The Ben Mulroney Show - Best of the Week Part 3 - Greg Brady, Eric Kam, Erin Bury, Ryan Parker

Episode Date: March 2, 2025

Best of the Week Part 3 - Greg Brady, Eric Kam, Erin Bury, Ryan Parker Guests: Greg Brady, Eric Kam, Erin Bury, Ryan Parker, Yonah Budd 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

Want to own part of the company that makes your favorite burger? Now you can. With partial shares from TD Direct Investing, you can own less than one full share, so expensive stocks are within reach. Learn more at td.com slash partial shares. TD, ready for you. Welcome to the Ben Mulroney Best of the Week podcast. We did so much great stuff this week, including another edition of The Dilemma, where one

of our panelists made a shocking confession. Plus, I tried to make sense of all the fiscal promises Mark Carney has made and if it's actually achievable. Enjoy. Well, yesterday was a doozy, should have been a doozy for Mark Carney. Following his debate performance, he was asked about the moving of Brookfield, the moving of Brookfield, the office of the company that he was the chair of the board of from Toronto to New York City. And he essentially was caught in a lie. See, he said that the decision was made long after he had left the board. Not only did it not happen after he left the board, he was still the chairman of the board and had written a letter not happen after he left the board, he was still the chairman of the board

and had written a letter to shareholders explaining why this was a unanimous decision by the board and it made sense for shareholders. Okay, so that's the lay of the land. That's a big lie. It's a big, big lie. It's not a misremembering, it's a lie. Here's David Cochran from the CBC explaining in his words what happened.

Yeah, the controversy here really stems from the answer that Mark Carney gave last night after the Liberal leadership debate in the scrum with reporters when he was asked about what role he played in the relocation of the headquarters from Brookfield Assets Management from Toronto to the United States. In his answer, this was the company that Brookfield Assets Management, of which Mark Carney was the chair, until he resigned in January to seek the United States. And his answer, this was the company that Brookfield asked his management, which Mark Carney was the chair, until he resigned in January to seek the liberal leadership.

And when he was asked about this relocation, he said, this was formally approved after I had left, and kind of left it there. But if you go back and look at it all, Ian, this was something that was started, proposed, announced, formalized, and then broadly put to shareholders, while Mark Carney was the chair of the board, and he wrote a letter endorsing the move, and in fact the official re-registration of the corporate headquarters from Toronto to the

United States happened in October of last year, before Donald Trump was re-elected, before Chris Freeland had resigned, before any of the big seismic political events had happened. So he was there. I mean, he was a big part of this. The timeline and the paper trail shows that he advocated for this and he pushed for it. Okay, so David Cochran and I agree on the facts. Let's listen to Mark Carney in his own words, now that you know the facts. I was chair of Brookfield Asset Management. I ceased to be chair chair of Brookfield Asset Management. I ceased to be chair on the 15th I think of January. The decision, the formal decision of the board happened after I

ceased to be on the board. Okay so he lied. They mean he lied. Mark Carney's brand is built on being the adult in the room, being the data-driven, serious person who is going to fix the problems that we have. Mark Carney sounds like somebody who uses words deliberately. He is not somebody who speaks in flourishes. He is not somebody who speaks in theatrics. He's not prone to histrionics.

His voice is always very monotone. He's a central banker. Words matter. The words of a central banker can shake the stock market. So this is a man who chooses his words carefully. And in this moment, he chose words that not only did not reflect reality, but were completely anathema to reality, which makes it a lie. It makes it a lie. It's not, they happened a few months ago, his fingerprints are all over it. There was a lot of stuff Mark Carney needed to do in order to make this happen. He was an active participant in it. You cannot tell me that he forgot that he made this decision. I will not buy it because I'm not an idiot and neither are you. So that should be the end of it.

Now Mark Carney should have to come out and explain why he lied. Or maybe he doesn't because David Cochran does it for him. Let's listen. Now the reason for this, it's not necessarily corporate flight from Canada he doesn't because david cochran does it for him now the reason for this it's not necessarily corporate flight from canada and a reflection of the canadian economy is that brookfield assets management as part of his growth strategy it's a subsidiary of the larger brookfield corporation which is a major company here in canada

it needs to be headquartered in new york to get access to shareholders in the united states or needs to be headquartered in the united to get access to shareholders in the United States or needs to be headquartered in the United States and they get access to stock indexes and ultimately it wants to be on the standard of poorest 500. You have to be registered in the US to do that whether Donald Trump is president, whether Kamala Harris or Joe Biden had won the last election. So it is the move seen as moving a very important company in Canada out of Canada to the United States and the very fine parsing of the answer last night from Kearney that liberals see as a sign of maybe his

developing political communication skills and as you heard from the liberals there in, they call it a flat out, or sorry, the conservatives, they call it a flat out lie. It is a flat out lie, David. it a flat-out lie. It is a flat-out lie, David. It's a effing lie. Gotta catch myself there. Okay, David Cochran, who works seemingly for the press who are supposed to hold these guys to account and call them out when they lie,

he's not reading a press release. He's not reading a justification from David, from Mark Carney's camp. He is making the justification for Mark Carney. He is acting as a de facto press agent for Mark Carney. That is not your job, sir. Or maybe it is. Maybe it is because David Cochran then goes one step further and tries to put himself, tries to put us all in the minds of the people in the boardroom

who made this decision. Well the implications on two things is Mark Carney is going to continue to be tested on these issues going back through his wealth, his experience and his connections. Can he answer these things well enough to survive the leadership campaign and the election campaign without casting doubt in his credibility and his honesty? And what is less clear to me are the implications of what this Brookfield move means. Yes, it gives him access to this U.S. stock indexes, but is it more than just a paper transaction? There is no obvious sign of meaningful job losses or any job losses.

