The Ben Mulroney Show - Air Canada CEO says "adieu"! Political panel of the day!

Episode Date: March 30, 2026

GUEST: Bronwyn Eyre /  senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and Saskatchewan’s former minister of justice and attorney general. Guest: Michael Burns  / Executive Chair “canada’s valour games”      Guest: Max Fawcett, Lead Columnist for Canada's National Observer -  If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://link.chtbl.com/bms⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Also, on youtube -- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@BenMulroneyShow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Insta: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ Executive Producer:  Mike Drolet Reach out to Mike with story ideas or tips at [e-mail] Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This podcast is brought to you by the National Payroll Institute, the leader for the payroll profession in Canada, setting the standard of professional excellence, delivering critical expertise, and providing resources that over 45,000 payroll professionals rely on. After 19 years, they're back. Frankie Munis, Brian Cranston, and the rest of the family reunite in Malcolm in the middle, life's still unfair.

After 10 years avoiding them, how and lowest demand Malcolm be at their anniversary party, pulling him straight back into their chaos. Malcolm in the middle, life's still unfair. A special four-part event, streaming April 10th on Hulu on Disney Plus. There's something about a good heist. There's something about a good heist.

It makes me think, Ocean's 11. It makes me think when the robbers are smarter than the police, and there's something romantic about it. And every now and then, an absurd heist takes place, and we sit up and we take notice. Nestle has lost a bunch of kids. kit cat bars. Nestle has lost a bunch of Kit Kat bars. How many Kit Kat bars? Four hundred and thirteen thousand seven hundred and thirty-three kick-cat bars have gone missing. Someone stole them off a

truck heading from their factory in central Italy to Poland about 1300 kilometers away. That's roughly a million bucks worth of chocolate. The truck, the bars, all of it. Just gone. Just gone. And these aren't regular Kit Kat bars. These are F1 Kit Kat bars. I don't know if that means they're in the shape of an F1 racing car. I don't know if they say F1 on them. I don't know. And no one will know because they're gone.

Just gone. And, you know, it made me think about this. Kit Katz break. One, two, three, four. Give me a break. Give me a break. Break me up a piece of that Kit Kat bar. Yep.

Give me a break. Give me a break with that Kit Kat Bar. There we go. Remember the episode of the office where Andy couldn't remember the end of that song? And he kept, they wouldn't let him, they wouldn't let him Google it. And he didn't know. And he kept trying to think, give me a break, me off a piece of what? And I think he said, applesauce and it was driving him crazy all day long.

Ultimately, it was the Kit Kat bar. Someone who could use a break right now, and in fact is taking an extended break, is the now retired president and chief executive officer of Eric Canada, Michael Rousseau. He informed the board that he's going to retire by the end of the third quarter of 2026. And the board has a longstanding focus on succession planning. So they've been working on this already. Essentially what they're saying is they're working on it. And the next guy or girl is going to be, or other, is going to be bilingual.

because that's what this is all about. That's what this is all about. Let's go back to the genesis of this problem. You'll remember, you better remember, that Air Canada suffered a tragedy, the likes of which they've never experienced before, where the two pilots of a flight coming in from Montreal landing at LaGuardia in New York City

hit a fire truck that was crossing the runway due to what I think is going to be the conclusion of the investigation, which was overstretched, overstretch of and understaffed air traffic controllers making decisions that they probably needed more people to help them with. And these two brave soldiers, brave pilots in split second thinking were able to do enough to keep all 72 of the passengers alive, injured but alive. And they lost their lives in furtherance of that goal. And upon dealing with that aftermath, the CEO released a condolence message on social media. And let's listen to just a little bit of it.

