And almost all defense experts in Canada will agree it is the best platform for us. in part because of the interoperability with the US and other Allied F thirty five uh fleets. So we're committed to buying uh eighty eight of those. The first tranche of sixteen will be arriving in the next uh eighteen months.

That's all good. But with the Trump threat, suddenly we're looking at a uh our major defense supplier moving from being our greatest ally to in some respects hostile. Uh and and as you know, Trump has said on the next generation fighter, they're going to ensure that uh foreign purchasers get a less capable grade than the United States Air Force does. So we're now wondering what you know, are we exposing ourselves?

To some kind of vulnerability about which we are unaware if we if our entire Air Force is dependent on American support, American parts, American political goodwill. So I think Mark Carney has quite prudently, bro, proceeding with the initial tranche of the F thirty five purchase, launched a review about whether our broader uh air force needs. And there is a view, which I think is not irrational.

that perhaps we should purchase a smaller fleet of 35s and then look at a European platform like the Grip in from Sweden to complement that. Now there are arguments for I look mo again, most defense hawks here want the the full F-35 purchase. The argument is we could buy a lot more frames from the Swedes, which are in some respects better more operable in the Arctic because they can take off short landing strips, gravel landing strips, and so forth.

So there is an argument, I think it's worth having. It is enraging Trump's uh ambassador in Ottawa, who is the most ineffective and uh unpopular US ambassador, I think, in history here.

But it's a it's I think it's only natural that we should at least take a look at this. Yeah. By the way, how easy a job is it to be US ambassador to Canada? How much does everybody like you and want to see you? How how welcome are you in every business community? I mean to screw that up, that takes a kind of perverse. Genius.

Especially for this guy Hoekstra, who is a Dutch immigrant to the United States, whose family was liberated from the Nazis in Holland by the First Canadian Army in nineteen forty five uh forty four. Yeah. Well let's talk about these airframes. I I was in Norway at the beginning of last year. where there's a vigorous similar debate about what kind of frigate platform to buy.

And there were there were a number of choices. There was an American choice, which was by all accounts the most capable, but also the most expensive. And there there are choices from other countries as well. And the Norwegians had been in advance talks to purchase they are very because they're a a Russian neighbor. Uh they've had a lot of Russian aggression in their waters. Um they're very wealthy because of their oil resources.

And there's a lot of inclination to buy the American platform, the most expensive but the best. And after Trump made his comment about we're going to put a kill switch on US equipment, The Norwegians flipped and realized fully.

We don't need the best frigate in the world. We're not going to fight the Americans. We need a frigate that's better than the Russian frigate. And the British frigate is better than the Russian frigate, cheaper and now more secure. And they ended by buying a fleet of British frigates rather than Americans.

Not as a punitive measure, but because they could no longer trust the American product to be consistent with their self defense and sovereignty. That's a precise echo of the debate we're having now. on the grip it. And I I I um look, as a former defense minister, all all of the guys I worked with would want me to be uh unqualifiedly committed to going the f the full distance on the thir F-35 uh because of the capability of that platform. I understand it.

But I do think it's prudent to look at, you know, could we buy for every incremental F-35, could we buy two or more grippins? That would be perfectly adequate for our needs, complementing a core F-35 fleet. Uh i i i i it's a debate worth having. It's but it's only happening. It's only happening because of the instability that Trump has imposed in this relationship.

Let me ask you uh now about your s your other portfolio, uh citizenship and immigration, which in Canada is one of the most important portfolios in the government because Canada is such an immigration country and continues to be. And I'm just gonna I you won't say this, so let me say it for you. You you were not just

a minister. I mean, you were the leader of a comprehensive political transformation of the Conservative Party, where I I can't begin to imagine how many lunar New Years, weddings, funerals, bar mitzvahs, dedication ceremonies you went to and what a toll it took on you personally, psychically, um to do it. But yes, yes, it's true. Um and uh you you you learn greedy My nickname was the Minister of Curry Nahury.

My nickname was Minister of Curry in a hurry because I would do as many as five uh curry banquets in a night. And and you do you record greetings in Vietnamese and in Punjabi and in uh w Italian and you you did this well. Canada was simultaneously expanding its immigration intake, but also upping the quality in in terms of humans human skills of the immigrants it took. Now that was a a while ago.

Since then we've had the Syrian civil war, which sent a lot of refugees into Europe in ways that have been very destabilizing to European politics. We've had the Brexit referendum, where Britain made, in my opinion, the self harming choice to leave the European Union in part because of fear of the consequences of the migration into Europe of the refugees that came in twenty fifteen or the so called refugees.

