The Ben Mulroney Show - Best of the Week Part 2 - Political Panel, Dilemma Panel, Regan Watts, Max Fawcett

Episode Date: February 9, 2025

Best of the Week Part 2 - Political Panel, Dilemma Panel, Regan Watts, Max Fawcett Guests: Kate Harrison, Sharan Kaur, Tom Parkin, Brad Smith, Cheryl Hickey, Regan Watts, Max Fawcett 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

Wealthsimple's Big Winter Bundle is our best match offer yet. Get a 2% match when you transfer over an eligible RRSP. For a $50,000 transfer, that's a $1,000 cash bonus. Enough to buy a fancy parka. A ticket to somewhere you don't need a fancy parka. Or just be responsible and top up your retirement fund. Plus, move any other eligible account and we'll give you a 1% match. Minimum $15,000 transfer.

Register by March 15th. Additional terms apply. Learn more at wealthsimple.com slash match. Clear your schedule for you time with a handcrafted espresso beverage from Starbucks. Savor the new small and mighty Cortado. Cozy up with the familiar flavors of pistachio or shake up your mood with an iced

brown sugar oat shaken espresso. Whatever you choose, your espresso will be handcrafted with care at Starbucks. Welcome to the Ben Mulroney Best of the Week podcast. We had so many great segments this week. Our Dilemma panel was packed with star power and crazy dilemmas. The best political panel in the country was especially good and a whole lot more. Enjoy. It's time for this week in politics. And of course, I want you to remember on Fridays, we listen to all of the opinions that you shoot our way on our opinion line. Best Calls played at

the end of the show on Friday. So keep them coming. Let's welcome to the show Sharon Core, political strategist and partner at Sovereign Advisory. Welcome, Sharon. Hello. Let's say welcome back to Tom Park, Tom Park and principal at Impact Strategies and Canadian columnist and commentator. Tom, great to see you again. Good morning, Ben.

And Kate Harrison, vice chair at Summa Strategies. Kate, welcome to the show. Happy to be here, Ben. Good morning. So there is a poll that suggests that the lead that the Tories are enjoying is, well, it's tightening a little bit with the Liberals. They have down 5% since their previous Ipsos poll.

Liberals are up 8%, so the Tories are at 41%, the Liberals at 28%. Now, we thought, we expected that the Liberals would get some sort of bump at some point, you know, a change in leadership, a Trump bump. We thought they'd get him when he was elected. Is it finally coming after the tar of threat? Let's start with you, Sharon. Yes, like listen, I think that there's a bit of a change in the polls, because federally, at least the target for the Fed has been Trump, not Poliev. And it's kind of taken him a bit out of the limelight. So he's pushing in for press now. Now, how long is this going to last? To be determined, I think there has been this level of like national unity where Canadians have kind of put aside our domestic internal politics and kind of very much focused on let's stand together and kind of push back on Trump with tariffs. This might only last a little while. It might last longer depending on

what Trump does, but I wouldn't get my hopes up if I was a liberal just yet. Yeah. Kate, let me ask you, if this is in fact sort of a product of people feeling that the liberals are best poised to help deal with this tariff threat, is it politically better for them to oppose Trump? And how do they do that while not antagonizing someone that they need to deal with? I mean, we saw Mark Carney referring to the Americans oppose Trump and how do they do that while not antagonizing someone that they need to deal with?

I mean, we saw Mark Carney referring to the Americans as being in an anti-woke fever, which is sort of demeaning to the people who voted for Trump. Yeah, I don't think that, I don't think nice words now are gonna make up for the last year and a half or more of the liberals using Donald Trump

as a bit of a punching bag. And frankly, Ben, they need that contrast with Trump in order to make a case for Canadians. Because I think that if they rely too much on wrapping themselves in the flag and supporting the economy, people, of course, will rightly ask, okay, well, where have you been for the last decade in terms of economic and fiscal support? When it comes to the public opinion environment, I'm not surprised that the desire for change is softening in the wake of an economic threat posed by DC. And I think what existed before for the Tories was, you know, a high watermark of public opinion support driven by many people simply

wanting Justin Trudeau gone. So I think that this shift is pretty normal. But I also think that if the ballot question is the economy and affordability, which I think it will be, whether we're talking about terrorists or taxes, or domestic domestic economic measures, I think that the conservatives are really well positioned to have that conversation as people might be skeptical about what the liberals can do. That's all that different given they've been in power for the last decade. Tom Tories are down 5% according to this poll,

liberals up eight, NDP down 1%. So what's the, what do you see? How do you see it? Yeah, I think the liberals are recovering with Justin Trudeau out of the picture and people are, there seems to be obviously a kind of a rally around, you know, freedom is not really in the picture, it seems to me in this leadership race, it's going to be obviously a kind of a rally around, you know, freedom's not really in the picture,

it seems to me in this leadership race, it's going to be carny and people just are now at the accepting that stage of things. So people are getting familiar with this guy and he's doing a pretty good job at not getting drawn out by the NDP on things like dental care or where he stands on pharma care, the kind of things that the NDP has been working on that are popular. I think I said on your show a couple of weeks ago that that was an important thing for Singh to try and do to draw him out on those things. I don't think he's been successful on that in the last two weeks. And that's why he's, well, he's not growing. He's down one point.

So he's got to focus on that, on getting Carney out of the bushes. And the Conservatives, you know, they were very high. There were 46 on the previous Ipsos poll. They're on a slide down to 41, still majority territory. But I think a couple of things happened in this Trump tariff situation that are troubling for them. Yes, it put them out of the frame, that's true. But also Mr. Poligas seemed strangely quiet about it. And he had troubles with the Alberta Premier, the leader of the

Conservative Party in BC and Scott Moe, all kind of not being on Team Canada. Well, pretty overtly not being on Team Canada. And that just doesn't go well. And I think that raises some question marks where now the negativity isn't so much surrounding the liberals as it was definitely with Trudeau. And there's a little bit stronger negativity attaching itself to Mr. Poliak. So we'll see how that changes the flow, the emotional flow in the next few weeks.