It isn't clear that there's a loss of tax revenue to the Canadian government with this, that if this is just something that opens up avenues for growth, as one expert told us today, this is normal corporate practice. He was the chair of a board. He has a responsibility to his shareholders. There's nothing here that's outside the norms of normal corporate behavior, but politics and normal corporate behavior don't always mix that well. The irony is you, sir, and your editors,

and the people who've made the decision to allow you to say this, you are operating outside the norms of responsible journalism. You're talking about working outside the norms? What you have just done in this moment is carried the water of somebody who will become the prime minister

without ever having been elected. We have said it on this show before that he is not being tested by the media who test everybody on everything on the other side of the political spectrum. It is so plain, it is so plain to see for everybody to see in this moment that the, I'll say it I don't I have the proof in front of me I've given you the proof the CBC wants Mark Carney to be Prime

Minister and and you got to ask yourself why well a week ago two weeks ago was it two weeks ago Minister Saint-Ange the outgoing minister of heritage, put forth a plan, the Liberal Party plan, for the CBC in contrast to the defund the CBC of the Conservatives under Pierre Poliev. And Minister St. Onge said that the answer is to throw more money at the CBC. And I wondered, why would you put this in the window when you're a prorogued parliament? Well, I'm gonna make the educated leap

and suggest that Mark Carney has every intention of adopting St. Onge's plan. And the CBC is betting that if they get them elected, they get the funding. Does anybody see how perverse this is? And look, I could be wrong. I could absolutely be wrong. I have no facts, just what I see on the ground. I'm inferring this.

But I learned a lot in law school. And one of the things a lot in law school. And one of the things I learned in law school is the appearance of propriety is as important as propriety itself. If something doesn't look like it's above board, it doesn't matter if it is above board. If it looks like garbage, it is garbage.

This looks like garbage. This is anti-democratic. This is a perversion of the free press, and it is disgusting, it is beneath us as a country. When people say Canada is a banana republic, I normally scoff at it. I look at this and I start to think maybe we are. This stinks to high heaven,

and we deserve answers. This is... Look, I have time for David Cochran. He's been nice to me in the past, but this is beneath him. All right, I want to welcome to the show somebody but by the way, I will be, if you're in Ontario, I will be a part of the Ontario election coverage tonight with this next guest. He always says what he thinks much like me, except he's smarter than I am. Dr. Eric Kam, economics professor at Toronto Metropolitan University. Thank you so much for being here, Doc.

I don't think I'm smarter than you, but thank you for the shout out. Listen, I want to start with Mark Carney, because he keeps talking about two different budgets. He talks about this operational budget that he claims he's going to balance in three years. And I think a lot of Canadians would be forgiven if they don't know, they just thought the budget was the budget was the budget. So break it down for me. What's he talking about? Well, let's put this number one. Why would he not say that when we know he has a bit of an issue with credibility? And number two, the person who precedes him and is currently in the job he wants, famously said budgets balance themselves. And that's Bologna

too. So this is just an innocuous statement. It doesn't mean anything. What he's saying is that what most people would do running up to an election or or a vote to be the leader is saying don't worry about the details I can handle this and he can't or he can't do it any better than any other liberal leader has ever done There is only one budget. There is only one way to look at a federal government There is the money coming in and the money going out and our government has way more money going out than in. And that is going to take a team of people working for decades to fix. I read what he said, Ben, and it is a bag of air. Well, you know, it reminds me a little bit of the sort of the, the threading of the needle and the sort of the word salads that we came to expect from the liberals, especially, uh, Chris, youia Freeland talked about it a lot,

Justin Trudeau talked a lot, as our deficit and our debt were exploding, they kept saying that everything, the debt as a function of the GDP still put us in the best fiscal position in the G7. I didn't even have to think about it because I heard them say it so many times. As we kept saying, hey the debt's going up, the debt's going up. They

said, no, no, no, as a function of the GDP, it's great. We are in a great position. And they kept coming up with these new devices by which to tell us the crippling of the economy wasn't happening. Yeah, well, that OK, so let's break that down for a second. You know, I always tell my students I can call it a convex combination or I can call it a line. You know, there are really ways to try to impress the population. But at the end of the day, it just it falls flat. And I think that's really what Mr.

Carney is trying to do here is he's trying to out finesse people And I really think that's number one a bad omen for somebody who wants to lead a party I mean, I just I like you said I don't have to say it any better than you did that This is just somebody using word salad to try to convince people that he knows more about the budget than they do Now he was the the governor of two central banks. He may know a little bit more about what a debt is and what a deficit is, but does he know how to actually battle it and help?

Maybe, but does he know how to do it really fast or instantly, like snap a finger? He's just being a fool. That's not how economics works. We're not physics, Ben. You don't get to go in a lab and pull a lever. He has no better tools at his disposal than any government has before him.

So he's just trying to win an election and win a race for leader, that's it. Sometimes Twitter is unsatisfying because you can't say in a short amount of time what requires more time. But sometimes the exact opposite is true because you can distill something down to its essence and give people an unvarnished version of the truth.

And Mark Levesque, who is a nonpartisan economist, wrote, So if I get this right, Carney will cut income tax for the middle class, cut the GST on new homes, keep all of Trudeau's new programs, no other cuts, but magically balance the operational budget, not clearly yet defined, by increasing productivity. Sorry, I don't buy it. Eric, do you share in this pessimism of Mark Carney's plan? I like the way he offers a dictionary of economic terms, and I hope that my students read it and read up on what those are. But no, again, it says everything and it says nothing. And I hate any policy proposal that does that.

It's just wide ranging encompassing nothing. And it's really frustrating really for anybody who can read because people aren't stupid in this country. And I don't know why so many leaders think we are. We can see through this and we know there are no magic bullets. He's offering a magic bullet and I hope people put it away with the rest of the bullets under not needed in Canada, but thanks. Well, we can, we can technically, you know, from an academic perspective, see through this stuff, but the polls are suggesting that people don't want to see through this stuff.

They want to see what they want to see and they want to see in Mark Carney a savior. They want to see in a Mark Carney, somebody who can beat Donald Trump at his own game. And I've been saying time and time again, if people want to forget that the nine past years happened, and if they want to forget who is responsible for them, that's on the voter. I can't change their minds. I can lead a horse to water, but if they don't want to drink it,

instead if they want to shower Mark Carney with praise, that's on them. I want to move on actually by moving backwards and talk to you about the segment that we just had where I had an expert talk to us about an article that he wrote in the Globe and Mail about maybe in this economy it's time to welcome foreign students again.

