What is Canada's stance on Iran?

Hi, Donovan Woods here. Hey, hey, it's me Tom Power. We're here to tell you about our brand new podcast. It's called The Big Five. So, Donovan, what is The Big Five? Yeah, exactly. What is The Big Five? That's what The Big Five is all about. Every week Tom and I will sit down with a special guest and dive into new topics, debating things like, what are The Big Five Farm Animals? The Big Five types of hat. The Big Five guy's name Paul. Martin, Revere, Mezcal, McCartney, John Paul Seck. The debate is settled by a listener from somewhere across the country. It's like a game show. It is a game show. The Big Five, available now wherever you get your podcast. This is a CBC podcast. We were not consulted before it began. We're not engaged in the conflict. We did not intend to engage. What we are doing, what we are engaged is dealing with the consequences of the conflict, consequences that continue to spread. Mark Carney's position on Iran has evolved over the week from support with regret to now dealing with the consequences. I'm Peter Armstrong, in for Catherine Cullen, and this week on the House. Former ambassador to the United Nations, Bob Ray, is here to weigh Canada's stance on the conflict, the role of international law, and what a path out of this may look like. And, as the war drags on and the price of oil climbs higher, the federal energy ministers says countries are calling asking about oil from this country, can Canada fill the supply gap? And later in the show, how did Carney's middle powers doctrine land on his trip to India, Australia, and Japan? Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will join me to discuss what's really accomplished on a trade mission like this. But we begin with Canada's stance on the war in Iran. The House is now in session. Thousands of Canadians have asked the government to help them get out of the Middle East, as the war reaches its eighth day and well-official scramble to get Canadians on flights and buses out of the region. The government's position on the violence itself has evolved through the week. Carney supports America's actions in Iran with regret, acknowledging those actions are against international law. How does Carney's position on Iran square with his vision for the worldly laid out in Davos and has been repeating around the world? Bob Ray is Canada's former ambassador to the United Nations. We spoke on Friday. Thanks for joining me. Great to be with you, Peter. So, Prime Minister Mark Carney says the U.S. and Israeli actions are against international law. He also says that Canada supports U.S. strikes, but does so with regret. Can you have it both ways? Well, I think you've got to remember that the first press release that went out, the paragraph that talked about support was about support for the objective of ensuring that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon. And I think that you've just done it, right? You've extrapolated from that to say that, you know, Canada supports all of the Carney supported everything that, you know, epic fury was supposed to be all about. That's not true. So, I mean, it's important to be fair and look and say, you know, has there been an evolution of the position? I'm not sure I'd use the word, yeah, there's been an evolution. There's also been, I think, a greater degree of precision in understanding, you know, what our position always is with respect to aggression. And I think the government is wrestling with how can we be most effective in dealing with the situation that we're now facing? My own view is one of the ways you have to be most effective is continuing to remind everyone that we have values and we have interests and we have positions that need to continue to be reflected in what we say publicly. And I think in the government's public statements over time, that's been more and more reflected in what they say. There's no way that the explanations that the government, the governments of Israel and the United States have given for why they chose this moment to do what they have done and what they continue to do is no way that that meets the test of what justifies an aggression. There's a process that you go through and that process involves going to the UN, explaining what you think you know, going to the IAEA, the atomic energy agency, and saying, "We believe that this is the case. Do you accept that view?" And we may remember many listeners will remember what that was a process we went through in Iraq, although the Americans kind of jumped off the train as we were again. And they ignored it then. And Canada, they ignored it then. But at least there was something to ignore. This time there's no objective criterion and in fact Pete Hagceth talks about stupid rules of engagement. Well, rules of engagement are not stupid. They've been the law of the world for several hundred years. And if there is much to protect American soldiers as they are to protect their soldiers. They're to protect every fighting. You're absolutely right. They're there to protect everyone. And the United States can't pretend that it's so exceptional that it doesn't have to follow the rules. And I think that's the difficult situation that the world is now in and we're in. Plus, when you break the furniture the way they're breaking it, a lot of other things happen of consequence. There are more consequences than people understand when you go into something. And when you go into it, basically, two countries alone, and say, we're going to take this on and we're going to deal with it. We don't care about the rules of engagement. You pay a price. You pay a huge price. But you don't just pay a huge price. The people who are living in that area. So look at the humanitarian consequences. Look at the number of people who are being killed, number of people who are being displaced. Not just everybody, including Canadians, everybody trying to figure out where do we go next and unpredictable levels of violence and uncertainty. But the rules-based order was supposed to ensure that that rule of if you break it, you bought it, held. Is this a