The Ben Mulroney Show - Best of the Week Part 2 - Sylvain Charlebois, Max Fawcett, Regan Watts

Episode Date: June 14, 2025

Best of the Week Part 2 - Sylvain Charlebois, Max Fawcett, Regan Watts Guests: Regan Watts, Max Fawcett, Sharan Kaur, Sylvain Charlebois, Derek Finkle, Mohit Rajhans 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

Whether it's a family member, friend or furry companion joining your summer road trip, enjoy the peace of mind that comes with Volvo's legendary safety. During Volvo Discover Days, enjoy limited time savings as you make plans to cruise through Muskoka or down Toronto's bustling streets. From now until June 30th, lease a 2025 Volvo XC60 from 1.74% and save up to $4,000. This is the Ben Mulroney Show and because it's Tuesday it's time for our This Week in Politics mid-week panel. It's been a very busy week already. A lot of work being done by Mark Carney and his government on a lot of files. I gave him kudos for the

bandwidth that he has for having juggling so many balls yesterday and now we're gonna be juggling three great members of our team here. Max Fawcett, lead columnist for Canada's National Observer, Sharon Carr, political strategist and former deputy chief for the Minister of Finance, and Regan Watts, founder of Fratton Park Inc. and former senior aide to another minister of finance, Jim Flaherty. To all three of you, I say happy Tuesday. Good morning.

Good morning. All right, so let's talk about this. Sharon, you and I were actually texting about this yesterday. We're talking about what is the definition of consensus in terms of building consensus, having consensus before moving ahead on national projects of national importance. And I have a bee in my bonnet around.

I don't know. I don't know what it is about Mark Carney not being able to say that he'll take the lead on building a national consensus. And yesterday, Pierre Poliev waded in to why we why a consensus could lead to a veto and could lead to problems No, we've got to get it done. We need a pipe. At the end of the day, if you wait to everything till everybody agrees on everything, nothing will happen. You're never going to get everybody to agree on every single project. Yeah, I look at like take the pipeline out of it. And Sharon, take the pipeline out of it. Let's forget it, because that can be a firebrand.

That can be very controversial for people. He's right. If in a federation, the prime minister should try to lead to build that consensus. And it seems like the prime minister saying if there's no consensus, it's not going to get done. What do you say? Well, I think we have to maybe use a different word. I don't think consensus is the right word. And I know they've used that, but, um, there's

a difference between consensus and like social acceptance and like maybe people begrudgingly saying yes or no or whatever the case may be. But if we're solely going to wait on everyone to say, yes, 100% here is my consensus. Nothing will get done. I'm I'm kind of in the place where I think that we When we talk about consensus, I think about getting people on board letting them know what's happening consultations But I'm in the place of kind of let's just build stuff. I'm not where Pierre Paul. Yeah is where He says just do it because again, we live in a democratic society where you have to involve people and the rest of the generation. But it's not consensus. Maybe it's just a little bit of social license.

Yeah, Max, I keep waiting for somebody to ask our prime minister, define a national consensus. Because what if the leader of the province says, I don't want a project? But the poll after poll says, the people of that province want the project. Who are you going to believe? And secondly, if you don't have what you believe to be a national consensus, will you

as the leader of the federation stand up to help build that consensus? And nobody has actually put that to him yet. Yeah, it's a tricky question because there's not really a clear threshold for what meets the standard of consensus versus what doesn't. I think TMX is a really good example of that, where you had huge opposition in BC to it basically all along, but there was enough of a push from the rest of the country, enough

of a clear national interest, that it was able to go ahead. I think the thing that Pierre Poliev is missing here, you know, he talks about not waiting around for a consensus. How about working towards a consensus? How about actually trying to build it? Well, yeah, that's what I'm suggesting, right? I'm suggesting that but I'm not hearing that. Regan, I'm not hearing that from the Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, the question was put to him and Jason Kenney highlighted it on his Twitter. You know, he was asked a question about this national consensus idea and what if a province stands in the way? And he said, well, if a province is against it, then the project

is impossible. Now to me, with great deference to the prime minister, that's not leadership. I don't. So I think there's a couple of things, Ben, that need to be tackled. Can you hear me okay? A little bit. Keep talking. Can you hear me, Ben? Yeah, it's a little tricky. It's a little tricky.

No, you know what? So, Regan, we are going to try to reconnect with you in a minute. Sharon, like I said, to me, it just doesn't feel like leadership on this file. Don't get me wrong. He's leading on a lot of stuff, but I don, to me it just doesn't feel like leadership on this file. Don't get me wrong, he's leading on a lot of stuff, but I don't know why he's hedging and equivocating on this one thing. Because when he talks about building any other national project, he talks about building that national project. But anytime he talks about pipelines, he says

pipelines dot dot dot, if a national consensus exists. Well I think that's very carefully tailored language but remember he also said during the campaign that he is willing to do nation building projects. So I think everything is very carefully stated but it's kind of a fine line. I think he's trying to balance the premiers and some of the people that want something and who don't want anything, but I don't think it means he's against it.