And he suggested that they'd say $37 billion boon that we probably need in the face of Donald Trump's tariffs. I wonder what your thoughts were. Okay I have a lot of thoughts. First of all let me preface this. I like Chris. He's smart. He's a good guy. I've met him and I like him but he's wrong. First of all universities have to have room. Like I heard him say well we can welcome people at our university. That must be nice because at schools like Toronto Metropolitan University that are almost at 100% capacity, where the heck are you going to put them? And moreover, where are they going to live? Are you going to bring more international students here, let them live on sidewalks and shelters? You cannot subsidize universities any longer with international money. We need to increase tuition. What that is is just he said it's not a

substitution effect, it's absolutely a substitution effect from domestic students to foreign students, but it doesn't fix anything real. If you want to fix universities, and I wish the Premier understood this even though I'm going to vote for him, you've got to fix the funding formula. You have to allow tuition to raise and let students handle more of the investment of their education But he's talking about bringing in all of these people and I just say we just dealt with an immigration crisis You're gonna make it work. And so I would say to Chris respectfully, where are you gonna put them? Not every university has space my university doesn't have space and where are they gonna live once they get here Ben?

Lastly not only about man 90 seconds left for you, but Warren Buffett, apparently right now is sitting on more cash than he's ever sat on before, rather, these companies, Berkshire Hathaway. Now, this is the guy that people believe is the greatest investor in the history of America. So what does he say? What does it say that the greatest investor has taken his so much of the money of Berkshire Hathaway out of the market and sitting on $334 billion in cash. You know, I think this is honestly the biggest waste

of paper since the invitations to my first wedding, Ben. This is somebody, yeah, he's a brilliant man. Yeah. It's true. But honestly, you know what? He has so much wealth that he's been preaching for 25, 30 years, equity, equities, equities, hold things that are going to go up in the long run. But at some point,

you have to cash out. Everybody cashes out to some extent. So this is him cashing out some of his holdings. But I think this means nothing to the world markets, nothing to the average investor. He's not an average investor. He can do things that most of us can't do. No, sure, sure, Eric, but people look to him for being the canary in the coal mine. He's the tip of the sword. He sees around the corner. And people have gotten rich over emulating him

and following his lead. And so the fact that he's taken so much out of the market, if I'm the average investor, I'm asking myself, what does he know that I don't know? And you should ask that question, but the average investor isn't in probably the last piece of his life sitting on the type of wealth that he's sitting. If people want to believe in Buffett, go back to what he's preached, equities, things that go up in the long run, not the short run.

And for most investors, leave your money where it is. It will grow over the long run. Don't pull out the cash unless you need it. Eric Kam, I'll see you tonight. The wait is over. The NBA season is here and FanDuel is the place to bet on all the action. I'm talking everything from point spreads to money lines to player props. You can even pick who's going to win it all. Whether you're betting on a breakout performance or an underdog victory, tip off the season right with North America's number one sportsbook. Just download the app and bet on the NBA all season long. Please play responsibly. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. If you have questions or

concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you, please go to connectsontario.ca. When you get into an Escape Plug-in Hybrid, you get the perfect mix. You can chill in electric mode, turn it up in gas mode, or get the best of both in hybrid mode. Choose how you move in the all-in-one Escape. mode. Choose how you move in the all-in-one Escape. And right now, get a $2,500 rebate on the Escape Plug-in Hybrid and all 2025 Escape models. For details, visit your Toronto Area Ford store or ford.ca. 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 trainwrecks Here's your host Ben Mulrooney. Yes I'm the I guess I'm the conductor of this train wreck Welcome back to the Ben Mulrooney show and And just a reminder, we can't do this segment without your dilemmas. So email us at askben at chorusent.com. I wanna welcome to the show as part of our panel today,

Ryan Parker, the co-host of Q Morning on Q107. Ryan, welcome to the show. Yeah, thanks so much for having me, Ben. I appreciate it. And let's say hi to Erin Burry, the founder of Willful and Globe and Mail columnist. Erin, welcome to the dilemma portion of The Ben Mulroney Show.

Thanks for having me back, Ben. All right, let's jump into Dilemma number one, shall we? It says, dear Ben, I have three children, 17, 14, and seven. They all have different personalities. It's as if I've raised three different people. Well, you have. And now, while I love them all, I don't like my 14-year-old. We fight all the time and people tell me

that's how teenagers behave, but there are things in his character that bother me. I think he's rude and inconsiderate at times, even from a young age. My other boys aren't like that. Is it possible to love your children equally, but not like them equally, if you understand what I mean. And that is signed Emily.

So between the three of us, I've got three kids. What about you? I've got three kids. What about you? I've got three kids, very similar ages to that. Very similar ages. And Erin? I have two that are much younger, one and three. So, so far I like and love both of them. I've had them for 10 years.

Okay, so Ryan, you're sort of on a parallel track to Emily. What do you think? Well, I think hopefully Emily has coverage because the 14 year old might need a little therapy at some point, but I understand there is a difference between like and love. I would like to think that, and I have a 14 year old as well and a 16 year old and a 10 year old.

And I like to think maybe potentially they're just going through that kind of teenage angst. And maybe that that child will come back at some point. Look, I've got two 14 year olds and I like and love them both. I've got an 11 year old I like and love her. I'm very lucky, but that doesn't mean that's not gonna change one day.

There were times where one of my sons had a tweak in his personality. They're very different, they're very similar kids, but one of them was more eager to help and the other was a little lazier. And I found that I was gravitating more to the one that was more eager to help. Those things wax and they wane.

