← Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan![Canadian Ambassador Kirsten Hillman [Extended Interview] — Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan cover](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpod.wave.co%2Flogo.png&w=1920&q=75)
Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan
Canadian Ambassador Kirsten Hillman [Extended Interview]
00:18:08
Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:02]
A
Hey, Sal. Hank, what's going on? We haven't worked a case in years. I just bought my car at Carvana and it was so easy. Too easy. Think something's up? You tell me. They got thousands of options, found a great car at a great price, and it got delivered the next day. It sounds like Carvana just makes it easy to buy your car, Hank. Yeah, you're right. Case closed.
- [00:25]
B
Buy your car today on Carvana. Delivery fees may apply. And we're joined now by Canada's Ambassador to the United States, Kirsten Hillman. Welcome back, Ambassador.
- [00:36]
C
Thank you for having me.
- [00:38]
B
So a lot is going on in the relationship between our two countries. We are so deeply integrated here. On trade, you buy more from the US Than any other country. We have the world's longest land border. We have shared defense interests through NATO, shared air defense with norad. Are we, like, in the middle of a divorce? Like, how do you describe the relationship?
- [01:00]
C
We're not in the middle of a divorce, but we are in the middle of a change. There's no question about it. I think that we are finding ourselves, quite frankly, in a situation where some of the foundations that have governed our relationship for a long time, that, you know, integrated supply chains are good, that working together on strategic issues is very important, that looking out for each other in important ways is a number one priority. I think in some quarters, Canadians feel that those foundations are being tested. We will adapt. We will make it through. I have no doubt about that. But, yeah, it's a complicated time.
- [01:40]
B
Well, you know, Canada had agreed to join this board of peace that President Trump announced out at Davos. And then overnight Thursday, the President disinvited Canada. Is this kind of public snub interfering in the relationship? And what does that indicate to you about what this board of peace is that Canada had said it did want to be a part of?
- [02:04]
C
So we had expressed an interest in the Board of Peace a number of weeks ago, and essentially a board of peace that is seeking to find peace in particular in Gaza and stability is something that Canada was very much supportive of. The parameters of that Board of peace had just really started to come out and our government was considering it, but hadn't really made a decision. But I think that, honestly, I think that the most important thing to say here from the perspective of Canada is that we have always and will always be promoting peace and stability and human rights around the world. We'll do it with our allies in various fora, at NATO, at the un, bilaterally, with like minded countries. So we're not going to change that. And we will give it our all in any fora that that is available to us.
- [02:56]
B
It's kind of now described as an alternative to the United Nations. Is that something you're comfortable with?
- [03:02]
C
Well, we are deep supporters of the United Nations. We feel that it's, you know, it's not perfect. No large institution is. But having a place where the whole world can get together and express their views on issues that are important to the globe is vital. And as I said, NATO is vital. And we work with our EU counterparts and EU Canada, you know, security discussions and various other configurations. So probably all of these different fora are essential. The Board of Peace has yet to be fully, I think, understood and we'll see where that goes. But the outcomes are what matter to Canada.
- [03:39]
B
So your Prime Minister gave a national address on Thursday and I understand he denounced authoritarianism and exclusion. He did not mention President Trump by name, but he did rebuke the claim that Trump. Davos. That Canada lives because of the United States. You're talking about what people receive at home. Everyone has local politics. So when something like that is said, do you fear that this is starting? Not just a spat, but this is like a generational split between our two countries? Like, how are people receiving this at home?
- [04:14]
C
Look, I think Canadians, Canadians know that Canada lives because of Canadians, because what Canadians do for Canada. And right now that's where we're trying to focus our attention by doing what, you know, focusing our attention on what we can control as a nation for ourselves and our own economy and our own security and our own relationships around the world. The United States is always going to be a vital partner. Geography, as you said in your opener, 5,500 miles of border, deep ties, millions of Canadians and Americans that work together every day, that, you know, do research and study and have families across the border. So that is there. And that is something that I actually think brings strength to the relationship at times where, you know, in other, at other levels and maybe at the political level, it's more complicated.
- [05:07]
B
It's very complicated. I mean, it's almost unthinkable that a phrase like authoritarianism and exclusion that that could be thought to be referring to the, the leader of the President of the United States.
- [05:19]
C
Well, I think that there are concerns globally by our government, that we have institutions and norms, rules that have governed our countries, yours, mine and all like minded countries for generations that are really being tested, really being tested. And I think what matters is how we react in the face of these tests. And for us, for our country, for our prime minister, you know, there are important implications for our country. And he's trying to articulate a vision, and I think he is articulating a very strong vision for how we must adapt. And again, it's about being pragmatic and principled, and that's what we're going to continue to be.
