The Politics of Money: An IFSD Podcast

IFSD (00:06)
Welcome to the Politics of Money, the podcast of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa. I'm Sahir Khan. I'm Kevin Page. On this podcast, we explore how public finance and politics intersect and the institutions that shape the choices that governments make We follow the money, but we also look at issues of accountability, democratic institutions and our public policies. Are they working?

So in this issue, we're going to tackle three big things. Sovereignty inside Canada, Canada's relationship with Europe and the war in Ukraine. Yeah, we have a fabulous guest. Mr. Dion, Stéphane Dion, somebody that I think many of us know, cabinet minister for three different prime ministers, former leader of the Liberal Party, a well-known ambassador, an ambassador who's been in Europe during an enormous flux, COVID, Brexit

and the war in Ukraine. Let's get started.

Kevin Page/Stéphane Dion (00:56)
Thank you, Mr. Dion. It's just such a great pleasure to welcome you back actually to the University of Ottawa. How does it feel, to, you know, after just a stellar career that I actually watched as a public servant, your rise in popularity in the 90's, you know, and

the stories even behind how you were selected, the role that you played in the Clarity Act, the role that you played as environmental minister, was really, it seemed to be ahead of its time. And then, as a foreign affairs minister, and again, all those different cabinet positions crossing different prime ministers, and then your time in Europe.

As an ambassador to different countries, Germany, France, Monaco, you were a special envoy for the European Union. Just all these

moments. What does it feel like when you look back? How does it feel? Well, it has been an honour to work for my country according to my values within the team. In my case, it was the Liberal Party of Canada where I was very comfortable.

We did not achieve everything I wanted, but as you said, we did a lot. And now I don't want to stop. I want to find another way to help Canada, to help my country, to help the world in my modest role. And after 30 years in the federal institutions, like you, Mr. Page, I would like to find another way to support my country.

I think it will be within the universities it's looking like that. I'm sure we'll find many occasions to have a positive role because I need it. It's selfish. I cannot wake up the morning and asking myself what they will do today. Some people have this talent to invent by their own some activities. But I need to be part of a team. I need to be part of a purpose.

for common good.

But actually you look terrific. You look healthy and it's so good to hear that because we need you at these times as well because this incredible experience that you bring. if I may say, today just covered maybe three topics. The first one, all of which you have these incredible experiences. But putting it in current context, the first one obviously is Canada today.

the unity pressures, the sovereignty pressures. The second one is really building on, and the third one really, building on your experience in the last eight years, better part of a decade, in your experiences in Europe. Trying to understand that evolving relationship that Canada's going to have with Europe. This is happening. And then lastly, the issue of Ukraine and the challenges around reconstruction, if that's okay.

So again, starting from the beginning with Canada and again, Thinking about the roles that you played as cabinet minister, but certainly as, you know, as Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. like, You know, we find ourselves, ⁓ I think people are confused for the most part.

They feel like, you know, unnerved by these pressures on our sovereignty. And certainly from the United States, from President

But also, I think we're unnerved as well that we still have these internal pressures from two provinces, in Alberta and Québec. And I just, sir, how do you see, ... how should we understand these sovereignty pressures externally and internally? And what does it mean for Canada today?

I think it's a bad habit that we have in Canada.

to put the very existence of our country on the table each time we have these disagreements The same disagreements are happening in other countries. It's creating lot of tensions. Governments may fall because of these polarizations, but they don't question the very existence of the country because of that. If you look in Alberta, I understand that

the frustration of many people that feel that they are contributing too much to other provinces as a rich province. I understand that you have these tensions about what should be good energy policy at a time we want to decrease our footprint on the planet in order to stop the planet to be burning, including the forest of

policies aren't that easy to figure. It's always difficult to find consensus. But again, there is only one country where some people will say we'll separate because of that, and it is in Canada. I don't think it's fair for a country. Canada is one of the most admired countries in the world. In fact, you have more than one billion people dreaming to become Canadian. So why some Canadians want to stop to be Canadians?

That's bad, that's wrong. And I hope we'll find a way to solve all these disagreements without threatening each other to erect international borders and to change fellow citizens into foreigners.

Yeah, sir. Again, if I could borrow on your, again, this incredible experience, but also your experience as a political scientist, like how do we understand,

What fuels these grievances? Do you see similarities or more differences when we look at Alberta and Québec, when we think of internal pressures on our sovereignty?