Hello, bonjour. I'm Michael Russo, president and CEO of Air Canada. And the heartfelt condolence continued in English and it finished in French with the one word merci. So there are two French words and the rest was all in English. And that started a firestorm. I stand by my theory that our prime minister who took great umbrage to this anglophone condolence message was being politically opportunistic

knowing that he is fighting in a by-election in the Quebec riding of Terbonne against the bloc Quebecois and knew that he needed a, some sort of weapon to fight that fight with and attack this man. And of course, sure enough, the nationalist Quebec politicians were upset by this man the very next day. And so the battle lines were drawn between the big bad Anglophone and the federal government

that would defend the French language at every turn. And I still contend that it was politically opportunistic because the prime minister in all of his public speaking has only spoken in French 17% of the time. And he doesn't have a French speech writer. And the Governor General of Canada, who serves at his discretion, and he's at a year to deal with it, is unilingual. And he could have replaced that person. If it was a bridge too far with Michael Rousseau, why hasn't it not been for a year a bridge too far for Mary Simon? Who, by the way, I have a lot of respect for. So I had a real problem with that because that is a problem that could have been dealt with in two weeks or three

weeks or four weeks while Air Canada mourns and grieves and also tries to figure out what happened. Now they have to figure out what happened all while dealing with the succession plan. Do you think it's more or less likely that their eyes are entirely focused on the loss of life and serving the public all while trying to find a new CEO? I contend that when you have two things to do, you're less focused than when you have one thing to do. And I also said last week that I have the utmost respect for French Canadians. And I believe that if they feel insulted, then they were insulted. But in this moment, their feelings are trumped by the two dead men.

Because the two dead men will be dead forever. And these people, their issue can be dealt with next week. There's nothing to be done about these men except helping their families as quickly and as effectively as possible. And so, yeah, I said one trumps the other. not going to apologize for that. Let's listen to a little bit of the relatively new mayor of Montreal, Zoraa Martinez Farada, about her sense of where the issue was, because don't forget, Eric Canada is seated in their offices, are in Montreal. He has a responsibility to respect the people in our Francophone community. It didn't do that. And I think he loved the respect of our

francophone community. Yeah. I mean, again, because it's very political and it's being politicized by both sides. Our prime minister started it, in my opinion. But again, that insult, that insult will be dealt with, could have been dealt with in two weeks. Like, all of it is true, but if you prioritize things, it's not the most important thing. And I'll also point out that, yes, this man was unilingual. That's not a good look. It's not a good look for a company as important as Air Canada. But I challenge anybody to point to an example where French Canadians are not treated as well as Anglophones on flights, which is really the whole point. Institutionally, it is a bilingual company. Yes, that man was not bilingual, but the company is. And therefore, it is, I think it's

important to recognize that. When I get on a plane and I hear these safety announcements in English and in French, and I understand both of them, it's annoying, but I understand why it's done, because some people only speak one of the two languages. Now let's come full circle and go back to our prime minister who really lit the fire that led to the ouster of Michael Rousseau. He was an effective operator of the airline and did many things, and I salute him for that. But being a leader has many responsibilities,

and the second part of your question alludes to some of the responsibilities of the CEO of Air Canada. So it's the right decision at the right time. I fully expect, Mr. Prime Minister, that that means that moving forward, 50% of your public speaking will be in French. I fully expect that. And I anticipate that any day now, you'll be announcing a new governor general. You'll be saying thank you for your service to Mary Simon, the King's representative in Canada. But I guess because she's unilingual, it is unacceptable that she remain in that role.

I'm assuming that consistency is key and the rules that you apply to the CEO of this private company will apply to our governor general. I'll be I'll be clocking this, sir. And I thank you for your attention to this. I'm glad that thanks to you, this man, at this important time while we are focusing on these two men who lost their lives. I'm so glad that we're having a debate on the bilingualism of Air Canada. job well done, sir. All right, when we come back, we have a conversation with a senior fellow the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy. We are talking about two-tier justice in this country and how if you're from a particular cultural community, you may not face the full force of the law.

And now that is impacting the most marginalized amongst us. Don't go anywhere. It's a Ben Mulroney show. Increasingly, as we tell you stories of crime and the criminal justice system in this country, there appears to be a trend crystallizing around the notion that if you are somebody convicted of a violent crime, you may get time off of your sentence if you come from certain cultural backgrounds. There are mitigating circumstances that are, if not automatically applied, then pretty easily applied to your circumstance that would see time knocked off of your sentence. And invariably, what we're seeing in the conclusion that I've drawn is that two people who commit the exact same crime will get wildly different sentences if one is, say, a white person

