The Ben Mulroney Show - Best of the Week Part 1 - General Rick Hillier, Jaskaran Sandhu, Tony Chapman

Episode Date: June 14, 2025

Best of the Week Part 1 - General Rick Hillier, Jaskaran Sandhu, Tony Chapman Guests: Rick Hillier, Jaskaran Sandhu, Tony Chapman, Francis Syms, David Urbach 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

Are you ready for a life-changing opportunity? BC Cancer is actively hiring for all healthcare roles across all its regional centers in beautiful British Columbia. Join a dedicated team committed to ending cancer for good. And experience the lifestyle you've always dreamed of in stunning BC. We're curing cancer here. Are you in? Apply now at jobs.BCcancer.BC.CA Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. Want to thank you so much for joining us on this Monday edition of the show.

And I made a commitment to you, our listener, right after the election, I said, look, I am not going to sit here and turn my outrage up to 11 automatically every time Mark Carney or a Liberal member of the government opens their mouth. And when they do something worthy of praise, I am going to champion it. And today, there absolutely is one of those things worthy of celebration and praise. And that is the fact that Mark Carney is pledging that Canada will achieve our NATO spending target of 2% of GDP defense this year, five years ahead of his prior commitment and seven years ahead of Justin Trudeau's last commitment

on that file. And this is something that we should have done years ago. I'm glad we're doing it now. And if this gets done in a way where our military is the fullest expression of itself and the best version of itself, then Mark Carney and his team deserve all the praise. Let's listen to Mark Carney on this subject. The brave women and men who are protecting our sovereignty do not have the resources they need for riskier world. Our military infrastructure and equipment have aged, hindering our military preparedness.

I'll give an example or two. Only one of our four submarines is seaworthy. Less than half our maritime fleet and land vehicles are operational. Or broadly, we're too reliant on the United States. And so for all those reasons, I'm announcing today that Canada will achieve NATO's 2% of GDP target this year, half a decade ahead of schedule. And as we know, if you've listened to this show, one of the things I say time and time again is the devil is in the detail. So great announcement, but here to talk about how this could lead to the

best possible outcomes. General Rick Hillier, retired Canadian Forces general who served as the chief of defense staff. General A, thank you for your service. B, welcome to the show. All right, Ben, thank you. I'm glad to be on your show here today, especially. Yeah, so tell me as somebody who put on the uniform to defend this country and defend Canadian values and saw the decline of the Canadian military over the course of years, what does today's announcement mean to you? Well, I would have been dreaming in technicolor if we'd been anywhere close to 2% of GDP in our country, we spend on our defense and our security. And I think, you know, it's a wonderful announcement.

The fact that it is so short-term to get to it and the commitment was relatively specific in going after whether it's helicopters, fighting vehicles, artificial intelligence or cyber investments that the investment is good. And so I think it's absolutely incredible. And I do believe there will be more to come. So look, I give it a thumbs up here today.

Words so far, but we're talking such a short term, it's gonna have to turn into real action. It's gonna have to turn into real action. And one of my fears, and it's not based on anything except my experience covering other aspects of government is that money that goes in isn't always optimally spent. In other words, if a billion dollars goes into a program, that doesn't mean a billion dollars is spent on the end user of that program.

A lot of it gets siphoned away into other things and wasted. And you know the military and the structure of it better than I. Is there a fear that this 2% that goes into our Canadian military doesn't translate into the, doesn't yield the benefits that I think we as a country would expect? So Ben, yes, I would say absolutely. And here's what I would say occurs and a way to change that and ensure

that the vast majority of any commitment is spent to deliver the capabilities and the equipments and the people in the train that deliver those capabilities that we actually need. And what happens in many times is that you say, we're gonna do this for fighting vehicles or for aircraft, and it takes 10 to 15 years to deliver it and all the time the teams and government agencies are working on it siphoning off from that budget and so there is a bit of a challenge.

What I would say, I would put a challenge out there to the Prime Minister and this government and say look put a two-year clock on every single capability you're going to invest in and from the time we identify it right now in front of us, the fact, for example, that we need more fighting vehicles or that we need artillery or that we need more artificial intelligence, put a two-year clock on it, that you're going to have a contract signed

with that capability on the way immediately following that two-year contract signing from your announcement, if you will. And all of a sudden, you're gonna have 80 to 90 plus percent of any allocation spent on that capability, not frittered away over 10 or 15 years, like we've done so often. I see, so it's the timeline that somehow bleeds money

out of the budget, I see. There's also an announcement that there would be more pay to service men and women. I've got to wonder if that is going to be, first of all, the announcement itself could be good for recruitment, but the idea that they would there's more money in the pot for salaries could be good for recruitment, which is something we need because we've been lacking in soldiers. Well, I think Ben, you're absolutely correct. announced on a date cuts across a whole bunch of things which affect whether young canadians will join the being our forces and serve our nation

