The Ben Mulroney Show - Are Canadian property rights in peril? And why democracy is unfinished

Episode Date: March 4, 2026

Guest: Andy Gibbons, Principal at Walgate Advisory, former VP WestJet Guest: Regan Watts,   , former senior aide to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty GUESTS:    Authors Richard Johnson and Peter Macleod BOOK :   Democracy's Second Act: Why Politics Needs the Public 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. At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets.

And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do, business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us and contact Desjardin today. We'd love to talk, business. All right, on this podcast, some tremendous conversations. We drilled down with the political panel on property rights in British Columbia.

I contend that you can't have real reconciliation if one side of that reconciliation equation is kept in the dark. And that's how it feels for far too many Canadians. If you want everyone to buy in, they have to know what they're going to be buying into. We also learned that our prime minister's policy as it relates to Donald Trump is, quote, respect, but not obsequiousness. If you didn't know what obsequiousness meant before, I'm sure you'll Google it today. And we had the authors of Democracy's Second Act, why politics needs the public. It's a really optimistic take on so what the failings of our system are, our system of democracy and how we can rebuild it, how we can empower people and make this country a better place.

So let's get right into it. This is the Ben Mulroney Show podcast. I am joined as always on Wednesdays for the midweek political panel. This is this week in politics with Andy Gibbons, principal at Walgate Advisory and former VP at Westjet and Regan Watts, founder of Fratton Park and former senior aide to finance minister Jim Flaherty. Gentlemen, welcome. Megwitch, happy Wednesday. Okay, so

we've been talking for the past couple of weeks about the musquium deal with the government. The Muscoim First Nation deal with the government. And is this going to put in jeopardy private property rights in

British Columbia? And there are some people who say, absolutely, it's over. That province is cooked and others say nothing to see here. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. But Regan, you've worked in government. If government wants to put a story out there and not have it covered, they put it out when they put this out on Friday afternoon.

Yeah, Friday afternoon is typically known, Ben, as garbage time when you throw everything but the kitchen sink on the media release wire and help people are away for the weekend or having their first drink in the evening. I'll say a couple things about this issue, Ben. that have really struck me. First off is the people who are dead set against this and sounding the alarm bells have been consistent all the way along, which tells me

that there's probably some smoke and fire in the same place on this issue. The second thing is, and so we should be mindful of it and keep an eye on it. The second thing is, though, Ben, property rights are fundamental and foundational, in my view, for a civil society. And so if people feel like their property rights

are being violated, or their private property rights are going to be taken away, you're going to have unrest. And that's not a good thing. And so my hope is, and I suspect you're right, there's probably some, the answer to this issue is somewhere probably in the middle. But the fact that it was released on a Friday, the fact that we have, and there was an article,

I think it was in the global mail that talked about this issue, lawyers in private practice, disputing what the government's claims are, tells me that there is probably some issues to be worked out here. But I am not at all surprised that Premier E. He showed up to a signing ceremony. I had no idea what he was doing. because the premier seems to struggle on a day-to-day basis with the basics of governing.

Andy, what do you think of this? I mean, look, I don't know that it's entirely irrelevant, but I think it's germane. If AI on Google is to be believed, the Muscoim First Nation totals just over 1,600 people. And the size of the territory that we're talking about here is pretty much all of Vancouver and a few other cities. So if there's an issue, it needs to get resolved, no? Definitely has to get resolved. I mean, David Eby, bonehead political play of the week, as Regan says, Ben, what I'm struggling with is what's the why behind this? Why them, why now, why that nation, not others, why the timing? It's just very confusing as an issue. What force this, what is behind it? and who's really pushing for it.

I just found, I find the issue very confusing. I don't know if you feel the same way. Well, why is this happening in this way right now? I'll tell you what confuses me. I think every good faith Canadian wants real reconciliation with First Nations. That can't happen if deals like this are happening and we don't know they're going on. We're either in this together. We're either sitting opposite the First Nations at the negotiating table or,

We're passengers in the car and we have no control over what's going on here. And I think you build up resentment with one very important component of reconciliation, which is the people who arrived here 200 years ago. That's a fact. If we're not brought along and understanding what's going on, then it's not real reconciliation. It doesn't matter how much money. It doesn't matter how many contracts are signed.