and the other is, say, from First Nations. And that's all fine and good. I find it repulsive, and given the fact that we should all be equal under the law. But the most repulsive part of it is that it doesn't take into account the effect and impact of the crime and the crime on the victim. Because a rape is a rape. A woman is raped regardless of who, you know, the traumatic events that occurred in the criminal's life. And you can trace a lot of this back to what's called the Gladju principles. And the Gladju principles originate from a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision,

which interpreted amendments made to the criminal code. And the principles were developed to address what was believed to be the crisis of overrepresentation of indigenous people in Canadian jails by requiring courts to consider the unique background and systemic factors of indigenous offenders during sentencing. But the problem is, this is causing immense harm. to indigenous women who are disproportionately the victims of these crimes. And to discuss this, we're being joined by Bronwynair, the senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and Saskatchewan's former Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Ms. Eyre, welcome to the show. Lovely to be here, Ben.

Yeah, this is, you know, I remember when the report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls came out. And there were some people who pointed out that the majority of the crimes, on these women are, they're crimes of proximity. In most cases, they were, you know, the criminal perpetrating the crime was known to the victim. And therefore, if you wanted to deal with this most directly, you should probably look at the indigenous men in these women's lives. That was a bridge too far for a few social justice warriors.

And they called that inherently racist. but the proof is in the pudding as we are looking at today. Well, it's 97% of cases, right, that the victim and accused were known to each other. And that does raise a very inconvenient truth about crime and punishment in this country and the effect of Glad You and victims matter, as you say. And by victimizing offenders, we forget the real victims. I mean, we can have all the conversations we like about how 12 to 15, year sentences are too low for, I don't know, second-degree murder where interpersonal violence

plays a part. We can have all the conversations we like about deterrence, but to make a real difference, we have to look at Glad You and you cite the missing and murdered inquiry. The number one recommendation there was that deterrence be the priority above all. And the Glad You principle has really helped to entrench, not prevent two-tier justice against indigenous women in Canada. And that's a terrible irony. And that's the thing. I mean, we've got competing ideologies here on one hand. We want to, you know, Glad Jew is supposed to stop, is supposed to address the over-indexation of indigenous people.

But by that, I read indigenous men in Canadian jails. And so we have to look at the intergenerational trauma and the systemic trauma. and the systemic racism, both of which are just taken as just assumed fact at this point. I don't even know that there's a whole lot of proving it that has to go into it these days, but it's just there. And then on the other hand, you've got what we as a country decide to prioritize, which was looking into the over-indexing of indigenous women who went missing or were murdered.

And when both of these two notions collide, I don't know what happens because one is the source of a great many of the other. And so I don't know how we proceed. And I think we have to listen to women, you know, in this case. And in the piece that I wrote, it was in the National Post on this on the weekend, I cited a case R&T, a brave judge in Nunavut, who took this issue on last year. And he in turn quoted some women whom he had spoken to and he integrated them into his sentence and he talked about a female inuk leader who once told him, you know, talking

about Glad You that that women are supposed to be protected by the charter too, she said. And he quoted another woman who said, you know, that we need our women to be taken seriously and for offenders to stop being complacent that they will get away with their offenses. They're saying it. They're experiencing it. And in this case, in Nunavut, you know, this judge, Justice Bichok was his name talked about the hundreds of victims of domestic and sexual violence who are living in nightmare, as he put it, the tremendous courage for victims in communities to come forward,

often in the presence of the family of the accused. And in that case, in the Nunavut case, R&T, it was called, he talked about, you know, no, he was going to take a stand. He imposed an eight-year sentence, not a two-year sentence, which was being called for by the defense, so that the accused didn't have to leave Nunavut. said, you know, that just leads to complacency. It leads to injustice fundamentally. Yeah. And if we look at it, a white woman raped by a white man, that man is going to get whatever he gets. An indigenous woman raped by an indigenous man. And that, according to Gladu, that criminal is

going to get far less time in prison. So it's a two-tiered system where we, I mean, we are, I mean, I guess we're playing a game of hierarchy of victimization, right? So you've got the rape victim, and then you've got the criminal who is treated as a victim as well for all the reasons we've listed. And it feels like his victimization trumps hers. And I don't know how we get out of that cycle of just ascribing victimization to everyone all the time or even why it serves any benefit to ascribe victimization for. everything all the time. Well, and ultimately, it's just not being completely honest about the reality