and yes pain benefits are crucial because you can't support a young family can support yourself and you have to be living for example in a squam all or in edmonton where and places that are more expensive but it's really tough so that that's awesome. But also, and I said this to the Minister of Defense, ministers of defense more than once, you cannot recruit first rate people with third class equipment. And by putting this kind of investment into our equipment

now into our infrastructure, equally important, get rid of the horse stables from World War I and get new modern accommodations built. That's what allows you to recruit people, not just to pay, although the pay is hugely important. Yeah. And there are so many positive knock on effects from this announcement.

This puts Mark Carney and it puts Canada in a far better position as he goes into his first NATO summit. This also helps us in our negotiations with Donald Trump. So there's a lot a lot to like about this. I think there is and I think you know we've gone through year after year after year we've never met what I believe is our obligation as a G7 nation member of NATO member of NORAD etc. Now though in order to be a part of a relationship with the United States

or to be a part of a relationship with the Europe, and we have to be both quite frankly, we've got to spend on defense. No longer can we have this sort of freedom just to do nothing because we'll be isolated from each other on our own. So I think it's a wonderful thing to hear. Now I got the pedal to the metal

and say, let's get this money out the door as quickly as we possibly can. And we can do that. And let's assume that that 2% of GDP going towards the military is something that we sustain for a long time. How many years, General, is it going to take for that 2%? How long is it going to take for that 2% to finally lead to a place where we can look at the military and say, yep, we're where we need to be? It's not. It's not. 2% will simply not do it in the world in which we live and the relationships which we have. But it is a magnificent start, that's for sure. And I think what you will see down the road here in G7s or NATO summits is further funding, additional funding, perhaps stretched over to slightly longer term.

And that's fine because you can't do everything all at once. But it's going to take us 10 years to build the kind of capability. You got to rebuild the base of the Canadian forces by the people. And then you've got to build the new capabilities. And it takes a period of time to do that. So you think 10 years from now, the state of the Canadian military is going to look nothing like it does today? Well actually I think if we do this right I think in two years we can look nothing like we do today but in two years we'll look like the G7 capable military that we should have.

I have to say I'm beaming with pride today at that prospect. And for far too long, it just didn't look like we were ever going to do anything about it. And we were also told by governments that we simply couldn't do anything about it. I'm not quite sure how we're going to pay for it, but hopefully pipelines will be part of it. I'm just glad that we're doing something about it, General. And I'm glad that you were here for us today

on this very important day. Thank you so much. My pleasure, General. And I'm glad that you were here for us today on this very important day. Thank you so much. My pleasure, Ben. Thank you. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. If you have been listening throughout this entire show, then you might be exhausted by how much is actually on the plate of our prime minister.

When he assumed the role of prime minister, I did not appreciate fully how many files needed his attention. It really does seem like we're gonna, he's gonna be very, very busy on a lot of really important files from free trade to our military. And now at the G7 summit,

it looks like he is going to be tending, on top of being the host country, looks like he's also gonna play host to another world leader whose relations with Canada have been strained. And that world leader I'm talking about is the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, yes. And so here is what Mark Carney

said about inviting Prime Minister Modi to the G7. What is your message then to Canadians who are a bit disturbed or wondering why Mr. Modi is being invited to Canada when there is this legal process that has not cleared him and his governments of involvement in the death of a Canadian on Canadian soil? My message is that we're a country of the rule of law. The rule of law is proceeding as it should in Canada, and I am not going to disrupt that process. All right, well somebody who may take issue with the invitation and Mark Carney's position

on said invitation is our next guest. He is the co-founder of Bos News and board member of the World's Sick Organization of Canada and a good friend of the Ben Mulroney show, Jaskaran Sandhu, welcome. Hey, thanks for having me. So you wrote on Bos News, Carney's G7 invite to Modi isn't diplomacy, it's betrayal.