If we don't know what's going on, then you haven't done your job, right, Regan. I agree, Ben, and I think that it's incumbent upon our political leaders, as well as First Nations leaders, to help bring this issue to the foreign society. Let's have the facts on the table and let people debate the merits and the pros and the cons, and we can move forward collectively. I think that's to the spirit of what you talked about, Ben, and what Andy was saying earlier. All right, let's move on to our prime minister.

There's some really good stuff, I think, that came out of the India trip. I think anytime you can improve relations with the biggest democracy in the world, that's a good thing, right? But then he went silent. It was really hard to get him to answer any questions, and I suspect it had something to do with trying to square his full-throated endorsement of the mission that the United States and Israel embarked on, which, by the way, I stand with him on that, and his speech at Davos. and to be fair, there are a lot of different opinions coming from a lot of different members of his government. How do you see it, Andy? Yeah. What I'm noticing on this trip, Ben, and we've talked about it before on the show, is the emergence of Prime Minister Carney.

Sorry, I'm about to say this, Regan. Almost an imperial feeling about his prime ministership. He didn't take media for five days. the media were going crazy on the trip about this. His office isn't disclosing who he's meeting with. And I just don't think that's on brand for him. And it's so unnecessary. He was elected to be transparent and a professional

and he has all these great attributes. And I don't understand why these things are happening in that way around him and his travel. Just tell Canadians who you're meeting with and talk to media every day or every second day. Every prime minister has done that. So just... If you're in a honeymoon with the press, take advantage, no?

Yeah, but you serve, I mean, take advantage maybe. I mean, you've got a lot of grace, but don't take too much. Yeah, no, I mean, take advantage by engaging with them, because they'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Regan, are you still purring like a kitten, or are you as frustrated as a lot of Canadians that we weren't hearing from our prime minister? Well, look, I think Andy makes some salient points and some wise points

I'm actually frustrated with the Prime Minister, and I know that'll shock some of your YouTube keyboard warriors and some of your listeners on the live drive at home. However, given where I've talked about the Prime Minister previously, I was on another network this weekend when his statement about Iran was released, and I was quite proud of my Prime Minister in supporting the United States.

And then we had a little bit of double speak or more than a little bit of double speak this week, where it seemed that he was trying to walk his statement back. I actually, bend to your question, don't see any difference between the Prime Minister's Davos speech where he, among other things, spoke about the world as it is, not as we wish it to be, and his comments with respect to supporting President Trump and Israel and the war in Iran. And so for me, I actually am disappointed because I thought he made the right

choice and it feels like either his staff around him or even himself may have second guessed his initial decision and I'm actually not sure he needs to do that. I think he was elected to lead and the country is responding to him in public opinion polls because he has been leading. And he shouldn't be afraid of the Ottawa Press Gallery. My goodness, I know many of these people very well. They're nice people. And Ben, you two are a journalist. But if you can't speak to journalists who are traveling with you overseas about what you're up to,

then that's a real problem. You're actually not qualified to be the prime minister to the country if you can't do that. So that applies to Mark Carney. It applies to the long national nightmare known as Justin Trudeau. It applies to Pierre Paulyev, who has not, to the best of my knowledge, on any media on his imperial trip to the United Kingdom and now Germany with his wife. So, you know, leaders we should expect better. And the prime minister has set a bar he himself should be able to achieve and he has not met it.

And so I am not purring. I'm a little disappointed. But I know that there's still some of his trip left to come. And we'll see how he does in the latter part of the trip. See, I'm going to take, I'm going to give you a counterpoint as to why the speech doesn't jive with what he said in the statement. taking the world as it is, not as we want to be. Absolutely, I live my life by that.