What I'm hearing here is not something, does not represent an outlier situation to me. Your kid could be going through something, pay attention if you love your kid, as Emily says, pay attention, invest in that child, get to know them a little more. But time has a way, especially at 14, of taking that kid and turning him

into someone completely different later on. I mean, one serious piece of advice I would give on my end would be to try to find maybe something that bonds you together. So for example, my 16 year old, we'd like to watch similar shows together. My 14 year old, it's all about sports. And my 10 year old, you still kind of play and hang out like that. So you got to find that one thing that can bond you and maybe that will turn into more. Yeah, Emily, are we saying anything that's scaring you at all?

No, no, we're not saying anything that scares me. I'm ready for it. In fact, this advice is great. It makes me think of, I saw on TikTok, someone who said, every time that you go to yell at your toddler or be mad at them, remind yourself you're mad at a toddler, AKA, they are not reasonable adults. They are toddlers who are going to do things that are ridiculous and have emotions. And I would say the same about a 14 year old. I remember being 14. It's a time where you're very hormonal, you're going through a lot of changes, you know, there's a lot of change in your school life

and with friends and you're learning to have this adult relationship with your parents. So I don't think it's surprising that there's some strife here. And I love Ryan's advice about finding a common bond. You know, what is that thing that you two can do together that you can lean into? And also remember, to your point, Ben, this is this is likely a phase. And if it's not to Ryan's point, there's always therapy. Yeah. And Aaron, but I would like to point out that even when all of my kids were toddlers and babies, I screamed at them. They were so frustrated.

Of course I screamed at them. Parents, they don't say, I've screamed so many times. I scream a heck of a lot less today than I ever did in the past. I will say this when my kids were Aaron's age that I would often cry in the shower or sometimes take them. I was going to say, I usually go into a closet and do my screaming there. I try not to do it at the children, but you know what? We all get to that point where we're like,

I know you're a toddler, but you're still making me very angry. All right, let's move on. We hope we helped you, Emily. All right, now for dilemma number two. Hi, Ben, I'm a 23-year-old woman and I'm writing about my father. He's 45 and has been divorced from my mother

for 11 years now. At first, it was very painful for me, but as I got older, I understood there was no cheating or bad blood, they just grew apart. My mother has since remarried, but my father has not even dated since the divorce. I don't want him to be alone the older he gets. How do I convince him to start dating again?

That is Valerie. Erin, let's start with you. What do you think? How can we help the dad of Valerie? Well, Valerie, I really resonate with this because my parents split up when I was two. And I've also come to learn that while I'm very glad they didn't stay married, there was no bad blood. They really just grew apart. Now, both of them were remarried quite quickly. My dad is now on his third wife, my lovely stepmom, who I think is the last one. But I think a lot of times

it's not actually you, Valerie, that's holding him back. It doesn't sound like he's not dating because he thinks that you'll be upset about it or because of, you know, tension with his ex. It sounds like this is a personal decision. And so that's what I would try to get to the heart of, Hey, dad, are you just happy on your own? I saw a trend on TikTok the other day called self-partnering, which is the new fancy way of saying being happy single. And so maybe the crux of this is he actually is very happy on his own. He's built a great life and doesn't want to. Now, if he says the opposite, that there's something holding him back, that's a great opportunity to dig into what that is.

And maybe it's just he needs you to set up that online dating profile and take a break. Yeah, right. I up that online dating profile and take it away. Yeah, right. I have nothing to add to what Aaron just said. Either the thing I would say that Aaron, I had to self partner for many stretches in my life. And you know, Voluntarily or involuntarily?

A little bit of both sometimes. It was me, sometimes it was them. But I will say I'm only a couple of years older than the father here. And maybe he just enjoys that kind of downtime and that alone time, like you said, and I think with all the different dating apps, they weren't around when I was dating

or before I got married. Maybe it's just on him. Maybe he just doesn't want it. Look, he became a dad to Valerie at 22. And so we don't know if they, he might've had a kid before that as well, but let's take this for the information. 22 years old, so he's 45 years old right now.

Maybe he just really likes and by the way, Valerie doesn't know if he's truly not been dating. She just doesn't know of the people he could he could have a whole life out there which speaks to wanting to be alone. Speaking. So I would say have the conversation, Valerie, dig down, ask the questions that you think you need to ask. But if he's not doing something these days, it's probably because this is how he wants to live. I'll be honest, I'm a little jealous just of a little downtime. All right, I would take some downtime. I would definitely take some downtime right now. All right, let's move on to dilemma number three. My dilemma is I don't know

how to say no to people. I'm told that I have a people pleaser personality. I go out of my way to help someone if they ask oftentimes at the detriment to myself. I don't know how to say no. I'm uncomfortable with confrontation disappointing people. What's worse is people have taken advantage of this and asked me to do favors that I would never ask of others. How do I change this about me? Signed Carmen. I want to jump in first because I have been guilty of this too at my own expense and at my expense, my own mental health and schedule and quality of life for so, so long and so many times. What I like to do now is manage people's expectation

off the top. It's not necessarily saying no, it's like, this is what I'm capable of doing. And if you're okay with that, we can move forward with a conversation. Huh, I wish I had that kind of courage. I'll be honest with you, Ben, I'm more like Carmen. And I could tell you, Aaron, like I'm the kind of guy

that would like, I would have driven an ex-girlfriend to the airport with her current boyfriend. You know what I mean? Oh my God, Ryan. I just love. Oh, Ryan. I tell you right now. You are doing so well.

And then what I would do is when she'd leave my car, I would smell the head seat. Oh, that's it. Okay. I remember that shampoo. So Ryan's not responding to this one. Ryan is not allowed to give advice. You have to listen to him.