- [06:01]
B
You have had a long career here in the United States deeply involved with trade. In particular, you helped to negotiate that free trade deal known as USMCA during the first Trump administration.
- [06:11]
C
Yes.
- [06:12]
B
President Trump was asked about it January 13th. He said, I really don't care in terms of renewing it. There's no real advantage. We don't need Canada products here. Is that free trade deal doomed?
- [06:27]
C
No, it is not doomed. That is my view. All three countries, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, did broad consultations, national consultations, with their business communities in particular, on how that agreement works for them. And really, without exception, the American comments back were, sure, we'd like to maybe update this or change this a little bit, but job number one is to do no harm to this agreement, which is the economic foundation of our continental partnership and leads to very important U.S. competitiveness and Canadian and Mexican competitiveness vis a vis other parts of this world. So I think there's, I think that we have to believe that our political leaders are going to be listening to the people in the constituencies for whom that instrument was drawn up, and they're saying, this is vital to us, do no harm.
- [07:22]
B
So do you think there's a bilateral trade deal here? Is that what the Trump administration's going for rather than the three way deal or.
- [07:29]
C
You know, I think we hear that sometimes we hear different things. It is important to remember that even within that agreement, there are a lot of bilateral elements, but there are advantages to doing things trilaterally. There's a lot of supply chain movement that happens between our three countries. And if you, if you break it into two, you could have different rules and disconnects there that are inefficient for business. So we're driven. Look, Canada will be driven by what? The best thing to do is, as I say, for the companies and constituencies that are relying on that agreement to create jobs.
- [08:02]
B
Because you heard the Commerce Secretary say at Davos, you know, globalism isn't working. I mean, these free trade deals are part of that globalism. And it was just a week ago your prime minister was in Beijing and he described Canada's relationship with China as more predictable than its relationship with the United States. He really meant more predictable than the Trump administration's United States.
- [08:24]
C
Look, there's no question that the last number of months have been unpredictable for us in our relationship with the United States. You know, we have a trade agreement that had us virtually tariff free between our two countries and now we have very serious tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, lumber. And that's causing a lot of challenges within our country. There are people that are losing their jobs. There are industries that are being reoriented and it's very difficult. So that is seen as, yes, unpredictable.
- [08:56]
B
But Fortress North America had been an idea, I mean, the Treasury Secretary talked about it, that the United States, Mexico, Canada, we could stand up together, you know, have shared values and stand up to China dead. If Canada is really describing a new alliance here with Beijing.
- [09:15]
C
Well, I think we have to put this in perspective. The agreement that we did with China a few weeks ago was a very focused and surgical agreement that was largely or almost exclusively designed to de escalate some tariff escalation that had happened over the past year and a bit. So over the past year and a bit, China had put very punitive tariffs on Canadian agricultural products and fish and seafood and shutting Canadians out from one of their primary markets, if not for some of them, their primary market. And so we went to Beijing to re establish market access for our farmers and our fishers. It's exactly what the US Administration did in October when they re established market access for US Soy farmers and in exchange rolled back some tariffs and fees. So this is a very pragmatic, very focused approach. I think it's important to put it in context.
- [10:09]
B
But even Ontario's premier. So this is letting Chinese spies cars into your country. I think he means electric vehicles that will be cheaply made in China. Are you worried about becoming too beholden to China and its cheap manufacturing?
- [10:22]
C
No, we're not. Because the auto side of this agreement was again to take us back to 2023. We had the importation of vehicles made in China. Many of those were Teslas, as a matter of fact, and we've gone back and stuck to the level of 2023 for those imports. So this isn't a revolutionary new thing. This is really just trying to roll back or de escalate what had been escalated over the past year and a bit.
- [10:52]
B
Well, the Treasury Secretary is saying that Albertans are going to have a referendum on seceding from Canada. He seems to be urging that. What do you make of this? And comments like that.
- [11:06]
C
I think it's important to let Albertans and Canadians manage their own very delicate domestic politics themselves. I think that that's probably wise, Counsel, having grown up in Alberta. You know, it's a province that has lots of strong views about the way in which it interacts with the rest of the country, as do other parts of our nation. And those are important debates to be had, but they're debates for our country to have within its own citizenry.
- [11:36]
B
It seems to be stirring the pot there a bit. But I want to ask you what your prime minister said at Davos. He got a standing ovation for this speech. He described a ruptured global order, the end of a nice story and the beginning of a new brutal reality, which he described as a predatory one. Take a listen.