Starting with Québec, you have a separatist movement there since decades because you have a concentration of a population, the French Canadians, that are the clear majority in Québec. But they are a minority in Canada.

and a tiny, tiny minority in North America. And Mexico is far away, so that means that North America, as we see that in Canada and Québec, it's

essentially an English speaking continent. It's not a multilingual continent like in Europe. And so this French speaking population of Québec, majority in Québec, minority in Canada, tiny minority in North America, you will always have political entrepreneurs that will say, you know, if we change the international border and we limit it to the territory of Québec, all of a sudden,

we will become a majority and we will feel much more comfortable, much more able to convince newcomers to learn French instead of English because it will be clear that the language of the country is French. We will learn English as well, but French will be a kind of obligation for everyone. So that's the rationale why you have always a separatist movement in Québec. In Alberta, it's a rich region.

They are paying, ⁓ they are helping other regions. That's a kind of tension, how much we should give. But I think the main explanation is the fact that in Canada, according to our constitution, natural resources are mainly a provincial jurisdiction. And this is almost unique in the world of federations.

In the US and elsewhere, it's mainly a federal responsibility, federal jurisdiction. But in Canada, it's provincial. And this province, Alberta, has a lot of natural resources, oil and gas especially. And they are not willing to see Ottawa intervene too much in this sector, because according to the constitution, it's mostly provincial. And in the last years,

because we need to decrease our footprint in greenhouse gas emissions, the federal government came with more aggressive policies to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, especially in oil and gas extraction. And it created a tension with the government of Alberta. And some of Albertans concluded...

who would be better off on own without these interventions of the federal government that is quite hostile to our oil and gas industry, in their mind. You have these same tensions elsewhere in the world about linguistic policies like in Québec and energy policies like in Alberta. The context in Canada is very decentralized with strong provinces and the sense that

the step from a province to an independent state is not so big. I don't think it's true, but it is in the mind of the people. I think it's fueling the sense that we may put the existence of the country on the table each time we have a disagreement.

Wow. Roll the dice.

For the Canadian public , How do you explain the

Parti Québécois ahead in the polls, while those choosing independence is in the minority

The party in power has become unpopular. They're called the CAQ, the Coalition for Future of Québec, the Coalition for Future of Québec with Mr. François Legault as premier They've been in government a long time

Almost always, when a government has there for long time, it becomes unpopular. They have also made mistakes. They spent a lot of money with few economic results And so they became unpopular. The Liberals have difficulties, don't have a leader at the moment, but just have a new one, we'll see. And so for many people, the party of change was the Parti Québécois

So, because they are sovereigntists there are between 30 and 35%. That's third of population who favour independence. Or because they are tired of the Coalition Avenir Québec and would like another government. So, are in a situation where the Parti Québécois could win the next election with less than 30 % of the votes. If the Liberals and the CAQ rise a little, there is also a Conservative that attracts its number of votes.

There's a party on the far left, Québec Solidaires, which will win, I don't know, a little less 10 % of the votes. So if everyone takes little, but not enough to win seats, the Parti Québécois can go and get a majority of the seats with less than 30 % of the votes. Would he be in favour of a referendum when he would have elected by a small number of people? I don't know. The leader...

of the Parti Québécois promises a referendum if you elect us, it will certainly be an argument not to vote for them. Perhaps the day of vote, the Parti Québécois will do less well than that and will not be elected. We'll see. OK.

So the leadership of the PQ doesn't automatically translate into a mandate for a referendum? If they come with a commitment, as the leader of the Parti Québécois said,

that if you elect us, there will be a referendum. But now he moved. He said there will be a referendum, maybe close to the end of the mandate. I think his plan is to say to Quebecers, I know you're concerned because of Mr. Trump. Yes. And you think it's not the right moment to break up Canada when we need to be strong facing the attempt to integrate us into the US

by Mr. Trump. But the referendum actually will happen after the end of the mandate of President Trump. So don't worry. I think it's what he will say. But for that, he needs to be elected. And it's not done yet. As I said in French just before, there's a possibility that he will be elected with less than 30 % of the popular vote if the other parties split all the vote.

and the Parti Québécois is able to become the party, to take all these constituencies with less than 30 % of the vote, it's quite possible in our electoral system. It's not an impossibility.