Regan, I see that we've reconnected with you. So let me give the pass the baton back to you. Thank you. So I actually take Max point about working towards building a consensus. I think that's the way big projects should get done. And then your father was the master at doing big things in this country, which involves working across party lines and provincial lines. We're talking about this

conversation in the context of Bill C-5, which is the Building Canada Act, which established a legal and regulatory framework for projects of national interest. I have to say, and I know that I've said this before, but when Mark Carney tables this type of legislation, he has me purring because it finally shows we have a prime minister who's prepared to establish a framework that gets big things done. Now, it's not perfect. There are obviously things that can be approved upon it. And certainly the inter-provincial dynamics between one claimant versus the next and how things that can be approved upon it. And certainly the interprovincial dynamics between one cleaner versus the next, how things get done, has to be managed. But that's called political leadership. And

that was always the case before C5. It'll be the case with C5. And it'll be be the case when we have the successor to C5. And so I think it's up to our political leaders to do what we elect them to do, which is to lead and find common ground. That is the role that we send them to do, which is to lead and find common ground. That is the role that we send them to office to undertake. And whether it's pipelines or something else, we've got to get some business done. And the prime minister deserves enormous kudos for establishing a framework that allows those things to happen. Well, let's move on to another reason that Mark Carney is in the prime minister's office. He convinced more Canadians than any other party that his plan

to solve the housing crisis was the best one. And it came up in question period yesterday. Here is Liberal cabinet ministers, Christy Freeland and conservative MP Jacob Mantle sparring over the liberal housing plan. We can get a modular housing industry going in our country. That is one of the solutions to the housing crisis. I hope the members opposite will be constructive and support this important legislation. Member for York Durham. Mr. Speaker, my generation refuses to live in a shipping container. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah, we'll end it there. Each one of you is gonna get 30 seconds. Look, I've seen great modular homes, and I've seen incredible shipping container homes. But I just I don't trust the government to build any that I would want to live in. And each one of you gets 30 seconds. We're gonna start with you, Regan. Look, I think modular homes, if there was a market for it, the market would have already figured it out and we'd see more

of it. Manami Homes, which is one of the great builders in Canada and in the Greater Toronto Area, established a modular home facility in Milton. This thing was massive and it found, by way of consumer choice and preference, that these homes were not appealing to buyers. So I think the government is, while they continue to hammer this issue on modular homes, I think it just supposed to show at least in the case of, of Krista Freeland, how little the federal government knows about

building houses. Max Fossett. Yeah. I mean, I grew up in, in housing that was built by the government and it was actually designed wonderfully. It was, It was an architectural huge success. So I believe the government can do this properly. It uses Canadian materials, it uses Canadian know-how. That's what we need to be doing in this moment right now. Saying that modular homes of the past

didn't find market appeal, we're in a new moment right now and we need new solutions. Because clearly the solutions that we've been using in the past, which has been relying a lot on the market, ain't working. It's not working most of all for the young people that the member there claims to be speaking for. Sharon, you've got the last word on this. You know, we tend to say often these days, you got to meet the moment.

And I think it's meeting the moment now. Modular homes have a time and place. I think we all can agree that there's some homes that are not modular homes that are pretty crappy with their builds. But listen, modular homes have been done. There was a really great project in Toronto called Dunhouse where they did modular homes for homeless people. And I think that there's different ways to do it. So is it something as long as it's sustainable for our weather and climate, I'm all for trying it.

Thank you very much. All right, everybody don't go anywhere. When we come back, there has been a new addition to the G7 and it's got some people up in arms. Don't go anywhere. This is the Ben Mulroney Show. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. And we are talking G7 now with Max Fossett, Sharon Carr, and Regan Watts in our This Week in Politics mid-week panel. Yesterday, the Sikh community was up in arms over the news that the Prime Minister Modi

of India had been invited as a guest to attend the G7 summit. And today we learn that Saudi Arabia's Mohammed bin Salman has been invited to Cananaskis to join the leaders of the G7. And look, there's going to be people very upset about this. I want to start with you, Sharon. You lived in Saudi Arabia for a couple of years. What do you make of this invitation? Yeah, so this whole discussion is an interesting one for me

because my family is Sikh and they have views on one side with Modi and I've spent time in the Middle East in Saudi. And I got to say, I think this is a really great move on Prime Minister Carney's card. Now everything that I say doesn't mean that we have to forgive and move past any of the negative and horrible things that have happened. You mean the allegations of directing the murder of a journalist in the United States hacking him up with a hacksaw? That one?