Kate, I want to get your opinion on this next story. First, we're gonna hear from Mark Carney and about how he's a pragmatist and he's gonna bring pragmatism to the Liberal Party Canadians want change with a new positive leadership that ends division and builds together now I'm not a politician. I am a pragmatist and so if I see something that's not working I will change it and That's why last week. I proposed a new climate policy, eliminating the consumer carbon tax, having large polluters pay Canadians to make climate smart choices, and helping our countries

leapfrog their American competitors in global markets. All right, so he's a pragmatist now. And so each one of you, I'm going to give each one of you 45 seconds. But right, so he's a pragmatist now. And so each one of you, I'm gonna give each one of you 45 seconds, but Kate, it feels like the liberals are planning on abandoning, they're not planning on it, they are abandoning a lot of the things that they ran on the past nine years. They were promised evidence-based policy,

and in a lot of cases we got ideologically driven policy. But I guess the question is, can Mark Carney sell pragmatism and rather than sort of this notion that they may be an unprincipled party who's going to do and say anything to get elected? Well, actions speak louder than words. And Mark Carney has been very central then to the liberal pursuit of a carbon tax for many, many years.

He's been, he's not a politician, but he definitely has a public record of supporting a carbon tax. I think Canadians are right to be skeptical that somebody who was so instrumental to starting that policy in Canada, now all of a sudden says he may stop it. And he's not being very clear about what he would actually do. He's saying he might pause it until after the next election. Okay, well then what? And simply increasing the price on polluters, we all know will be floated through to consumers at the end of the day. I think he will have a hard time convincing

Canadians that he can change his thoughts and rid himself of the carbon tax baggage that he has. When we have affordability and cost of living concerns with an April 1 increase on the carbon tax plan, I think that will be front and centre for Canadians as they grapple with ongoing affordability challenges.

challenges. Sharon, your thoughts? Listen, I think it's going to be hard for him to try to move away from it given he has been a proponent and supporter of it in the past. That being said, someone like Mark has a history and is very much open to being agile. And I do believe that in the case of the carbon tax, what works worked once before will not work once once now again. So post COVID post inflation, post cost of living, none of that's going to work now. So it's going to be the actions and it's going to be what else falls from it. But I like having dealt with him and seeing how he does stuff, I am hopeful that he will actually take a big step back and go in a different direction.

Yeah, Tom, listen, he presents differently than his predecessor. He presents differently than Justin Trudeau. Justin was very theatrical. This man comes off as very measured. And because he comes off as very measured, it feels to me like he does have at least a chance of presenting as somebody who is willing to look

at the facts on the ground. And if they change, he's willing to pivot. Do you think he can sell that? He's doing a pretty decent job of it right now and say he's, he's talked about being a pragmatist. I'd suggest he's even gone so far as he's a technocrat in the way that he feels and he talks about not being a politician. These are things people want to hear. They want results. They don't want theater, they don't want politics as normal.

So he's playing the right song. Now the question really is when we strip back the rhetoric at, you know, 100,000 feet in the air, what does it really mean a Mark Carney government would do? I think that the conservatives are a little way, have boxed themselves. They go on about the carbon tax forever and ever as if that's the salvation to the cost of groceries and the price of rent and mortgage and all that stuff. It's just not, it's a very small piece of it. So the kind of, I think, you know, Kate's got to get her party unstuck from harping on that alone. And for Carney, he's got to show that the goodwill, that the things that he's saying now that sound right turn into things that he will do that are appreciated. And for Singh is weighing into that.

What are the things that you're going to do to make everyday people's lives more affordable? All right, we're going to leave it there. We've got more with our political panel, including Quebec's hesitancy to play ball with the rest of the country. That is next right here on the Ben Mulroney Show. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. And our political panel continues with Sharon Kaur, Tom Parkin and Kate Harrison. Let's jump right in. Guys, there was a poll that came out in the Calgary Herald yesterday that said across the country, in every region, in every province,

there was massive support to build pipelines. I mean, in and above 70% in every province, including Quebec. So when I hear both Yves-Francois Blanchet and Francois Legault say that they need social acceptability to build pipelines, implying that there is none in their province. That's a head scratcher for me. Let's listen to these guys.

We talk about EnerGIS or GNL. I think that we need to have social acceptability. We also hear people, including Mr. Carnet, say, okay, now it's time. We will come in Quebec with pipelines that will at the end. We will get it. We will go through Quebec with pipelines. And we will go in the cemetery and dig out the project of natural gas in Sydney using a crisis that people fear to defend and promote interests which are against Quebec.

And Kate Harrison, is this just the opening salvo of a negotiation? In other words, they're saying no now so that they can get something in return, which Quebec always wants. They want more power. They want more freedom. They want more X. they want more what is that what is that what we're dealing with here? Because it seems like the people of Quebec want what these guys are denying. Yeah, I think that that's right. I think that this is a bit of a sacred cow in terms of Quebec politics, between this and supply management, they seem to be kind of the last rails that

the Quebec politicians will will touch. So we are in a time where we should be having serious practical conversations about how to improve our domestic energy security. Quebec is central to that. I would observe that they did reach a pretty historic deal with Newfoundland, those two provinces around Churchill Falls earlier this year. It's not oil, but Quebec has a lot of resource power and they're really central then to making sure that we can stay energy secure, provide more jobs, etc. If this moment that we are in with the threat of tariffs and just an increased focus on supporting our own energy sector doesn't move the needle, and with public opinion being where it is, I'm at a bit of a loss of when we can have this conversation

if not now. Tom Parkin, are we in a moment where people are open to building out this sort of infrastructure or is it a movement that will continue for a while? Is this just a snapshot or is this a fundamental change? I think a lot of what we've seen over the last month may be fundamental change where people are rediscovering their Canadian this and what makes our country great, if I dare even

say that. So you know, I think there's a lot of latent Canadian pride and the idea of being energy self sufficient has a lot of merit. What we see in this situation puts two ideas into play. One is that idea of energy self-sufficiency, being able to take energy from Western Canada and bring it all the way to East and even to Eastern seaports, but feeding Montreal, it currently ends in Sarnia, Ontario, and feeds Toronto. But the other idea that runs against it is the idea of national sovereignty of Quebec. And even though a province does not have the right to say that a pipeline is not going to cross their province, I mean, we saw that in British Columbia, a province does not have

a veto. Nonetheless, it's a political thing where the belief is that Quebec is a nation and Quebec can speak that way. And they have political advocates, the BQ, to make that point in Ottawa. So it's going to be interesting which way they kind of tip on this and also interesting in the context of an election where, say, Mr. Poliev gets the most number of votes but does not get a majority, and becomes reliant on his looking around for another partner, and how does he dance with possibly the bloc

québécois? Sharon, is this dealing with provincial politics as well? Because François Legault is staring down the barrel of an aggressive and ascendant Parti Québécois. And I wonder whether this is him talking tough in order to stave off a future loss at the polls. Absolutely. And then let's just be real, this is always going to be an issue in Quebec. And I have the, like the, I worked on Energy East, I lived through trying to get this done in Quebec. And when these politicians say it has to be about social will, I have to call BS on it. It's about political will. I remember Denny Cordero who would scream bloody murder anytime we would even talk

about trying to, to reroute the pipeline or do whatever. And this has to come down to. Canady, the Canada, What is our Canadian identity? I appreciate that Quebec has its own identity, but you are Canadian at the end of the day. And if we want to do this, we need political capital. We need political will. The social will comes if the politicians actually put together a good argument as to why we need this.