- [11:57]
C
Stop invoking rules based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is, a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as coercion.
- [12:13]
B
He said if you're not at the table, then you're on the menu. What does this new world order look like?
- [12:18]
C
Well, that's a good question. I mean, I think he laid out in his discussion, his speech, his view of what is happening in our world. And it's a world in which rules that governed every player in the globe, every country, were maybe not perfectly abided by, as he said, maybe not always exactly exercised, as one would hope, but still were sufficient to form the basis of the prosperity, the stability, the predictability that we all used to maximize peace and stability and maximize economic reality. So we're moving away our economic benefits and we're moving away from that. And we have to. Countries like ours have to figure out what that means for us. I think that what it does mean for us is that we can't walk away from our principles. We can't walk away from our belief in rules that are to be abided by by everyone if they commit to them. But at the same time, we have to be pragmatic and we have to look inward to control what we can within our own economies, to be as resilient as we possibly can within our own economies. And part of that means engaging pragmatically with a broad array of countries around the world in trade agreements, in investment relationships, and in partnerships.
- [13:44]
B
Sounds like Canada's picking off our friends.
- [13:48]
C
No, I think Canada is trying to make sure that it is the most resilient it can be for our own benefit.
- [13:55]
B
I'm being told that President Trump posted on social media just a few moments ago that Canada is against the Golden Dome over Greenland and has voted against it to choose to be closer to China. That's how it was described to me. Yet President Trump had previously talked about Canada participating in this Golden Dome project, which isn't yet built, but it's supposed to be missile layered missile defense, as I understand it. Do you know what he's talking about that Canada has rejected being involved?
- [14:27]
C
No, I'm afraid I don't. But what I can say about the Golden Dome is this. Canada is investing over $80 billion over the next five years in our defense, in our defense systems. And a big part of that is Arctic defense. And a big part of our Arctic defense investments are something called over the horizon radar, which is a system that allows us to see the threats that are coming into the Arctic before they arrive. So that is part. And when we have talked to the President about protecting our hemisphere, we have talked about ways in which our different capabilities can work together so that we have eyes on the region and we cooperate in a way that protects both of our countries.
- [15:07]
B
So the President has described that as Canada wanting to plug in to the system. As you understand it. That's the better description. Your own system that would coordinate much
- [15:18]
C
as we do across all sorts of defense systems where we're interoperable, we work together, we make our investments. That makes sense for Canada in defending our territory and defending our sovereignty. But we work with the Americans and other allies to maximize the benefits of those.
- [15:34]
B
So, in short, you do think there needs to be more focus on Arctic defense, but you're on board to help do that.
- [15:40]
C
We're deeply committed to Arctic defense. Absolutely.
- [15:43]
B
I need to ask you about NATO because you're also a partner at NATO.
- [15:46]
C
Yes.
- [15:46]
B
The only time that NATO's Article 5 was ever invoked, and you know, this was after the 911 attacks on this country. That collective defense clause, an attack on one is an attack on all, meant that Europe and Canada, they sent troops right alongside American troops on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Here's what President Trump said.
- [16:07]
A
We've never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan or this or that, and they did. They stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.
- [16:20]
B
He was speaking about all NATO troops, but we did check. And about 40,000 Canadians deployed to Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014. 158 were killed, 635 wounded in action. What does a remark like that do to people at home?
- [16:36]
C
You know, I think what's most important is that we know what our Canadians have done. And I know that your American armed forces are deeply respectful and deeply appreciative of having stood side by side with Canadians in those very, very treacherous and difficult fights. We know that to be true. They know that to be true. And that's what matters.
- [17:02]
B
Ambassador, thank you for your time as it wraps up here in Washington.
- [17:06]
C
Thank you for having me.
- [17:07]
B
Great to have you. We'll be back in a moment. A lot of short daily news podcasts focus on just one story, but right now you probably need more on. Up first from NPR, we bring you three of the world's top headlines every day in under 15 minutes because no one story can capture all that's happening in this big crazy world of ours on any given morning. Listen now to the Upverse podcast from
- [17:32]
A
NPR, streaming March 14th on Paramount.
- [17:37]
B
My center, my soul is gone.
- [17:39]
A
From Academy Award nominee Taylor Sheridan.
- [17:43]
B
Mine is not a family designed to withstand tragedy.
- [17:47]
A
Starring Academy Award nominee Michelle Pfeiffer and Golden Globe nominee Kurt Russell. The worry is what you do next. You will have as much life to live as you allow yourself. The Madison new series, streaming March 14th only on Paramount.