Those are strong words. Yeah, very strong words. And I think it's important for Canadians to understand why the Sikh community feels this way. And many other Canadians. I was actually encouraged by the reaction from a lot of folks, including in the media landscape, who came out and spoke out against the invitation. I think the first thing to recognize is, you know, we are not that far removed from a bombshell RCMP press conference, where they shared unequivocally that India and its agents, as well as its criminal gang networks that are linked with the Indian government, and I'm not making this up, you can go watch the RCMP press yourself. I remember, just got it and I remember when when this came out under Justin Trudeau, I was not inclined to pay attention to anything Justin Trudeau said, but I, I, at that point,

I said, you know what, he's speaking on something that is very important. And I cannot believe that that he would be doing anything but acting in good faith and on behalf of Canada. So I took him at his word and I took the guy I took the RCMP at their word. Yeah, and Justin Trude show Nelson was just tipped the iceberg. He was talking about one specific incident where a president of a good about it was shot outside of a global and I go to the lot of the six place of worship. The RCMP added an additional layer that India was actually

using criminal gang networks of it that, that it has control of to conduct arson, homicides, extortions, as well as other criminal activities across Canada. Obviously, the main target is the Sikh community, but these shootings happen in broad daylight in neighborhoods everywhere. The extortions were indiscriminate. They're extorting businessmen from across the South Asian community, not just the Sikh community. All these investigations are continuing to push forward by the RCMP. You have multiple Indian nationals that are now in the court system facing criminal charges that are all linked with the Indian government. And the link goes to Amit Shah, who is actually Narendra Modi's second

in command within the Indian government. He has the title of Home Minister. And then, you know, when you speak about inviting a government that is under all these investigations, that should come with some expectations that this government and the Indian government would take part in the investigations. They will cooperate with the investigations, something that has been encouraged and recommended by all five I partners, not just Canada, but India outright denies and actually has been spreading disinformation about Canada in response. Which brings me to the second point.

And you know, some of the justifications given for inviting India was, look, this is diplomacy and India is a mature, this is the word. Let me jump in because I want to join this conversation with you. I will take everything you said at face value and I'll concede all those points. I just want to play a little devil's advocate. What if we didn't call it diplomacy? What if we said, look, Canada's relationship with China,

with India has not been good over the past few years. In fact, it's probably at a very low point. And the only way to improve it is to engage in conversation and bilateral communication. And I would say go one step further. If we want to change the behavior, and again, devil's advocate, if we want to change the behavior that you that bad actor behavior that you just so well described isn't the only way to change it, improving the relationship with India and its leadership?

Yeah, and so one of the reasons given, the justification given was to the point that, well, India is another democracy and we need to work together to try to solve these things. India is actually what is now called an electoral autocracy by the VDEM Institute. So the leading researchers in democracy and the health of democracies around the world call India the fastest autocratizing country on earth.

You know, its press freedom index is 151 out of 180 countries, what puts it alongside countries like Russia. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International have all been raising alarm bells on the deteriorating situation in India. This is not a good-faith actor. We're not dealing with another democracy and we have some differences. This is you're dealing with a country akin to China, Iran, and Russia, to be quite frank. Yeah. How does Canada talk about those countries? We would say, rightfully so, that Canada takes a hard stance and will be always clear to say even in bilateral meetings with countries like China for example that look trade's important, economic ties are important, but it comes with

caveats and one of them is that we have to respect the rule of law and international order. And in the case of India we're inviting them and saying on a country that is actively being investigated by our public interference inquiries and RCMP and CSIS. Hey, welcome to the G7, in a country where you've been actively trying to kill people. So it's just outrageous. And again, I take all your points. But I guess my question would be, if not by inviting him to a conference where they can sit behind closed doors without the presence of cameras, to a conference where they can sit behind closed doors without the presence of cameras.

How do we get to a better place than we are today? How do we have a conversation about sort of the bad actor activity within our borders? How do we get to a better place than we are today, if not talking directly to the leader? Look, I think we have to keep pushing on what we have been doing. And Canada has sent multiple envoys to India, multiple outreach to sit down and have a conversation like adults about some of our concerns as a sovereign country. India's response has been to Stonewall and deny and literally spread disinformation, not just about the Sikh community but about Canada in general. They went as far as to say Justin Trudeau had cocaine in his plane and that's why he couldn't leave Italy. This is the extent India is going. So the point is if you want

to rebuild ties with India, inviting them publicly to the stage at G7, of which India is not a member of, like let's again, this is a courtesy, like they're not a member of the G7. And there's other countries, big important countries that are not invited to the G7. That doesn't mean that we have blown up our relationships with them. This is a separate international forum.

India and Canada can have those conversations and rebuild ties in a certain way. And I think some folks put it really bluntly. I think it was the editorial board of the Globe and Mail that inviting Modi is too quick, too soon. So let me be clear with you. So your issue is not necessarily that that Carney would be talking directly with Modi. It's that he would be given a, a, um, a welcome of privilege into one of the most privileged groups in the world. Yes. And you're normalizing, you're normalizing the ties at a time when India is again,

stall walling every single investigation and request that Canada has put to them. All right. We've totally normalized it. We've given them an out. You should see how this is being read and covered in India right now. What are they saying? Very quickly, tell me what they're saying. Diplomatic victory. India can get away with anything.