And again, having lived through this, it was never about the social will. It was always about the political will. And I'm really tired of everyone kind of complaining that we were not, we're not the best, we're not as productive, we're not we're not the country we should be. But then you have politicians who refuse to allow us to get our own products. Yeah, Tidewater. Yeah. Hey, I want to talk about a comment made by liberal leadership candidate Frank Bayless, We haven't heard much from him, but he's touting this idea of term limits for MPs of 10 years and senators of one term. And for the, in the case of MPs after 10 years, they'd have to go away for a while if they

ever want to come back. And this to me, Tom Parkin feels like a great idea in, in theory, just like communism. But when you put into practice, it's just untenable. Yeah, it's a well, it is terrible. We could do it. Other countries do it. So you could say that, you know, 10 10 years max in succession and you're out. The question is, is that in the best interest of Canadians? You know, Canadians can be pretty critical of long-term politicians.

And when you have a electoral system that we have first past the post, and you have bastions where, you know, this writing is always the NDP that wins, or always the Liberals win, or always the Conservatives win, people can be there for 20 years. Pierre, probably, has a case in point.

Is that a healthy thing? Um, I think he may kind of be tapping into something that people want to hear, although I am not sold on it, because a lot of good people would time out. But he's but you know, it's this idea that people get stagnant, and they get lazy, and they're not listening to the people anymore. And that's what he's tapping into. And I 100% agree with that. Kate Harrison in about 40 seconds here's the issue that I have if you've been sitting in opposition unable

to enact any of your ideas and then you finally get the chance to run and in an election where you'd be competitive and possibly form government you'd be prevented from doing so because you've already termed out. That's just right and you know it's a house of Commons. There are people from all walks of life within it. I don't think that it makes sense to force people to resign to your point, Ben, especially if they haven't had a chance to actually implement anything by by serving in government. And to Tom's point, there's some good people that want to dedicate their lives to the civic service. And this is an opportunity for them to do so. So I would rather see parties try

to recruit candidates from all walks of life and try to get some variety into their roster. I don't think it's on Parliament to force that to force that diversity. Sharon Cora, what about the idea of after two terms or after 10 years, you automatically have to face an open nomination process. You know, I, I don't love it again, because like both Kate and Thomas said, we do have people who might not have the opportunity to do it. And I think this was a policy that Frank put forward to appease people who are tired of seeing career politicians. That being said, I don't actually think it's a horrible idea in theory, because people who have been there long enough kind of forget what the real world is like. And that often happens when you're in

government. And it doesn't hurt. I would happen. I don't think so. Maybe a good idea. Practical, not so much. Well, yeah, and it sort of comes back to the idea that those you know, once somebody gets power, it's really hard to get them to give up power. I think that's one of the reasons that we didn't see Justin Trudeau follow suit with his promise of proportional representation what I don't think he thought he was going to go from third place to first place. And then once he got that majority, he's like, I'm not giving this up.

Kate, last word to you. Yeah, I think it's important for politicians to touch grass, but they can do that then in their constituencies and meeting with people and making sure that they're engaged at a local level. They do not need to leave their jobs, go do something else and come back in order to get that perspective. Sharon Kaur, Tom Parkin and Kate Harrison, thank you so much for joining us this week on This Week in Politics. Let's do it again soon. Thanks so much.

Thank you. TD Direct Investing offers live support. So whether you're a newbie or a seasoned pro, you can make your investing steps count. And if you're like me and think a TFSA stands for total fund savings adventure, maybe reach out to TD Direct Investing. Welcome to the Dilemma Panel. No question is too awkward, no problem too petty,

and no opinion goes unchallenged. Our panel of overthinkers is here to dissect, deliberate and sometimes derail the conversation entirely. Grab your popcorn. This isn't just advice. It's a front row seat to life's most hilariously relatable train wrecks. Here's your host, Ben Mulrooney. Welcome back in time now for the weekly Dilemma Panel. And if you have a question that you want us to answer next week, email us at askben at chorusent.com. That's askben at C-O-R-U-S-E-N-T dot com. And you might find your question being asked on the panel

and solved by the panel. Now look, this panel is very special to me because I have no specific memory of it, but I would bet dollars to donuts, as my dad would say, that the three of us in our previous lives spent time together in a room. I have pictures of it. CSAs, yeah.

Oh, you've picked, oh my gosh. The CSA, the Canadian Green Awards. Yeah, 2014. Wow. That's right. I had hair that was like an egg. I do remember that. And then I dressed like the uglier Ben Mulrooney,

which was just not the thing to do that. Listen, you don't have to flatter me anymore. You're here. You're here. You're here last week. You're good. You're good now. Okay, let's welcome to the show for the very first time, my good friend, Cheryl Hickey, former host of Entertainment Tonight Canada. Welcome. Hi, thank you for having me. And Brad Smith is back. Host of the Big Bake on the Food Network, former host of Chopped Canada, first bachelor of, bachelor of Canada, and former CFL player and a fan of wide neck t-shirts. His title was longer than mine.

I don't want to be, but like- Then give me more, give me more. Yeah, but you did a job for like 15 years. I've jumped and jumped and jumped and jumped because I can't retain one for long enough. But you're like an athlete. You're like a full- Used to be.

I know, right? You're pretty athletic yourself years now and it's starting to wear me down. I love my field of work and the people I work with are the people I love. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job.

I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job.

I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I love my job. I always love it when they start that way. I've been working at the same company for eight years now and it's starting to wear me down.

I love my field of work and the people I work for and with are good people. The problem is I'm starting to feel burnout. I've really been going through the motions for the better part of a year now. I thought maybe a long vacation would take care of both of these things. I came back to work and after having three weeks off, and the first thing I felt was instant dread.

When do you know when it's time to leave a place? I'm afraid of the grass not being greener anywhere else. I go, well, look, based on the conversation we just had, you were in a place for 15 years. So when is, is it ever a time? Do you ever say to yourself, you know, time to go? Yeah, I think so. But I think that whole saying of the grass is not green.

