The Ben Mulroney Show - Apparently you're not allowed to fire someone who's convicted of Sexual assault

Episode Date: February 7, 2025

Apparently you're not allowed to fire someone who's convicted of Sexual assault If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-ben-mulroney-show Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

FanDuel Casino's exclusive live dealer studio has your chance at the number one feeling. Winning. Which beats even the 27th best feeling, saying I do. Who wants his last parachute? I do. Enjoy the number one feeling. Winning. In an exciting live dealer studio.

Exclusively on FanDuel Casino. Where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Please play responsibly. BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Visit betmgm.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older, Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. Innocent until proven guilty. That's a fundamental precept of our justice system system and it's something that I absolutely believe in. I do not believe that people should be judged until they are judged. And but once you're judged, the consequences should follow. There's a guy in Quebec who in 2002 was on his bachelor party. And on that bachelor party, he met two women

and was eventually convicted in January of 2024 of sexually assaulting those women. The court documents say he sexually touched two women aged 18 and 19, and he was eventually found guilty. Now, we've heard this story before. The court records say that for sexual assault, this guy received a six months suspended sentence along with a number of conditions.

And the sentencing judge noted that he had no previous criminal record and was deemed a low risk of reoffending. So there you go. So already we've heard that story before, convicted of a heinous crime, slap on the wrist. Here's where the story gets, moves beyond the realm of the awful into the perverse.

He wanted his job back at a car dealership and the car dealer said, no, you're a convicted criminal, He wanted his job back at a car dealership. And the car dealer said, no, you're a convicted criminal, a convicted sex offender, and we don't want you working here. Well, Quebec's Labor Tribunal has ordered the car dealership to rehire him

after he was fired for his crimes. The administrative judge said the business had failed to show the employee's crime was linked to his job and that the publicity surrounding the case would prevent him from carrying out his responsibilities. That's a requirement. You got to show that a sex offender can't sell a car? That being a sexual deviant and a sexual predator has no bearing on your ability to get people to part with their money and buy a car?

That's nonsense. That's absolute, that's grotesque. So I want to hear from you, 416-870-6400 or 1-888-225-TALK. This is we need to take this thing down to the studs people. The criminal justice, first of all, the guy should be in jail. The guy should be in jail for what he did to this 18 year old and this 19 year old who are probably traumatized for a very long time. But after that, he had the gall to feel he was entitled to his job back. And this business said, no thank you, doesn't look good for us if we rehire a sexual predator.

And an administrative judge comes in and tells them how to do their business, you are you are reoffending. Now this judge is in on the original crime because you are re traumatizing the victims. Four, one, six, eight, seven, zero, sixty, four hundred or one, triple eight, two, two, five talk. This is to me. A disgusting perversion of justice.

But it's also kind of par for the course in Canada, where we ask ourselves how best can we cater to the needs of the criminal and disregard the damage that that person did to the victims. These two girls were just out on a night on the town and they had their bodies violated by a guy who served no time, went right back and demanded his job. And then the system that essentially rewarded him is rewarding him again.

It's disgusting. Jim, welcome to the show. What do you think about this? Well, we've got a president that's a pedophile and a rapist. He's doing a bang up job. Why can't this guy sell cars? Well, first of all, we don't have a president that has nothing to do with us. That system has nothing to do with ours. I've said many times before, I will not be held to account for the ills of another country,

whether it was the States or the UK, Canada has enough to atone for in our past that I do not need to atone for the sins of another country. And also not a pedophile. None of that germane to the conversation. Let's stick to this guy right here. Let's stick to our problems in Canada

Jim if you want to continue feel free Sure Yeah, I just think that you know you got to give the guy a chance and if he if you know you got a six-month suspension I guess the judge didn't think it was a big deal and You know, let's let's see how he carries on in the next year. And if he messes up, well then you've got caught. Well, but let me put it to you this way. If this happened at this radio station and somebody was convicted of sexual assault

and less than two years later, they were back on the air here, there would be a boycott of this radio station. A boycott, they would say, how dare you do that? Why should this business, an independent business, be forced to hire somebody that they feel falls beneath their values as a company? Well, I think that, yeah, definitely they should have a say,

but is it grounds for dismissal? I mean, that's what you got to look at. Yeah, and Jim, and thank you very much. And I thank you for the conversation. But if if conviction of sexual assault is not grounds for dismissal, then what the hell is? And I mean, that's a good faith question. What the hell do you have to do to lose your job in Quebec if being, if sexual assault against an 18 and 19 year old is not enough? Amanda, welcome to the show.