I don't know that you can ever give advice. Well, I just before you jump in here, I want to say this, I think people are who they are. I think you can quit smoking. I think you can lose weight. But at the crux, at the root of your soul, you are who you are. And I don't think there's much you can do. Yes. And Aaron, before you jump in, I agree. But you have to redefine what a people pleaser is. You've got to please yourself as a person. Right. And this girl that pleased a lot of guys, which is why we weren't together. Oh my god. Okay, Aaron, jump on in. Well, Ben, like you, I have also really struggled with saying no. And I over the years have developed some strategies to protect myself from myself. You're Ryan,

you're right. I'll always be the person who wants to say yes, when someone asks me for help, or to pick my brain or whatever it is. So a couple strategies that have helped me. Number one, my husband has become my time bouncer. So when someone asks me to do something, I ask him if I you know, I tell him about it. And he he will give me an outside perspective on like, No, you told me you don't want to have evening plans this week. Say no. So it's helpful to have someone else who really is there trying to protect my time and someone to bounce things

off of. Number two, I let things sit for 24 hours. Don't respond right away. Yeah, that's it. You know, that's a great ask. Let me think about it. And if you if it's still a heck yes in 24 hours, great. The other thing I do, Aaron, we're gonna we're gonna take a break right now because we've got more with the Dilemma panel when we return, including what do you do when you're looking after a pet and it dies on your watch? That's next on the Ben Mulroney Show.

Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. Thank you so much for joining us. And we're back with the Dilemma panel. Welcome back, Ryan Parker and Aaron Burry. Let's jump right in to our next dilemma. Dear Ben, my father passed away late last year and he's put me in a tough position. I have a brother and without my knowledge,

my father left me a majority of his estate when passing. Him and my brother never got along all that well and his reasoning for leaving the majority to me is because he thought my brother was irresponsible. Now my parents both lived with me before their passing as I took care of them, but my brother thinks that I've conspired to get my father's estate. I've helped my brother out a little since the passing and gave him an extra 25 grand because I truly felt bad, but he's now guilting me into wanting his half. I want to respect my father's wishes, but don't want my brother to hate me.

What should I do? Aaron, I'm gonna give this one to you first. Yeah, well, I run an online will company. So estate friction is the name of the game in my day to day. And this one is tough, because, listen, you only have an obligation to leave things to your kids if they are financially dependent on you or a minor. And it doesn't sound like that's the case here. So this, his brother may not like the choice that his father made, but he doesn't really have any recourse. This person, you know, I'd really advise

debating the relationship versus, you know, what's the relationship worth versus the money. It's clear that if he doesn't allocate a piece of that to the brother, that relationship is fractured, but he doesn't actually owe it to him. If it were me, I would probably allocate a piece of that to the brother, that relationship is fractured, but he doesn't actually owe it to him. If it were me, I would probably take a chunk of that money and I'd put it into a trust that would dole it out over time instead of handing him a bunch of money

because it sounds like he's someone who might blow it quickly and then come back to the well for more. Yeah, Ryan, what do you think? Well, I've been in a similar situation and I got very lucky that my dad, when he passed away, I have a brother as well, but my dad made it 50-50, which is the opposite of that. But I think deep, deep down that the brother

who is maybe not so good with money knows that he doesn't deserve that money, especially if the other, the good brother, let's call him, gave him 25K, plus also looked after his parents when they were sick. There comes a lot of expense with that. And I think the not so nice brother of being selfish. So yeah, I think if I'm being honest,

so this Yvette, I should have said Yvette. Okay, sorry. So it's Yvette and the brother. If I had to make a prediction here, I would say Yvette is gonna cave. Yeah. Based on what I'm reading here, she gave him $25,000. This guy, she referred to it as his half.

She didn't say half, she said his half. So she's already using his language. And he said, that's my half and you've got it. You misappropriated it, I deserve that. And she's already taking over his language. So she's a people pleaser to go over what we said before. And I think unless she took care of the parents, people pleaser, she had good relationships with them, people please her.

She wants to have a good relationship with this guy, but isn't expecting him to change, people please her. So, and you just said people don't change. And so I have a feeling here, you've got to be willing to be the bad guy. You've got to be willing to have some really bad, things are gonna get worse with this relationship with your brother before they get better. And they won't get better unless you have honest conversations with them. You've got to be willing to have some really bad, things are gonna get worse with this relationship

with your brother before they get better. And they won't get better unless you have honest conversations with them. Well, I hope Yvette stays strong then. I hope you keep that cash, Yvette, because you deserve it. Keep that cash, because I don't know that you're gonna keep your brother.

I mean, if you think he's gonna stop at half, and if you don't think he's gonna blow it and then come at you for more, like that's what I predict for you, Yvette. So stay strong here. Protect, protect. And that's what your dad predicted too. That's why he did what he did as well.

Exactly, exactly. All right, dilemma number five. Ben, now this dilemma is from many years ago, but I'd like to know if I handled it well. A friend of mine was looking after my dog when I went away for a vacation. I was gone for a week, and while I was on the trip, my dog was hit by a car.

What makes it worse is I wasn't told about it until I got home, even though it happened days before. Now I would have understood had my dog died of old age or something avoidable, but I feel this was irresponsible of my friend. It led to our falling out because I didn't like his lack of care or responsibility or transparency with me. Did I take it too far? Was losing a friendship over my dog, which I loved very much worth it from Stuart. Now I've got my own, I've got, I've got a dog. So I know what I would do. Ryan, do you have a dog? I do not have a dog. I have a cat, but everything been in my life goes through television, Aaron. And I would say this to Stuart. Do you remember who's the boss? There was an episode where Tony and Angela were on vacation together, I think before they officially hooked

up and she got some news from work that she needed to jump on something. She was an advertiser and he didn't tell her. And then when they went back to the real world, she ended up getting fired because she didn't do anything about it. He didn't want to ruin her vacation. Short term, look bad. Long term, she got her own agency. My point of the story is I think the friend was not trying to ruin your vacation and there's nothing you can do about it anyway. So we'll deal with it when you get home. Yeah, Erin, what do you think?

It's such a tough one. I mean, I grew up with dogs. I'm a huge dog person. And if my husband's listening to this, we will be getting a dog in the coming years. Yeah. You know? And this is tough.

I see it from both sides. If I'm the friend caring for that dog, I bet it absolutely crushed them to be caring for this pet and to have something bad like that happen. And Ryan, to your point, the only reason that they would have held off on telling them is because there's nothing

they could have done about it. But I also understand the perspective of the friend saying, did you care for my dog at the level which you should have? And I would have wanted to know about this immediately, even though there's nothing I could have done. I think this is a friendship ender, unfortunately, no matter what. But it sounds like she has some, Stuart has some regrets. So if I'm him, maybe I'd be broaching that with a friend and saying, I know you're you weren't trying to let this happen.