of the problem. I mean, you cite some of these, you know, let's call them social justice warriors who, you know, selectively don't like certain aspects of, you know, whether it's a criticism of glad you or not. I mean, there'll be, there are a lot of people out there who blame the Canadian justice system for failing indigenous women. And they'll, they'll, they'll point out. that those found guilty of their abuse or murder generally face less serious sentences than those convicted of crimes against non-Indigenous women, they call that racism, but in many cases are very selective about dealing with and addressing Glad you. And, you know, in that Nunavut case that I mentioned,

one of the quotes by the justice in that case was that colonialism's legacy has affected indigenous women and girls every bit as much as indigenous man. And I think we simply have to have a very honest conversation about that and the impact of glad you as one thing on victims. Yeah. And if we zoom out even more, it becomes even more absurd because then it becomes a case of people who look like me have to be responsible for the alleged ills of colonialism.

but somebody who is absolutely in control of their faculties can be responsible for a terrible crime, but then the mitigating factor of colonialism allows them to get off. So I'm responsible for something that happened 200 years ago, and somebody else is not responsible for the terrible act that they perpetrated against a woman. I don't know how you build a country this way. And I think that people have to remember, too, this isn't just in the indigenous space. right? I mean, we're seeing these race-based disadvantage factors being taken into account for mitigating sentences in other areas, too, and in other countries. I mean, I know, for example, in the UK,

they've looked at, you know, the colonialism trauma argument when it comes to sentencing, too, for, you know, certain groups in that country. So it's not only indigenous, but it is getting to be a factor which is having a serious impact on sentences. Let's be honest and on safety. Abronoun Air, your article in the National Post, The Glad You Principle has caused immense harm to indigenous women. It's a tremendous read. And, I mean, if you thought you had your mind made up on this,

read that article because it may change your mind or at least give you something to think about. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thanks, Ben. All right, when we come back, it's that time of the week. It's the Monday edition of this week. in politics. And we talk about the NDP. Where do they go from here? That's next.

Yeah, you're listening to the Ben Mulroney show, but you might be a little tired of me speaking as much as I do. And that's why we break it up. Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays with this week in politics. And on Monday, we've got Max Fawcett, lead columnist for Canada's National Observer and a rotating superstar Michael Burns, executive chair of Canada's Valor Games. So the both of you say, happy Monday. Happy Monday.

I'd be with this. All right. We've got to talk about the NDP leadership convention over the weekend. And Avi Lewis has, he's got some ideas on how to turn the NDP around. But if you listened to his speech, Max Fawcett, it's, you know, it's free this, free that. And, you know, the power of state ownership. And it feels to me like he's appealing not to the traditional base of the NDP, but really leaning in to this new, this new. addition of ultra-progressive, ultra-left-wing, ultra-radical members. I don't know how you build

out the party focusing on the fringe. Yeah, it's an experiment for sure. You know, I know friends of mine in the in the NDP have for a while been kind of wanting to try this. You know, they wanted they wanted to do the full socialism, you know, no no watering down, no half measures. And that's what Avi Lewis is going to give them. He's going to give them the full socialist experience, no apologies, no regrets. And we will see how that works in a first past the post system. I share your skepticism. I think it's going to be really hard to build the number of supporters required to win seats, and certainly a lot of seats in our country with our electoral system. But I think it will be nice to have an NDP that is not as muddled as it's

been over the last decade, you know, the one that is so close to the Liberal Party, one that is sort of stuck between two purposes. This is the NDP that wants to be the social conscience of the country and seems less interested in winning seats. And we'll see how that goes for them. So there are two other ways I want to approach this. One, I want to approach this in the fantasy world where this party actually forms government. And I want to take, for example, Michael Burns, what we witnessed with the equity cards.