However, what he recognized in supporting the United States was the world as it is, is a world where certain organizations that have been relied upon for international order are failing us. And in the absence of those organizations meeting the moment, the United States is going to take matters into its own hands. That's how the world is. And that flies in the face of, I believe, parts of his speech in dollars. Well, except though, I think the Prime Minister has said, and Mr. Paul, you have to his credit, also has said, and I know Andy will agree, that the future of Canada economically does involve the United States in some capacity. And part of living next door to the elephant is you sometimes

have to jump on behind the elephant when they do something internationally. And that's what he was doing. All right. Hold that point when we come back. We're going to continue talking about. Mark Carney and Donald Trump and a whole bunch of other stuff. Don't go anywhere. This is the Ben Mulroney show. Well, it's the midweek panel. And in the second segment, we have a fun part that we do called... This is the political play of the week.

Regan, you're up first. I have to say, I love that Mortal Kombat-sounding voice. And for the Gen Xers and Gen Z years, who know what I'm talking about. Or you can... No, you know. Yeah, exactly. No, that's Street Fighter. But back to the question to juror, my political play of the week, and I have to say, Ben, I'm a bit of a homer on this one, but it goes to Adam Chambers, who's the member of parliament for Simco North. I listened to your interview with him yesterday, and I thought, here's an exceptional member of parliament. You know, MPs get a hard time, generally speaking, because the House of Commons is full of low-grade sociopaths. But Adam, in his wisdom, has come forward with two great initiatives, one, which was the bill, his private members bill, which he testified before a committee, around,

the disclosure of corporate debts that have been forgiven by the government of Canada. I think that's a fantastic piece of legislation and I hope it's adopted. And secondly, his petition around National Butter Tart Day. I know how much you like butter tart's bet. I don't think Adam appreciates just how much you like them. I know we invited you up to Midland. No, no, he didn't invite me. I invited myself.

Well, I bet. I'm not sure they know how many, how much you're going to eat because you are an eater. And for those who are listening or watching at home, Ben Mulroney can eat. Let me tell you. But I just think this is the kind of levity and public policy that we need in our national chamber. And I think Adam continues to show why he's an exceptional member of parliament. And in my view, a generational figure who could be a historic figure if he's ever given an opportunity to serving cabinet. Very interesting. All right. Andy, you're up next.

Wow. I've got two. One quick one is to former Toronto Mayor John Torrey for reading the writing on the wall, the subway. the street, the bicycle lay overboard, and choosing not to put his name forward to be mayor and saving us all that spectacle. God bless him. Thank you for your service, all of that. But credit to him for seeing what was going to happen to him and choosing not to run. But my play of the week goes to the Mark Carney, who I assume, based on the NDP leadership race, is fully funding it and orchestrating it. So just a few examples. The NDP The VP leadership campaign ban is just a parade of nonsense and discredited ideas. National grocery stores, guaranteed government jobs, arms around the recently deceased Ayatollah Khomey,

and love for the Cuban military junta founded by Vidal Castro. It is the most ridiculous spectacle of ideas I think we've ever seen, and I can only assume it's funded by the Liberal Party of Canada because they have the greatest industries, they get to play every week. Very good. Very good. One day, we were going to take a look back at this leadership

campaign that has been a lot of fun to watch from a distance. But let's go back to the prime minister because he sat down for an interview with a think tank. And I thought it was a really insightful chat because he peeled the onion, he peeled back the curtain and let us know

what it's like to be face to face with Donald Trump. And there's I mean, there are not a lot of people in this country who have been in that position. And I thought the prime minister was quite candid and forthright with what he's up against and what it's like to be on the other side of the table from Donald Trump. Let's listen to a little bit. I think the first thing is one, respect, but not obsequiousness, right?

He's president for a reason. He's had success in other areas. he's eminently, you know, elected twice. He would say elected three times. You know, he does. Okay, real quick, Regan, did he pick the word obsequiousness because he knows Donald Trump doesn't know that word? Oh, I think that's a bit unfair, Ben.