Correct. So listen I think that it's so complicated. And again, we as a G7 country have to hold people up to a standard, but we are also living in a period where the US is not a reliable trading partner. And Prime Minister Carney is looking at other strategic partners who are going to be able to potentially fill that void or even have a role in there.

And now I will say there is a lot of Saudi specifically, there is a lot of misguided understanding of what Saudi Arabia is like. My Twitter feed has been full of people talking to me like it is a desert where no one can move. Saudi Arabia is modernizing and liberal, is becoming more liberal at a pace faster than any country I've witnessed in a lot of it has to do with the Crown Prince, whether you like them or not. Max Fawcett is this is this a case of we got to take the world as it is not as we want it to be it would be great if if the leader of India would stop meddling in Canada and

it would be great if MBS was more of an honest broker, but you gotta take the world as it is. Yeah, it's exactly that. I mean, diplomacy isn't talking to the people you agree with, it's talking to everyone that you do business with and have relations with. And look, in a moment where the United States our oldest friend and best,

longest trading partner is now doing increasingly illiberal things. You know, I think you have to revisit your entire approach to how you do diplomacy. And that means talking to everyone. And doesn't mean, you know, like Sharon said, it's not about surrendering your values. It's not about bending the knee, but we have to be involved in those conversations, if only so that our position can be heard and understood. Because this is a new moment we're in. This is a new world.

And so I don't know if it's a big win for Mark Carnegie, but I think it's the right thing to do, especially as the host of the G7. Well, exactly. And Regan, I'll bring you into this because I think this is kind of a smart move. As the host country, we have a lot of say over who we invite beyond the G7 leaders themselves. This seems like a way of leveraging sort of the VIPs that we've brought in to have conversations that otherwise might be a little more difficult to have. Yeah and that's a good

point Ben and I have to tell you I may head to confession later today because I find myself nodding along in agreement with some of what Max is saying. I never thought that would be possible. Oh my god. I think the quote you're referring to Ben is from Margaret Thatcher where she said we need to see things as they are not as we wish them to be. And I think that is the proper framing for this. With respect to the Saudi Arabians and MBS, look the country and MBS plays a very, very important role in the world. Saudi Arabia is essentially the de facto leader of OPEC. And we all know that OPEC has a huge impact on the world.

They are a bridge from the Western world to the Arab world, into the Gulf and other parts. And I think that having Saudi Arabia at the table is important because it builds that bridge for the G7. The G7, because of the behavior of the United States over the last several years, will become weaker and is becoming weaker. So to strengthen that alliance, the alliance needs to reach out and build bridges with other countries. Saudi Arabia plays an important role in Middle Eastern peace and security.

We all know what's happening in the Middle East right now and why it's important to bring peace or stability to that region. The same applies to India. You know, whatever one thinks of the Prime Minister of India, he was elected and India is the largest democracy in the world. There's a billion plus people who live there. And India, like Saudi Arabia, plays a very important role in the world, particularly the counterbalance to China and Russia. Well, I'm glad you brought up China and Russia, because if we're all in agreement that these are good ideas, is there such a thing as too much of a good thing? And should should Mark Carney swing the barn door wide open and invite Putin and Xi to this summit as well? Let's share. I'll

start with you. Well, I'm going to start off by saying I'm currently in Hong Kong and it is 1151 at night. I'm going to say that China is a pivotal partner as well to Canada. We have seen Prime Minister Carney say that he has open dialogue there as well in a way that hasn't been done before. When it comes to Russia, I think that's a bit of a hard line for a lot of us considering their illegal invasion into Ukraine, but not every country and not every level of diplomacy is the same. Sometimes you can kind of look past a red line for the sake of the greater good, but I think there's some countries that you cannot.

Max, what do you think? Yeah, I agree. China, yes, Russia, no. You know, China is an integral part of the global economy and they have conducted themselves, you know, not always well, but certainly not in the way that Russia has, where Russia has invaded a, you know, sovereign country, killed tens of thousands of people. Russia should not be given the sanction of being able to participate in an international event like this, but China absolutely. Well, so I would look at it a little more practically because if we start saying, if we start listing the ills of