I get saying wrong all the time, but water it. Wherever you are, water it. Yeah. Right, I mean, and the reality is for a lot of people, it's a financial thing, right? You can't just leave. You have family responsibilities and bills. But what I would say to this person is,

I think, you know, try and implement something in the current job that fires you up, or start a side hustle that fires you up. Not everything has to fire you up. Yeah. Sometimes everything has a point. Maybe this job is paying your bills, doing what it needs to do. In your off time, what was your passion? When you were a kid and you were daydreaming and you were doing the things, what was the stuff that lit you up? Try to go back to that and light yourself up. Not everyone's going to do it for you. That's my advice.

No, it's true. And then maybe that side hustle becomes your full-time hustle. That's it. If it really is your passion. Brad, like you said, you've hopped around a lot. So have you ever, no, but I guess the opposite, I'd ask you the opposite. Like was there ever a job that you did that got cut short?

Never by my intention. So I think the thing for me is that when you say the grass is always greener, I think that that is kind of a short-term way of thinking about some. If you've been at a job for eight years and you're thinking constantly about how unhappy you are, did she come back and was she working at USA USA? But when you're going back and you take this time off, you're trying to decompress and you come back and you're still feeling that dread.

Yes, your job is your purpose. Like Cheryl said, to pay your bills, take care of your family, but I feel like nowadays more so than ever, you have to have the passion equated with it because you have to be waking up in the morning not only with purpose but with passion. So I would say take a good overall look at your life, do a high level overview of what's important to you and then chase that because you don't want to be waking up at 80 years old and go, oh my god, I wish I did this. Where you could take that stand right now and the short term might be the financial

consequences of what's going to be taken away from you. But also too, I'd take a lesser job with lesser money just to wake up and know that my purpose also involved passion. I think that's tricky though for people. I think it's tricky in the part where you have kids. The more dependence you have. Yeah, when you have kids or you have bills or whatever that that's really hard. But if there's a way you can do the job and as you said, then you know, build it up and then maybe that's going to allow you to if

you're a belly dancer and you're like, Hey, yeah, this could be my jam. That's what I do. Only starting next week. For me, like, look For me, I was at CTV for 20 some odd years and I loved it until I didn't anymore because I just felt, I saw the writing on the wall and I realized it's never going to be as good as it used to be. And we're being asked to do more with less and viewers are going elsewhere and I could keep doing this for another 10 years with dwindling returns. And so I said, well, I've done everything I want to do. Why would I come back and do a lesser version of that for in perpetuity?

And it's hard for you to wake up and be inspired to do that, right? While you're asking to be doing more with less. Yeah. How do you create an environment in your office where you're trying as hard as you can, but you're limited by resources? That's internal. I also think we give the responsibility too much to big companies to make us happy. Like also it's on you to wake up every day to find that something. I know that there's big things. Listen, there are big things sometimes that you can't avoid

and that will inherently make you unhappy. But it is also our responsibility to find something that's going to lead you to the next thing, the next joy. Because you have a responsibility to have a responsibility on how you act and how you see things perception, right? All right, time for dilemma number two. Every year, she doesn't say dear Ben, she just says Ben. Every year, me and the girls take a trip somewhere. We've had this tradition for the past eight years, another eight years. It allows us to stay close even when we don't get to see each other for months at a time. This year, there's a problem. It's my first year where I'm married. My husband knew about these trips the last three years we were dating, but he says it's different now that we're married. He thinks married

people shouldn't be taking vacations away from each other for a week. The reason I want to go is we're planning on starting a family and this may be my last trip with the girls. How do I convince him or am I in the wrong? Sign Claire. I think he's in the wrong but I will leave it to the two of you. Cheryl, why don't you start? Claire, where were the red flags before you got married? I mean listen, this is I feel really bad because Claire's already in it to win it. I get it. But the reality is he having these feelings or he had these feelings probably before, this needed to be a conversation a long time ago.

And I mean, having a problem with you going out with your friends and then you even in just, I think she said in the email that she's concerned when she has kids, she's not going to be able to do these. No, no captain, no. Like you still need to be able to do these. No, no, Captain, no. Like you still need to be able to go and do the things you need to do.

And your husband needs to support who you are and who you were. So it's a no for me. Yeah, as the captain of the co-dependency squad in relationships for the last decade of my life, I think that it comes to a point where, like Cheryl said, you have to understand all these things before, the questions you have to ask,

but you have to have your own life outside of your relationship. It is like imperative that you can grow and be who you need to be with an external group. Now, is it great to share in those groups with your partner? Of course, but it is also, I mean, specifically when you have friends for long-term periods, to be able to enjoy them

outside of your relationship. Because you want to be able to come back to your partner with these new stories and new adventures and new relationships. And like that's exciting for me when my wife goes and takes a trip, either a business trip or a personal trip, she comes back with stories, stories I didn't know. I never even thought about that.

Yeah, that's a great aspect of it. It's a big part. Now what about though, Claire's already in it. She's already married. Us telling her there were flags with floor doesn't help her. So, well, then I asked both of you, what do you think she should do? Like what would the man want to hear?

Like, how do we, how does she get through? First of all, they don't have a kid yet, which is good. Yep. Right. So, Hey, buddy boy. Yeah, I don't work for you. Buddy boy. Buddy boy. Buddy boy. That's not going to cause an argument at all then. That's going to be great. That dog don't hunt buddy boy, I don't work for you. Buddy boy. Buddy boy. That's not gonna cause an argument at all then.

That's gonna be great. That dog don't hunt, buddy boy. Right? So get with the program or I'm outta here. Okay. Really, that hard line. That's straight, okay. Well, do you think this is gonna get better or worse?

Well, I mean. Do you think he's gonna say, you know what? This is the only problem I have with your freedom. Or he's gonna say, I wanna see your phone. I want you to turn your location services on Didn't say that Claire it's okay But she didn't say the first thing she didn't see the first thing No, she it was so there's trips outside the real sorry there's trips outside the relationship before they get married

I just don't understand what the breaking point is because when you get married Do you think your wife is now gonna go down on these girl trips and be like, oh my God, I'm free. Like, no, that's not gonna happen. So how does she get through? What would you wanna hear? To be honest, I don't know if I've ever had the conversation, but just sit down and reassure me

that the trips are gonna be the same as they always were. No, no, no, no, I'm sorry. Sit him down and you say, Buddy Boy. We're gonna have a come to Jesus moment. Buddy Boy. And you either get with the program or I'm outta here. And on him down. Buddy boy. We're going to have a come to Jesus moment. Buddy boy. And you either get with the program or I'm out of here. And on that note, coming up, we end the week in style.