President Trump is the best-selling author of a number of books. And so I think you're being a bit unfair. I think, though, what you saw in that clip is the man that Canadians hired for the job of Prime Minister and the whole, last election. This is a highly experienced, highly credentialed man and who has been in the rooms that he's been, that he finds himself in times before. He did, he was in those rooms as a central banker. So he talked about President Trump and President Xi in that same, uh, speech or that Q&A in Australia. He also talked about Prime Minister Modi in, uh, in India. And, you know, here's a man,

Mr. Carney, who has, who has been around the world and has been in many rooms and helped make many important decisions. And so, yeah, I think you can be a bit cheeky, but the language that our Oxford graduate chose, but I think he's actually demonstrating that he's very aware of the types of rooms that he goes into and the decisions he's making and the types of people he's trying to influence on behalf of the country. For our listening public who may not know or care what the word obsequiousness means, it means exaggerated, fawning or servile eagerness to please. It's flattery. It's flattery turned up to 11. But doesn't it show he knows how to do it? his job, Ben, isn't that part of why we hired him or hire a prime minister so to be able to work

with the president and trying to get his done? It's part of it. The other part is to get us a deal that we're supposed to have on July 1st. But, wow. Andy, you're up. Look, look, all three of us have obsequiousness in our Google searches. Let's be honest about that. But, you know, he has been obsequious. He called Donald Trump a great leader and a great man and a transformational leader. So in his old, office visit, he has fond over the president, which I don't begrudge him because that is a popular tactic.

Well, no, that's what you have to do. I said that that's the key to unlocking him, right? Like, you have to do that. It's just, it's, it's, yeah, it's, it's SOP, right? It's standard operating procedure. You know, but I'm with you, Ben. I mean, if he truly is the Trump whisperer who's mastered this craft and is giving seminars to other world leaders, why are we where we are with the United States right now?

I think that question is a fun. So, you know, I don't think there's anything new, new in what he said, apart from the word we had to Google. And also, it's a commercial for people who support the president. You know, Donald Trump can say, look, Mark Carney says it's hard to get it, it's hard to work with me. It should be hard to work with him in a way. He's American people and he drives a hard bargain. So in a way, it's a compliment.

And then maybe one more quick note, he said there's a difference between Donald Trump and private and in public. And I think that was very telling. He basically said, you know, the president behind the scenes is a very curious man. He's a good listener. He seeks feedback and opinions. And that's not really Mark Carney says about Donald Trump. And I think, I think Ben, Andy hit the nail on the head there. I actually think that the prime minister showed what kind of sophistication he himself has and unpacked when he's dealing with these other leaders. And I think that's a fair comment. Yep. Yep. All right, in this last, we only have a few minutes left, but I do want to spend a little bit of time on the John Tori of it all. And I know this is

a national part of the show, but I think it's really important because my issue is not about John Toria. I talked about that yesterday. My issue is with a group like Progress T.O., which is a progressive political, I'm not sure what the title is, political action committee or something, that decided that they would be the gatekeepers between whether somebody runs or not. And they cheered and championed it and then they tagged it by saying conservatives like John Torrey have no business in public office. That is offensive. That's

offensive. It's anti-democratic. It's suppression. And I want to know what you guys think. Is it well as the impression? You lost me on suppression. Well they're they're suppressing my choice. If I want to vote for them,

I think it should have been my choice to either vote for them or not. Not Progress T.O. And Anyway, I can see on your face, Regan, that you have something to say. Well, I always have something to say, much to the chagrin of the keyboard warriors who don't like what I have to say. And I feel that that is suppression. I'm just kidding. Here's the thing about John Tory Biden.

He's 71 years old. He had no business going back to City Hall. He had nothing left to prove. Remember, he had the longest lockdowns of any city, anywhere in the world during COVID. And I'm still waiting for smart track to show up and be a thing in the city of Toronto. The fact is he knew, and Andy talked about this in his play of the week, that it was going to be very hard for his family to run in the next election campaign.

Progress T.O. are a group of pink and purple-hard activists who are there to try and get their candidate elected. And guess what? Good luck to them. May the best candidate win. My hope is that we can coalesce around one candidate, and my hope is that it's Brad Bradford, who will come into the mayoral election offering a real choice and a real choice for change for Torontoans.

You know, if you feel like the city of Toronto's been well governed over the last 10 years, you had two choices before John Torrey backed out. It was either Olivia Chow or John Torrey. Now it's a very clear choice. You can have more of the same or you can choose change. Yeah, I got to cut you off because, Andy, I'm going to give you the last 30 seconds. Well, on this progress group that none of us can think,

I think when they talk like that and use those tactics, it drives moderates and responsible middle-the-road voters to conservative candidates. So I'm not concerned with your suppression. Ben, no one's going to suppress you. But I think they're a commercial for a conservative-minded candidate. And before we go to break, I got to tell you, I got to tell you, Michael Ford, the Premier's nephew, Premier Doug Ford. nephew is considering a run for Toronto mayor. We will keep you up to date on that.