A senior journalist, a deputy editor of a senior journalist literally tweeted yesterday in response to another Canadian journalist, we can literally kill any six we want in Canada, cope. So it is seen as a diplomatic victory and that Canada is weak in an unserious country. Justgar, we're going to leave it there. Thank you. I really appreciate your passion and your detail and adding real nuance to an important story. We appreciate it.

Thank you for the time. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. All right. Thank you for the time. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with the TD Small Business Account Manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs. Ready to press play? Get up to $2,700 when you open select small business banking products. Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business.

Visit td.com slash small business match to learn more. Conditions apply. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show and this is the time on the show where we rely on our good friend Tony Chapman to come in and break down sort of the business news as it relates to some of the biggest brands out there. And Tony, welcome to the show. Oh it's a pleasure. So actually I have to admit I didn't I've never heard of this brand but that doesn't mean it's not a big one. Retailer Oak and Fort that has asked for is seeking creditor protection. They're saying that they're blaming tariffs for the financial crisis. Are we dealing with a retail Armageddon here?

Is the retail landscape in Canada beyond redemption? If you're a boring retailer, if you don't have a point of difference, a point of distinction, absolutely, because people aren't just meandering around shopping for on impulse, they do that now online. So you've got to be exciting, you have to be unique. And they were just yet another fashion forward. They're blaming the terrorists, but the reality is they over expanded

in the States, had trouble making rent payments. So they're looking for an excuse, but their category in general, the Tsaras, the Ritzias, this sense of buying fashion and dispose of it is going away. And you have to just study the youth. They're looking at vintage. They're looking at classic items that they build their fashion around because they all want to be unique. They don't want to all look like they're from the Gap or like they're from Zara. And that's the situation they're in. But isn't like Eritrea, I've gone in there, I went over over Christmas to buy some gifts

and it was, I couldn't walk around, I was shoulder to shoulder with people. So are they doing well? I think that they're at their point of inflection where they've got to reinvent themselves because that sense of noise and music and we don't want parents in our store because we're going to create that wall of sound. All of that really worked for them for time, but retail, if you're not reinventing yourself, very quickly the world passes you by. One of the biggest names in all of entertainment is Disney, right? They own Marvel and Star Wars and ABC. I mean, they are a

massive, massive business. And yet they're laying off several hundred people in their film and TV divisions. How does, like, explain that to me? The easiest way to explain it is cable was this river and streamings become an ocean. And that ocean's a massive waves of change. And within it, you've got to say, what do I really need to put out there? And it's all now based on data. It's no longer intuition. I'm no longer betting on 50 shows, hoping that I get the next Seinfeld. I'm using the data.

I'm creating the product that I know my audience wants. I'm doing a lot of sequels. And so you just don't need the entourage you used to have. And then add to that, which we're going to talk about for the next year, AI is replacing what used to be thought of the irreplaceable. Yeah. Not just coloring animation cells, that was

computer graphics, actually designing the cartoon, the storyline and producing it. So all of this is up for grabs. And this is, this is the beginning of what is going to be tsunami and layoffs in the creative class, which is a shame because creativity is what really fosters that human imagination. So is it because, because I guess Disney plus is a few years old now. So and they've been collecting that granular data that you're talking about.

Is it because they now have access to that data through Disney Plus that they can tell, all right, well, this show's not working and this type of show's not working and the people that we thought we were gonna be attracting to this entire business unit in terms of TV shows or movies, that didn't work. Is that why they're making these cuts? That's possible because that's their data lake,

but also they're studying Reddit and Instagram and Facebook and they're truly, they're really understanding where the consumer's moving and they want to be there to meet them. And Desi is one of the best at it. So you can see right now, even in their theme parks are exploding, great numbers, lots of energy, because they re even recalibrated the theme parks. Guess what? People wanted more rides. They wanted more immersion. So that's what every major company that's got the dollars are going to do. Use the data excreted by the consumer and use it to fertilize the content.

And that's really is that what we should be thinking about as consumers is we're leading the world right now by just simply what we're looking for online. Well, I remember there was a time under the Trudeau Liberals where they anytime they get in front of a microphone and they were talking about American media companies, they were viewed as the big bad evil guy coming to Canada to steal jobs, peddle misinformation, and all that. So they were the dark forces that were invading Canada. But now those companies are fighting back. They're fighting the CRTC ruling that said that they've got to pay 5% of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content,

including local TV. So what story do they tell so they don't sound like like the carpet baggers coming across the border and taking up our time, our bandwidth, and horning Canadians out of the market? What if Canadians reversed engineered and said, we now have access to streaming services that can put our content around the world, not just on CBC.