OK. Again, if I may borrow on your thinking, your research as a political scientist and, also a minister.

a lot is being written about the rise of authoritarian type of leaders, the rise of populism as a type of politics. And We see it obviously as you know, we see it in the United States, Republicans, the Democrats, we see it in Europe as well. I think we worry, many Canadians worry about that we have, we're open to that kind of pressure as well, a growth of populism that's linked to idenity identity.

Maybe there's elements of there in Alberta and in Québec as well for different reasons. How do you see federalism? is federalism like an antidote to populism you know, Does federalism help us deal with these populist kind of pressures?

I think federalism is a help and the first question we need to ask to ourself to convince us that federalism is not a magic antidote, but it's a counter, a counter

power, a check and balance that we need. And the question I will ask to you, Mr. Page, can you imagine this world if the U.S. were not a federation? Imagine Mr. Trump is trying to weaken all these checks and balances, but they are still existing. And one of them is the governors, governors resisting like the governor who doesn't want the bridge to be closed in Windsor and Detroit.

he said no and then the president is unclear if the president has the power to close this bridge and it would be devastating for the economy of the US and Canada. So because we have a federation in the US, the world is safer than otherwise. But I would say the same in Argentina where you have regions of Argentina counterbalancing what the

President of Argentina is trying to do, and tomorrow in Germany, you never know what may happen, and the extreme right will have a lot of difficulty to be strong in the Länder and in the ⁓ Bunde, the federal institution, at the same time. Even in Canada, when a region or a province is becoming a bit,

in a direction that may be worrying, the other partners of the federation are a factor that may balance that. So, no, no, it's good to be a federation in order to have stronger democracies and in order to have access to a larger market. If you had 10 egotistic republics at the north of the United States, imagine in which circumstances it would be now that the US border is so difficult to do business with.

So we have

strong business between provinces were working to increase it you know that very much Mr. Page you are an expert you know how much we have barriers to to decrease between our provinces but at least we have this ability to have a very complex economy thanks to our federation so no federalism is a good thing and that's saying it's necessary in every country some countries

are very tiny, they don't need a federation. But for Canada, you cannot imagine Canada without being a federation.

You will be known in history for what you did around the Clarity Act. I think my grandchildren, hopefully my great grandchildren, will be reading about what happened in the 1990s and your work, these open letters, the passage of the Clarity Act. How should...

Canadians, what should they understand about the meaning of the Clarity Act in this current context with potential referendums

First thing we need to realize is that almost all the states in the world are indivisible. They don't accept secession, That means the separation of their country. They say it's against the Constitution. I include in that most democratic states. They say, no, don't ask me if your region may secede it's not possible. Section 2.

of the Constitution of Spain. So when Catalonia came with a referendum, and at the end of the referendum, they had a strong majority for secession, the Government of Spain, they said "no" you don't have this right. And nobody in the world said, no, no, Catalonia is now independent. Everybody said, well, it's the view of the government of Spain. What can we do? They say Catalonia is still a region of Spain, and it's what happened.

In Canada, we say that differently. We say there is a way for a province, if the population of the province doesn't want to be Canadian anymore, there is a way to make this separation happen But this way is not unilateral. It's not the decision alone of the Premier of the province, saying, look, I held a referendum, I have a yes vote, and now I am the president of an independent republic.

No, it doesn't work this way. This way would be rejected by all democratic states of the world. So there is no unilateral right to secession. There is a right for a premier of a province or a government of a province to say, look, I have the proof that my population doesn't want to be Canadian anymore. They think they would be happier if they were not Canadian.

It's very clear, clear question, clear majority. Nobody can dispute that this population would like to leave Canada. According to this proof, then the Premier of the province may welcome the other partners of the Federation, that means the federal government and the other provincial governments. At the constitutional table,

and negotiate an agreement of separation

then the government of Canada would say to the world, I was one country, now we are two countries, I invite everybody to welcome the new country. So that's the model. It's very difficult to see how it may be done, but it's doable.

The first condition is to have a clear support for separation. Why negotiate something if it's unclear if the population wants it? And the population needs to want it strongly because the negotiations will be difficult. To split the modern state is not for an expert like you that will learn how much it would be complex, negotiations would be very tricky, how much money you need to transfer, how many...

public servants, institutions, borders, territories, minorities, it would be extremely difficult. But if there is a clear will of separation, I don't think Canadians will say, we'll keep this population in Canada against its will. We'll try to figure out what would be a, a fair deal for separation. But if it's what they want, what can we do? Canada will not be the same with the...

province willing to leave and stay in Canada against its will. So that's the way we will need to do it.