Guys, thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Always great talking to you. Enjoy the rest of your week. Well, our prime minister is still early on in his term, and yet there's already a book about him. And it's called, it's got a great title. The Carney Trap can more of the same really save democracy. And I'm joined by the authors, Richard Johnson, who's joining us virtually from, I believe, Victoria. Welcome. Nice to see you. Yep. And Peter McLeod, he's here in studio. Thank you very much for being here, Ben. Okay, when do you guys start writing this book, Peter? Well, one thing I have to correct off the top is the title you just cited is an article that was written about our book. Oh, okay. The book's title is called Democracy's Second Act, Why Politics Needs the Public. And yes,

the Carney Trap was written about it. Okay. And it doesn't just apply to our Prime Minister. In fact, I think the critique could probably be leveled against lots of different political leaders today. We started writing this book, coincidentally, on January 6, 2021. Wow. And so Richard and I are talking on the phone. I've got this idea about democracy, blah, blah, blah. And then, like, as it happened for everybody, your phone starts ringing, you start noticing things, you know, chirping on your email. And we realized that the insurrection had begun in Washington, D.C.

So that heightened our sense of urgency in writing this book. Absolutely. So Richard, fundamentally, what's the thrust of the book? Is it that the institutions that we have that are supposed to help us build a better country are getting past their expiration point? Yeah, kind of. I mean, we know that democracy was always meant to be an experiment. And, you know, one of the lines I remember Pete and I banding about was like the old Bob Dylan line.

You know, if you're not busy being born, you're busy dying. and democracy is certainly not being born anymore, and it's definitely stuck. And the first act, what we called it, look, I mean, lots of great achievements of the first act, the institutions we built, free and fair elections, universal suffrage, mostly, you know, great judicial powers and so on. But are they really serving the people? Are they serving the public? They're engaging the capabilities of the public more than asking for our vote,

demanding we donate some money, you know, asking for our opinions sometimes. We've gotten bogged down in so many different ways, and these institutions, just aren't serving the people. They're certainly not trusting the people that are engaging our capability. And that didn't represent what we've kind of found in our everyday work. So we had two different realities. We thought, well, this needs to be a story that people need to know about. Yeah. I take your point. Like, I look around and I'm, if I'm one of 40 million Canadians, I'm somebody who looks at our judicial systems. And I think they are tone deaf. And they're, they're interpreting laws in a way that doesn't make life better. And it doesn't, and it doesn't,

It doesn't feel fair. And it feels like they're developing multiple different types of justice, depending on what race and background you have. And I look at what I think is a lack of accountability for mismanagement in government. And on and on. I get that. So I think I'm the right guy for this book. But how do we fix it?

Well, part of it is that we have to be really clear on what we're trying to fix. and we can talk a lot about the electoral system. We can talk a lot about the concentration of power and the PMO. We can talk about the judiciary and all kinds of issues. But more significant, we think, is what has happened to what we understand the public to be in modern society. You know, coming out of the Second World War, where we had fully mobilized our society to push back against totalitarianism. You know, people had real trust in our collective. capabilities. The public was a resource and an indispensable one. And increasingly, I think on the left or

the right, it can feel as though government looks at you more as a risk that needs to be managed. That has to be communicated to in a particular way. And I think that leaves people feeling really pissed off. They feel lied to. They feel like they don't understand what's going on. They feel shut out. And so the question that we're trying to address in this book that we think really is the question of modern politics today is surely people can do more than donate 50 bucks. and vote every four years. So how do we tap into the capability of the public to meet all of the challenges that we see

and rightly frustrate people? Richard, I'm glad that Peter brought it back to the Second World War, the end of the Second World War, because our Prime Minister sort of summoned the specter of Churchill, said, I'm a wartime prime minister. I wouldn't be here if this were not a battle worth fighting. And we are going to build at speeds we haven't seen since the Second World War,