Russia versus say China's treatment of the Uighurs, I mean just because one happened within its own borders and the other one happened outside of its borders, I don't know that makes it any better. I would simply say, I don't know how much, Regan, I don't know how much trade we do. Like, we got to keep it dispassionate, right? If we start being selective about our outrage and what constitutes a red line and why someone should be on the outs versus participating in this summit, then we start looking like hypocrites. But if we keep it dispassionate and say, if it's all about trade,

who are we going to be trading with? I don't know how much trade we do with Russia. Part of well, remember, the G seven is a like minded block of Western democracies that share, generally speaking, a common set of values and principles. And because of the world, we live in those values and principles are being tested and stressed. And so I'm not sure it makes sense to invite China to the G7, because by all accounts, China is an adversary for every one of the countries at the G7. So that may be a stretch too far. And I think Russia, thanks to the leadership of Stephen Harper was kicked out of the G8, which is why it's now a G7. So I don't think it makes sense for either of those

countries to be at the table. There's another forum where they are at the table and you can engage with those countries and that's called the G20. Yeah. And I've been to and so I'll say that the second thing is though Ben, I think it's important. I think Prime Minister Carney is taking a page out of your father's book in terms of building bridges across the world with other countries. Canada and you can see this, you know, thanks to the long national nightmare known as Justin Trudeau no longer being in place, you can see the faces of world leaders. Yeah, like Maloney, for example, when they're talking to Carney

in Canada, they go, finally, we have an adult again. When by the way, I want I want that to be my last question. I wanted that to be my last question to all three of you, I can give each of you like 20 seconds. But what do you think the impact of our massive military announcement of 2% of GDP? What do you think that impact of our massive military announcement of 2% of GDP, what do you think that's going to do to our US relationship specifically at the G7? Max, you go. I don't think it will do anything because I don't think it was ever about that. But I think it will

do a lot for our relationship with the other partners in NATO and our standing in the world, you know, that we are taking these things seriously for the first time in a long time, a long time that goes back further than just the Trudeau government. All right, Regan. So I think Max is showing a bit of naivety there because the 2% target was clearly an issue with the Americans and it's been an issue for more than a decade and successive Republican and Democratic presidents come to Canada and said you guys need to do more. So what is the impact going to be? I think Carney said this is a problem, we are going to address it. So what is the impact gonna be? I think Carney said, this is a problem. We are going to address it.

And I think we're finally gonna get some attention in Washington that again, there's an adult in charge of the government of Canada and that the Canadians are finally realizing it's a different world and that they've got to step up. Sharon, last 20 seconds to you. Oh, it's definitely giving us a global spot in front of everybody.

For the longest time we've been mocked about how little we've spent on defense. President Donald Trump made one of his key pillar issues with us that we don't spend enough on it. And you know what, when we're in a current trade battle, specifically on aluminum and steel being doubled or whatever, 50% higher, this is showing Donald Trump, look, we are moving 1% by the end of the year is huge. I think it's enormous. Max, Sharon, Regan, thank you so much for joining me really

appreciate it and I hope you have a great week. Welcome back to the bed Mulroney show. Thank you so much for joining us wherever we may find you either on the radio on a streaming app or in podcast form and now on YouTube very Very happy to be joined by the food professor himself, Sylvain Charlebois. We've got a number of food related stories that affect your life. Sylvain, welcome to the show.

Good morning, Ben. So I don't think a week goes by that most Canadians don't interact with one or many of the food delivery apps out there. And now they're coming for the competition. Bureau is coming for at least one of them. Yeah, absolutely door dash. So we learned yesterday that the competition Bureau is suing door

dash Canada. It sounds like we're in the US, but it's actually happening in Canada. And it's what's the what's the issue? And what's the issue? The issue basically is that apparently the app is offering false promotion, misleading rebates. There were a lot of rumors for years, a lot of people were wondering, okay, so are these deals actually good deals or false deals?

And the Bureau looked into some of these deals actually good deals or false deals? And the Bureau looked into some of these deals only to find out that some of them are actually false promotions, if you will. They're just bait for people to order food. And frankly, Ben, I mean, when you, I don't know if you ever use some of these apps, but I mean, fees will add up. Oh, gosh, yeah. And it will increase your costs. So I'm actually happy that they're looking into this.

In the US, they've done so many years ago. This is the first time the Contributor in Canada is suing a company in the food space after the alleged chocolate cartel, which now they went after Hershey and Cadbury and other brands and had an investigation going, but that's the first time since that event that the Bureau is actually suing a company. Well, I just remember years ago, I was using Uber Eats and I saw that there was this new

option that for $ $1 you could be the first person that they deliver to and I thought to myself this is not gonna end well and sure enough sure enough a few years later it's that that same option is now $5.99 in some cases and then I found out Sylvain that if I order from them on on that platform and and the same driver is also using the DoorDash platform, he can double dip, because someone will say, I'll be the first on the DoorDash platform. So one of those two people who paid the $5.99 is going to get screwed. Absolutely. And it really just makes food more expensive.