You got it, Claire. You got it. Go, Claire. More of the Dilemma next on the Ben Mulroney Show. Welcome back to the Dilemma panel on the Ben Mulroney Show. And again, if you want your questions answered, your dilemmas solved, email us at askben.course.com. And you might find your question being,

a solution being brought to bear on whatever issue you're dealing with next week. But this week, we've got Brad Smith and Cheryl Hickey in the hot seats helping me solve your problems. Welcome back guys, and let's jump right into Dilemma number three. Hello, I constantly host events at my house because I have the most central location,

but can also accommodate six to seven people comfortably. I usually provide drinks and dinner but many of my guests will offer to bring snacks, the occasional bottle of booze, or sweets except for one friend. He never offers to bring anything. How do I mention it to him without making him feel bad? He's not doing bad financially. In fact, he makes good money. I think he's just frugal. Should I say anything? It didn't bother me at first but lately it does. I'm hosting a Super Bowl party on Sunday, and I just know he's gonna show up without something again, signed Quentin. Brad, I think this is a pretty easy solve.

Yeah, no, you just, I'm gonna cue back to what you said a couple minutes ago. Buddy boy. Yeah, yeah, yeah, buddy boy. You sit him down, you go, buddy boy. Buddy boy. This is like a social decorum thing. It's not that he's unaware that he's not doing it. He's just gotten away with it for so long that he keeps coming and he's just waiting

for the shoe to drop. Just sit him down and say, listen, there's a reason that it's called a potluck. There's a reason everybody else is bringing something, even if it's a bottle of wine. And guess what? You can go to the La Blas now and get a nice Jackson Triggs for $12.99.

You know what I mean? This is not an effort. Friends like this bother me so much because I'm probably like the host himself or herself. for $12.99. This is not an effort. Friends like this bother me so much because I'm probably like the host himself or herself. I always do everything. And you just expect that the people that are around you naturally in your friendship group

are gonna accommodate that kind of lifestyle. I think that was very confrontational. Yeah, I don't think it has to be that confrontational. I think that was harsh. Ben wants to go yell at the guy's husband and you think, tell him to pop that guy now to bring some money. Go Ben, go. wants to go yell at the guy's husband and you think, I know because it's because it's back to the dilemma. The dilemma. Number one, that was a sleeping with the enemy. That was in the making.

Yeah. This is just a bad friend and all you got to do is it a bad friend? Like, I think it's just an aware. Okay. There, but that doesn't mean bad friend. What I would say is stop. I would say that I think you need to send out an email to everybody who's coming, be like super excited for you guys all to come. Hey, who's bringing what?

Like I don't think you need to say. And then when he doesn't send the email, just send a passive aggressive message back. Johnny, where are you? No, I think it's on the person to say what you expect. You need to be upfront with your guests on what, if you say nothing, people can assume that you're not to bring anything.

Wouldn't you agree? Yeah, I agree. And by the way, for a Super Bowl party, that's the easiest way to get people to bring stuff. Yeah. Like, I'm hosting, here's what I'm bringing to the table, but here's what I need, guys, and I'm hoping you guys can- That's it. So everyone, you figure it out on your own.

Go take this email chain elsewhere and figure out who's bringing what. Done. There you go. But you said that if you're hosting, you're not expecting, but isn't it like socially known? Isn't like a social norm, social more that when you do invite people over that it is courteous that they do bring something.

Sure, you bring a bottle of wine or whatever you're gonna drink you bring with you, right? And then you leave it behind and. Absolutely. You bring your own tequila and then the bottle's gone at the end of the night. No, I don't bring my own tequila, but what I like to do is like, I know I'm going to drink tequila.

I don't want to drink your stash. And so my gift is I'm not going to be, I'm not going to be taking your whole bottle home. Taking your whole bottle home. Reverse free load. I appreciate it. Exactly. It's a reverse free load. I just think you've just got to be kind. Not everyone has the social graces perhaps. And you've just got to leave space for that and not embarrass them. Okay. But yeah. Okay. I'm coming to your house next week got to leave space for that and not embarrass them. Okay.

I'm coming to your house next week. You can. The song's a dream thing. That's fine. But you also get to dress the guy down. Like you're phase two. This is phase one over here with Cheryl. You become phase two.

We activate phase twos. Phase two. If he doesn't listen. Activate phase two. Okay, we're calling in. Guys, I don't know that that's nice either. I just feel like there's some people that maybe need, anyway, it's fine, just be nice.

Listen, at some point, no, no, listen, you can't help people who don't help themselves. And if you've helped them, you've led them to water, you've said, here, this is what, everyone's bringing something. If you still don't bring it, then guess what? Then I gotta treat you like a hostile. Maybe they don't get an invite.

Maybe you don't get an invite next time. Everybody gets on the email thread, but Johnny next time. Cheryl, that's the passive aggressive thing to do don't get an invite next time. Everybody gets on the email thread, but Johnny next time. Cheryl, that's the passive aggressive thing to do is not invite them next time. No, you got to tell them what you want. You just said that. No, you do have to tell them what you want.

And I stop it there. All right, time for another dilemma. Ben, I've had my two kids in hockey since they were five. They are 12 and 10 years old now. It has gotten more expensive. And I recently have had a job change that pays me less money. Affording hockey for both of them is just not possible. The 12 year old loves hockey and is quite good at it. He has a chance of pursuing it at the highest level.

My 10 year old is not as good and while he enjoys going, he sometimes asked to skip the occasional practice. Is it wrong for me to want to keep the 12 year old in hockey and maybe change the 10 year old into a sport that's less expensive like soccer or basketball? I really don't know how to navigate this." Signed Frank. Okay, so look, my sons were terrible at hockey. Terrible at hockey. That is really mean. No, they were.

And good morning to Benson. They knew. I said, Brian, John, every time I take you to hockey, you're always like six feet behind the puck, wherever it is. And they're like, it's just that we don't really care, Dad. I was like, okay, this make, so we're gonna finish up this season

because we made a commitment and then we're never doing it again. And it was wonderful. But I would also say to Frank, oh dear sweet Frank, at 12 years old, you think that your kid has a chance of pursuing. Sweet, sweet, deluded Frank. Sweet Frank.