failure of that international law? And what does that mean for those consequences you talk about? The problem with international law is not that it's not real. It said it's very difficult to enforce. And if you have a body of law that's hard to enforce, then people begin to feel that it's a scoff law and they don't have to pay attention to it. And that's the dilemma of international law. And I didn't make this up. It's, you know, blaze Pascal, the French philosopher said, you know, if trouble with international law is you can't enforce it. At the same time, this power without justice is called tyranny. And if you don't have justice and law applying to how you exercise your power, you end up with a tyranny. And that's the problem that we're facing right now. And the issue that Mark Carney raised in Davos is how these middle powers can thread those various needles. And it is a difficult thing to navigate. I get that. But when you get to the specifics, you got to come up with some answers. Right now, there's no plan to participate in the actual military operation. He didn't rule out that there might be some military support to the countries in the region if requested. How do you think Canada should be or should not be involved in this conflict? Well, I mean, what I think the Prime Minister is trying to do, and I think it's the right thing to do is he's got to gather as much information as he has. I mean, he has been an extraordinary long trip. I know you've traveled a lot. You know, you're traveling from India to Australia to Japan. That's a long trip. That's a long trip. Each trip is a long haul and coming back. And he gets caught in different places and different scrubs and different time zones. When he comes back to Canada, he's going to be meeting with the SCARCUS. He's going to be meeting with Canadians and talking to Canadians about what is, and I think that will be a moment when all of the communications that have gone on between countries and among leaders will begin to take shape and take form. There is an issue now around the Gulf and the Gulf states and the challenges that they're facing from Iranian drones and other missile strikes. That is creating a situation where Canada may be able to provide some help. We may be able to provide some maritime assistance. I mean, there are lots of options to be considered and to be weighed. Then people will say, "Well, you said we'd never be involved." He said, "No, what he said was, we're not directly participating in epic fury. We're not dropping bombs on Iran, and we're not dropping bombs on Lebanon, and we're actually calling for people deescalate from dropping those bombs because at some, you really have to say that's enough is enough, which I think is increasingly clear to global opinion. I mean, don't forget, we've been through these quote obliterations, right? 1982, and you forget the Lebanon was in the Asian by Israelis. Was supposed to produce security for Israel for all time on the northern border. It hasn't, and it won't. And so you'd need to understand what are you going to do to keep on managing what is a very difficult conflict as you try to find political solutions. Similarly with the US in Iran and the Israelis in Iran, they said we're obliterated their nuclear capacity. Seven months later, they say they're on the edge of producing another bomb. And you say, "Where is the evidence for this? Where is the factual base for these interventions. And what makes you think that you're gonna be able to produce, you know, solutions for all time without actually trying to find the, deal with the political challenges at the bottom of the mall. But that sort of takes us back to the, the, the international sort of system that used to try to at least pose these questions. You used to have a boss who said, you don't have to have all the answers, but you better make darn sure you're asking the right questions. And at the UN, you used to be able to ask these questions as those institutions become more afraid and, and, and delegitimized by some of these players, especially and including the United States. What is the venue for countries like Canada and these other middle powers we talk about banding together with to come up with a place and a venue and a way of asking those questions that can elicit a response? The world has been turned upside down. And, you know, it, the US, the Trump position right now reminds me of the kid who shot his parents and then goes to court and said, I'm an orphan, please help me out. I mean, you, you, you can't undermine the UN, the extent to which the Americans have undermined the United Nations. And then turn around and saying, you know, the UN is no good. They, they have, they have not helped. I mean, the Russians have obviously done their bit through what they've done in Ukraine. But, you know, the UN is one place where, yes, there's still, there's still people there who know what they're talking about. The IAEA, there's an expert group that know what they're talking about. There are people whose expertise we have to rely on. And then there does have to be this other effort on the part of countries. And it is a work in progress, a work in process of saying, how do we get countries together to try to really deal with the conflict as it is and try to affect a way of helping people through the, through the conflict? And that, that is, is, if you say it's ad hoc, it's uncertain. You're right. I mean, the international order has been undermined drastically. But it will still have to be recreated because we absolutely still need clear rules that are have a mechanism for enforcement. And then we have to have diplomacy that's able to function effectively, both privately and publicly, in engaging people about what needs to be done. Even when we had those rules, we had a rock. We had Afghanistan. We had Libya. Where, you know, in Afghanistan, they killed some of bin Laden. And the coalition forces remained in Afghanistan for another what? 11 years. What is the path out of this? And if it was hard enough when we have these institutional order in place, what, how much does it have