Now there is an aspect of laziness, I'll be honest with you. Oh no, it's true. There's plenty of times where I could have gone to the store to pick it up and I've chosen not to. And then I see the hit that I take for that laziness. In most cases, I say to myself, I deserve that. But in a lot of cases, as I guess the competition bureau is looking to find that maybe this is by design. But so you just talked about food getting more expensive.

Last week, we used a graph on our show that you put out there laying out how expensive food inflation in 2025. And at the top of the list was a couple of two or three different types of beef, which is perfect for barbecue season as that approaches, isn't it? Yeah, it's painful, really painful. And so the weather is really getting better. So a lot of people are thinking about barbecuing. And so they've been to the meat counter only to realize that prices have changed dramatically since last year. We're talking 35% more since January for strip loin cuts, sirloin cuts, specialty cuts are above 30% plus. And even ground beef in Canada,

that's the cheapest bovine protein. It's up 22% year to year. Yeah. And so a lot of people are noticing that. So I can tell you, Ben, right now, the conversion from beef to pork or from beef to chicken is really high right now, because people are just walking away from beef. I remember a few years ago when it was the exact opposite, where we were having a problem with from beef. I remember a few years ago when it was the exact opposite where we were having a problem with our with the pork's

stock in Canada. And I think it was almost impossible to get ribs or get ribs at a decent price. I know. Well, last year pork helped us because of the China situation. China was not buying Canadian pork. So we had lots of pork. Inventories were pretty high. But now this year, pork prices are back. So all three components of the meat trifecta, chicken, pork and beef are all more expensive, but beef is really an outlier. So if you had the ear of the government right now, and you said, look, the first quarter

of this year is a wash. There's no way it's going to, like, everything went became more expensive. What would you tell them about what needs to be on the table in terms of legislation to drive those prices back to a place that is more affordable? Well, it's a good question. I've always wondered about meatpacking in Canada. We basically have three plants in Canada owned by two major private companies, privately owned companies, GBS and Cargill in this country. One plant is in Guelph and two others in Alberta.

We don't really know anything about their margins or anything like that. I know that inventories are tight and supplies are low. Fewer farmers are farming or producing beef. I get it. But at the same time, in the US, they did go after former President Biden went after meat backers like Tyson and GBS and Cargill and National Beef. And since then, we've seen a slew of checks written to Washington. Companies like GBS just set a lot of court $83.5 million just a couple of months ago.

Hold on, I need to go back to something you said off the top. We've got three major packaging plants in the entire country? Yeah, manufacturing, producing about 85 to 87% of all the beef we consume in Canada. Yeah. Well, that feels like a choke point if I've ever heard of one. It is and frankly when you look at increases this year I have a huge question mark. I mean 35% for strip loin and in the US we've seen some increases and you have to understand Ben the cattle industry in North America while

both the Canadian industry and the American industry, they work in lockstep. I mean, it's just highly integrated. So if you're seeing inflation in Canada, typically you see the same in the US, but this year, I mean, some increases here in Canada are double, even triple what we're seeing in the US. So I'm just wondering what is going on here? Because we were expecting increases. You and I spoke about Canada's food price support. I didn't mention beef is gonna be a problem for 2025, but the increases I'm seeing right now is beyond reasonable.

Lastly, let's talk about a post that you put on X about how Canada, our addiction to dairy, and our particular love of it, is making Canada trade pariah. I think I know where you're going with this. I think it has to do with supply management. Oh my god. So parliament number 45 is making the same mistake as parliament number 44. So parliament number 44 adopted a bill, Bill C-282 to basically grant immunity to supply management should Canada enter new trade negotiations with anyone, including the US or Mexico and other places. And just last week, we learned that Bill C-202, basically is doing the same thing.

So they actually brought back the bill that we saw last time and it went through parliament like butter. No fun. I mean, so here's the deal. I mean, this bill is absolutely making Canada much less attractive when it comes to negotiating a trade deal. And the Americans have just settled something with the UK and we want to deal with the UK, but guess what? As soon as you legislate protection for one sector, which

represent barely 1% of the economy, it is going to make Canada a less attractive partner. And so the bill itself, 202, is gone to Senate now and I'm hoping, I'm hoping that Senate will do it. See, thank you so much. Far reaching conversation today and I really appreciate it. All right, take care. Bye. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show. There has been a battle in places like Toronto over the issue of safe

injection sites. Are they in fact safe? And when the, uh, when the Doug Ford government came into power, they said, look, they're too, some of them are too close to schools. And they took steps, uh, to close a number of these safe injection sites to which the army of people on the other side said, quote unquote, people are going to die. Doug Ford doesn't care about human life and people are going to die. Well, enough time has gone by that we can ask the question, have more people died.