Yeah, that's not the reason to keep a monarchy. But no, if your child loves it, you should try your best to keep them in. And if they don't, yeah, have that conversation. Cheryl? I listen, I think that you have to listen to your kid on this one. If your kid doesn't want to go to practice,

is asking to miss practice that way, you both know. When you love something, you will do anything to be there. And I've got a kid who sleeps and eats and breathes basketball, So he never misses anything. But I think that's a big cue to have a bigger conversation. As you said, Ben, Hey, maybe let's find out what you're passionate about. What else can we do? Yeah. Let's, I want to get to the root of the issue, which is that it's heartbreaking that it is so in affordable to play hockey and

to even have this conversation. Um, but again, to Ben's point, you kind of can't expect that you're going to put all your eggs in one basket on the fact that the kid's going to progress past where you know he's 12 years old. When I was 15 years old, I was 5 foot 4 and 128 pounds. And then over the summer I grew to 6'1", never played football, then played football my first year. No one when I was younger goes, oh, he's going to be in the CFL, he's going to play professional football. But imagine sitting down at the table and being like, Hey, Johnny, Hey Steve, we have a little, uh, you know, something to talk about. Johnny, you get to play hockey and Steve, guess what? I've got a

great Lego set in the back room and you're going to be an engineer. So, uh, first of all, it's so heartbreaking that you have to have this conversation, but I don't think there's any great way to approach it. But to Cheryl's point, you got to listen to your kids. Yeah. And to Ben's point, if one loves it, you got to keep them in. And if one doesn't want to do it and is not as passionate about it, find something that he's going to be passionate about. The other thing though, just quickly, you're right. Like we need to figure out a way to make these sports more affordable for

families. It's gotten so out of control. It's like 2200, right? With fees in the average gear for someone under 13, like that is a lot of money. Once my kids said they didn't want to play hockey, what I did is I got them on video saying it was their choice that they didn't play hockey. So that later on in life when they say,

how come we don't play hockey anymore? I have the video. Posted to Reels with 2 million views. This is why. Time to squeeze in one last dilemma. We're gonna go real quick for Samantha. What's the etiquette around sick kids in public? I took my daughter to dance class in the fall

and there were kids sneezing and coughing all over the place. I generally keep my kids home when they're sick. What's the best practice? You're right, Samantha. Everybody else is wrong. Keep your kid home when they're sick. Okay. Right, except nobody does that. I just, listen, we all say that we will keep our kids home

and you do because the reality is, and I read about this last night, you are contagious until you don't have symptoms, but everybody breaks the rules. And that's all I'm gonna say about that. I didn't say it was right, but I'm just being honest. That's true. Listen, if my kids are sick,

I don't want them going to school. I don't want them to go, they stay home. My husband says, you go. You don't want them going to school. They stay home. My husband says, you go. You don't have a fever, you go. That's his thing. He's like, yeah. This is reverse osmosis on Ben's theory

that this person sitting at home being like, I don't want to get sick by my own kids. Let's just throw them out there. Let's keep this as the quarantine zone and society can be left out. No, listen, I think I don't want to contribute to getting other kids sick. No. Yeah. And and my kids are you know, my daughter goes to school just around the corner from the house and my sons are well my my see my sons are not brave the way she is.

She will go to school as sick as like she'll she'll drag her carcass to school. That's how much she loves going to school. My sons are like stay home. Got the black lung pop. Would you say that as parents, because this as not being a parent, would you say that the the biggest thing outside of the sleep that you don't get as an early parent, that you just didn't realize that every time that your kid gets sick when they're young that you're going to be the byproduct of getting sick too? Oh no, when my kids get sick I stay the heck away. Like well I'll throw medicine at them. Well see yeah because you're the dad. Here's the thing, when my kids get sick, I stay the heck away. Like, well, I'll throw medicine at them. We'll see, yeah, because you're the dad.

Here's the thing, when you're a mom, they immediately Velcro to your body and they drool in your face and they put things on your body and there's stuff everywhere. You don't have that luxury. So tell me how that is. Like, how much do you love that?

Ben just goes, put them in the East Wing. Look, they're in the tower with the beast. Cheryl Hickey, I hope you come back. Brad Smith. Thank you so much. And the door is always open to both of you. Thank you so much. in seclusion in the form of Pierre Poliev, who has been saying for years that that it is a wing of the Liberal Party of Canada. It promotes their vision of the country at the expense of all others and they are not worthy of the funding that the taxpayers give them and also nobody watches them. Okay, so you would think that in that face, they would have the cleanest of clean hands showing the country in anticipation that this man is going to become prime minister, that they are valued, that they are fair, that they are unbiased, and that they are there for

all Canadians. But they're digging their own grave. Just yesterday, they aired 36 and a half uninterrupted minutes of a speech at a press conference given by Mark Carney, who is unelected, unaccountable. He says himself, he's not a politician. He's not running for office. He is running to be the liberal leader of Canada.

Meanwhile, at the same time, there was a 20-minute speech by Pierre Poliev that he gave. Now, he will be the next Prime Minister of Canada. He is elected. He is talking about policy and he's talking about things that matter to Canadians. Not only did they not break away from a panel discussion that they were having,

but only after that it aired, did they give any analysis to it. And it was all pretty much smarmy, condescending and one sided. So to talk about this and many more issues is good friend of the Ben Mulroney show and good friend of Ben Mulroney. Regan Watts, founder of Fratton Park Inc.

and former senior aide to Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty. Regan, welcome to the show. Good morning, Ben. Okay, so the whole CBC thing, I mean, it's a clown show at this point. And I don't know what they're doing. I think at this point, it feels like they see the iceberg and they've just decided to,

there's nothing they can do. So they're just gonna have a party. Yeah, I mean, so I noticed the clip as well, Ben, and observed the same things that you did, which is they covered Mr. Carney live and did not cover Mr. Poliev live. I'll say a couple of things that may or may not surprise you, because I believe them to be true. One is I agree with you that Mr. Poliev will be the Prime Minister of Canada, but Mr. Carney is going to be the prime minister of Canada in six weeks. He is going to win the liberal party leadership. There is no doubt about that.