to change to get us out of this mess now? How many seconds have I got to get? You got 90 seconds. Just wrap this up for me. Well, it's work. It's hard work. But you've said you have and you can say to whoever told you this, you have asked the right questions. And those are the questions that need to be answered. And I think all of us who care about public policy and care about the future and care about the present have an obligation to to answer those questions. There has to be a way out of the current conflict. It is not going to lead to a positive solution. And we need to find a way to get things back on track. And Canada needs to be part of that conversation. Can't do it alone. But we do need to be engaging with countries about the seriousness of the moment, which we're in right now. Well, I appreciate your insight into this moment. Thank you for this. Thank you. Another pressing angle in this widening conflict, global oil supply. About 20% to the world's oil passes through the straight of horn mues. That narrow door to the Persian Gulf, where oil tanker traffic has screeched to a halt this way. The longer those ships remain parked because of the war, the greater the impact on the global oil market. Canada's energy minister says his phone has been ringing off the hook. What it absolutely means for our position in the world is an energy and natural resources superpower. Is we are even more important today than we were before the weekend. Minister Tim Hodgson says multiple countries have reached out to ask how quickly Canada can increase its exports of oil and LNG, look for financial gas to help meet this new demand. So what's standing in the way? Cory Hogan is a liberal MP from Calgary and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Cory, thanks for joining me. Yeah, happy to be here. So the minister says these countries have been calling, but we all know, Canada doesn't have much capacity and frankly not the infrastructure right now at least to suddenly increase its oil and gas exports. So what does your government tell these countries that are calling you up? Well, we tell them that Canada is interested in being a reliable supplier of energy to the world. And there is actually quite a bit of infrastructure that's being built and coming online. We're seeing liquefied natural gas exports increasing off the west coast. We have a ship going almost every two days, I think. At that point, we have an MOU with Alberta to build a pipeline to the west coast under certain conditions. And in general, we are we're just seeing many positive conversations looking at ports like the port of Churchill, looking at opportunities through Prince Rupert through the port of Metro Vancouver. There's a lot of growth of opportunity and that growth of opportunity is also an opportunity for our allies. But my my colleague, Denise Hadari with CBC News did a piece on exactly what we can offer. And he found that we could probably increase oil exports by like 250,000 barrels a day, which is just a drop in the bucket of what is needed out there. What do you tell the industry, these other countries, what do you tell Canadians who wonder why this country is enabled export more of the energy that other countries are so clamoring for right now? Well, I think I tell them that it's a complicated market that has long term demand patterns. And we're poised to make sure that we're meeting that long term demand. The allies that are calling right now don't expect that there's a tap that we can magically turn on. But they're looking at a more complicated world and they're saying, where can I find a long term reliable source of energy and Canada is that partner? And I think that's where you're really seeing that conversation start to flourish. As we start talking about growing our domestic capacity and our export capacity, that has got to be matched obviously with demand. And what we're hearing is demand for Canadian energy is strong because we develop it responsibly. And we do it in a thoughtful way. You know, we've all seen the news that we are making agreements to speed up the approvals process. I noticed just on Friday, Alberta and Ottawa signed a deal to speed up the impact assessment program that a lot of people had been had said was a major obstacle to the development of oil and gas resources in Canada. We have also seen a major oil and gas company just hit pause on its multi-billion dollar expansion in the oil sands. Canadian natural resources say that they see too much uncertainty around carbon pricing and emissions policies. How can your government encourage investment when even homegrown companies simply aren't feeling confident enough to proceed? Well, I think we have to appreciate the moment we're in right now. This is the start of March at the start of April. We are looking to have agreement with the government of Alberta on exactly the things that CNRL was talking about. And in this moment, I think you're going to have a lot of people talking about what's possible and what's not, but they're not going to have to wait very long for the kind of certainty that they've discussed. And I think we also do have to acknowledge that sometimes at these moments, that is when you want to express uncertainty when you're looking to develop maximum advantage. I mean by that you want to express uncertainty. Well, look, these are always negotiations. We are talking about partnerships that include the private sector that include the government of Alberta that include British Columbia that include Indigenous peoples. These are long contracts with major material value that are behind them. It's a negotiation and we're not going to negotiate in public, but I think we have to acknowledge that it's certainly a negotiation at this moment. Canadians, I think specifically Albertans are just so incredibly frustrated that here's this moment where the world needs what Canada has, but because we've spent the last 10 years not developing these resources and not building access to tidal waters and not building out the infrastructure needed to export this that we can't take advantage of it. Well, the