And somebody who dug into the numbers is our next guest, Derek Finkel, journalist who wrote pro drug injection site activists were dangerously wrong on closures. Derek, welcome to the show. Hey, good morning, guys. Nice to be with you. Okay, so give us a little bit of the timeline. What sort of what's the data set we're looking at here? So the Toronto paramedics or the EMS essentially of Toronto started tracking overdose data, I want to say about four or five years ago and they do it in conjunction with Toronto Public Health and there's been a sort of an online dashboard that people

can access and get you know figures that are sort of determined by the number of calls that go out for ambulances and so they track overdoses in two main categories one being fatal overdoses and the other one being non-fatal overdoses. And so the point of my column is that I sat through back in March there was a litigation that was reported on pretty heavily a site in the Kensington, neighbor of Toronto filed a court application to challenge the, you know, the legislation you were just referring to prohibiting sites from being within 200

meters of schools and daycare saying it was a violation of the charter rights of drug users. Right. That was that. That was what a wonderful application of the of the charter. But go on. Yeah. And so, you know, there were,

I think 10 different intervenors, nine of which supported the site's position. And, you know, there was sort of like this long line of people who kept coming up with great confidence saying that, you know, the number of dead bodies in the streets were going to extrapolate. Oh yeah. And that, you know, there was one lawyer got up and said

that the one one site that wasn't closing was preparing for the worst and they were expecting the deaths to be so bad that they were hiring grief counselors for the staff to deal with. I mean, the bleeding hearts, the bleeding hearts. I mean, I'm realizing that the reason we call them bleeding hearts is because the blood's coming out of their hearts, the bleeding hearts, I mean, I'm realizing the reason we call them bleeding hearts is because the blood's coming out of their hearts where it should be pumping towards their brains

because they're saying nonsense. Yeah, and I mean, now the backdrop, like that's kind of a little bit of a micro thing talking about Toronto, but they're saying this. I think what I'm seeing in the column isn't that that the number of overdoses went down Significantly because right close that's not my point. No, my point is that you know, the all these people got up and the experts You know

Testifying on behalf of the Kensington site got up with great confidence and said in front of a judge With great certainty that the next was going to happen. People were going to die. It was going to, you know, the judge even cited the grief counselor comment at one point as being something that swayed him and you know. I'm glad you mentioned that because I think you're right. We don't know whether it's causation, correlation or coincidence, but we don't know whether it's causation, correlation, or coincidence, but people with lots of letters behind their names got up and with great certainty said,

this is a fact, this is an absolute certainty, you can take it to the bank. And when you realize that they actually in this moment didn't, were agenda driven, they weren't data driven, then you ask yourself, how many other times in the city of Toronto or across the province and indeed across the country, have we been sold a bill of goods by people

who intimidated, shouted down and decided, wanted you to shut up because they knew better? Yeah, and even more to the point, they made all these promises and guarantees to the judge, knowing that overdose rates had gone down this year. Like they were starting late last year, early this year, overdose rates went down. Now, the chief coroner made some comments

in the media last week. I mean, nobody really knows why. I mean, people speculate that the drug supply has become less toxic or you know there's, but the truth is nobody knows. And you know, so knowing that overdoses had gone down and I knew back in March when I was sitting through this that there was a really good chance that overdose rates were going to possibly even go lower because you know as I've written before, I mean people say these sites save lives,

but the truth is there's actually no empirical data. And this was, this has been written about in, you know, the Stanford Lancet Commission report from 1922, or 2022 rather, you know, that there's no, there's no evidence that over the long term, these sites actually save lives. There was a report written by about South Riverdale site, which I happen to live across the street from. And the six months supervisor of the site that was put in place by the province wrote on multiple occasions about how many clients were dying at the site and that it was so bad. It affected staff morale and these kinds of things. We've got to get those grief counselors in there for them.

And I'm not trying to make light of people losing their lives, but there's one side of the equation that decided to pick, the act of not dying is not saving a life, because what's the quality of the life that you are allowing a drug user to live when you are lying to them saying there is dignity in the life that you are leading and that the claim that the drugs have not taken

complete control over that individual and that person has agency and that person has chosen this life is nonsense. And it flies in the face of every single thing that we know with every fiber of our being. And I don't need letters behind my name to justify that. Yeah. And I think that the other thing that activists, where

I think they're misleading people, in particular with the current opioid crisis as opposed to what was going on decades ago is that fentanyl, we know there was a study done by the UBC, University of British Columbia psychiatry department between 2008 and 2018. It was a 10-year study that involved 400 people living in what we would now call, I guess, drug encampments in the downtown east side of Vancouver. And, uh, you know, they, they gave them all MRIs and they were able to determine that about, I think it was about 45% of them had verifiable brain damage.