And now we've had two terms of of Trump. How should I mean, you're one of the leaders of Canadian intellectual capital C and lowercase C conservatism. How should conservatives in Canada and elsewhere, in the United States, in Britain, in in the West

Think about immigration now, and you speak as someone with this history of being a leading advocate of immigration. How does it look to you today in light of the past decade of developments? Well, let me say that uh It people like uh you know Rahan Salam at the Manhattan Institute, uh s and and scholars around uh the world have said that that Canada's Harper era

uh immigration policy was really a model immigration policy for a developed country. We took a, you know, in the in the late 60s, Canada developed uh the point system, which was essentially a human capital model to select economic immigrants based on an analysis of their

language ability, education, adaptability, their their age, younger more points for younger immigrants, et cetera. This did significantly change the composition of our immigration from tradition post war it was more uh typically blue collar Europeans to uh white collar people from the the developing world became the predominant economic immigrants.

And it worked very well, but it was starting to there were problems in it. There were integrity issues, large numbers of fake asylum claims, human smuggling, lots of kinds of fraud, and a degrading of the system. So I went through, as you're you're absolutely right, several years. of a rigorous reform, which really I think

created a a a an optimal system. We had robust but real but manageable levels. We were admitting on a population of um thirty-three million, we were admitting about a quarter of a million people a year. And there was a broad public consensus, eighty percent support. Canada was the only developed democracy with the possible exception of Australia, which had broad cross partisan uh support. uh for immigration generally.

And then unfortunately, Justin Trudeau in a uh cl typical with his typical li li liberal naivete, which was given a kind of veneer of intellectual respectability by uh business interest groups, said Canada needs a h a population of a hundred m million as soon as possible. you know, pressure from the business community as always for more access to foreign labor. A bunch of these pressures and co uh had Canada quadrupling, quintupling intake level.

Huge intake of low-skilled guest workers, huge intake of low-qualified, uh poorly qualified foreign students at dodgy diploma mills. And then concurrently, Trudeau basically invited anybody from the United States who had a failed asylum claim to come up here that's cratered the asylum system. And all of this in the face of a housing crisis, uh a a crisis in access to uh to healthcare and other other public services. and stagnating incomes for people, as you've often pointed out, David.

high levels of sustained, low skilled immigration inevitably reduced per capita GDP, and Canada's been on a multi-year decline in per capita GDP. All of this has accelerated our reduction in competitiveness and productivity. I think it's the perhaps the worst legacy of

uh the Trudeau uh decade. And so uh it's it's really regrettable. And now we have seen quite predictably that broad pro-immigration consensus, which I was very mindful, I was always mindful that it wasn't something we could take for granted We had to demonstrate that immigration was a net positive for the country. That has now frayed, and public support for immigration is turned upside down. So the the new, you know, the Kearney government is trying to get some of this uh back on track.

But it it it is a concern and it's a reminder that even a model system with broad support is conditional and it and and it can be d uh uh upended overnight.

So you may be a little reluctant to speak about the American context, but let me ask an American question and you take it where you want to go. Under President Biden, the American asylum system just just collapsed. A system that was designed to welcome Anne Frank's family from Germany, um, Hungarians fleeing the Soviet crackdown in 1956. That's what the asylum system is for. And it became basically a backup.

immigration system for those who had no other way to get into the United States and hundreds of thousands of people right uh came into the United States until Biden's last year when he course corrected. And this doesn't seem to have been so much a uh a policy as a kind of

A bunch of v uh uh the absence of a policy driven by veto wielders who are important to the Biden coalition. So this does tremendous damage to dot Biden's standing and it helps to re-elect Donald Trump in twenty twenty four. And now we have paramilitaries running the streets of Minneapolis and American citizens being gunned down by poorly trained uh

um border patrol who have no business being ins in inside an American city. And and it seems like there has been a this shearing this veering from one crazy extreme to a cr even crazier and more murderous extreme on the other hand. What should politicians and people who are Trying to be prudent, try who are lean conservative, how should they think about any of this?

the the left of the Democrat Party who dominated his domestic policy agenda bear a lot of the the the burden of uh for this for what's happened in the United States. Uh, I'll remind you you know, that people like Marco Rubio uh tried to get a comprehensive immigration settlement in the United States, which made a lot of sense, uh, that which was basically what Reagan did.