and we are going to be inspired by all those houses that we built for our veterans when they came back from the front. And we're still not building anything. And I think one of the big differences between then and now is the top down, the top heavy, bureaucratic morass of this country that slows everything down and makes everything more expensive. And I don't know what you think about that, Richard. No, absolutely. I mean, you know, think about what Pete talked about about how, like, we're so accustomed to now thinking that government is going to treat us as a risk rather than a resource as the people. And it's, you know, it's almost, almost hard not to blame Carney for thinking of that coming up in an institution where, you know, once you're elected prime minister, it's like you feel like you have the mandate of the people to kind of act on their behalf. But what's missing there, of course, is, like, are actually, are, you know, is the government actually

engaging to understand what people know and think about these issues? We've gotten so used to this idea that we can be managed by elites, right? And Carney sort of epitomizes that, you know, epitomizes that, that there's no role for the public in between elections anymore. And that he will mobilize us, they will mobilize us, and we'll just go along, trusting that they'll do the best with our votes. But that doesn't represent what we can do. I've always loved the saying that, you know, sorry, go ahead. No, no, no, please. What's saying do you love?

I was just saying, I've always loved the saying that, you know, when we go out to vote, you know, some of us say, okay, now the real work begins. But what is that real work? Do we, you know, kind of organized? Do we write letters? Do we try to hold government accountable? Or is the actual real work for the public, for citizens to do in between? And it has to start with government sort of deciding and really institutionalizing

or a resource, not a risk. Okay, so what do we do? And by the way, I completely understand that a banker would look at people as a risk because that's what banks do. They look at your life on a spreadsheet, and they determine whether you're not, either are risky enough or safe enough to give a mortgage to. So from that perspective, I understand it.

But, okay, I've been wracking my brain. I don't know what else we can do besides vote. They're not, they're not, I don't want to be a volunteer stuff in envelopes in somebody's office. So what do we go? Okay, so what do we do? Let's talk about some examples. And look, let's be clear.

This isn't a left versus right there. Government's everywhere, whether it's the Ontario government or Ford or the federal government or Carney, they all struggle to deliver. I mean, we only opened the Egglington Cross Town when after how much, right? So like, it's endemic across modern liberal democracies. And there's some important reasons why it's gone hard to build things. Yeah, we got to point out five years to build the railc road across the country. We built it for like $35 million and we paid it back.

I guess the debt that we had. incurred. We paid it back in, what, 10 years? Right. Yeah. Right, yeah, yeah. So there are definitely some structural issues we have to address. But when it comes to the productive capacity of the public, that's actually the ballgame. So you'll remember 10 years ago, we were facing the Syrian refugee crisis in this country.

And Canadians finally snapped to attention when there was that horrible photo of that young boy, Alan Kurdy, who had washed ashore in Turkey. And already the federal government had committed to bringing in 25,000 Syrian refugees. And Canadians rightly said, no, we need to do more. And Lifeline Syria and other groups pressured the government to activate what is one of Canada's great social innovations. It's like a genuine contribution to the world. And it's the group of five program. And we called on Canadians. We said, find five other families and do some serious work. Like, let's remember,

raise $30,000. Adoptive family speaks a different language, different creed, different of the world. You've got to get them jobs. You got to get them education. You got to get them language training. You got to get them housing. And incredibly, Canadians who we say are apathetic, ignorant, too self-interested to come out to an MP's office, stuff some envelopes. Those red mitts went right up in the air and 160,000 Canadians sprang into action. The minister of the day, contrary to right now, said, my problem is, I can't get enough Syrians to place with all these Canadian families. A decade later, what do we know? Those Syrians have done better integrating into Canadian society.

So that, we call these civic challenges. Okay. And we think, given the magnitude of all kinds of social deficits in our society, shouldn't it be incumbent on every provincial and federal government once in its mandate to call on Canadians in a way that activates? We're going to hold that thought because I've got so many questions coming up. We've got much more coming up after the break with the authors of democracy's second act, why politics needs the public.