And I just have to believe, I've got to take them at their word. I mean, if this is how they run their convention, this stuff would inform how they build out, how they build out the country. And if that's the case, I mean, at some point, I would just assume that in an Avi Lewis government at some point, I would have to sign off and pass the baton to somebody who doesn't look like me at this microphone because they had a card. And I'm just, I'm struggling to see how outside of the bubble of that convention, there's going to be a lot of buy-in. Yeah, no, listen, Ben, I have to tell you, I mean, I tuned in for parts of it this weekend. And honestly, I thought I was watching an SNL skit. I, and then I realized, no, that they were serious. And the equity cards and other things that they were doing on the convention floor were new to me.

But I, like, I just add to what Max was saying, I think just broadly speaking, the NDP did have a chance to matter again. Certainly at a time when Canadians are dealing with cost of living crisis, the party could have stepped. forward and been the voice of working people instead, we got a political seance summoning every fringe idea, an activist slogan it could find. I mean, in my view, the convention really turned into a place where the loudest voices weren't workers or families, but activists auditioning for the most righteous person alive. Yeah. And Max, like, let's just go from east to west. And, you know, for the time being, it feels like the Atlantic provinces are firmly in Camp Carney, It doesn't look like they're going anywhere.

Then you've got, you know, you've got Quebec. Well, no one there really speaks very much French. Avi Lewis is prepared. French is okay. But they didn't make much of a splash over the course of that campaign, which tells me that they're a non-factor, more or less. Ontario, you're going to get a few downtown Toronto seats and a few, you know, you might get a seat or two in, you know, our equivalent of the Rust Belt. then you go over to Manitoba.

Wab Canoe, I think, was generous to offer up his coat tails to that party in that province. But I don't know what that means for them provincially or federally. And then you got Saskatchewan and Alberta that are pretty much right-offs because the leaders of those parties said we want nothing to do with you. It then leaves your British Columbia. Right out of the gate, they are closing themselves off to significant portions of their traditional constituency. Yeah, they are. this is not a party that is being driven right now by electoral considerations. It is being driven, I think by, you know, almost like this.

Max, they've got almost a $14 million debt. I don't they be considered, I mean, don't they want to drive memberships? Don't they want to, what are they to do? I've never, I don't know that I remember a political party, federal political party going bankrupt. I'm sure it's happened. But that's not, that wouldn't be a good look if you want to be the economic stewards of the country. party goes bankrupt? They should. They should want to compete and win seats, but that was the tension in the leadership race. You know, you had Heather McPherson, who basically made that argument that

the point was to win elections. Wob Canoe made that point as well. And it didn't go over well with the membership. They wanted to really kind of push far to the left, and that's what they're going to get. You know, electorally, even in BC, you know, I think they're banking on Avi Lewis and his eco-socialist policies being more of a hit in BC, he couldn't even finish second in two BC writings when he ran federally. You know, he finished third in Vancouver Center. He finished third in CEDA Sky. You know, at some point, they are going to have to come to terms with the fact that political power in this country flows through elections. And it flows through elections that happen in a first past the post system.

I think they're hoping that he's their Zoran Mamdani. The problem there is that he's a 58-year-old son of a political leader who went to Upper Canada College. This is not Zoram. Max, Max, you got it. You got to give me, you got to reach for that brass ring and call him what everybody calls me. He's a Nepo baby. Come on. I would never use that term.

I would never use that term. I'll let you use it. No, it's not a word I even like. And I don't think it's applicable to me. Nor do I think it's applicable to him. Because he's put a career together. But yeah, I just, I struggled to see Michael Burns how. how this part. And I appreciate, like, let's try the undistilled, craziest version of what we can do

and see if it's so crazy it may just work. But what happens if it doesn't? What happens when it doesn't? Well, I don't think it is. You know, the reality is, if you look, you know, over our history, elections are won by the parties that can largely saddle the middle. And I think the happiest person today is in Abby Lewis. The happiest person today is Prime Minister Carney. Yeah. Well, yeah. Certainly not the conservatives who need these guys to be relevant up until 12, 15 percent. That's how the conservatives have typically won these elections. Yeah. Completely. And so look, we saw it in the last election where the NDP support collapsed and that helped Carney and pushed to Polly about it out of the way. So I think the liberals,