only major pipeline to tidewater that's been built in the last while was built in the last 10 years that was to the West Coast through Trans Mountain. Canada's oil and gas production in the last 10 years went up 34% compared to a global increase of about 6%. So yes, I mean, I understand that there's opportunities and we always want to seize opportunities, but I think we do have to contextualize this. And Canada has been a growing oil and gas supplier for those 10 years in question. There's no question about that. All right, Cory, we're going to have to leave it there, but appreciate your time. Thanks for this. Okay. Thank you very much. Liberal MP and parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Cory Hogan. Conservative leader Pierre Paulier was in Germany this week pitching his plan to sell LNG to European allies. Canada can be your supplier. We will earn that role. My future government is going to more to take the words of Elvis Presley, a little less conversation, a little more action, please. And getting the job done. If both conservatives and liberals are so keen to fast track energy exports, could more of that action come sooner than later? Adam Chambers is a conservative MP from Ontario and his party's critic for international trade. Adam, thank you for taking the time. Nice to hear from you. It's great to be with you, Peter. Your leader is making his pitch to sell more Canadian oil and gas abroad. What do you think are the main obstacles getting in the way of letting that happen right now? I think the main obstacles have been the ones that we've been talking about for the last number of years, even decade. Those pieces of regulation that prevent pipelines from being built or oil being shipped off of our coast. I think that's primarily the obstacle and a regulatory process and permitting process that's very clearly not working. We had an example today again of Canadian natural resources delaying and expansion into its projects because of regulatory uncertainty. So I think there are regulatory hurdles and then I would say there is a question of will and political will to get some of these projects done. I think the Prime Minister has said all of the right things but we are waiting for him to do the right things and so that's where I believe we can help the government push them along into action. But I think both parties agree on the necessity of getting rid or streamlining at the very least some of those regulations. Alberta and Ottawa just on Friday announced that they're signing a deal to speed up the impact assessment program. I wonder though if we agree on all of those and we start to see some progress on that end of the file. At the end of the day it's up to Canadian companies to actually increase the amount of product they're pulling out of the ground. How do we get that happening while we're sort of sorting out the regulatory problems? What we've heard from Canadian companies which is an example or referenced by Canadian natural resources yesterday, companies are looking for regulatory certainty, a process where they know is relatively time limited. It has some expectations on milestones that they know that there will be a result at the end of it to ask companies and corporations to enter a process with no end in sight costs that quite frankly skyrocket substantially as the project keeps getting delayed or waiting for answers from government. Those are the things. But Adam, do you think that we're making progress on the regulatory certainty side of this? Well, I would ask what are the new projects today that where there are shovels in the ground or shovels nearing to be in the ground that were not in place a year ago when the Prime Minister took office? In the spring last year the Prime Minister said, look, it is very important to build that speed that we have never seen before, Parliament, we're asking you to support Bill C5 which was to help fast track major projects and give the Prime Minister extraordinary powers to set aside various parts of the regulatory process. Conservatives supported the government in passing that legislation. If it wasn't for conservatives that legislation would not have passed, that legislation has yet to be used. The powers have not been used by the Prime Minister in order to fast track projects. Those are the kinds of powers and regulatory choices that I think need to be made in order to move these projects along. I would say there's just not, you know, there's no tangible projects that you can point to today that are a result of either that legislation or the Prime Minister's willingness to get these projects done. I think what we have been talking about or what the Prime Minister has been talking about is, well, here's the process that's in place now. It's actually a new bureaucratic process. The major projects office, you have to go to that, you have to get on the list, you have to be specially selected to get on that list and then maybe from that choice we might help you. I think that is another layer of beoccur. Adam, let me just jump in because I guess we are agreed and I think you and I can both list the steps that have been taken to speed up the approval process in the last year. I wonder with that in mind, what would your party be doing differently today? If it was in power to get these projects moving? Well, I think there needs to be some time limits associated with the permitting process. I think there should be an expectation, a reasonable expectation that people receive answers from government within a reasonable amount of time, subject to ensuring that proper consultations are done, of course, and the constitution is respected. But I do think that there is this, it's a bit of a black box or this twilight zone you enter into when you submit a proposal to the government and months go by before you sometimes even get an acknowledgement that you even sent in a permit in the first place. So I think there are very tangible benefits. There are the powers that the Prime Minister had asked Parliament for in order to fast-track projects that he has not used yet. I think it would