What if we created the content the world wanted? We did the Downton Abbey's of the world. We got the best storytellers, the artists, the comics, we've got the musicians, everybody top of the list, all through Hollywood or Canadians. So why don't we instead of saying, well, we're not going to beg you to put 5% and we're going to pitch you every month with some of the best content ideas you can get. And next thing you know, we're Hollywood North, but it's Hollywood North owned by Canadians versus just supporting the Hollywood studios. So it's the carrot, the stick

versus the carrot. Absolutely. The whole mentality of Canada has got to start, instead of being a victim and going, please give us a handout, let's step up and say, listen, man, Netflix, if we have a hit show, it's gonna go around the world. Why are we creating White Lotus? Instead of mandating it, we should incentivize. Absolutely. And with a $0.70 in a tax incentives, this industry should triple in size,

as opposed to going, please spend 5% of your money on Canadian content. It's going to end up nobody's going to want it because they feel they had to have it. I mean, I remember a time where it was commonplace to say that something on TV, quote unquote, looked Canadian, and that was a euphemism for look cheap. That's not the case anymore. Murdoch Mysteries is a hit show in a hundred countries around the world. There's no

question we are capable of producing. The Balmers came out of Canada and one of the top, especially retail stars. So what we've got to do is we got to think bigger as a country and say, listen, that is access. They could stream anywhere. All they want is hit shows. Let's create the next white lotus. And next thing you know, they're going to be coming to us and saying, can I spend 30% of my budget in Canada? Because you're creating content that sticks versus content that I have to tick off in a box. You see, one of the problems that I've heard from creators in Canada, from producers in Canada, is that there isn't necessarily an incentive in Canada to go mass market, to tell a story that could be a big hit

at the box office or in the ratings because of the incentives from the government, from all the funds and the bursaries and all of that stuff. If they tell a niche story, if they tell a story about about like one particular group, that will trigger a whole bunch of money for them as opposed to going out there and writing a blockbuster. Well, no question, if they film outside a major city, if they make sure they have diversity, if they're telling stories about Indigenous, all the things

that we dictate, let's create content the world wants and guess what? There'll be Indigenous stories within it. It's typical Canada, which the government tries to herd you in a pen that nobody wants, versus opening this up and saying, let everybody release and go, let's create content that everybody wants. All right. Let's talk about the NBA because their sponsorship revenue is up 8% to $1.6 billion. And that was boosted by those logos on the jerseys, the patches, which a lot of people thought was gonna be terrible and it's been this massive windfall for them.

It seems to me that in terms of business stories, the NBA sports writ large are recession proof. Yeah, I mean, listen, who would have thought jerseys was the new real estate? Who would have thought they would have found yet another thing to sponsor? I mean, it's, you know, it's almost a handle to the bathrooms now is being sponsored on it, but they're doing a great job in them because sports is about optimism.

It's about winning. It's it makes you feel good. It's exciting. And the world where we're drowning in negativity and impossibility, it's great to see positivity and possibility. Hence why they get command such a premium for the real estate,

because they have the eyeballs to deliver. Again, coming back to data, they'll tell you how many impressions those sweaters will get per year. And therefore, that's why they're worth 5 million, 10 million, 15 million a team. So are we done now? Have we completely capped out in terms of what we can sponsor in game? Well, listen, now with the new CGI and virtual and artificial generative AI, you're gonna see sponsorships in the game that's just for you, Ben, because they know what you like. And George is gonna get a completely different suite

of stuff that he sees on the screen because they know what George likes. That's where it's going next, hyper personalized sponsorship. Hold on, so you're saying if he and I are watching the exact same game at the exact same time, I'm gonna see different in-game live logos and things like that.

And television ads. And the, no, but yes, I get the television ads. And sponsorship, absolutely. It's all gonna be done on the screen based on what they know you click on. And by the way, you're gonna be down the road with your Google glasses or your Apple glasses looking at it, next thing you know,

they're sending a link to it. I mean, I kind of want I kind of like that. I kind of like that future, but I'm also fearful for what it means in terms like the my enjoyment of the game. But hey, Tony Chapman, I always enjoy talking to you. Thank you so much. Enjoy the rest of your week. A pleasure. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show.

And this is the time on the show where we rely on our good friend Tony Chapman to come in and break down sort of the business news as it relates to some of the biggest brands out there. And Tony, welcome to the show where we rely on our good friend Tony Chapman to come in and break down sort of the business news as it relates to some of the biggest brands out there. And Tony, welcome to the show. Oh, it's a pleasure. So, actually, I have to admit, I didn't I've never heard of this brand, but that doesn't mean it's not a big one. Retailer Oak and Fort that has asked for is seeking creditor protection.