And uh uh you know, I I I but I recall meeting with Janet Napolitano uh when she was Secretary of uh Homeland Security about cooperating on stopping illegal border crossings from the US into Canada. I was looking for an agreement to to help us refool send back illegal border cross. And she said, Look, we can't do anything until we have comprehensive

agreement in Congress, which is I don't think it's is that is that at at all possible uh i in the United States, David? Is it is it at all possible? I don't I can't see even post Trump anybody winning a Republican primary. if they have any commitment to regularize um long standing law abiding

uh overstayers in the United States. So I think you've got this uh you guys are uh the United States is locked into a permanent uh catastrophe when it comes to managing or mismanaging immigration. But in in all the democratic countries, or almost all. In Britain, in in in Germany, in France, you have parties of the far right that are running on programs of xenophobia.

xenophobia that in the United States has turned violent and deadly, and parties of of the the left that are not able to articulate what would border security look like In a context of the need for h uh human beings. Um, it looks like twenty twenty-five will be the first year. Since the first American census in seventeen ninety, when the population of the United States shrinks.

Birth rates in almost every developed country, maybe Israel is the exception, are below replacement. So if you simply to keep your cop population stable, you need to bring in people. And of course you need skills and uh different human capacities, not all of which occur spontaneously in every country on its own.

And there are people who want to move, which, you know, we if you want to see human beings be free, if human beings want to move, you want to start with, well, they should be able to if they want to. At the same you so you need to you need to control the borders, you need security, you need not to have police states inside the United States.

How do we think about this? What's the answer? What what would you if someone from the moderate side of American politics were to call you and say, what should a s what should a post-Trump American immigration policy look like? What should it look like?

Well I uh the starting point uh has to be systems characterized by integrity, which is to say, with minimal space for il illegal irregular migration, smuggling, trafficking, mass border crossings, that means uh you're quite right. Uh that means significant reform of our asylum systems. I think, you know, the principal driver of the uh uh rise in in xenophobic anti-immigrant politics has been large-scale illegal migration.

You cannot sustain broad public support for or demonstrate the net benefits of regulated immigration if you've if your vast majority of migrants. are people who who just crash crash your borders in the case of of Europe, primarily young military aged men. Coming from problematic source countries with a history of violence to

And with very poor integration results. Let's be honest. I mean the the the people who are who are voting AFD and for the Le Pens and for Nigel Farage, they were observing things happening in their communities. that are unpleasant, that are disruptive of social cohesion. It's not xenophobic or races to note that.

It's necessary for mainstream politicians to be serious about dealing with those challenges. As for example, the Aussies were very effectively in stopping illegal marine migration. And as I would argue, we were in the Harper government in in stop in stopping some of this. So I I think a a a shared commitment left to right, like the Danish government, a social democratic government, has been very hard-headed about these things and has has has avoided the emergence of a xenophobic alt-right.

So I I think from the center left to the center right, we need to be a a little more hard-headed and a little less soft-hearted when it comes to those issues. Secondly, Uh maximizing human capital when it comes to the selection of economic immigrants, so you get more bang for the economic buck from the newcomers that you welcome. If immigration is nothing but a tool for large businesses to commodify labor and to Consequently suppressed the Wage levels for lower skilled workers are

Then again, you're undermining public so you're you're undermining the economic case for immigration. That means we're all going to have to per the Japanese, invest more in automation and uh and and coping with shrinking populations. That is uh that I think is inevitable. And and at the same time a r a rule of law governing law um the immigration enforcement apparatus within a country. Because you can't have these

paramilitary forces roaming the streets of cities, masked uh of course you can't. But uh you know, on the other hand, you you you can't be overly sentimental about this either, David, if you're gonna have a system with integrity. In the case of Canada, for example Uh our version of ICE, the Canada Border Services Agency, is resourced and they only do about thirteen thousand removals a year.

we probably because of the overhang from the Trudeau catastrophe in mismanaging the system, we probably have three million going on four million People who are falling out of status, who are now here illegally, and that population is going to keep growing. If you don't deal with it, What's the point of having an an orderly system? Yeah. A a more legal process, a warm welcome, um, the rule and the rule of law. It it it's it's not

Yeah, yeah, that it's not mysterious what we need to do. And a as you see the rise of these xenophobic parties. Is there any space for the kind of politics that you're talking about? Right now, it i i it's hard to conceive of that, isn't it? I mean, you see this huge momentum from the

Auguste British Tories, the most successful party in the history of the Democratic world towards reform driven largely by these issues. This momentum from the Aussie liberals to one nation. Canada, David, is perhaps one of the only major democracies where we do not see yet the rise of that kind of xenophobic politics. And I would like to say to my friends on the Canadian left, who are sometimes hysterical about the the populism of uh conservative leader Pierre Paliet.