be reasonable to expect that the Prime Minister would actually use those powers to fast-track some of these projects we're talking about. I mean, that is a key difference between what the Prime Minister has said and what we are proposing that he actually do. Just time for one quick last question. What is it that you think is holding this back then? I look at a list of proposals to change the approval process. I look at all of these ideas about getting things moving faster and I think we agreed those are good. I wonder what you see as the thing that's keeping, like do you think the liberal caucus doesn't want to get these projects done? What's the obstacle? Well, that would be a great question for the Prime Minister. It has been a year. I think another good question would be is what's the reasonable amount of time before we stop talking about the changes that we'd like to make to these permitting processes and actually making them? I don't know how long one needs to take to look at reforming the Impact Assessment Act. I would suspect that if you got a lot of smart people in a room, you could probably make the changes or propose the changes over a couple of weeks period. Why are we still waiting to fix a broken regulatory process? We're a year in. It's a Prime Minister himself said, let's build that speech we've never seen before. Let's go ahead and do that. Adam, we got to leave it there, but really appreciate your time. Thanks for having me, Peter. Appreciate it. Adam Chambers is the Conservative Party critic for international trade. Just minutes after we wrapped that conversation, Conservative leader Pierre Paulierve shared a letter that he sent to the Prime Minister demanding the government put forward and pass what he calls an emergency energy supply plan. That plan reiterated calls the Conservatives it made previously, including scrapping the Industrial Price on Carbon, repealing the Federal Environmental Assessment Act, and guaranteeing a maximum six-month approval timeline for major energy projects. Paulierve is also requesting an emergency debate in the House of Commons, which returns next week. A lot more coming up on the House podcast, with all the chaos coming out of Washington these days, should Canada consider not just turning away from the United States, but joining a different union, the European Union. That's coming up in about 12 minutes time. We're here to tell you about our brand new podcast is called The Big Five. So Donovan, what is The Big Five? Yeah, exactly. Every week Tom and I will sit down with a special guest and dive into new topics, debating things like, what are The Big Five Farm Animals, The Big Five Types of Hat, The Big Five Guy's Name Paul, Martin, Revere, Mezcal, McCartney, John Paul's Tech, The debate is settled by a listener from somewhere across the country. It is a game show. I'm Peter Roan, strong sitting in for Catherine Cullen here on the House, and tell us what you think of the show. You can email us at [email protected]. The world will always be driven by great powers, but it can also be shaped by middle powers that trust each other and act with speed and purpose. Prime Minister Mark Carney addressing the Australian Parliament earlier this week, reiterating his theory, first introduced in Devils Switzerland, that middle powers must work together to maintain their sovereignty as the International Rules-Based Order Crumbles. How is the so-called Carney Doctrine going down in Australia? Well Malcolm Turnbull was the Prime Minister of Australia from 2015 to 2018. Knows Prime Minister Carney well. Malcolm Turnbull, welcome to the House. Thank you very much. The Prime Minister is there to bolster ties between our two countries and these sorts of agreements. They sound great, but they can be dismissed as just words. Can you point to one or two things that have materially changed between Canada and Australia? Well, I think Mark Carney is providing some real energy into the relationship which has been lacking for a long time. I mean, to be honest with you, when I was Prime Minister, I couldn't get Canada interested in Australia. We were more interested in Canada than vice versa. I think it's fantastic that Mark as Carney has been here and he's brought his team, he's brought the Defence Minister, he's brought the Finance Minister. Carney is a charismatic, optimistic, upbeat guy. He's not here talking about doom and gloom and threats. Touches on them of course, but he's really talking about the opportunities for the relationship. We have so much in common. I mean, obviously we're a long way away, but I think to be honest and please be offended by this, I think we found, when I was PM, a while ago now, we found that Canada was more absorbed and focused on its relationship with Washington and also with Europe and wasn't very interested in our part of the world. There are specific areas that our two countries will work very well together on. And I think of course, is one of the big ones and I want to ask you about that. But first, remaining sort of broadly speaking here, the idea behind these kinds of middle-power coalitions is that we can not just work together but stand up together. We know that President Trump knows how to cause pain if he chooses to do that. Can Canada count on Australia to stand firm against the United States with Canada if required? Well, I hope so. I mean, I hope you don't have to look at who knows. It's a crazy environment. But I think, look, let me give you an example of where we did stand together. Now, one of the best things I was able to do as Prime Minister was keep the Trans-Pacific Partnership alive after Trump pulled out in his first term. And while the Trudeau government was in and then out and then in again, there was, I mean, a huge credit to the then trade minister Shampain for ensuring that Canada stayed the course. But the fact is, we're both partners in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is a great example of middle powers working together without the leadership of one of the superpowers. When Trump pulled out most people, including the former Prime Minister