I'm very optimistic that it will never happen because I think it's wonderful to be Canadian. It's wonderful to be Québecer and Canadian, or Albertan and Canadian. Why choose? Why not embrace all your identities?

Yes. I was a Parliamentary Budget Officer, but before that I was a long time...

public servant. but I got so in a sense, I got to work on both sides of that proverbial red line, you know, as a public servant supporting the executive and a Parliamentary Budget Officer supporting all of Parliament. I had an experience when I was at the Department of Finance, you know, in, the 80s, you know, working actually with the Congressional Budget Office.

I was spending some time thinking about like, how did they, what did it take to pass their budget in the United States in terms of the role that Congress had to play and, you know, what was the limits of the executive power in the States? And I also, as a public servant, I lived through majority and minority governments. I would say that for a long time, I had concerns, particularly when I became Parliamentary Budget Officer, that we didn't have checks and balances.

in a Westminster system that were as strong as the ones that exist in a Congressional system. You've witnessed, and we've all witnessed, what has gone on in terms of the destruction of institutional norms, particularly in the United States. How do you

our institutions in Canada, are they standing up? As a political scientist, as somebody that...

that worked on these big issues, including issues of clarity, breaking up a country. Are the institutions in Canada, are they durable? they strong enough to take on the kinds of potential threats that we see the institutions of the United States taking on? In some cases, I think failing to do so. Do you see the checks and balances, strong checks and balances in the Canadian parliamentary system?

We have some.

I think we have a political culture, a very democratic one. We are a very respectful country, much less violent than in the US, with more citizens and weapons, contrary to what you have in the US. We care about each other. We think if somebody is ⁓ bad-lucky with their health, the community must come and support this person. So we have a...

we have a federation, as I said just before, where one government, when one government is doing in the direction that may be a bit odd, a bit dangerous, orders may come with counter power that may be helpful. No, no, I think Canada is a strong country. I'm very concerned that we have separatism when in other countries you don't. And I think it would fail the world if we were sending the message that

Don't try to build your own Canada. We tried and we failed. What is Canada in terms of an ideal? Canada is an ideal of ability to cooperate together and taking ⁓ advantages of our differences. That's Canada. And to say to the world, it did not work, don't try, I think we would fail the world. You have so many

identities in the world, have peoples, it depends on the computation, but you may think that you have more than 1,000 identities in the world of peoples or nations or whatever, and you have less than 200 countries. So the necessity to bring different populations together in confidence instead of in mistrust, that's the Canadian ideal. We need to make it a success.

And it's the way we are considered. One of our difficulties today is that there are so many human beings coming at our border and asking to be a fellow citizen in Canada, to have the citizenship in Canada. And we say it's too much, we cannot absorb all of this. It's a problem, I admit, but it's better than the opposite. If our population wanted to leave, how much is harmful to be in Canada? No, no, it's a proof of our success that we are so popular in the world.

Each time you ask to human beings where you would like to live it if it was not your country, Canada is on or not far away of the podium. Yes.

I just like to draw on your experiences over the past decade in Europe and shift a little bit to international economic statecraft.

And you know, we've seen like, you the incredible reaction to Prime Minister Carney's speech in Davos. And it seems like every day I look at international news and somebody's picking up on it. so I just wanted to get a little bit of your take. But if I could, again, from a point of view of in French, after 8 years in Europe.

What do Canadians understand least about Europe today.

I don't know, it depends on the Canadians. I don't know if they follow European policy I would say,

Europeans and Canadians have always loved each other. Since the Second World War, Europe and Canada have a relationship of love. But we never felt that we needed each other. Canada is so focused on its relationship with the United States.

I think in recent years, Europeans are thinking,. Now we know that we need each other.

If our Prime Minister sends us a challenge, we Canadians, will double our exports outside the United States, means doubling in Europe. It's huge of the growth of our trade in Europe. It won't by itself It will happen through the will of Canadians, indeed, to take this extraordinary continent that is Europe. Of course we could say the same thing about Asia or Africa, but I was mandated to focus on Europe.

and to ensure that not only do we have trade relations with Europe, but we have big future, a future that must not missed.

We've seen our Prime Minister, Prime Minister Carney travel the world, literally all the corners of the world. And this pressure for Canada to diversify trade that you alluded to.

Is Europe the next big step for Canada?