Don't go anywhere. This is the Ben Mulroney Show. Let's take a look at the roads with 640 Toronto, big trouble traffic. The big trouble traffic. What if I told you that democracy isn't broken, it is unfinished? And to discuss what that means

and how we can finish the job and this country can become the fullest and best expression of what we all want it to be, I'm joined by the authors of Democracy's second act, why politics needs the public. Richard Johnson and Peter McLeod gentlemen, thank you for sticker around and answering my silly questions.

Happy to be here. Let's keep talking. Yeah. So you gave a good example of a way that Canadians showed that they were thirsty to participate in this participatory democracy before the break when we talked about helping out with Syrian refugees. And I was thinking, as you said that, gosh, you know, I'm pretty sure most Canadians, if it was done properly, would get behind the idea of some sort of national service. Well, it's funny you'd say that because I wrote a piece in the spring because I think everybody was looking what was happening south of the border and saying, hang on now, like, we're not feeling comfortable with this and what can I do? And, you know, many of the

Scandinavian countries, which have been living with next door to Russia for some time, right? Like, this isn't theoretical for them. And, you know, Sweden reactivated its civil defense agency and its psychological defense agency with the intent of making sure the public was prepared. So I think Canada absolutely needs a civil defense force. So just give me an idea of what that would entail. Well, so they have a kind of all ages, all stages approach to it. So in school, you get some basic CPR, emergency response training.

People enroll in these auxiliaries. They take courses. It's not generally speaking about how to point and shoot a gun. you can do that. But a lot of it is about how you ensure a kind of continuity of that community if there's some kind of emergency, whether it's a territorial incursion,

whether it's a natural disaster, which, of course, Canadians are getting sadly used to, right? So how do we tap into, again, the capabilities of the public? People's willingness to, like, want to step forward. Canadians are big joiners. The problem isn't that we ask too much of people, is that we've been asking way too little.

Richard, you write that people haven't disengaged because they don't care, but because democracy has, quote, stopped asking anything meaningful of them. And I get that. I get that. What are the most important things we should be, like if they're, if they're really not asking anything of people, what's the first thing that they should bring to the table and say, hey, people of Canada, here's what we need from you. Well, think about some of the things that democracy in Canada's,

asking of its people right now. We're going to be looking at a number of referendums coming up on ballots across the country this year what's happening in Alberta here in British Columbia municipal elections. And referendums are often presented as like the purest form of democracy. Put it to the people and let them decide. And that can possibly happen. But do referendums really tap into the judgment of what we have or they just tap into our instincts and ask which side are you on? We think it can be a lot more than that. I'm always inspired by what happened down in Oregon when they have a lot of divisive ballot referendums. And they're always, you know, affected by, you know, out-of-state, you know, big money ad campaigns that are trying to tug on voters for their

hearts and minds. But they don't actually ask people to kind of get together and, like, participate, left, right, and center and actually participate in the debate. And that's what happens down in Oregon with their citizens' initiative reviews, 24 randomly selected voters from across the spectrum, who get together and cut through the jargon, weigh the important tradeoffs on things like, you know, mandatory minimum sentences, for example. And instead of like relying on these, you know, out of state or multi-million dollar ad campaigns, instead of relying on that kind of voter information guide that you get, which is, you know, drafted by probably a well-meaning government lawyer, perhaps, you actually get a document produced by your federal citizens, your peers that basically informs you a little bit about what are

the key issues, what are the key tradeouts, what are the stakes of what you're about to vote on. And when you look at what happened with Brexit, that was totally different. It actually, the referendum just went out there to engage people on their instincts rather than what they're capable of. Initiatives like this involving randomly selected citizens could increase that level of participation and flex that civic literacy, which is like we so need, whether it's civil defense or other. Well, I think what you mentioned is very interesting because as you were talking, I pictured a worst case scenario where people just shout at each other, like as we see all the

time on social media, right? However, that doesn't happen in, say, a jury room and a jury box where regular citizens of all walks of life are forced to work together and are sworn to a duty. And this could be that. So you've got it exactly. You know, you're never going to walk up University Avenue and in front of the courthouse see a sandwich board that says murder trial this afternoon jurors want to. Because you know who'd show up, right? You don't want them administering justice, right? Except every time we ask ourselves a major question is this.

society, we effectively say murder trial this afternoon, show up. And the folks who show up are usually the ones who are most upset. It's not the quote unquote public. It's a subset of the public. So we have to follow the example of countries like Ireland and also Canada, which has pioneered the use of these things called citizens assemblies. They are basically policy juries. And instead of 12 people, you work with 50, maybe 100, and you give them the space to work through the details on the public's behalf. Interesting. Yeah. Okay. So part of the title of the book is Democracy's Second Act. Okay, so let's talk about that second act.