Trudeau, thought the Trans-Pacific Partnership was dead. I was able to persuade Shinzo Abe to stick with it. And that Japan was the largest remaining economy of the 11 left. And together and then with support from other countries, we kept that deal alive. Now, as Prime Minister Kani said to our parliament, the European Union is looking to affiliate with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The UK has already joined it. So that's a great, that is a real concrete example of middle powers working together, obeying the rule of law, promoting free trade. In other words, upholding the international rules based order, that the Trump administration no longer regards itself as being bound by. And to what extent is it sort of an example of those middle powers being able to stand up on their own and push back a little bit and gain leverage against the big powers of America and China? It is absolutely an example of that. I mean, it is on the economic front, on the trade front. And it is something that we can do more of. I mean, the Europeans have realized that they have got to reach out more to the rest of the world. We are close to finalizing a free trade agreement with the European Union. I mean, it was again, the negotiations were started when I was PM, but they fell into disarray after the Orcas affront to France, but are now being revived because middle powers, the Europeans, Australia, Canada, realize we've got to work together. And what's the alternative? Do we just tag along like some sort of supplicant, sicker fan, he camped followers of one of the big hedgements in our Canada and Australia's case, presumably the US, just subject to every whim and change of policy from Washington? I mean, we've got to be able to chart our own destiny. And I think Karni's leadership here is historic, it's inspirational, and it has really lifted spirits around the world, including in my country, Australia. I said I wanted to ask about the specifics of some of the agreements made on this trip. The biggest of those will be the strategic alliance around critical minerals. With more MOUs that were signed, the goal on strategic minerals, critical minerals, sorry, is an interesting one, and that the call is for our two countries to no longer see each other as competitors and more as that strategic alliance. What does Australia get out of such a deal? If right now those companies see Canada as a competitor, how do they see them as a partner? Well, I mean, a lot of those companies are invested in both in Canada and Australia, right? So we've got, take Rio, for example, they're a big player in Australia, a big player in Canada, and there are plenty of others. There are plenty of Australian mining companies active in Canada and vice versa. So we've got to do more of that. I think the key thing that we're going to have to do with critical minerals and rare earths is develop our own processing. I mean, as Trump himself has said, these rare earths are not rare. They occur in small percentages with other minerals. So I guess that's why they've been called rare, but there's plenty of them. What China has monopolized is the processing of them. Now it's environmentally dirty, it's costly, and probably with our environmental standards, we can't do it as cheaply as China can do, but we've just got to make sure we do it with all of the environmental safeguards and be prepared to pay a bit more for the magnets that are produced with these critical minerals because we need to, just like we need to pay for our security by paying for our defence forces, we're going to have to pay a bit more for economic security and sovereignty as well. There's not just a money cost, I think a lot of voters have been opposed to doing that kind of processing in country. I know in Canada, a lot of people don't want to see that kind of work done here. Why is it so important to push back on that and say, no, we need to have sort of a supply chain integrity and sovereignty around how we sort of end up with the end product here? Well, the way Mark Carney has, if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. So if you can't defend yourself, secure your own supply chains to feed yourself, you don't have many options. I mean, this is the point Carney has made. I mean, I made this point last year in an essay in Foreign Affairs. You know, middle powers have got to work together. Now, the environmental concerns are real. I don't deny that. But they can be resolved. It will just mean the processing will cost more. So Trump's trade war against China was, of course, derailed massively, it backfired on him when the Chinese said, OK, how about not getting any rare earths? How do you like that? And he had to back down. So we don't want to be subject to that kind of response. And of course, Japan's had that experience with China before. I mean, again, this is the significance of what Carney has said. Carney has had the courage to speak the truth. You know, the rules based order that we've all been defending for decades is no longer regarded as binding by the United States. And there are a lot of other countries that treat it as binding only when it suits them. And so what we have to do is recognize that and be more self-reliant, more resilient, and as sovereignty, as sovereign autonomy, mad is more than ever. You know, if I can just ask you one last question, sir, you know, as Canada navigates this upended global trading order, one of the things this country has done is reach out to China, made deals that have angered the US, allowing 49,000 Chinese EVs into this country. Australia has a lot of experience in dealing with China. And I wonder what you think Canada should be thinking about in terms of risk when dealing with China. Well, I think you've just got to, so I was about to use a cricketing metaphor. I was going to say, you've just got to play a straight bat. You've got to be upfront, frank, truthful in your dealings with China. And you know, recognize there are some areas where you won't want to work together because they raise national security risks. I mean, you know, I was responsible for