And maybe we can talk about it and put it up behind us. Yes, I agree. The devil's in the details. Like what what was the explanation for why the dog got hit? Because I would say, I had that dog for 10 years, never got hit by a dog, a car. You had the dog for a week, and within two days, the dog was hit. So what did you do that you shouldn't have done? And if there's a good explanation for it, that goes a long way. And then like, what was their demeanor when they told you about the passing of the dog? Were they cavalier about it? Were they casual about it? Or were they broken up about it? Those things would go a long way to tell me about that person's character.

But I completely agree with you, Erin. The fact that Stuart is trying to revisit this in their own heads and looking for our opinions speaks to probably having some regret over how they handled this. Let's move on to, let's move on to dilemma number six. Dear Ben, I've been in a relationship for about six months and things have been going really, really well

for the most part. However, I start to notice that my partner and I have different views on how much time we should spend together. They love to hang out almost every day while I enjoy some alone time and need space to recharge. I've tried to explain this to them, but they don't seem to fully understand

and it's starting to cause some tension. I don't want to hurt their feelings, but I also don't want to lose my sense of self in this relationship. How do I navigate this without creating conflict? And is it possible to make things work when our needs are so different? Aaron, let's start with you. This reminded me to Ryan's point about plots from movies and shows about the Sex and the City movie when Carrie wants alone time and so she maintains her own apartment even while she lives with Mr. Big. You know, everybody is entitled to their independence in a relationship and maintaining that sense of self is super important. So if I was Mike, I would sit down and say where it's coming from. This is not coming from me not wanting to spend time with you or not loving you.

I love spending time with you. This is about my self love. And this is what I need to be the best partner I can. If I'm hearing it correctly, it sounds like the partner just feels like he doesn't want to hang out with her because he doesn't like her. And that's really not what's happening here. So get to the heart of it. Speak about your habits and your love languages. And I think actually you'll be able to find common ground.

But Ryan, it seems like she's done that. Mike has done that rather. Mike has done that, but the partner won't listen. Yeah, it's weird because what's happening is the person likes to spend time alone and recharge. I understand if they're going to bars and clubs every night or golfing all weekend long. I don't understand the issue with it, but I will say

I just read an article the other day about a real solid relationship. There's a test in it is if you can be in the room together and not communicate. If you feel like you don't have to constantly talk to each other and fill the void. If you're able just to be with each other without talking, that's a great sign of a relationship. Well, yeah, absolutely. And look, my wife and I have a great relationship as it relates to like spending time apart. And, and, but to me, like this, this won't improve, assuming that Mike has said everything that Mike needs to say, in terms of what their what their needs are. And the other partner is not listening. Well,

that's a communications issue. And that's a communications breakdown. And if you can't do that, if you can't get over that, then it's not about spending time apart, it's about communicating at this point. And that is the problem. So I would say to Mike personally, that I don't know that you can get to the next level of your relationship. Well, I think he's probably frustrated and that's why he wants to be alone.

You know what I mean? Well, and Aaron, don't you think that, and we only about 10, 15 seconds left, but this is going to increasingly make him want to go, Mike could go farther away. Well, and maybe Mike needs to influence her to get some hobbies of her own. She could go to pottery class or book club,

she wouldn't be at home trying to hang out with him. Hey, Ryan, Erin, I wanna thank you both for joining us on The Dilemma, and I hope you come back real soon. Awesome, thank you. Thanks, Ben. on the Dilemma and I hope you come back real soon. Awesome, thank you. Thanks, Ben.

I want to welcome a colleague of mine from 640 Toronto. He's the host of Toronto Today, Greg Brady, to the show. He put in an early, early morning here on the radio station and I thank him for taking time out of his free time to join us on the Ben Mulroney Show. Thanks so much, Greg. Pleasure, man. You know I love to chat with you.

Go right ahead. Yeah, well sadly, the first story weoney show. Thanks so much, Greg. Pleasure, man. You know I'll have to chat with you. Go right ahead. Yeah, well, sadly, the first story we're talking about is not a happy one. There are not a lot of facts that we have on this story, but the facts that we have, I think, are enough to be outraged and to discuss it. Two young children stabbed in Northern Alberta.

The suspect has been released. That's all you need to hear. How often do we talk about it, you and me, whether on radio or when the radio is off, that the justice system is broken and this case is the poster child for it. If you can't keep somebody in jail for stabbing two kids, what the heck are we doing? Yeah, there's, I have no idea what people's line is and it might vary between where you know it's over the line that you'd like to release a suspect and we can, yeah, blow out the doors on.

We need more speedy trials. We need more judges. We need more of everything. Of course we do. But this is so far over the line when an adult is accused of stabbing. I've heard of kids, high school kids stabbing each other in a fight at school. We've all heard of adults stabbing. I've never even heard of an adult stabbing a child

and then obviously getting the innocent until proven guilty is something all of us should be afforded, Ben. But you keep them behind bars until the trial. Okay, so Greg, plan is simple. So here's the pushback that we always get. They say, well, the problem is there's not enough room in the jails. Okay, let's assume that that is true. Are you telling me that you can't find one person in that jail who's done something that's

not as bad as stabbing a child and give them bail and replace that person with the guy who stabbed the kids. Do a substitution. Find somebody who's in there for shoplifting. Get rid of him, give him bail, and put the stabber in jail. Yeah, there's got to be a way around it. And I just, again, we would read about this in another country, Ben, if we read about this in Portugal or the Philippines or the UK, we'd be aghast. It's right here. It's right here in our country. And we'd say what's wrong with that country's system of justice that they can't figure out something so simple. It's outrageous. Yeah. I want to move on to what they like to say, the lame stream media in the United States. I think you and I both remember when we watched

the US debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, where Joe Biden's cognitive decline was finally on display for everybody to see in real time. It was what so many of us believed was a fact. And whenever it was brought up on certain news channels, and we'll use CNN as an example, the pushback was real. The people making the accusations were accused of underhanded misinformation themselves. And Jake Tapper found himself doing that to Lara Trump Months and months and months ago. Here's how Donald Trump

Here's how Jake Tapper argued with Lara about Biden's Supposed decline at the time. How do you think it makes little kids with stutters feel when they see you make a comment like that? First and foremost, I had no idea that Joe Biden ever suffered from a stutter. I think what we see on stage with Joe Biden, Jake, is very clearly a cognitive decline. That's what I'm referring to. It makes me uncomfortable to watch somebody on stage search for questions and try and figure out an answer. A cognitive decline. Well, when you're trying to tell me that what I was suggesting was a stuttering. I think that you were mocking his stutter.