They're saying that they they're blaming tariffs for the financial crisis. Are we dealing with a retail Armageddon here? Is the retail landscape in Canada beyond redemption? If you're a boring retailer, if you don't have a point of difference, a point of distinction, absolutely, because people aren't just meandering around shopping for on impulse, they do that now online.

So you've got to be exciting. You have to have a, be unique. And they were just yet another fashion forward. They're blaming the terrorists, but the reality is they over expanded in the States, had trouble making rent payments. So they're looking for an excuse, but their category in general, the Zaras, the Ritzias,

this sense of buying fashion and dispose of it is going away. And you have to just study the youth. They're looking at vintage. They're looking at classic items that they build their fashion around because they all want to be unique. They don't want to all look like they're from the Gap or like they're from Zara. And that's the situation they're in. But isn't like Eritrea, that, that, I've gone in there, I went over over Christmas to buy some gifts and it was, I couldn't, I couldn't walk around, I was shoulder to shoulder

with people. So are they doing well? I think that they're at their point of inflection where they've got to reinvent themselves because that sense of noise and music and we don't want parents in our store because we're going to create that wall of sound. All of that really worked for them for time, but retail, if you're not reinventing yourself, very quickly the world passes you by. One of the biggest names in all of entertainment is Disney, right? They own Marvel and Star Wars and ABC. I mean, they are a massive, massive business.

And yet they're laying off several hundred people in their film and TV divisions. How does, like, explain that to me? The easiest way to explain it is cable was this river and streamings become an ocean. And that ocean's a massive waves of change. And within it, you've got to say, what do I really need to put out there? And it's all now based on data. It's no longer intuition. I'm no

longer betting on 50 shows, hoping that I get the next Seinfeld. I'm using the data. I'm creating the product that I know my audience wants. I'm doing a lot of sequels. And so you just don't need the entourage you used to have. And then add to that, which we're going to talk about for the next year, AI is replacing what used to be thought of the irreplaceable. Not just coloring animation cells, that was computer graphics, actually designing the cartoon, the storyline and producing it. So all of this is up for grabs. And this is the beginning of what is going to be tsunami and layoffs in the creative class, which is, which is a shame because creativity is what really fosters that human

imagination. So is it because, because I guess Disney plus is a few years old now. So and they've been collecting that, that granular data that you're talking about is, is it because they now have access to that data through Disney Plus that they can tell, all right, well, this show's not working and this type of show's not working and the people that we thought we were going to be attracting to this entire business unit in terms of TV shows or movies, that didn't work. Is that why they're making these cuts? That's possible because that's their data lake, but also they're studying Reddit and Instagram

and Facebook and they're truly, they're really understanding where the consumer's moving and they want to be there to meet them. And Disney is one of the best at it. So you can see right now, even in their theme parks are exploding, great numbers, lots of energy because they re even recalibrated the theme parks. Guess what? People wanted more rides. They wanted more immersion. So that's what every major company that's got the dollars they're going to do, use the data excreted by the consumer and use it to fertilize the content. And that's really is that what we should be thinking about as consumers is we're leading the world right now by just simply what we're looking for online. Well, I remember there was a time under the Trudeau Liberals where they, anytime they'd get in front of a microphone and they were talking about

American media companies, they were viewed as the big bad evil guy coming to Canada to steal jobs, peddle misinformation, and all that. So they were the dark forces that were invading Canada. But now those companies are fighting back. They're fighting the CRTC ruling that said that they've got to pay 5% of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV. So what story do they tell so they don't sound like carpet baggers coming across the border and taking up our time, our bandwidth and horning Canadians out of the market? What if Canadians reversed engineered and said, we now have access to streaming services that can put our content around the world, not just on CBC.

What if we created the content the world wanted? We did the Downton Abbey's of the world. We got the best storytellers, the artists, the comics, we've got the musicians, everybody top of the list, all through Hollywood are Canadians. So why don't we instead of saying, well, we're not going to beg you to put 5% and we're going to pitch you every month with some of the best content ideas you can get. And next thing you know, we're Hollywood North, but it's Hollywood North owned by Canadians versus just supporting the Hollywood studios.

So it's the carrot, the stick versus the carrot. Absolutely. The whole mentality of Canada has got to start, instead of being a victim and going, please give us a handout, let's step up and say, listen, man, Netflix, if we have a hit show, it's going to go around the world. Why are we creating White Lotus? Instead of mandating it, we should incentivize. Absolutely. And with a $0.70 in a tax incentives, this industry should triple in size as opposed

to going, please spend 5% of your money on Canadian content. It's going to end up nobody's going to want it because they feel they had to have it. I mean I remember a time where it was commonplace to say that something on TV quote-unquote looked Canadian and that was a euphemism for look cheap. That's not the case anymore. Murdoch mysteries is a hit show in a hundred countries around the world. There's no question we are capable of producing. The Balmers came out of Canada and one of the top especially retail stars. So what we've got to do is we got to think bigger as a country and say, listen, that is access. They could stream anywhere. All they want is hit shows.