Hey. Hey. Hi. How does it not have bearing? If I, especially depending on where the guy's selling cars and people know that he is selling cars, I wouldn't buy a car off of a sex offender. I wouldn't want to go to a dealership that had a sex offender there. Amanda, thank you for saying that because if I'm the guy who owns the car dealership across the

street, my ads are very easy. Come buy a car here. We have no sex offenders on staff. come by a car here. We have no sex offenders on staff. It's it's just this is this is easy advertising, you know, hey, come here, ladies, you'll feel safe because you will be safe because we don't have any sex offenders on staff. Who do we have now we've got Al, Al, welcome to the show. Hey, good morning, Bennett. Thanks for taking my call. You know, I was gonna call him but your first caller is the reason we are in the state that we're in in Canada.

He starts off with an absolutely ignorant comment about south of the border, which has no relevance to the subject at hand. And then he's talking about, well, why shouldn't he get a second chance? He's the reason we have judges like this. He's the reason that the courts make decisions like this. If it was his two daughters that were sexually assaulted,

I'll bet you he'd change his tune. That's a good guess. This just, go ahead, Ben. No, no, listen, listen, I want most people to feel like they can have opinions on this show, but I do take your point that there's this moral, permissive, weird, it's so weird that you've got people on the left that purportedly espouse the notions of the charter.

We're all about the charter of rights and freedoms. And then they never look at the rights and freedoms of the people who were victimized. It's mind-boggling. Mind-boggling. Mike, welcome to the show. Ben, again, not a big fan. The Quebec judge, they are or whatever lawyer he works for must be part of the police union or teachers union because they seem to keep these predators working. What we have a problem with is exactly what you just said. The, what do you call it? The Canadian constitution.

There's, there's the charter, the charter. We have huge problems with the charter. Charter is outdated. We need to nip this all in the butt. We can't let these people work. But again, we let them work in Ontario under certain unions. So it's very, very, very unfortunate. And it's a horrible thing.

Well, Mike, I'm going to win you over one day. But look, I'm not suggesting that this man shouldn't have the right to work. I don't want it to be a drain on society. I wanted to pay taxes, I want to be productive. But if this company that is not it's not a government agency, it's an independent business run by entrepreneurs who took a risk to open their own car dealership. If they don't wanna hire the guy,

they shouldn't hire the guy. He's a sex offender. I mean, I feel like in the immortal words of Mugatu, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Let's welcome Mary who's been waiting patiently on the line. Mary, what do you think of this whole mess? Good morning. Good morning. I want to wish your son a speedy recovery. Thank

you very much. He's doing well. He's got a good attitude. So that's good. That's great to hear. He gets the attitude from his dad. Thank you so much. So what this judge has now created is the feeling of an unsafe working environment for the employees, especially the female employees. And dealerships tend to have young females working the reception, answering the phones. And all this guy has to do is make one look, one comment, and it will be, you know, considered sexual harassment. And it and I'm not familiar with the Quebec labor laws, but in in Ontario, you know, you have your right to refuse work if you feel unsafe, and this guy may cause problems for his female stuff. Yeah, yeah. And we should we should point out

that the criminal justice system convicted him. He got a six month rap on the on the on the hand. And this is not the criminal justice system. This is Quebec's labor tribunal that ordered him rehired. So it's a multifaceted failure. But I thank you for your call. And let's welcome James to the show. Welcome to the Ben Mulroney Show, James. Hi, Ben. How are you today? Well, fired up, actually. You know what? I'm fired up too. Let me first start off by saying I agree with you. This guy shouldn't get his job back. But what I find disingenuous right now is everyone is blaming justices and judges for these decisions in our criminal justice system.

Now let me tell you, Ben, I have family that works in the system. I'm very familiar with the system. These judges and justices have to follow the rules and regulations set both provincially and federally. So this judge and justice has to to follow the rules and regulations set both provincially and federally. So this judge and justice has to follow what the rules say. They can't go off the cuff and decide what they want to do is right. They have to follow.