Yeah. And the drug supply since 2018 has only gotten, you know, worse. Yeah. It's stronger. And so, you know, you're looking at people who use street fentanyl for any period of time, it's very likely at this juncture that more than half of them have brain damage. And so you have activists running around saying things like the only way we can

solve these drugging cameras is to build more homes and the inconvenient truth is that, and this came out in a piece that the Globe and Mail published about Pandora Avenue in Victoria, BC, a couple of weeks ago, is that, you know, even people who run shelters in Victoria say that involuntary care is long overdue. Yeah, there's a portion of the street fentanyl using population that will never be able to care for themselves, of course, not matter whether we build them houses or not. Well, Derek, I wanna thank you for writing this piece and coming onto the show because it is a reminder

that there are people who will position themselves as speaking from a position of authority on medical issues or legal issues. But the fact is in a lot of cases, and in this case, they are speaking from an ideologically driven position devoid of actual real law or real science, and it has hurt real people. But thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Ben. Take care. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. If you've ever listened to this show and we talk technology, you know that, you know, I'm a firm believer in technology is neutral, right? It's it can either be a good thing or a bad thing depending on sort of who's using it and the purpose that they are behind it.

And so it's either a shield or a sword. It's either a hammer or it's whatever the opposite of a hammer is. But we're talking about smartphones and social media right now. And as always with both of those things, there is good, there's bad, and there is ugly. And so to break down all of it, we're joined by Mohit

Rajan, our good friend, who's a mediologist and a consultant at thinkstart.ca Mohit, welcome to the show. I just hope I'm not bringing the ugly here. No, that's what I told you. That's what I was worried about. I was worried that you were gonna throw to me and be like, and speaking of the ugly, we have our guest. The first the first time I met you, I saw you that you were going to throw to me and be like, and speaking of the ugly, we have our guest. The first time I met you, I saw you, we were working together during the pandemic,

and we were talking about Apple products. And when I got off, when we got off the shot with you, I was like, my God, he looks exactly like Steve Jobs. I don't know if he's doing it on purpose, but yeah, everything from the glasses to the hair, and you're wearing a turtleneck. And I was like, I don't know if he's trying to, if he's divining if he's, if

he's divining Steve Jobs's spirit. But here we are today talking about Steve Jobs's spirit in the iPhone. Yeah, it's definitely one of those things that's taken over the headlines in the last 24 hours, Apple, right? This behemoth, what are you going to announce to the world that'll make them believe that Apple is still going to lead the charge when it comes down to being used for technology by both industry and people every day. And I'm an iPhone.

Well, Mohe, what I've found about iPhones writ large is that they, first of all, when they first came out, they created a need that we didn't have. And now we can't live without them. And now it's always constantly about on the the apps on them. It's which, which app is going to create a new need something that we never needed before. And then also we can't live without and now they're betting big on live translation. Yes, that's their big update from yesterday. First of all, we

should note that people might be confused why this numbering thing has become so anybody who's updates with Apple, they'll know their iOS systems, what they call their updates. They've been numbered sequentially. Now they've skipped a step and now they'll be numbered by year. So the next update will be called iOS 26. And that's important to note because somebody might think to themselves, Oh, what's going on here? Did I miss a few? Yes. Yeah. So with that update will come features like

the live translation, which I find very interesting. It gives the ability for you to be able to communicate with somebody in any language, regardless of where you are. And when you're receiving the message, you're receiving it in whatever language you would like to receive it. I have seen the demos of it. I've seen iterations of this used by other technology companies. I do think Apple does this used by other technology companies. I do think Apple does have a very interesting product enhancement with this. Yeah, I mean, Google had this years ago

through their earbuds, right? So the phone would act as the translator, and it would pump you a live translation. But I'm hearing that in the demo that they had, the person was speaking very regular French, very dictionary French. But the moment someone might step out of that new slang, that's where this AI has a little bit of a problem right now.