Yes. I think you mentioned, Mr. Page, the speech that Prime Minister Carney delivered in Davos a couple of weeks ago. there was a message for the world. And the message, I think, was ⁓ we need to organize ourselves because the big powers are so difficult.

with us, at least if we may organize ourselves better, it would help to counterbalance. And it has been a home run to take a terminology of the national sport of the United States, because human beings were willing to hear that, to hear enough of Mr. Trump and the way he's behaving. Ah... this neighbor of the North is telling us that. People were very thankful.

that the Prime Minister said this thing.

But I think there was a message for Canadians as well in this speech. And it's the message you mentioned yourself. It is, can we be serious when we say we want to diversify? Because it's not new. Diversification is a

target that Canadians have since decades, since Pierre Elliott Trudeau, since the 60s and the 70s and Pearson. We always said that we want to diversify. But well, the trade with the US is still 75 % of our trade. We are completely dependent to the U.S. for our security. And it will not change. We always need

to be in strong relationship with the United States. The relationship we have now is not healthy, and it's not normal. We need to come to something more normal. But we need also to take our lesson and to understand that it would be good to be not completely independent, but less dependent to the US. And for that, our prime minister said, can we double our trade outside the US? So to double with Europe.

So with the Indo-Pacific and so on. It's doable but it will be a lot of work for our business. Because it's something we need to keep in mind that countries usually trade with their neighbors, first. If you look at the US themselves, you know that they export more to Canada than to China, to Japan, to the UK, and to France together.

Together. And that France itself trades as much with the big US than the small Belgium, because Belgium is their neighbor. So countries trade with their neighbors. And to trade more than that is always a bit demanding. So for our business, they are accustomed to find a client, a partner, on the other side of the border in North America.

If you tell them, but you have a market that you may discover in France or in Germany or Belgium or in the Netherlands, and it will help you for that. We are well equipped. have trade commissioners willing to work with you. You need to take their hand to bring them, to introduce them to new clients or new partners. Otherwise, it will not happen.

I think it's the Davos speech to say, Canadians, be serious this time. We need to make progress in diversification of our support, both in geostrategy and economics.

In your Your time in Europe over the past decade past eight years in you know, as a special envoy to the European Union as an ambassador to Germany to France to Monaco and you know seeing what what is going on in terms of those connectivity between trade commissioners

and on business opportunities in Europe.

Do we have that type of social infrastructure? Is it there? We have a lot of talents, people that are incredible heroes. The Canadians will never know that they are existing. Some are Canadians.

Some are Europeans. When I was in Berlin, I was so impressed by the trade commissioners we had there, and some are there, working since decades for Canada. Nobody will know their name. I saw the same in France and beyond the EU because I was a special envoy for the whole Europe. You have 27 countries in the European Union, but you have other countries elsewhere, and you have a lot of potential for us in these countries.

And we have trade commissioners ready to work hard and diplomats in general, because trade is not only about trade narrowly defined.

Trade is about ⁓ diplomacy, ⁓ opening doors. Trade is about culture. In Europe, if you want to succeed, you need to show that you talents, artists, creators. If you are able to come with a beautiful piece of music.

Or theater, or painting, Europeans will think, ⁓ Canadians are good. And it's giving you kind of a branding that you need. And we neglect that. So it's not only a newly defined trade Do we have enough? I don't think so.

And I understand that because we are in the deficit. And it's not for you, Mr. Page, that you learn to you what is a deficit. It's your expertise.

The government is trying to cut the bureaucracy, but there is not a lot to cut in our embassies. You will not save a lot of money in cutting our embassies. I think maybe more in Ottawa. If you look at the ratio of Global Affairs Canada, the number of employees in Ottawa and in the world, it's about 50-50.

Our competitors in France, in France, in the UK, Germany, it's 30 – 70. 30 in the capital and 70 in the world. So I would suggest maybe to cut more here in Ottawa than in the world. I think it's what they are trying to do, Mr. Morrison, the deputy minister and Minister Anand. And I think they are right. It's what you need to do.

If you have to cut, if you may avoid cuts, that's good, since we need to cut and to make sacrifices, protect the people on the ground.

But Canadians are not aware of it, that the people they have around the world,

Are so beneficial for themselves. If you have a trouble somewhere in the world you need to know that there is an embassy, that will rescue you help helping you to find a new passport, to bring you back in in Canada if you are ill. These people are working hard for you, but they need to exist They need to be around

From outsiders like myself, we've seen a lot of political volatility, economic volatility, I think, because of Brexit. How do you see our relationship with the UK evolving over the next number of years?