So it's not the judges and justices. Maybe the guy did want to say, no, you can't get your job back. But if he doesn't follow these rules, he loses his job. So if your boss gives you rules, Ben, and you don't follow them, right? Yeah. Would you lose your job? Oh yes. Oh yes. Okay. So I your boss gives you rules, Ben, and you don't follow them, right? Would you lose your job? Oh yes, oh yes.

I run that risk every single day. Why do we blame judges and justices, the people who set aside their life? They make these big decisions, they go home and they deal with these decisions they make on people's lives, Ben. Well, because, yeah, and listen, James, I take your point,

and I think that it's important to notice that nuance. However, James, I would say that so much of their job is left to their interpretation of the law, of the statute, of precedent. Otherwise, if it was a paint by numbers situation, we wouldn't need judges. We rely on them for their experience and for their temperament, for how they see the law

and how they interpret the law. That's how you get these decisions like this. And we have, and yes, the law probably errs on the side of being far too permissive as it relates to the rights of the accused and the rights of the convicted, but it is how those permissive laws, rules, statutes are interpreted and they're being interpreted far too liberally and not in favor of the victim, in my opinion.

So I think you're probably more than partly right, but not entirely right. But I'm sure neither am I. Let's welcome Heidi to the show. Heidi, welcome. Oh, hi, how are you? I'm well, thank you. A great show, thank you.

Thank you. So I work in education system university and we see the normalization of behaviors like this. There's multiple scandals from various West University, Canadian university campuses, where during orientation week or those party times. I just see that there's, you know, back in the days when Monica Rawiski was involved in scandals, that was a big deal. And now practically almost every politician is involved somehow.

And there's a lot of normalization of this kind of behavior all across from the mayors of, you know, London Woodstock, right, you name it. So I just think that it's the general society, general normalization of these things that were the next few cycles just cover up the story. And that's a big problem where how people think about these things. Thank you, Heidi. I think moral clarity on issues like this, where the people speak loud and clear as to what they want and what they expect and what is right and what is wrong needs to happen. And unfortunately, I think that needs to happen

in an election campaign where, you know, listen, you know where my vote's parked. My vote is, Pierre Poliev has earned my vote in the next election. He has, and I'm not afraid to say it. But if the people vote en masse for him as some polls suggest, that will be a very clear message that the people of Canada are fed up with this sort of decision and this sort of value judgment and this this sort of playing fast and loose with issues that are far too important. Let's welcome Mark Mark welcome to the Ben Mulroney

show. Good morning, Ben Italian food is still better than Greek. On another note, I had an interesting observation with regards to the first three callers. The first two were men. And they're almost excusing this man for assaulting two teenage girls. I think you should be able to continue living his life pretty much uninterrupted. And the female caller condemns it as we all should. And he should face consequences because he didn't face any with the justice system. Good on her. Yeah. And it's a good point. I won't

ascribe, you know, nefarious intent to any one person. I think their opinions are, listen, their opinions are their opinions. But to me, this doesn't fall down gender lines. I mean, I wouldn't wanna work with a convicted sex offender. I wouldn't wanna be tarred with that person. I wouldn't want to work in a place that appeared to accept that sort of behavior under its roof. And unfortunately, this entrepreneur, and that's what these guys are, they started their own business.

They're being told that it has to be okay with them to have this guy working for them. I'm sorry, I wouldn't want to work in a place like that. And I don't know why this business needs to be forced to have the reputational damage ascribed to them by housing and sheltering and giving a job to a convicted sex offender who who who is aggressive towards as my previous caller just said two teenage girls. Where's the justice for the girls? Hey Ben, welcome to the show.

Hi, good morning. Morning. I want to process before I get into what I'm going to say because your previous caller, for example, is quick to label anyone that he's disagreeing with. I 100% support any private business to do whatever they want in terms of hiring. It's their right, their sacrifice, their debt, their business to run it how they want. The second thing is I by no means support any sort of sexual assault on females. What I'm trying to get at is the in the story, it doesn't pass my Smith test. I look, I read the stories because we're so quick nowadays to condemn everything, to cancel everyone. And so I read into the stories, he's sexual assault, the scope of the definition of sexual assault now in Canada can range from touching someone to rape all under the same category in terms of what you're going to read

in the news. And they're 18 and 19. And what happened is a fight broke out between this guy's friends and one of the teenagers' friends. They were in a group. So I think it, if you think about it, it was a touch. That's what is defined as from what I'm reading. Does that, so what happens is you get a fight and then charges are laid, cops come in. So guess what?