Yeah, I think you were mocking his stutter. And I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody's cognitive decline. I would think that somebody in the Trump family would be more sensitive to people who do not have medical licenses. Diagnosing politicians from afar. So, so that, um, we saw a lot of that, we saw a lot of that. And then his, and then we, his cognitive decline was there for all of us to see. And then a lot of us went back and said, wait, hold on. Like, have we been lied to?

Is this, uh, is this, there's a, there's a something going on here. So Jake Tapper really was a very visible opponent to anybody suggesting that there was real cognitive decline in the president. So I think a lot of us are surprised that he is now the author of a new book called Original Sin that exposes Biden's cognitive decline after years of denying it.

This is like, it feels, I have a lot of time for Jake, he and I have gone back and forth a few times, we're quite friendly, but it feels like the gas lighting that people went away experience about Joe Biden's health, all of a sudden, we're supposed to pretend like the people on the left had nothing to do with it. And it is, and it's the one thing, you know, for sport or for entertainment, you can sort of judge that guy doesn't have the voice he used to on stage or that person, Muhammad Ali, famously, his final fight was against Canadian Trevor Burbank. And then people said, please don't ever get in the ring again. It's clear you're yesterday's man, Muhammad Ali, like the most iconic athlete probably of the 1970s. So we have a real, we have trouble within our own family to take car keys away from people and say, we don't think you should do this anymore. When it's the president of the United States and it's so politicized, I mean, again, I'm

not the Trump family and Laura has been part of that have been, have been cruel. They have been aggressively, um, at their aggressive, their language has been very aggressive towards Biden, but to come back around to Tapper. Yeah. He's, he needed to ask better questions. He needed to ask a ton more questions at the time and maybe even, um, entertain Ben the theory as we were able to do or others

were able to do that there might not be something right. Bernie Sanders was running for the nominee nomination against Joe Biden and had a heart attack during the primaries. To which point everybody said, whoa, like we can't be having presidents having heart attacks and everybody backed off on the idea that Bernie Sanders could or should be the nominee But we're a lot less willing to do that with cognitive impairment But this felt to me this this one audio clip that we just played Tells me that before anybody buys this book before Jake Tapper tries to sell this book and it might be a great book

I'm sure it's well researched. I've read a lot of Jake stuff in the past before it gets out there He owes everybody an explanation as to how he how he had this moral conversion To become somebody who now deems himself an authority on Jay on on Joe Biden's decline Well, and and it's you know, there's that phrase the tape don't lie and everything now is recorded You can double back and find a clip where somebody said something that will no doubt infer that they thought they knew better than, and they didn't. Why I think you're doing what you're doing,

what I'm doing, what I'm doing is, on the first, I can't wait to get in and say, boy, I got this wrong, and I didn't know this. And let me adjust and pivot. And there's too many people, people been in this day and age That won't do it. They didn't do it during the pandemic They won't do it about you know, big things whether it's Russia Ukraine What's going on in Gaza and they and they sure aren't doing it about Joe Biden

Yeah It comes to Democrats like like if you're going to be in essence a Democrat friendly or Republican friendly media Your public has to embrace a lot of what you're saying and and and you'll have to be in essence a Democrat friendly or Republican friendly media, your public has to embrace a lot of what you're saying and you'll have to be accountable when you don't get things right. But I also think. And it could even cost them at the election last year. I also think that there is something to be said. I think people are more apt to believe you if you're willing to admit you were wrong. And I think, look, Jake Tapper's a smart guy. I'm

sure he'll be able to craft a story explaining his conversion, which might even make him sound like more of an expert, somebody who got caught up in the machine that was feeding him this information. And then his eyes were opened and he, you know, the Americans like to say he got red-pilled possibly on this one thing. But there is a way for him to do it. But I do not believe

that people will buy this book until they understand like the message has been tarnished because of the messenger is tarnished and he needs to clean up his image before people accept the message. Yeah, real quick for me, like, like that was the biggest question. That was the first question anybody would want to and should ask Kamala Harris when she got the nomination. Yeah, who gives a rip how she got the nomination, but your the job is to say to her, what did you notice? Where was Joe Biden struggling? And guess what? In three years, we may be asked the very same thing about a guy heading deeper into his 80s than Donald Trump. Hey, Greg, we're going to leave it there. We're going to leave it there. Thank you so much, my friend. I'll talk to you soon. Thanks, pal.

Greg, we're going to leave it there. We're going to leave it there. Thank you so much, my friend. I'll talk to you soon. Thanks, pal. Let's turn our attention to Alberta. And for the past few months, Alberta has been pushing back and challenging, I guess, the status quo that has been in place in British Columbia and generally in Ottawa about the issue of safe supply.

How do we deal with addiction in this country? And Alberta is planning to impose mandatory addictions treatment. Let's hear from the Health Minister on why this is the way they're going. We need to make sure that yes, those people who need treatment and looking for treatment have access to it. But also not only is there a question of personal and human dignity to somebody who's overdosing hundreds of times a year, there's a public safety question. You and I and our community members have the right to not inhale second-hand crystal meth smoke and if somebody is having a schizophrenic break because of the fentanyl they're consuming

along with their methamphetamine and they're fencing with a used syringe out front of the local recreation center. That's not appropriate. We should have safe spaces for our families to be able to go to the rec center or go shopping and play sports. And so this this small but recalcitrant group of people that are not seeking out voluntary treatment, they're often not only the greatest danger to themselves, but the community. Now, this position by the Alberta government is to certain people very controversial. They feel that it flies in the face of, like I said, the conventional wisdom of today. I'm just a regular person.