It's very sad that the UK did Brexit. think there is a regret effect. You have seen polls in the UK showing that they think it was a bad decision for them. I think they were wonderful Europeans. They thought they were not good as Europeans, the UK, but no, they were very good. And we Canadians were willing to work with the UK in order to influence the EU.

So we lost our best ally in the EU when the UK left. But it is done. And I don't know if they will revisit this decision one day, but don't count on it for the foreseeable future.

It's impossible for Canada to not have strong relationship with the UK. We are so close to them. I think under the circumstances, we did as

as good as it was possible to do. We have difficulty to negotiate a, a free trade agreement with the UK because all our quotas have been given to the EU with the UK in the EU. And now the UK would like to have something for themselves. And we say, no, we already gave it to the EU. And ask to the EU your share of the Canadian quotas, but don't ask for quotas of cheese and things like that. But don't ask us to,

to increase what we have asked to our own people to deliver for the EU, the EU of 28. Now they are 27, but it's for the UK to take. You see what I mean? Yes. So that's a difficulty we have with them. I think it will be solved one day. But look, the UK is now part of the trade agreement with the Asia-Pacific, Indo-Pacific treaty. Canada will welcome that. And we are trying to convince the EU to do the same.

So if it works, and John Hannaford is working on it very strongly. If it works, and it was an idea I had when I was the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a long time ago, but it was ahead of its time, I guess. but now we are doing our best, Canada, to bridge the EU, the UK, and the Indo-Pacific in the same treaty of trade.

where you will not have the US, they don't want to be part of it, and China is not part of it. So when Prime Minister Carney spoke about middle powers, but that's the, I think, the most concrete project we may think about what that means. A trade agreement between all the middle powers of Indo-Pacific and Europe, and Canada and other...

South American countries like Argentina and Brazil. So that would be fantastic, but it's a lot of work, a lot of work to reconcile the views of the EU and the views of the Indo-Pacific. Maybe we'll have different steps, but not a clear free trade agreement. But some steps may be done, I think, if we work hard.

Sir, I'd just like to close with some discussion on Ukraine.

I think the war in Ukraine has really unnerved a lot of people across the world. Actually, my grandparents came from the Ukraine on my mom's side, and I've had the opportunity to visit a couple of times over the past decade or so, after the war started in 2014. But I wanted to get your take,

as an ambassador, as a special envoy, Canadians, there's a big Ukrainian contingent of Canadians, ⁓ and we've seen Prime Minister Trudeau and Prime Minister Carney talk about providing support, particularly for Ukraine defense. How is that being taken? How do Europeans receive Canada's role

in the Ukraine effort, the reconstruction effort? In terms of the defense of the Ukraine?

Reconstruction will come and hopefully we'll find all the support Ukraine will need at that time. But for now it's not reconstruction, it's survival. You have people incredibly courageous since more than four years. It will be longer than the Second World War pretty soon.

They are at war, and for no valid reason. It's the war of one man. You may discuss, did NATO made all the right decisions up to February 24, 2022? But after that, it's clearly the war of one man. Because

the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France came one after the other one in the Kremlin and said to President Putin, in the eyes, don't do a war because of that. Ukraine will not go into NATO. There is no reason to attack Ukraine. Ukraine is not a threat for you. It's not true there is a genocide in Ukraine against people of Russian languages.

Completely a fallacy.

After this very clear talks with these two leaders of France and Germany,

I think a President of Russia that would have been more respectful of human life and less despotic would have said, okay, I'm still concerned about what you're doing. We have been invaded in our history, Russia, always through Ukraine or Poland. Once you're in Ukraine, you're very close to Moscow. I'm very concerned by that.

But I hear what you're saying, and even though I'm not completely comfortable, I will not start a war because of that. I think it's reasonable reaction, but not with Putin. He came with a war, I think it's because he thought in a couple of days or weeks, maybe months, he would be in Kiev. And more than four years after, he had so much destruction, lives, that have been

destroyed completely and oh, it's so awful. It's awful for Ukrainians, awful for Russians, it's awful for the world.

Because look what is happening now. We will invest 5 % of our GDP, in protecting ourselves against human beings. So human beings protecting themselves against human beings.