So it's there's from what I hear, there is work to be done. Yes. And that's why so much of the announcements that sort of came out from Apple really didn't connect the avid fan or user to being excited about what Apple has coming up. so much of the announcements that sort of came out from Apple really didn't connect the avid fan or user to being excited about what Apple has coming up. And I think a lot of the social media talk right now is just about the underwhelmingness of a lot of Apple's announcements yesterday. Well, I saw something yesterday. I'm so glad I'm talking to you today, because I don't

know whether this is a rumor or whether they're actually working on the iPhone Ultra, which is the foldable phone. Is that, do you know anything about that? I've only heard that as a rumor. Okay. I have not, and you know what's amazing is that the rumors are going to be pushed even further right now because the Apple evangelists don't want, right,

the negative publicity that they're sort of defending against right now. There's sort of a lack of a real flare around Apple intelligence. And there's a worry that some of the partnerships that they're trying to lean into, it's a little bit late. Okay, well, let's talk about something good that came out of sort of a lot of school boards about a year ago was by and large,

it was recognized that it was time to do something about the scourge of cell phones and how they were impacting learning in public schools. It's been about a year, especially in the province of Ontario, where there are actual policies in place allowing schools to ban cell phones in classrooms. And I guess there's the kids themselves have sort of what they're resigned to it now. Yeah, it seems like a lot of these reports that are coming out now are basically a pat on the back to the administration actually going ahead and going ahead with this provincial ban of and removing you know, teachers are

saying yes, they're reclaiming the instructional time. It's the device distraction is no longer there. And for the most part, they're not dealing with some of the hurdles that people anticipated, including just pure on disobedience, which is what I assumed because kids had phones in their classrooms to begin with. Yeah. Now, Ben, I think you and I both know that this is yet this is not the data that we can rely on right now. Like you said, if you know, when we have artificial intelligence and all these other things creeping into what kids are going to be learning with, we can't just take it out of a school environment

and think to themselves that they're not necessarily going to be able to utilize the benefits of it. And so we're in this weird cross section, right? I don't think the phone is the thing that should be allowed in classrooms, but I think we need to hurry up with what education tools kids need to learn with. Listen, if I had to pick between my kid having access

to his phone in the school, and not relying on AI in the classroom, like if it's the binary choice, like the only way they can access AI in the classroom is through their phone, I still don't want the phone in the classroom because there are too many negative knock on effects from that. And if that's the binary choice, then the school has to figure

out a way for them to use AI when they get home. But for the purpose of being in a classroom, the phone is too much of a disruptor and to offset the benefits of teaching them about AI in that moment. That's my opinion. 100% I agree. And there's, there's no way I would refute and ask them to go back and start letting kids use cell phones. However, the one thing that I do want to make sure is that, you know, there was a gray area and a lot of kids did get reprimanded in this weird gray area when the cell phone can be used in can and I'll be honest with you, I've

texted a kid during school and they've responded. So I'm not 100% sure. No, I text my kid all the time. He still has his phone. But that's the school's problem to figure out. And by the way, my kids grades have been going up steadily this year. Very proud of Brian and John. So they've been working their butts off. So if their phone is still in their pocket, and they've managed to get their grades up, more power to them. You and I have talked about and they've managed to get their grades up, more power to them. You and I have talked about the idea that the horse has left the stable

as it relates to limiting or capping kids' use of social media today. They've had unfettered access to it for over a generation now. It ain't coming back. And yet here the UK is eyeing a two hour daily social media cap for kids. I'm wondering what you make of that. And if this thing passes muster, can we bring it over to Canada as a best practice?

It will give the UK this much credit, which is they will try anything to actually disrupt big tech and social media. And this is a good attempt by creating a two hour daily limit that they're they're saying plus a 10pm curfew. Like you said, like you preface, this is a good attempt by creating a two hour daily limit that they're saying plus a 10 PM curfew. Like you said, like you preface, this is impossible. This is also not only impossible, but we are going to get to a place soon enough then where we aren't even going to call these apps social media. If your kid is on Fortnite the whole time, you consider that gaming. Yes. If your kid is on Roblox the whole time, that's, that might just be for chatting with people in his community.

That's right. We have to rethink what we're calling social media right now and then make sure those guardrails are set for the companies that are creating these apps. Oh, that's a good point. That's how I feel about it. And lastly, I would file this story under, yeah, I know that the compulsive smartphone use is like an addiction. I don't know how this is a story that today is a story that should have been written 10 years ago.

Well, it's from the University of McGill and University of Toronto. So lots of people have been working on it, apparently. Yeah. And yes, they did come up with the idea that problematic smartphone use can mirror addiction addictive qualities. I think you and I have done the Macarena before where we tried to figure out where our phone is. Yeah, and we you know, we look weird. And we sometimes, well, we've done the 50 yard dash. Yeah. Well, because we realize it's not about whether you ingest something that's good or bad for you. It's the effect it has on your brain. And they've done these studies that say that, you know, you get that was a dopamine shot every time you see a picture that you like and which is similar to to a hit of drugs.

But anyway, like I said, this is stuff I already knew but I'm glad that we're getting the data to back it up. mohit Rajan is always great to chat with you and geek out on tech. Okay, Ben, take care of yourself. 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. 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 Stack TV.