it's another one for the liberals. There's no question about it today. Yeah. Yeah. I've said this before and I think Max, you might have been here for it. I wonder why those traditional NDP voters who have parked their votes temporarily with the liberals and the hopes that their party would come back to them aren't saying to themselves, you know what? This party is clearly going down a path that is less temporary than we had hoped. And for those reasons, if they want the shell and the husk that is the NDP, we're going to take our toys and we're going to start something new. We're going to start something new more akin to the Jack Layton NDP,

something with the values of blue-collar workers and environmental stewardship and social justice in the, not in the new 26 version, but more akin to those who are struggling for, you know, to further people's rights in the most equitable way forward. I don't know why there isn't that push to create something new out of the circus that the NDP has become? Well, like, number one, it's a lot of work to create a political party. But, you know, number two, the NDP that used to exist doesn't really exist anymore. You know, the labor movement, the working class is pretty split.

You know, the conservatives have done a very good job of speaking to a lot of blue collar unions, a lot of blue collar workers and winning their support. And there just isn't that sort of size of a working vote to build a party around. So could you build a party around an environmental? oriented movement. You could. I think Avi Lewis is probably going to take the NDP there anyways. And then where does that leave the sort of, you know, baby boomer

New Democrat voters who, you know, were Jack Layton supporters or Ed Broadband supporters? They may be sort of politically homeless now and may end up voting for the Liberal Party just as a default for the next little while. All right. We are going to take a break. And when we come back, a couple more stories to talk about, including is Michael Ma, the former

conservative now liberally, political dead man walking. That's next. We are continuing our This Week in Politics, a Monday edition, with Michael Burns and Max Fawcett. And the Michael Ma mess continues. To give a recap to our friends, Michael Ma was a conservative member of parliament who went to the Christmas party, the conservative Christmas party, and received his secret Santa gift. Did not give a secret Santa gift because he knew the next day he would be at the liberal Christmas party. And then he went with Mark Carney, the prime minister, on a trip to China. And now he came back sitting at committee. And it was quite stunning to watch, Mike. It was quite stunning to watch what was clearly a very smug, self-satisfied look on his face. It really felt like

he'd been watching a lot of American congressional hearings asking for very quick answers in order to try to poke holes in what looked like he was trying to poke holes in the argument that China uses slave labor. And it was very, he was very self-assured and very contented in his performance until he felt the backlash. And it was only after being chased by a journalist and ultimately he had to, he had to apologize. Someone referred to him as a political dead man walking. And I'd love to know if you support that assessment. Yeah, yeah, I would. And more importantly, I think it really calls into question his judgment. I think as an elected leader, when you're talking about forced labor in China, this is not an area where any MP should be getting casual or cute about the issue.

If your comments leave the impression that you're casting doubt on a very serious human rights issue, then I think you've created a credibility problem for yourself. and I agree with that assessment. Liberal Party, Max, is one that likes to wrap itself in the charter, and it's a big supporter of human rights, and to have a new member that you welcomed in from the Conservative Party, essentially tell a human rights expert that her testimony was hearsay. And you got to remember, when he was welcomed into the party, we were told that his values were liberal values.

I did listen this is not going to be the end of the world and there's probably wanting to be a blip on the screen for the popularity of this prime minister but it's still not a good look it's not and and you know I think whatever chance he may have had of getting into cabinet is completely gone now yeah I you know as last I checked he still hadn't acknowledged that China uses slave labor he said that it happens around the world which you know is not really what the issue is here you know I yeah I think it'll blow over but I think I think, you know, if you're if you're the Kearney government and you want Canadians to be more open to a, you know, a different economic relationship with China, if you want to steer the country in that direction, you have to be very careful with stuff like this. You cannot allow your MPs to give the impression that you are, you know, in China's pocket or sycophantic to China or unwilling to call balls and strikes on China's human rights record. And so, you know, I think it would behoove the government to clarify that and to sideline Mr. Ma on any future conversations, you know, with or about China because he clearly either doesn't have the facts or is unwilling to accept them. Max, I want to stick with you on this one, and then we'll end things with, Mike. But there's a story in the Toronto Star about a European Parliament member. She's also a Palestinian activist, said she was denied entry to Canada, prevented from coming to Canada.

and what she described as an attempt at censorship. She's far left. She's from a group called France Unbowed. By all accounts, I mean, she said things that I certainly would not agree with. However, I mean, we do this all the time, don't we? We prevent people who, like, kneecap wasn't allowed in. Steve Anderson, the anti-LGB pastor, who's American, wasn't led in. I mean, we do it on the right and we do it on the left.