Everything gets escalated. And this guy, I think you have to give the judge some time. You can't just rush and take the Monday quarterback people. The judge probably saw what happened and hence why he gave him the sentence that he got. But like your previous caller said, he still has to abide by the rules of sexual assault. Now he has a conviction. All right. Well, listen, thank you very much for being the last word on that.

TD Direct Investing offers live support. So whether you're a newbie or a seasoned pro, you can make your investing steps count. And if you're like me and think a TFSA stands for Total Fund Savings Adventure, maybe reach out to TD Direct Investing. Whether you agree or not about going to the polls, we're going to the polls. And so we have to look at our options. We have to look at our options. And we've had the Tories in power for about six years.

And in an effort of full transparency, my sister Caroline is a member of the progressive conservative government and cabinet and is currently a candidate again for office. So you know that. But then you got to look at what the other options are. And the NDP are the NDP. They're currently in the official opposition. I don't know if that will be the case after the next election. And then you have the Ontario liberals under Bonnie Cromby.

And I got a lot of time for Bonnie personally. She has always been kind to me. And we've always, whenever we've spent time together, she's been warm and generous. So I'm not talking about Bonnie the person. I'm talking about Bonnie the politician and Bonnie the leader. Ever since she decided not to run for a seat in the legislature following her victory and becoming the leader of the

Ontario Liberal Party I went on record saying that is a mistake. I said that that is a that is a bad political instinct. I said there the that is the legislature is where a leader belongs. The visual of a leader in the legislature is essential to allowing people to see you as a government in waiting. To stand outside the legislature for, what is it, two years now, to me, shows bad instincts and bad advice. There's only two people who sit on the outside of the legislature and complain and criticize journalists and protesters, neither of which are viewed as leaders. Holding the government to account, even as the third party gives you free air time and

allows people to see you perianfaneain, and criticize in an official setting. I said, all of this. And I was told, oh no, well, she's focusing on rebuilding the grassroots of the party. Okay, so you're focused. I think you can do two things at once, but okay. So you've been focused exclusively on rebuilding the grassroots of the party.

So we find out though that in this next election the liberals aren't running candidates a full slate of candidates across the province. So how'd that go then? This laser focus on rebuilding the grassroots. You don't have candidates across the province. And we remember the reading of the email where somebody was complaining about something that Bonnie assumed was a Tory failure. Turns out it was a liberal policy failure from 2009. And now the most recent, uh, snafu is the bus, the bus. The bus is on fire. If you've seen this bus, this is the bus that's taking Bonnie across the province

and her team across the province. And right there in big bold white letters on a liberal red backdrop, 11,000 people died waiting for surgery last year. This is Doug Ford's Ontario. I think that's what it says below. 11,000 people died waiting for surgery last year. This is the message that the Liberal Party of Ontario wants you to know. This is what they, this is, this is clearly a hill they're gonna die on because they made it a permanent fixture on their bus. Except it's not true.

It's not true. Last year from January to November, 1,365 adult Ontarians died while on a waitlist for surgery. That's according to the Provincial Agency Ontario Health. Another 26 children and youth also died. The year before, 1,584 adults and 33 youth died. So not 11,000, about 1,500. And one surgeon who spoke to the press cautioned that even those smaller numbers shouldn't be interpreted as the number of people who died because they were waiting for surgery. Many, he noted, were waiting for non-life-saving surgeries

like cataract removals or knee surgeries, and they either died of old age or unrelated causes. Not a good look for sure, but not only is it disingenuous and misleading, but it's an outright lie to suggest anything else. And so when you put all of this together in a blender, the not seeking out a seat to hold the government to account so that you can focus on rebuilding the grassroots

and the end result is you don't have enough candidates. The low hanging fruit of having somebody just check on an email before you blast it out on social media and realize it's actually your fault. The bus. Like, no matter how many good ideas somebody has, and you may like a lot of Bonnie's ideas, but this party isn't ready to govern.

This party's not ready for prime time. I mean, they just aren't. And again, I don't say this to be disrespectful. I do hope that the Liberal Party of Ontario hears this. And if they feel that I need to be course corrected, or if they feel that I need to give a Bonnie Crombie a chance to tell me why I'm wrong, or convince me to change my tune, I would love to have Bonnie Cromby sit opposite me here for a sit down interview. I promise it would be a good faith interview. I promise to give her not only a fair shake, but a respectful conversation.