the decision or my government was responsible for the decision that Chinese vendors like Huawei and ZTE would not participate in 5G in Australia. You know, that was not, we weren't asked to do that by anyone. That was a very carefully considered technical risk assessment. Okay. And we explained that to the Chinese side well in advance, didn't seek to create a fence or, you know, create some sort of political mileage out of it. But you know, the bottom line is, even if you take a conservative approach to security issues, the areas for cooperation between Canada and Australia on the one side and China on the other are immense. So there are so many areas we are working together on and where we can do more together. And so, and you know, perhaps over time as trust builds, you know, our national security issues may diminish somewhat. The important thing is to have a good relationship. But you know, recognize there are areas where of greater sensitivity and where we'll be more cautious. Well, we're going to have to leave it there, but really appreciate your insight. Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, thank you for this. Thanks so much. Malcolm Turnbull talked there about Mark Carney working on closer ties with Australia. They also struck new defense and trade deals with Japan and India, but how much can Canada really turn away from the United States? Almost 70% of our exports go to our southern neighbor. Well, there's new polling to suggest Canadians are increasingly disenchanted with the US. And almost half are open to joining the European Union, despite the obvious fact that Canada is not in Europe. The CDC's Jennifer Chivalier has been hearing the argument for and against. Does Canada want to be alone in this very complicated world where the rules are made elsewhere and they are constantly buffeted, basically subject to do the whims of power in your southern border? That's it, anchor it. itself in a more stable regime of middle powers, you know, where the European Union is at the center. It's certainly a provocative idea, and one that Agusto Lopez Claros thinks should be seriously considered. He's a former World Bank economist who currently runs the global governance forum, a group that works on projects like redrafting the UN charter. He thinks that for so many reasons, Canada's already a good fit for the European Union. Canada already behaves as a member of a values-based institutional club, which is what the European Union is. So anchoring within that framework, I don't think would dilute Canada's identity. I think it would amplify its influence. If the world is moving towards regulatory blocks, shaped by shared values and institutional depth, then Canada must decide where it wishes to sit at the table, where moving into a world in which the rules will be largely made by the United States, by China and by the European Union, and where will Canada sit? As the most European of the non-European countries, Canada looks first to. Last year, Mark Karniak acknowledged that Canada has a lot in common with Europe, though he ruled out becoming an EU member state. So yes, we cooperate much more clearly and broadly to our mutual benefit, but not as a member, but a lot. Canadians don't think the idea is that far-fetched. This week a new poll by Abacus data showed that almost half of the Canadians pulled were in favor of Canada joining the European Union. David Coletto is the CEO of Abacus data. Over time, over the past year, support has gone up slightly, but interestingly, the intensity of that support has increased. So more Canadians today, about five points more, say, "I strongly support the idea of us becoming part of the EU than they did last year." Coletto says the interest in Europe goes hand in hand with Canadians souring on the United States. Those who say they have a negative view is up eight points to more than now, two-thirds supermajority, including 41% of Canadians who say they have a very negative view. As we have felt more betrayed, impressions of the United States have gotten worse, and they have. They're still room to go, but they're pretty bad. That leaves us looking for what's next. Canada does actually share a very small border with Denmark, on tiny hands island near Greenland. And we are growing closer to the European Union, with new defence and security agreements signed in the last year. But even if an amendment to the Treaty on European Union made it possible for a non-European country to join, experts in trade and international affairs say it's not the solution to our current trade war with the United States. Ben Hampson is the co-chair of the expert group on Canada U.S. relations. EU membership for Canada is a non-starter. It would take many years, and it's an uncertain political project. Even if it were possible, Canada already has a deep trade agreement with the EU, CETA. That took roughly five years to negotiate, and it still has not been fully ratified by all member states. I did serve as trade advisor to Prime Minister Harper when we were finalizing negotiations with the European Union for the Canada Europe trade agreement. And there was a lot to get through just to get a trade agreement as. Meredith Lilly now teaches international economic policy at Carlton University. But as a former trade advisor, she says joining the EU would not only be slow and difficult, but certain decisions now made in Ottawa would be made by Brussels. The European Parliament would manage and decide what Canada's trade policy would be. It would not be Canada. If we were to join the EU for instance, we would get one vote out of 28 at the European Parliament. Our provinces would not get individual votes. Quebec wouldn't get a vote. Alberta wouldn't get a vote. Just as European sub-national governments also don't get votes on these things. And that's not all. Canadian travel to the United States would actually become much more challenging because all of our border treaties would change. And effectively our border with the United States would become the United States border with Europe. If you're following what I mean. And so we would