The LeDrew Three Minute Interview

Economist and Globe and Mail columnist John Rapley joins Stephen LeDrew to ask why the war involving the United States and Iran is still dragging on months after it began.Rapley argues that Washington entered the conflict with powerful military capabilities but without a sufficiently clear political endgame.The United States and its allies have inflicted substantial damage on Iran’s military infrastructure, while Iran has suffered enormous economic pressure. Yet the government in Tehran remains in power and continues to pose a regional threat.Rapley argues that this illustrates an important difference between tactics and strategy: winning individual battles does not necessarily tell you how to end a war.The conversation also turns to Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, the reluctance of American allies to become more deeply involved, and the role of China and Russia, which have their own strategic reasons for preventing Iran from simply falling into Washington’s orbit.The fundamental question is simple: what outcome is the United States actually trying to achieve — and how does it get there?Become a member to support the show and get access to longer interviews and additional content.TOPICS COVEREDThe continuing U.S.-Iran conflictWhy Iran’s government has not collapsedMilitary tactics versus political strategyWhether Washington had a clear endgameThe Strait of HormuzIran’s military and economic damageIraq, Afghanistan and VietnamWhy American allies are reluctant to joinChina and Russia’s interests in IranRegime change versus containmentWhat it takes to actually end a war

Lawyer, columnist and Save Our History founder Mark Johnson joins Stephen LeDrew to discuss his campaign to make candidates take a public position on the future of Sir John A. Macdonald statues removed from public spaces.Johnson says Save Our History has contacted candidates asking a straightforward question: should Macdonald statues be returned to public view, or should they remain in storage?For Johnson, the argument goes far beyond statues. He sees the issue as part of a larger debate over how Canadians understand their history, whether the country should take pride in its founders while acknowledging their failings, and how much influence unelected institutions should have over public memory.Save Our History describes itself as a non-partisan grassroots movement dedicated to preserving Canadian historical statues and school names. The organization is currently campaigning for the restoration of Macdonald statues in several Ontario communities.LeDrew and Johnson also discuss education, colonialism, Canadian identity and whether candidates should be forced to tell voters exactly where they stand on controversial historical questions.Topics Covered:Sir John A. Macdonald statuesPutting candidates on the recordStatues currently held in storageMunicipal politics and historical memoryPride versus criticism of Canadian historyHow politicians handle controversial historical figuresSchool boards and Canadian historyColonialism and national identityImmigration and integrationWhether Canada should restore removed monumentsSave Our History: https://www.saveourhistory.ca/

In this Friday rant, Stephen LeDrew takes aim at Prime Minister Mark Carney’s governing ability - arguing that Canadians are hearing plenty from the Prime Minister on the international stage while getting too little debate, accountability and explanation at home.LeDrew points to Carney’s recent New York Times interview, where the Prime Minister discussed preparing for the remote possibility of U.S. military action against Canada. LeDrew argues that a more politically experienced prime minister might have used the question to emphasize the deep economic, cultural and security relationship between Canada and the United States.The rant then turns to Carney’s leadership at home. LeDrew questions whether too much power is concentrated in the PMO, whether cabinet ministers have any power and authority, and whether major announcements are creating measurable results.From pipelines and “Buy Canadian” procurement, to closer ties with Europe and another potential increase in immigration, LeDrew argues that Canadians deserve more than announcements.They deserve debate, Parliament and accountability.And if Canada is going to fundamentally change its economic and international relationships, Canadians should have a much bigger role in that conversation.Canada belongs to Canadians - not the Ottawa Elite.TOPICS COVEREDCarney’s New York Times interviewThe possibility of U.S. military actionCanada-U.S. relationsCarney’s international media strategyThe power of the PMOCabinet and parliamentary accountabilityMajor project announcementsBuy Canadian procurementCanada’s proposed closer relationship with EuropeImmigration and population growthWhether government announcements are producing resultsWhy Canadians need more political debate

Economist and small-business advocate Catherine Swift joins Stephen LeDrew to discuss the latest trouble facing Canada’s steel industry after Stelco announced layoffs affecting up to 500 workers.While Stelco has cited U.S. tariffs, weakened demand and import pressures, Swift argues that Canadians also need to look at global steel overcapacity and competition from heavily subsidized Chinese production.LeDrew and Swift discuss whether Canada’s trade protections are strong enough, why cheap imports can put domestic manufacturers under enormous pressure and whether Ottawa is too quick to blame Donald Trump for economic problems that have deeper causes.Swift’s argument: Canada cannot protect jobs simply by pointing at Washington. It also has to examine its own trade, industrial and economic policies.This is the first Three Minutes. Become a member to watch the full 10-minute conversation with Catherine Swift on small business, Canada’s slowing economy, productivity, the dollar and why she believes domestic policy is doing serious damage.Topics Covered:Stelco layoffsCanada’s steel industryChinese steel competitionU.S. tariffsGlobal steel overcapacityTrade protectionsCanadian manufacturingWhether Ottawa is blaming Trump too much