And so I'm, I'm manifesting that right now. If I'm wrong on any of this stuff, or if you feel that I'm being, if I'm not accurately depicting the work that the Liberal Party has been doing, and if you believe that the Liberal Party is in fact ready to fight and prosecute this election and become the next government of Ontario, I would love to invite your leader onto this show. Let's listen to a call that Alex Pearson had on punditry versus journalism. I think the middle ground is a return to traditional, actual verifiable journalism, as opposed to punditry. And we

punditry has its place in society because it because it's important and it causes conversations like the one we're having right now. But we've become a society that treats punditry as the news. Part of a larger, really impressive conversation between a caller and Alex Pearson. To that I would say, the issue is not with the pundits or the journalists, it's with the people receiving the information who don't know the difference.

That's up to the individual. Educate yourself, appreciate the information that's coming in your ear hole and know the difference between opinion and news. And if you can't decipher the two, then it's up to you to educate yourself. I do not present as a journalist. I'm not, never have been, didn't go to journalism school. I think I appreciate the ethics that go into

good faith conversation and research and trying to have the facts in line before you go on the air. But I am an, I'm a pundit. I'm an opinion guy. I think I have well-informed opinions and, but you know where I'm coming from each and every time. I don't think I try to mask what my opinion is and try to draw you into a conversation in bad faith. And when I do have people on the show whom I disagree with, and I try to have people on the show every day

that I disagree with, I'm always open to having my mind changed. And if I've said something wrong, I apologize for it and I correct it. And if somebody comes in with a better argument than mine, I concede the point. And I think that's the best I can do. I think I'm holding myself to a standard that is quite high, always striving for more.

But again, if you don't know the difference between an opinion somebody's feeding you and the actual news, that's on you. The Liberal leadership race is in full swing and thank goodness, thank goodness we're not voting for a new government with the threat of a Donald Trump aggressive government bearing down our neck. Thank goodness we get to enjoy this from afar. Thank goodness. And we are promised a robust national conversation.

Depending on who you listen to, this is either a two horse race between entrenched powers that be institutional liberals, or it's a coronation waiting to happen in the in the in the shape of Mark Carney, assuming the leadership of that party and ultimately becoming our prime minister. But that doesn't mean some interesting ideas aren't being floated from also rants. former MP, I think for MP Frank Bayless, who doesn't have a snowball's chance is came up with a pretty good idea that worth Congress worth a little bit of conversation. And here's what he had to say. Our system was not designed for professional politicians. And here's what he had to say. Our system was not designed for professional politicians.

What we need is for people to come to Canada, come to Ottawa, use their expertise to contribute to the debate, and then move on and leave space for new Canadians to come and take their place. And this will bring a diversity of knowledge and expertise into our decision making. And therefore, MPs will not be eligible to run again, after they have passed the 10 year mark of being elected. They will not be fired. But after 10 years, they will have to sit out a prolonged period before they can become a candidate again.

Okay, okay, that well, it's an idea. It's an idea. And currently, there are no term limits whatsoever. For MPs, you can, you can run as long as the people will have you. But it's never gonna happen. It's never gonna happen. Here's why it's not gonna happen. Because people don't voluntarily give a giveaway power. If you have it, you're gonna keep it. The liberal party will never say, you know what, we've run the country long enough. We're gonna sit out this next election.

There's no term limits for parties themselves, right? That's why they constantly present themselves, because they always believe that they are the best option. Every party does. That's why they are the best option. Every party does. That's why they are always in the race. So why wouldn't that be the case for the individual who was elected? And what's to say, what if in an election you won 65% of the vote in your second election? You're going to say to yourself, why wouldn't I run again?

I got 65% last time. I believe I can beat that. And I still have ideas. I still believe I can contribute. So I think it goes against human nature. And it was my dad who told me, he said, people who have power don't voluntarily give up power unless you don't have any more ideas. I like that would be ideal. And I do subscribe to that this idea that it shouldn't just be a paycheck forever because

you can. Once you feel that you have tried everything you can, you should leave. So I'd love to hear from you at 416-870-6400 or 1-888-225-TALK. What do you think of this idea? Should our politicians be forced to resign after 10 years in office? Even if they stand a strong chance of reelection? It's not a bad idea. By and large, if you look at it, at about the 10-year mark,

if a government's able to live 10 years, the people typically turn on that government. It's time for a change election. But I'll tell you why it won't happen ever. Because this is the type of this is the type of thing that you say when you are running from behind. If you once you once you're in power, you do not enact anything like this. We saw it happen with Justin Trudeau and his promise that the 2015 election would be the final election ever prosecuted in the first pass the post system.