If we were to redesign democratic institutions for this century, what are we looking at? Well, we're looking at a world in which, first of all, government understands that it's part of their job to make sure that we are creating healthy democratic publics. Yeah. And we like to talk about democratic fitness. You know the idea of civic literacy, you know how a bill becomes law. Democratic fitness is about moral courage. It's about voice. It's about agency. It's about efficacy.

And you only get your democratic muscles by flexing them, by practicing. So we need places where you can practice basically agreeing with other people. Yeah. Achieving things with other people. And this should be part of every stage of life, from school to the workplace to community life. There are lots of different ways to do it, but it's going to require some humility from our political leaders. Because right now, whether it's left or right,

they all think they can do just fine without anybody else helping out. And again, lend us some dollars, lend us your vote. We got it. I remember when Justin Trudeau was in third place, right before he won his majority, I was sitting with my dad,

and he was laughing because Justin had promised to eliminate first past the post. And as soon as he got elected, my dad said, there is no way on God's green earth that he is going to move forward with that. And I said, why? How can you be so sure? He said, because in the history of democracy, no one has ever willingly given up power.

Like, you know, you give it up at the end of your term. But at the beginning of your term, you're not about to do that. And so, and of course, he didn't do it. He did. And so that's, that is, I think that's him not trusting people. But, but you know who did do it? It was the Kiwis. It was New Zealand did it.

And they were really smart. They had not one but two referenda. Three, ultimately. First, do you want government to come up with a different voting system? Yes. Two, do you want to try this voting system if we let you in eight years time rescind it? So it's try before you buy. Look, I think a lot of Canadians would be very happy to try a different voting system

that got some more voices and some more perspectives into our political life and actually force politicians to work together rather than this pendulum swing. when we have, where the next guy just erases everything that the last guy did. Richard, I'm going to give you the last minute, and I would like for you to tell our listeners that we can achieve all of this without reopening the Constitution. Because I suspect people are listening going, there's no God dare to away. I'm not going through that again. Right.

Yeah. We don't want to reopen the Constitution in Canada. We want to work, you know, people want to work at a much lower level than that. and we can leave that to, well, whoever's going to do it down the road. But it's interesting that we talk about what it takes to involve the public, and it obviously involves a lot of moral courage on the part of our leaders. It also takes real investment. I mean, think about how much we spend in Canada on a federal election, right?

$600 million, I think the last time out. And we consider that to be the cost of democracy in Canada. Fair. You can agree, disagree. If we spend too much, that's fine. But that's what we agree to the cost. How much money do we actually spend investing in the public realm, investing in the public realm, investing in these places and spaces where, as Peter was saying, people from different perspectives,

different political backgrounds can come together and not just engage, but actually do some of this work. Would we even spend 5% of that? If we could do that, we could have democracy's second act realized in 10 years. It does take investment, not only trust in people, but real dollars to make this happen. And if we can spend a little bit to shore up democracy, that we can spend a little bit more to shore up the faith in the people. Richard Johnson, Peter McLeod, the book is Democracy, Second Act, why politics needs the public. It's optimistic. It's going to make you think. Go out and buy it.

Guys, thank you so much. Thanks a lot, Ben. All right, and thank you very much. As a reminder, if you want more BMS, we put out a podcast every day, and you can find even more content on X, Instagram, and YouTube. Hello there. Thursdays on Global.

I'm Madeline Matlock. She's the lawyer with a legendary name. Don't underestimate Miss Matlock. This woman's a shark. You know it, baby. The one you can. Trust, even if she has to bend the rules. Things aren't always as black and white as they seem.

To crack a case. This is how I get things done. Emmy-winning actress Kathy Bates is Matlock. All new Thursdays at 9 Eastern on Global. Stream on Stack TV.