Look, I I I think his populism is largely stylistic. It's basically focusing on the concerns of ordinary working people. Who uh you know, the Pierre Polyev's populism is let's Focus on issues like the cost of living, the cost of food, and lock up really bad, violent, repeat criminals. Uh and let's let's keep immigration levels at at a manageable level that we could where we can up properly integrate people. That's Pierre Polyev's pop. If you don't like that popularity,

Then take a look at what's happening in the UK, Australia, Germany, France, and elsewhere. We have a party like that, which Mr. Polyev has been very effective. at uh pushing down to the mar pushing out to the margins, the People's Party of Canada at like one or two percent in the poll. So again, if you if you don't like this kind of mainstream fusion of center right conservatism and sort of stylistic populism that mister Pallier represents.

Then you're going to get something a hell of a lot more problematic in our politics. So I'm I'm grateful to live in a country where we still, despite the disaster of the Trudeau years, have uh something more like a a a mainstream center right uh conservative consensus uh you know in Canadian conservative policy. And let me end with with this last thought. There has been now a forty year consensus.

in Canada in favor of stronger US Canadian ties. At the beginning it was quite controversial, but it's become a position that is held by both of the two big parties and broadly by uh people across the Canadian political spectrum. That was true from the middle nineteen eighties until the middle twenty tens, warmer, closer integration on everything from trade to national security to food and energy and environment. And this is now in jeopardy because of actions by the Trump administration.

And the the reactions to that are being seen in Canada. Much as the present US ambassador to Canada blames Canada for flinching every time it gets slapped. Let's not overlook who's doing the slapping and why the flinching is happening. Yeah, I the I am I m I'll confess I'm quite annoyed with many on the Canadian right who are reflexively blaming Canada, Kearney, whatever.

uh for the disrepair of the relationship when it's entirely uh the doing of the United States. There is a a sort of a a a an element of on the right of c of Canadian politics who actually in some bizarre sense r admire Trump and is disruptive, you know, he's because he owns the libs and he's fighting woe.

And and and Trudeau built up such animosity that there's unfortunately now a reflex for s as I say, some on the right to to blame Canada for all of this, which I think is absurd. Look, we're stepping up to our responsibilities on defense in a very significant way. We have been the most r important trade uh ally of the United States for decades. We are the largest source of energy, of fertilizers. We are We're ne we're we're we're natural partners.

And and and we're prepared to to to make pragmatic deals with Donald Trump to respond to rational elements of his agenda. So hopefully uh Seiner Hedge will prevail after he loses at the Supreme Court, I think, on the on the emergency tariff. And perhaps as chastened at the midterms, uh perhaps we can we can finally um get back to some uh semblance of normalcy in this uh critical and historic relationship. Jason Kenny, thank you so much for joining.

Thanks so much to Jason Kenny for joining me today on the David Fromm program. Now, as mentioned, my book this week is a 1904 novel by a writer named Sarah Jeanette Duncan, titled The Imperialist. Many of the books I've discussed on this program, Jane Eyre, Frankenstein, have been famous classics. I would venture a pretty firm guess that very, very few people who watching or listening to this program have ever read or even heard of the novel The Imperialist by Sarah Jeanette Duncan.

But I read it as a young man. It made a big impression on me, and I want to talk about it today because I think it's very relevant to my discussion just now with Jason. Sarah Jeanette Duncan was a Canadian born writer who wrote many, many novels, most of which I have not read. Many of them set in India, the country where she settled in after marrying an British civil servant who uh was responsible for the administration of British rule in India. She wrote one novel about her native Canada.

Um and that is this book, The Imperial. Now, the phrase the imperialist today conjures up images of brutality and exploitation, but in nineteen oh four it was a word laden with some irony, but a great deal of Idealism. Here's the story. The story concerns a young man named Lauren Murchison, the son of Scottish immigrants to Canada. He lives in the fictional small town of Elgin, Ontario.

And he becomes interested in politics. He makes a trip to Britain, his first the country the the home that his parents came from. And is inspired by a vision of the grandeur and beauty of the possibilities of a united British Empire. And this was a topic much on the minds of people in Britain and the British Dominions at the end of the nineteenth century, in the beginning of the twenty.