actually surrender our immigration policies to Brussels. We would have to guarantee free movement of Europeans into Canada. And this would necessarily result in the Americans hardening the US border with Canada for things like trade and travel in tourism. It would just become very, very complex. Geography is very important. And so while we need to build trade relationships elsewhere, we need to remember that that magnet of the world's largest economy is right on our borders. So it would be very hard for the moon to decide that it was going to orbit Mars. It will be very hard for Canada to decide that the US becomes a less important trading partner. John Manley is a former deputy prime minister. He's recently been arguing that Canada has to keep calm in the face of the upcoming trade negotiations with the US. And that we will be fine if it falls apart because our proximity means the US will always come to Canada for certain goods. Still, EU enthusiast Lopez Clareau says, never say never when it comes to joining the EU. I mean, this fatalistic view of some of your experts that you are stuck, that geography is essentially an anchor on our necks and we just have to live with it. I think that that's too pessimistic. And I don't think that is in the long-term interest of Canada. The history of the European Union is basically one where at one moment you say, oh, that will be impossible. And then, you know, 15, 20 years later, it really becomes a reality. I mean, when the idea was floated that European members might have a common currency, it was laughed at. You know, people thought it was impossible. This would never give up their sovereignty in the area of monetary policy and the ability to set interest rates and to control the exchange rate and so on and so forth. And yet, it happened. It happened. It just took time. John Manley isn't really buying that. But there are degrees of relationship with Europe. Not everybody is a full member of the European Union, but the Union itself is, I think, a respecter of rule of law and democratic values and principles, and we should get as close as we can to them without becoming full members. And this is the idea that seems to be gaining ground. Karni, calling on middle powers to act together in his Davos speech, Pierre Paulier von London this week, calling for more cooperation with Anglophone Allies. The time has come for a partnership between Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia and New Zealand. Modern Kanzak, a pact that opens our economy. And Carlton Professor Fen Hampson is looking even further back for a model for the future. It would be the 21st century equivalent of the Hansiatic League. The Hansiatic League was an informal alliance of hundreds of cities and also merchant guilds along the North Sea. In case you'd forgotten about the Hansiatic League, it started in the 13th century and helped protect the interests of smaller city states against bigger powers. Hampson argues a modern version could be led by Canada and Germany and include key European Allies as well as Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan. These countries are also the world's bankers. Together they control a critical mass of global savings and bond holdings. And because the United States now owes more than $27 trillion to foreign investors, even a hint that some of those big creditors, which by the way include Canada, might rebalance would move Wall Street in a day. Fen Hampson points to Trump backing down over Greenland as proof of how this reboot of the Hansiatic League could work. One of the reasons he backed off was that markets and European creditors started to contemplate what it would mean to dump U.S. bonds if the confrontation escalated. This isn't about ganging up on the United States or anyone else. It's about setting clear rules of the road for great powers, whether it's Washington or Beijing. The message is a simple one. Don't start sovereignty. Don't weaponize trade against us. If you don't do that, you have nothing to worry about. But if you cross that line, you should know in advance the price won't be paid by one small country alone, but through a broader market reaction. I think that there's merit in that. We've seen the WTO as a trade organization completely stalled. The UN is really a low, I would have said when I was foreign minister, it's the cornerstone of our foreign policy. It's become a less and less relevant, particularly as it's been unable to evolve its own internal institutions, specifically the Security Council, to reflect the new reality of the world. So I think looking for some kind of institutional framework that's outside of our previous organizations is a good one. But political unions is far more complex. John Manley says that while EU accession is far too complicated, it is time to start thinking outside the box. And for Agusto Lopez-Claros, his quicksotic dream of Canada joining the EU is really just to means to. kickstart a broader alliance of like-minded allies. [MUSIC] >> Do we want to continue to be a European Union, or should we then perhaps gradually evolve into something like a union of democratic states? In other words, you open the door. You change the criteria from geography to values. >> So, a union of democratic states, a hands-yatic league, an alliance in the Anglo-Sphere. The question is, could one of these unions really happen? >> There's a window of opportunity here that's been created by the chaos that's emanating from Washington, and it's an opportunity for us to seize it. >> For the House, I'm Jennifer Chivalier. [MUSIC] >> That's it for us this week. Our crew on the House is Jennifer Chivalier Benjamin Lopez, Stephen Theo Van Busekom, and our senior producer this week is Kristen Everson, technical production by JS Bill Move. And a special thanks this week to Emma Godmere, who's leaving the show after six years. She'll be staying with CBC Radio as the Ottawa Network producer, and will continue to drop by the House from time to time. I'm Peter Armstrong. Thanks for listening. [MUSIC] For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca/podcasts.