Now they will invest much more in it than to reconcile their relationship with the planet. That's a complete disaster for humankind. If you have someone from another planet looking at us, they must ask themselves what kind of animals they are. But it's the way it is. And Prime Minister Carney has no choice. needs indeed to do his ⁓ part to make sure that Canada will be there for Ukraine.

Not to to help Ukraine to to solve his social or environmental problems, but only to survive and and to spend in NATO and to spend in it to reorient our industry toward weapons to kill people. Yes, it's a tragedy for the world, but it's a moral obligation to do that under the circumstances

Sir, do you?

As you follow the peace process or the peace, the conversations,

is tangible progress being made in those peace talks when we see Russians and Americans? No. Not yet. No, no, no. I think the President of Ukraine and the President of Russia, they don't want to be the one that will say to Trump, I stop the negotiations. So they pretend to negotiate in order to not displease

Mr. Trump. But what can they negotiate? Mr. ⁓ Zelensky cannot accept to give to Putin territories that he did not conquer already. He cannot accept that the territories that Putin handled today will be recognized as Russian. He may accept

to have a pause or to have the situation you have in Korea, where they agree to disagree and you have a border and the two armies are looking at each other, but not fighting to each other. But to recognize that all these parts of Donbass would become Russian and internationally recognized as Russian, he cannot. So there is very little room for him to negotiate. Now, Putin, will he accept

that Mr. Zelensky will be protected by NATO troops, even though it's not NATO itself, but countries of NATO, France, UK, Canada, having boots on the ground. He would be then in worse situation than he was in 2022. Because of his stupidity, his stupidity, he has now the two serious countries part of NATO in the North.

close to Saint Petersburg, because he created this situation. You would have asked to Sweden and Finland, do you think you will be part of NATO one day? They would have said, no, it's not what we want to do. Now, unanimously almost, they are part of NATO, thanks to the stupidity of Putin. So he cannot, in addition to it, accept to have boots on the ground

in Ukraine. But for Zelensky to accept a peace agreement without having any security would be impossible politically in Ukraine. So I think both of them were pretending to negotiate, but in fact not in a situation to compromise to each other. Understood.

You've always come across to me as a man that has hope.

that, and that is also somebody willing to put in the energy and the effort to make things better. If we were, can you envision a role for Canada after the war, you know, the Russia war in Ukraine, an effort to rebuild Ukraine? Of course, Mr. Page, because outside Ukraine and Russia, it is in Canada where you have the

biggest number of human beings with Ukrainian origin. So for us, it's very important that Ukraine will find a way to be a happy country one day and a safe one. And all these people that want to come back to Ukraine will be able to do it safely. That's very important for Canada. We will do our share, I'm sure. But in the meantime,

our responsibility is to be backing Ukraine and to convince the U.S. to continue to do so. Why so many leaders in Europe and Canada have been trying to convince President Trump to continue to support Ukraine is because we need them. We need them for the logistics. There is no satellite capacity or whatever without the U.S. Yes, Europe and Canada, we are trying to improve

our ability to support Ukraine, but we need the US. Ukraine needs the US. And the fact that you have a President of the United States that seems to be more sympathetic with Putin than with democratic leaders is very sad.

But on that hopeful note, that we are going to be there for Ukraine when this is over.

I want to thank you.

sincerely, like for taking the time, sharing your views.

I know people are going to be reaching out. I know the phone is going to be ringing for you. But just an enormous thank you. And also as a former public servant, then I could say that to work with people like yourself, with your sort of energy, your courage, your integrity was amazing. It made it worthwhile for me. Thank you, sir. Well, thank you.

So, Mr. Page thank you to mention the team, because what you have said about my person is because I've been supported by so talented people through my involvement for the common good. And I will mention especially the ones I have seen abroad, them and their families, their families to be in Europe. I'm sure it's the same in other continent, but I have seen that in Europe.

Working for their country because they believe in it, I think it's an inspiration for me to continue to work hard. Canadians must realize as we speak, many of our fellow citizens are around the world working for us and they are great. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your inspiration. Thank you.

IFSD (49:31)
Kevin, that conversation covered a lot of ground from national unity to Europe to Ukraine. Yeah, I really enjoyed it. I thought it explained that sovereignty isn't just about borders, that it's about values and institutions. So our sincere to Stéphane Dion for joining us and for all of you for joining us on the IFSD podcast, the Politics of Money.