Let's create the next White Lotus. And next thing you know, they're going to be coming to us and saying, can I spend 30% of my budget in Canada? Because you're creating content that sticks versus content that I have to tick off in a box. See, one of the problems that I've heard from creators in Canada, from producers in Canada, is that there isn't necessarily an incentive in Canada to go mass market, to tell a story that could be a big hit at the box office or in the ratings

because of the incentives from the government, from all the funds and the bursaries and all of that stuff. If they tell a niche story, if they tell a story about like one particular group, that will trigger a whole bunch of money for them, as opposed to going out there and writing a blockbuster. Well, no question, if they film outside a major city, if they make sure they have diversity, if they're telling stories about Indigenous, all the things that we dictate, let's create content

the world wants. And guess what? There'll be indigenous stories within it. It's typical Canada which the government tries to herd you in a pen that nobody wants versus opening this up and saying, let everybody release and go, let's create content that everybody wants. All right. Let's talk about the NBA because their sponsorship revenue is up 8% to $1.6 billion. And that was boosted by those logos on the jerseys, the patches, which a lot of people thought was gonna be terrible.

And it's been this massive windfall for them. It seems to me that in terms of business stories, the NBA sports writ large are recession proof. Yeah, I mean, listen, who would have thought Jersey's was the new real estate? Who would have thought they would have found yet another thing to sponsor? Yeah. I mean, it's, you know, it's almost a handle to

the bathrooms now is being sponsored on it, but they're doing a great job in them because sports is about optimism. It's about winning. It's it makes you feel good. It's exciting. And the world where we're drowning in negativity and impossibility, it's great to see positivity

and possibility. Hence why they get commands such a premium for the real estate because they have the eyeballs to deliver. Again, coming back to data, they'll tell you how many impressions those sweaters will get per year. And therefore that's why they're worth 5 million, 10 million, 15 million a team. So are we done now? Have we completely capped out on terms of what we can sponsor in game? Well, listen, now with the new CGI and virtual and artificial generative AI, you're going to see sponsorships in the game that's just for you, Ben, because they know what you

like. And George is going to get a completely different suite of stuff that he sees on the screen because they know what George likes. That's where it's going next. Hyper personalized sponsorship. Hold on. So you're saying if he and I are watching the exact same game at the exact same time I'm going to see different in game live logos and things like that? And television ads. And yes I get the television ads. And sponsorship absolutely. It's all going to be down on the screen based on what they know you click on and by the way they're going to you're going to be down the road with your Google glasses or your Apple glasses looking at it. Next thing you know, they're sending a link to it. I mean, I kind of want, I kind of like that. I kind of like that future, but I'm also fearful for what it means in

terms of like the, my enjoyment of the game. But hey, Tony Chapman, I always enjoy talking to you. Thank you so much. Enjoy the rest of your week. A pleasure. Why do fintechs like Float choose Visa? As a more trusted, more secure payments network, Visa provides scale, expertise, and innovative payment solutions. Learn more at visa.ca slash fintech. Welcome back to the Ben Mulrooney Show. Alright, time for some good news in the healthcare sector.

It's rare that we have something like this to report. So I really want to spend some time on it. But look, if there are a lot of metrics by which we gauge the health of our healthcare system and surgical wait times is one of those metrics. And by and large, generally speaking, they have been getting longer for especially for things like knee replacements, hip replacements, that sort of thing. There's some numbers that say on average patients wait 120 days for certain types of surgeries, but in places like Western Ontario, waiting can be longer than 350 days. That being said, some research has been done

on how to improve these wait times. And one of the people behind this study and these ideas is joining us right now, David Urbach. He's the head of surgery at Women's College Hospital and professor of surgery at the University of Toronto. Professor, thank you so much for being here. Thank you.