And he said that because he was running in third place. Never in his wildest dreams did he think that he was gonna win a majority. And once he got a majority, you do not give up that power voluntarily. That's why he broke his promise. That's why he did it. Let's welcome Alberto to the show. Welcome to the Ben Mulroney show, Alberto. Oh, hi, Ben. How are you? I'm

well. Thank you. Good. Yeah, I think there should be limits. I mean, you know, if the party is espousing a particular idea or ideas, then anybody can bring them forward. They don't have to stay there forever. I mean, look at Pierre Polover there. He's never had a job in his life. And he's been a career MP. And I don't know, I don't take his ideas very much.

But you know, it's time to get some fresh blood in the conservative party as well. Well, yeah, and there's something to be said for fresh blood and maybe even forcing it onto onto a party and onto a government. I just don't I think it discounts the idea of human nature. And I think once you're in once you fought long and hard and a lot of these times, it's not like you just wake up one day and you're in office. You have to work, you've got to build, you've got to sit in opposition.

And then once. So, so what happens if you sit in opposition for eight years, you got to resign just as you finally built up the momentum to take down a government or are these term limits specifically for government MPs? Because I find it patently unfair that if you come in after a change election, you're the new blood, right? You're the new blood in, let's say this liberal party, let's say they get decimated in the next election.

And then the election after that, you've got new people who come in, but the country isn't ready for a liberal government yet. So you pay your dues in opposition, and then you have to resign for new blood after you've done all the hard work? How does that work? That's unfair.

Anna Lee, what do you think? Good morning, Ben. Good morning. I mean, in every position, you know, you get reviewed, you make a good point, like you have to be able to stay motivated and have new ideas. Now within 10 years, you know, if a new blood is coming in and can do better, then yes, you shouldn't be fired or, you know, let alone, but then you should be like, either you're going to move up or you're going to continue showing what you got.

Yeah. You know, when you said that, it brought up an idea in my head that maybe after eight years, after two terms, maybe it's an automatic, uh, open nomination in your riding. Meaning, okay, so you are the incumbent, but even if you won with 65% in the vote in your second victory, there's an automatic challenge that can happen. So anybody can put their name forth

to challenge you for the nomination of your party. But again, that goes back to the party, right? That's not a that's not a liberal. That's not a that's not a government rule. That would be a party rule. But that would that's, that's not a terrible idea. I don't think I Hey, Tom, welcome to the Ben Mulroney show. Hey, Ben, I think there should be a merit system, like any other professional career, you have a merit system. And the

thing is that the general public is not really following politics that much. And the politicians, they're not really open like a book. But if you have a merit system, they would probably want to be in the last two turns. Like, you know, if you run and you commit to your promises, let's face it, if you're a politician, you know what's far-fetched, you have a strategy. You know what people farfetched, you have a strategy. You know what people wanna hear. But if you put those down on paper and it's made available to the general public

and say, you know what, Mr. Ben committed to eight things and achieved six, you know, like you got a merit system, then I think based on that, people will be well informed. Oh yeah. You know what, we're, we're a lot of this guy. No, but that works in theory. Jean Chrétien ran on axing the GST. That was the very first promise in his Red Book.

The Red Book was was exactly that a document laying out their promises where you're going to axe the tax. That was the first and only promise that got him elected. And and he when he when he got into office, it was the first thing he kept. And so he broke that promise. and then he won two more consecutive majority governments. So in practice, that sounds in theory, that sounds great. But in practice, the people are going to vote for whoever they're going to vote for. And Justin Trudeau promised to get rid of proportional representation.

He got elected, broke that promise, a number of promises that he broke. And he still kept getting elected. So it's not as simple as a merits test, but I do appreciate the idealism in that theory. Daniel Blanchard is no ordinary thief. His heists are ingenious, his escapes defy belief. And when he sees the dazzling diamond CC Star, he'll risk everything to steal it. His exploits set off an intercontinental manhunt,

but how long can CC Star stay lucky for Daniel? I'm Seren Jones, and this is a most audacious heist. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.