This, to me, is actually a dead. demonstration that we have values and we stick to them. Yeah, I disagree here. You know, I think we don't do it for elected officials. Let's put it that way. You know, yes, there is a pair of, you know, far-right Israeli legislators who were censored by the government, but they were censored by five governments, you know, Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada.

You know, it wasn't just us saying that they couldn't visit. We allowed Christine Anderson, who is a very far-right member of AFD, which is a German and far right party to come to Calgary, come to, come to Canada, do tours, speak publicly. So we, you know, I think we have to uphold our commitment to free speech on both sides of the aisle. And I think it's very interesting that the people who are very loud about free speech are not loud in this particular case when the speech in question may offend their views and values. I think you have to be a little more consistent on this issue.

And listen, I take your point, but Michael, I'll bring you into this. Like I've been living in a city like Toronto where I've been waiting for the powers that be to recognize that free speech has been trampled on, has been abused by a very loud group of people who even still, when they've been told they, and they're not pro-Palestinian. If you march through a Jewish neighborhood, you're not pro-Palestinian, you're anti-Jew. And I've been watching that happen for years. And only last week did they finally say they were taking steps. And even then, even still, they've found ways to circumvent it. So I would say that there are people in this country who would say that on the other side of that equation, sir, there have been people who've watched, who have seen a sort of an unequal treatment in terms of what constitutes free speech. But Michael, I'll pass the mic to you.

Yeah. Yeah, no, listen, look, I think being denied entry into Canada is not, it's not censorship. It's border control. And yes, she is a foreign politician, but she doesn't have an automatic right to enter the country. And as I understand the reporting is that her travel authorization was revoked before the trip. She can still speak. She can still post. She can still do interviews.

What she apparently cannot do is board a plane and assume that Canada is going to let her in. Yeah. So what do you say about that, Max? Because, yeah, it's like, but also I don't, when you say, you know, we've got to be consistent. Do we really? I mean, if shouldn't it just be, shouldn't it be case by case? Shouldn't it be what the person says? I think if you believe in principles, you have to be, you have to try to be consistent and upholding them. You can't have case by case principles. No, no, no. I'm not saying case by case principles. I'm saying case by case in

terms of what they've said, you know, if we, if we say, oh, if you're a politician, then you can pretty much say what you want doesn't depend on what they actually say. Sure, that's fair. But, you know, no one's made it clear, at least in the reporting I've seen, that what she has said is so odious that she can't be allowed into the country where Christine Anderson, who has said many odious things, was allowed free transit into the country a few months ago. So, you know, again, I just hope that we would uphold somewhat similar standards here. I'm fine with the principle of not letting people in if they've said outrageous, terrible things. I think we have to be careful that we are not exercising that in a way that seems prejudicial.

or circumstantial. And that's a very good point. It does feel like what we decide to uphold, it's situational, it can sometimes be hypocritical, it's a moving target. Mike, how do we become as a nation? And I put this at the feet of Mark Carney's government because they are in government. I would say this if Pierre Polly had formed government right now, the issue would be his to deal with.

But how do we as a nation make sure that we have a consistency as it relates to who we let in and more importantly who we keep out? out. Yeah, listen, I think people want consistency. They want fairness. And I think, you know, the government from time to time is going to make judgment calls. And in this case, it was decided that she wasn't going to be permitted to enter the country. But I still don't think that that silencer. She's got plenty of opportunities and channels to put forward her case and her arguments to the broader public. Michael Burns, Max Fawcett, as always, a great way to start the week. I wish you nothing but the best this week,

and we'll see you on the other side. Thanks, man. Firefighters miss their lives every single day. Fridays on Global. We're going to get you out of here, bud. This is the greatest job in the world. An all-new fire country. Firefighter, Leo.

I need you to make your own rest of assessment. We're going in. Deep in the woods behind you if there's a wildfire. We're in a game now, boys. Three! TV's hottest show. Will you help? Happy to.

Fire. country, only Fridays at 9 Eastern on Global. Stream on Stack TV.