So what did your analysis discover in terms of where the, I guess, where the choke points might be? What we found is that without adding any additional capacity to the system, so without building any new operating rooms, hospitals, surgeons, if we could just reallocate patients more efficiently to the surgeons who had the most capacity to see them, so that means sending people to the next available provider and having all the surgeons work together in teams. By undertaking that, we can actually prevent anybody from exceeding their recommended wait times for hip or knee replacement surgery in Ontario. Yeah, that was so impressive. The number was down to zero. But so you've just told us

what we would have to change in the system. But what is the status quo? How does it work right now? And why is that? Tell me like, because that's, this is the system that we need to change. Yeah, so it's quite interesting. Sort of by historical accident, we have a system of direct physician referrals. So for example, if you need a knee replacement, you've got arthritis, a sore knee, have difficulty walking,

your family doctor has to send you to a surgeon. And right now the system as it currently exists does not have a way to ensure that you're seen by the next available surgeon, the surgeon with the shortest list or the surgeon even who's most appropriate for you because we've sort of left it up to the highly decentralized market and the family doctors don't have all this information. Right. So if my family doctor says you need a knee replacement, I know just the guy. And

he could send me to a guy who's got a list, a wait list of a couple of months long. But meanwhile, there's a guy he doesn't know, who's just is equally competent and ready to do it, who could see me in two weeks. Exactly. Right. And so how does this you said that so that's one part of it, but you said you referenced sort of a team approach as well. What do you mean by a team approach? Well, because there's two choke points.

The first one is the wait to see a surgeon for a consultation. And that actually isn't all that long in Ontario right now for these procedures. The second choke point is the wait for the surgery once you've seen a surgeon and they've decided you do need to have surgery. And that can be really long, like you know that can be a year, a year and a half or longer. Whereas other surgeons have OR accessibility within a month or two. So what we've proposed and this model exists to a small extent already is surgeons work together in a, just like is common in family medicine and obstetrics

and cardiac surgery, for example, and they share the load of all the patients so that the patients are assigned to the next available skilled surgeon who can do that. Okay, so I guess what you're saying then is in the current system, the doctor, the surgeon who does the initial assessment, is the one who does the surgery. But if they worked in a team, in a collaborative team, there could be a surgeon A who does the assessment. He briefs the team and the first available surgeon on that team then takes the surgery. Exactly. Is this done anywhere else in the world or in Canada?

Yeah, it's done, but it's not done commonly. The best example I can give is obstetrics where, you know, a woman who's pregnant is followed for several months by her obstetrician. When you're in labor, you go to hospital and there's an obstetrician who's on call that night. You know, you haven't necessarily seen them before, but they're your doctor and they're skilled and they're supervised and you'll have an excellent outcome. So it's exactly that type of model. So professor, can I just say, if you were here,

I would stand up and I would give you a round of applause for you and your team for doing this sort of thing, for thinking outside of, you know, what is the common box in Canada? Anytime there's a problem in our healthcare system, it seems like the powers that be think, all right, let's just throw more money at the problem. But you, and for sure you've said

that there would have to be some, an infrastructure, an outlay of an initial investment to get this off the ground. But I'm so optimistic and emboldened by the fact that you and your team looked at this through a different lens. How can we optimize what we already have? Yeah, exactly. And if I can say what people can do, what the public can do is emphasize that what they want is access to care. Yeah.

And you know, my observation as a physician leader in Ontario is that the quality of care that people get. Once you're in hospital, we provide excellent care, whether it's surgery, whether it's admissions or you're having a heart attack. The suffering that exists out there right now is a problem of access. And what people need to tell decision makers, political leaders, whoever will listen, is they want access. And if that means seeing the next available skilled person,

that they're happy to do that just just like it works when you walk into a bank or when you go on a customs line or when you fly on an airplane. Now, Professor, you know, you looked at a very particular type of surgery here. Is this is this concept that you're putting forth? Is it something that is portable throughout the health care system? Are there other surgeries that could benefit from this? Yep. There's nothing unique or magical about this. We just studied joint replacement because

it was such a big problem and a common surgery and a source of a lot of suffering in the population. But this could be applied to things like cataract surgery to gynecologic surgery. Basically any service for which queuing or waiting is a feature and for which there's multiple providers with multiple queues. This is the solution and it's been adopted by every industry that has to manage queuing. They all work in this way. It's just healthcare that has this very quaint antiquated historical approach to how we connect people to the point of service. David Urbach to you and your team. I swear this is this is one of the best

moments I haven't felt this way in a long time when talking about the health care system because to hear you talk about this and to present a solution that could actually change things and give us better outcomes without billions of dollars being thrown at the problem. This is, my goodness, I hope people hear this and take the ball and run because what a great idea. Thank you and congratulations. Thank you. and the iHeartRadio Canada apps. And make sure to follow and subscribe on Apple podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your streaming audio.

We release new podcasts every day. Thanks for listening. To celebrate the Days of Our Lives 60th anniversary, W Network and Stack TV invite you to enter for a chance to win the ultimate fan experience. By watching new episodes of Days of Our Lives, you and a guest could win a three-night stay in Los Angeles, a VIP Days of Our Lives set tour, a helicopter ride over LA, and so much more.

Watch Weekdays at One and look for the weekly code word to enter. Days of Our Lives. All new Weekdays at One, only on W. Stream on StackTV.