Um, liberals are doing what they always do, which is coalesce around a candidate, uh, and, and not put that candidate through their paces. So because he's going to be prime minister in the next six weeks, CBC should cover his speech because that's the only public remarks that Mark Carney has made, uh, his, uh, peekaboo campaign has been reluctant to engage with media. And so I think it's more than necessary and more than defensible for the CBC to cover a speech from Mr. Carney, given it's either the first or the second speech of any consequence that he's delivered. However, and I think the point you made is correct on Mr. Poliev's announcement,

which I thought, by the way you made is correct on Mr. Poliev's announcement, which I thought by the way was exceptional for your listeners. He spent a lot of time yesterday talking about fentanyl and what we need to do about getting the scourge of fentanyl off our streets, as well as those who produce it. CBC regularly does not cover Mr. Poliev and his remarks, not only the ones he made in BC yesterday, but also every Sunday morning,

Mr. Poliev is live from Ottawa and he does a press conference. And I would say that the CBC is covering those press conferences on an irregular basis. Do I think there's bias at the CBC? I think there's probably some. But if you look at trust barometers that various PR firms put out and Edelman is the one that I follow. Traditional media are not meeting the basic standards of trust with Canadians. And in this day and age, that's their problem. And I think they don't help themselves, they being the CBC, by maybe over indexing to cover Mr. Poliev. Well, let's talk about some of the meat that Mark Carney put on the bone that was so very well covered by the CBC. Let's just listen to it, and then we'll talk about it on the other side.

We are in a crisis. We can do little to change the external forces that are causing it, but we can act as Canadians. There's a fever gripping America. And while it rages, Canadians will remain resolute and true to our values. While America engages in a war on woke, Canadians will continue to value inclusiveness. Reagan, come on.

We've seen Justin Trudeau reap what he sows on this front by denigrating and demeaning the American voter for electing Donald Trump. And now Mark Carney is going down the exact same path demeaning and denigrating the American voter by claiming that the reason that they elected Donald Trump is that they're dealing with some sort of induced fever. Yeah, look, Ben, I think that's a good point. It should be reminded, and I know Mr. Carney has spent some time out of the country, but there is nothing inclusive about the Liberal Party of Canada. And the public opinion polls show this. They trail with every demographic group

and every part of the country. Doesn't matter what age, what race, what gender, male or female, the liberals are behind. And so there is nothing inclusive about their approach to governing. And so when Mr. Carney talks about this, Canadians see right through it. This is a party, and you talked about this,

who demonized President Trump and his supporters. And they did so not just for the year up heading into the US presidential election last year, they did it for four years. And so is it any wonder why Republican politicians and their supporters are not in love with the Liberal Party of Canada and Mark Carney? I think on the issue of woke, Ben, I think Canadians are like many, like almost every time, Canadians are well ahead of politicians on these types of issues. They have had enough of woke.

And you know, Mr. Poliev mentioned this and I referred to his press conference in BC around actions he's proposing to take on fentanyl and those who produce it. No, he talked about charter rights. He was asked a question about charter rights. And Mr. Paul, you have something and I'm paraphrasing here said, you know, the charter

right for life, liberty and health is far more important than the charter rights of fentanyl kingpins for the right to be free. And, you know, the issue around woke is and I'm going to talk about drugs here and class A narcotics. The safe supply crowd and the harm reduction crowd, whether they're in Toronto or British Columbia and other places have had 20 years to make their case on woke ideology, particularly when it comes

to the issue of drugs. And all you have to do is look at, and it was David Eby or Premier Eby, pardon me, in British Columbia, who flip flopped like a Pacific salmon in the most recent BC election and changed his party's policies on the With respect to crime and drugs. Yeah, the Toronto Star doesn't get this the global mail doesn't get this But if you live in Kelowna or st. John or sanich and I know you have listeners out there They have had enough. I mean you remember the issue. There was a tweet going around a video where you could get cocaine

Legally from a vending machine in British Columbia. And so when Mark Carney talks about woke legally from a vending machine in British Columbia. And so when Mark Carney talks about woke and values, he is just offside and the drug issue is just one. Regan, I don't wanna cut you off, but I do wanna get to this and we only have a short period of time left, but Mark Carney essentially said that he is getting regular updates from cabinet ministers

on information that cabinet ministers are privy to as part of sort of his campaign now you've worked With cabinet ministers in the past. I don't have enough information, but it feels to me like that. There's something offside there well, it says two things one liberals are setting up a coronation and and and and running to a leader who's not been battle-tested because they think it will help their electoral fortunes and Secondly, I believe mr. Carney's top secret security clearance would have expired from his time in the government of Canada

because he's been away for a long time. And I'm not sure that sharing confidential intergovernmental discussions with Mr. Carney is even legal. And it might even be a violation of the Official Secrets Act. But look, this is a party that is flipping and flopping, the Liberals are, and Mr. Carney is emblematic of this. And they're flopping on all kinds of issues, and voters value authenticity, and Mr. Carney is doing his darndest to come across as authentic,

but his cabinet colleagues who are sharing secrets, that is the most authentic way for Liberals to demonstrate who they are, which is people who are in their self interest trying to protect their party and their political interests and doing what they can to maintain government. Regan Watts, we're going to leave it there, but I always love chatting with you, my friend. We have a big government in Canada, that we know, but do we have a strong government in Canada? Well, according to our next guest, Max Fawcett, the lead columnist for Canada's National Observer, the answer is no. And so let's dig into his latest article to save Canada. We need a stronger federal government. Max, welcome to the Ben

Mulroney show. Thanks for having me back then. So what do you mean by strong federal government? Because as I said, we have a big one. What I mean is we need the sort of federal government actually that your dad led for two terms and and Pierre Trudeau led you know a government that that makes the case for Canadian institutions, Canadian projects, Canadian aspirations and it feels to me like over the last you know call it two decades under both conservative and liberal prime ministers we've lost sight of that and instead it's been a series of decisions

that have either deliberately or inadvertently surrendered ground to the provinces. And the provinces are very happy about that. They're happy to get more money. They're happy to get more jurisdictional authority. They're happy, in Quebec's case, to be recognized as an independent nation. But that has not done any favors to the project

that we share, which is called Canada. And I think with Trump, with the threats to our sovereignty, which he keeps making over and over again, I think it's reminded a lot of people that we are more than just a collection of provinces. And we have to be more than a collection of provinces if we're gonna survive. Well, we also have to remember,

and we'll get to sort of the nuts and bolts of what you're talking about in terms of the structural change to Canada. But I think we have to remember that right now we're dealing with Donald Trump, but Trumpism is going to will outlast him. And there could very well be someone representing that that brand of conservatism, that brand of Trumpism in the future, who has far more aggressive ambitions as it relates to the manifest destiny of the United States. Like right now he's musing on, on truth social about Canada becoming the 51st state.