Former Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri joins Stephen LeDrew to discuss Parliament, government accountability and whether too much political power has become concentrated around Prime Minister Mark Carney and the PMO.The conversation begins with Carney’s recent interview with the New York Times, in which he said Canada may eventually resume a “controlled increase” in population as the government prepares its next immigration levels plan. LeDrew and Ferreri ask why Canadians learn about significant government intentions through speeches and foreign media rather than through sustained debate in Parliament.Ferreri also draws on her experience as an MP to criticize Question Period and argue that parliamentary committees can provide much more meaningful scrutiny — through witnesses, testimony and detailed examination of government policy.That matters even more with the Liberals currently holding 174 of the 343 seats in the House of Commons, giving the government a narrow majority.The broader question: if Canadians want better government, where should the real accountability come from — Parliament, committees, the media or voters themselves?Topics Covered:Carney’s New York Times interviewImmigration and government communicationPower inside the PMOParliament and political accountabilityWhy Question Period frustrates votersThe importance of parliamentary committeesMajority government and scrutinyHow MPs hold ministers accountableTrust in political journalismVoters’ responsibility to seek information

Mark Milke, President of the Aristotle Foundation, joins Stephen LeDrew to ask whether Canadians are really disengaged from politics — or whether the political system gives them too few opportunities to participate.Milke argues that ordinary Canadians cannot be expected to become experts on every issue when they are busy working, raising families and living their lives. The deeper problem, he says, is that citizens generally get one meaningful opportunity to influence government every few years.The conversation turns to Switzerland, where voters regularly participate in referendums on major public-policy questions, and to the United States, where competing branches of government can provide additional checks on power.Milke argues that Canada’s system concentrates too much authority in party leaders and the Prime Minister’s Office, particularly under majority governments.His proposed solution: citizen-initiated referendums, recall mechanisms and more opportunities for Canadians to inject themselves directly into the political process.Topics Covered:Why Canadians disengage from politicsVoting once every few yearsPower concentrated in the PMOWhy MPs rarely challenge party leadersCitizen-initiated referendumsSwitzerland’s direct-democracy modelRecall legislationChecks and balances in the United StatesMajority governments and accountabilityGiving citizens more direct political power

Writer David Polansky, author of the Strange Frequencies Substack, joins Stephen LeDrew to discuss Canada’s rapidly evolving relationship with the European Union — and whether anyone actually knows what the proposed arrangement would mean.European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has floated the idea of Canada becoming an EU “associate member,” even though no established status by that name currently exists. Prime Minister Mark Carney has instead spoken about pursuing a new and “unique alliance” with Europe rather than full EU membership.Polansky argues that the ambiguity makes the initiative feel more like political messaging than a fully developed policy. He and LeDrew ask whether closer ties with Europe are partly intended to demonstrate independence from Donald Trump and the United States — or whether there is a substantive economic and strategic objective behind them.The EU will always buy Canada’s Natural Gas, even without the “unique alliance”.The conversation also turns to Canadian nationalism, Parliament, Carney’s European diplomacy and the unusual imbalance in the Canada-U.S. dispute: Canadians are intensely focused on it, while Polansky argues many ordinary Americans are barely paying attention.Topics Covered:What EU “associate membership” actually meansCarney’s proposed European alliancePolicy versus political theatreWhether Trump is driving the strategyCanada’s identity and relationship with EuropeWhy Parliament should debate the issueCarney’s European diplomacyCanada-U.S. political tensionsWhy Americans may view the dispute differently*- What Canada actually gains from closer EU ties

Harrison Faulkner, contributor to Juno News and founder of Ensign Media, joins Stephen LeDrew to discuss Canada’s rapidly deepening relationship with the European Union — and what an unprecedented proposal for Canada to become an EU “associate member” might actually mean.European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has floated Canada becoming the EU’s first associate member, although no such formal status currently exists. Prime Minister Mark Carney has welcomed a deeper relationship while describing Canada’s goal as a new and “unique alliance,” rather than full EU membership.Faulkner questions what Canada would gain beyond existing trade arrangements and whether the proposal is partly about demonstrating greater independence from the United States during the ongoing dispute with President Donald Trump.The conversation also turns to CETA, energy and critical minerals, the possibility of a Norway-style relationship with Europe, and whether a major change in Canada’s international relationships deserves a full debate in Parliament.Topics Covered:Canada’s proposed EU “associate membership”What “associate member” actually meansCarney’s push for a deeper European allianceWhether Trump is driving Canada toward EuropeCanada’s existing CETA trade relationshipEnergy and critical-mineral exportsA possible Norway-style arrangementEU bureaucracy and regulatory obligationsParliament’s role in major foreign-policy decisionsWhy Faulkner wants more public debate

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith joins Stephen LeDrew to discuss one of Canada’s biggest economic problems: the extraordinary amount of time it can take to get major projects approved and built.Smith points to a transmission project that took 17 years to complete and argues that no serious investor can be expected to wait that long before earning a return.Alberta is now testing a different approach.Smith says the province has adopted a 120-day approval target for major projects once environmental requirements, Indigenous consultation and other prerequisites are complete. The goal is simple: give investors certainty and get construction moving.The conversation also turns to pipelines, Alberta’s investment strategy and a surprising area of agreement between Smith and the federal Liberal government.Smith gives Prime Minister Mark Carney credit for working directly with provinces on their individual priorities and says that if Ottawa, Alberta and British Columbia can cooperate on a major energy project, it could mark a return to the kind of federalism Canada once relied on to actually get things built.Topics CoveredCanada’s painfully slow project approvalsWhy investors lose confidenceAlberta’s 120-day approval targetRegulation versus investmentThe cost of waiting years to buildPipelines and energy projectsAlberta’s major investment pipelineWorking with OttawaSmith’s praise for CarneyWhether cooperative federalism is returning