Sometime in the late nineteenth century, the economy of the islands of Great Britain was overtaken in size by the United States and Imperial Germany. But the economy of the British Empire as a whole Britain plus Ireland plus Canada plus Australia plus New Zealand plus South Africa plus India plus the other uh British dominions and overseas colonies. That entity remained the world's largest economic unit until during the First World War.

And many in that unit were captivated by the idea what if this economic unit could also become some kind of strategic unit? And they are captivated by a vision of an imperial federation with a parliament in London, where Britain would be an important partner, but just one, and where Canada and the other dominions would have representation. For Canadians this was an especially exciting idea because it offered the possibility for Canada to be less vulnerable to its American neighbor.

and to achieve with the other uh countries of the British imperial system some kind of collective power that Canada on its own lacked. The novel is not a political treatise. It's actually really more a study of small town life.

uh with many ironic comments about class divisions and the um sharp ethnic divide between people who came from England and people who came from Scotland, people who worshipped in Anglican and Methodist churches on the one hand, and people who worshiped in Presbyterian churches on the other. And that that will be a very particular treat.

But this vision of Canadians wrestling with their place in the world, I don't know that it's ever been dealt with better in literature than by this one book written now more than uh a hundred years ago. And It captured that Canada has long wrestled with this question of was Canada to be a country unto itself, small as it was, or was it to be part of something bigger? And again and again and again, Canadians have been attracted by the vision of being s part of something bigger.

Whether it was the British Empire before the First World War, before the Second World War, whether it was some kind of transatlantic community of nations, whether it was part of some kind of North American free trade zone. This has been an idea that has really spoken to not just the practical, but the romantic element of the Canadian mind.

And this is an ideal and a vision that has really taken a tremendous pummeling during the Donald Trump years. And what Canadian what Americans are hearing from their Canadian friends is not just a shock to Canadians' economic self interest, although that's very real. but a puncturing of a kind of imperial not imperial but a kind of pan national dream that expressed it while itself at one point through imperialism and at other points in other ways.

I remember um during the great debate in the middle nineteen eighties over the free trade agreement with the United States. My wife and I were newly married and we were very engaged in this debate, and both of us were strongly in favor of the free trade agreement with the United States.

At that time, much of the opposition to the agreement came from the literary and artistic community in Canada. And there are many, many statements and open letters and signatories on statements by writers and artists who were against the free trade agreement. So Danielle and I and some friends organized a a signature of writers and artists who were in favor of the agreement. And we put together put together a very impressive list and there was an open letter published in the newspapers.

And it was to Danielle that fell the job of recruiting the signature of Mavis Galant, the great writer of Canadian short stories, then living in Paris. And Danielle spoke to her in Paris. And Mavis Collant recounted to her a conversation that she had had with one of the leading opponents of the Free Trade Agreement. I won't mention him because he's still alive.

Um I won't mention the name, but he uh his quote struck me as really quite incisive and profound. He said what Canada is debating in this choice is whether Canada wants to be a big, small country or a small, big country. And he saw himself and his fellow opponents of the agreement as advocating being a big, small country, kind of greater Belgium, and those on the other side as wanting Canada to be a small, big country, a kind of lesser France or lesser Britain.

I thought that was that was a very profound and true insight. And Canadians did find in their partnership with the United States that has been so intimate since the middle nineteen eighties, a way to be a small, big country.

And Donald Trump's attacks on Canadian c Canada's continued national existence have really changed the grammar and have reasserted the have re re empowered those who as um this incisive opponent of the agreement said, thought of Canada as being instead a sm uh a big small country.

The the future is quite dark for the North American relationship. I think there are people now in their twenties who will carry the memory of the Donald Trump administration with them to the end of the present century and maybe even beyond that. And to understand what has been lost, no one voiced better than Sarah Jeanette Duncan in 1904 in her novel The Imperialist. It's still in print if you want to take a look.

Thanks so much to Jason Kennedy for joining me today. Thanks to all of you for listening and watching the David Prom program. As always, the best way to support the work of this program and of all of us at the Atlantic is by subscribing to the Atlantic. I hope you'll consider doing that. Follow me on social media at David From Thanks so much for joining. See you next week on the David.

This episode of the David Frum Show was produced by Nathaniel Frum and edited by Andrea Valdez. It was engineered by Dave Grind. Our theme is by Andrew M. Edwards. Audin Abayed is the executive producer of Atlantic Audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. I'm David Frum. Thank you for listening. USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day. Superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance.

USA, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to ten percent the banner to learn more and get a quote at US. com slash bundle. Restrictions apply.