But that doesn't preclude somebody in the future who espouses Trumpism, who will do more than just tweet. And we need to be prepared for that. I couldn't agree more. You know, I think we sometimes forget that, or we sometimes think that the threat of Trumpism is all Donald Trump and you know, he's an old man. So at some point he's gonna, you know,

he's not gonna be president anymore, but he is radicalizing basically the entire Republican Party, huge swaths of the United States, with his tweets, with his rhetoric. And when he's gone, they will step up and they might be better at staying focused on certain issues. They might be better at sort of navigating the instruments of government and they may very much have their eyes on our natural resources, on proximity to the Arctic. There's so many ways in which we are vulnerable to this sort of revival, as you say, of manifest destiny.

And it's not going gonna be good enough for us to stop buying American products. I mean, that helps right now, but we need a much more muscular and robust response. And I think that begins and ends with a stronger federal government. So give me an example in practical terms of what that means.

Give me sort of the point, counterpoint. So how can we have a stronger government and where has it failed us? I think a perfect example is, is inter-provincial trade barriers. And we've been talking about this, you know, policy people, even elected officials have been saying like, this is a problem that you, you have these internal trade barriers in Canada, we can't sell certain things in other provinces. There's, there's this friction that business has to deal with. And, and if we can't get past that, what possible hope do we have of doing bigger and more sort of complicated projects, whether it's pipelines, whether it's a national electricity grid, you know, we have to be able to knock over these relatively

small impediments. So I think, you know, we've seen Anita Anand talk about inter interprovincial trade barriers. We've seen Pierre Pauli have put out a very good video about how ridiculous these trade barriers are. Let's get those knocked over and move on to bigger things. And bigger things might be another export pipeline to tide water. It might be obviously

increasing the size of our military, new trade relationships. There's a lot of big fish that we have to fry, but I think we have to get in the habit of pushing past the objections of provincial governments because for 20 years now, when they cry foul, the federal government tends to let up. Look, I was born in Vancouver. I lived in Ontario. I lived in Alberta.

I am a Canadian first and foremost. And I think we need to start cultivating that mindset among more people, you know. But I think the mindset on very big national projects is at least in this moment, a present. There's a poll out in the Calgary Herald today that says that 80% of Canadians across the country, including Quebec,

including British Columbia, including other other provinces, want pipelines to be built and, and, and, and, and other, and other massive national building infrastructure. And so there's the will of the people there. What we need is we need a will of the government. And for example, I remember thinking to myself when the, when, when the Trudeau government coined the term meaningful consultation as it related to non-governmental groups, making sure that they had their voices heard whenever a pipeline was gonna get built.

I mean, to me, that was a de facto veto that was gonna be given to this group or that group. And I thought to myself, well, that's gonna be a sticking point. And sure enough, that's, I think, exactly what they wanted. In other words, we need somebody at the top who is gonna recognize that this is what the people want and that it's best for the country, and therefore they're gonna go for it. And they're going to tell those loud but small fringe groups,

sorry, but we actually don't really care what you have to say right now. Well, there's a fine balance there because, you know, I agree that that, you know, the Trudeau government probably over indexed a little bit in that direction. But that was a reaction to the Harper government over indexing in the other direction. They know they had tried to assert, you know, the national interest and say, we need to build these pipelines, stop complaining you you environmental fringe radicals. And it didn't work. The courts kicked it back and the courts would kick back any project, especially going through BC,

which has unique legal terrain with respect to indigenous peoples. It would kick back any project that didn't do consultation properly. So the answer there was do the consultation properly. That's what they did with TMX. And now we have this pipeline that could get our oil to global markets.

And it's basically saving our bacon right now. So let's replicate that formula. Let's do that again. Right. You know, I think I saw a very interesting proposal today. Uh, someone floated that there's a terminal in, in, uh, Point Roberts near Vancouver that exports American coal. Why don't we get rid of that and turn it into a new oil export facility? Uh, and there's a lot of ways that we could be creative and smart about this rather than just trying to dredge up old projects and old grievances about things that didn't work in the past. I think we need to be focused on what is going to work in this moment where

we like you said, we have this rare consensus that has emerged that we need to do something. Now let's do it. Yeah. What do you make of international trade, Mr. Mary Ing saying that supply as we won't be making any concessions on supply management as it relates to negotiations with Donald Trump. Because that that to me, I was reading an article that supply management is not only a sticking point, obviously, with Donald Trump as it relates to

our dare access to our dairy markets, but it is a huge interprovincial trade barrier. Yeah, to me, to me, supply management is a litmus test here. If we can't get through, get past that, then we're never gonna get rid of these interprovincial trade barriers, because that's really what supply management is.

It's an attempt to protect, you know, the dairy industry in Quebec. And if we can't get through that internally, then we're not gonna be able to do these other bigger things. So I think we need to be, we need to not put those sorts of no-go kind of propositions on the table.

I think there's a thoughtful way to approach that relationship and say, we have to do things that maintain the standards that are important to us. We want milk to be healthy. We want the chicken we buy to be not filled with hormones and whatnot. Like we can have health standards,

but to just put sort of a blanket proviso on the table saying no, we're not going to talk about supply management, then we're not going to get anything done. We have to be willing to put the sacred cows on the slaughter block, unfortunately, and be willing to think about things differently. Well, I've got to wonder, because I've got a lot of time on the radio to wonder, I got to wonder whether that that perspective was put in the window for political reasons for the Liberal Party as it faces, you know, a fairly substantial loss nationally that perhaps if they protect supply management, maybe that protects a few of their seats in Quebec, I have no

proof. It's just a feeling I have. Well, it might be or it might be to put in the window for the Trump administration to negotiate around and say, you know, if we talk like we're not going to give this up and then we give it up, it looks like a big win to him. Yeah, we're going to have to leave it there, my friend. But Max, thank you so much for joining us. A great article. I urge everyone to read it. Thanks so much. Thanks for listening to the Ben Mulroney Show podcast. We're live every day nationwide on the Chorus Radio Network and you can

listen online through the Radio Canada player and the iHeart Radio 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. We're the most important stories from around the world. We are here in Jerusalem. We just heard the siren. For many people, the worst days of this disaster are still to come. Told by the best journalists in the country.

I'm Donna Friesen in Berlin. Just keep your head down. He's away. He's away. Go, go, go. Watch Canada's number one national newscast. A rail strike could cost this one southern Alberta farm as much as a million dollars. The award-winning Global National with Donna Friesen.