I'm a father, I'm a husband, I'm a member of a community. This emotionally to me sounds like it makes sense, but rather than go down a rabbit hole of emotion that doesn't serve anybody, let's go to somebody who's been on the front lines of mental health and addiction for years. And so let's welcome Yona Budd, chorus, addictions and counseling expert at yonabudd.com to the show.

Yona, thank you so much for being here. Thanks, Ben. Nice to be here, thanks. So is, at first blush, somebody with your expertise, somebody who's been on the front lines, when you hear this, when you hear about this policy, what do you think? Well, you know, it's a good question and a good point to talk about. So first of all, in in several provinces, like Ontario and BC, there is something called a mandatory mental health hold,

which is up to 72 hours. You can get a police officer, a judge, a medical practitioner with a medical degree, doctor, psychiatrist, can form, sometimes it's called forming. You can form someone to, against their will, to attend mental health treatment, if you will, for what it's worth, for 72 hours, drug-related, not drug-related, it's irrelevant.

So there really isn't anything in place right now where they say, if you've got a drug issue, we can force you into treatment, because we all know that that doesn't fly, it doesn't fly straight in terms of what really needs to happen. What this program is, and I know Marshall Smith is one of the architects of this program and we had long chats about it, this program is designed to use the healthcare system as

opposed to the criminal system where Ontario and BC use the criminal system to put people on diversion programs for mental health or addiction. But in Alberta, anyone with a health card can be picked up taken into, um, into a sober facility where they detox, um, and then into, uh, some form of addiction treatment, mental health treatment, they're building, you know, hundreds and hundreds of beds and facilities and so on. It all sounds great. So in the old days, they had something called a drunk tank. Right. So your dad and I would remember that, right. The rest in peace, a drunk tank back in our day.

So the drunk tank was you take somebody off the street because they were drunken disorderly, you threw them in a holding cell for a couple, either overnight or a couple of days, they would dry out and then they could attend court for charges. That's been going on for years. And whether it still goes on or not, we don't really know. So the dry out portion of it, the detox portion against your will, maybe has some legs, right?

Because you're taking somebody that have their mind, they're not in a sober state of mind, they're either way too high, way too drunk or in a bad state of mental health, in a bad mental health run. So you take them out of dangerous way for a couple, two, three days, so they can at least catch their breath. And then inform them of opportunities for treatment. Anyone that I've been like, I've treated, you know, close to 4800 patients in almost 50 years. And I got to tell you, bro, it only works when someone has some level of motivation

to actually get well. Okay, you know, I want to stop you there, because this is where I thought I thought the conversation was going to go here. And I'm glad it did. Because, so a couple of things. One, like let's take what everybody should view as the universal positive that the Alberta model is not diverting people to the criminal justice system. It's overburdened to begin with and it's the inappropriate area to put people

with mental health and addiction issues. So I'm glad to hear that. But I guess the sticking point for a lot of people, Yona, would be the idea of the notion, the keywords against their will. And again, some, I'm just a lay person, but what I understand about opioid addiction is that it literally rewires the synapses of the brain and it makes it so essentially the brain has been hijacked. The will of that person has been hijacked. Their goal as an opioid addicted person is to get more opioids. So the value of the notion of against someone's will, I think it loses importance because what will are we talking about? We're talking about the will of the drug over the

person, which means they don't have the requisite responsibility to consent to something like that. So it's sort of like damned if you do, damned if you don't. Am I wrong? Well, you're half right. Okay. Because while you're in the midst of the high, if you will, while you're in the midst of the drug consumption in your body, you're clearly not in a frame of mind to make proper decisions, healthy decisions.

I've treated probably a thousand opioid addicts in my career and no one starts off wanting to give it up, right? So it takes time to get to that level. But once a person is detoxed from opioids or a couple, two, three days, 48 hours, they, as much as they're in withdrawal, they are of some much better level of presence of mind. So it's, once they're past the detox or sobriety period where you get them flushed out of the drugs or alcohol

flushed out of their system, then you're now dealing with someone who's much more rational. So that's the level that has me interested. Yeah. First two, three, four days maximum. Well, I'm going to also, if I, if I can add it to me, this feels like a new definition of harm reduction, right?

Like taking them off the streets, giving them a fight and clearing their brains. Even if it's temporarily where they, where they're giving themselves, you know, however small a chance, a fighting chance to rationally look at their situation and say, okay, should I go get help? Now I appreciate not all of them have hit rock bottom, not all of them have that will, but some of them will. And some of them will see that in that moment of clarity

where they've detoxed. And so to me, this is a version of harm reduction that certain people could get behind. Well, yeah, and the way they're talking about it is if a person is quote unquote, a danger to themselves or others. Well, that's the definition of forming somebody now in the mental health space.

If anybody's at a risk of hurting themselves or others, suicidal or homicidal, they can be formed for a period of time to be assessed for up to 72 hours against their will, usually while being arrested at some level. And that's the time that we have an opportunity to look into what's going on, get the drugs out of their system,

maybe do an assessment on their mental health and so on. The problem with forcing someone to treatment beyond that, traumatizing, stigmatizing, it feels like you're a criminal, it's all the wrong stuff from a therapist perspective that you want to engage with someone when you want to get them into help. The Alberta program, from what I've read and what I understand, is intended to be much less traumatic, much less stigmatizing and much easier because again, you're not in the criminal system to access that help. You don't know we're going to have to leave it there, but I want to thank you. And look, this is the good news is like there are data points that experts like

you will be looking to, to see if this, if this system is a success. So as it grows, we'll have you back and you'll let us know how the Alberta model is going and if it's going in the right direction, maybe it'll become a best practice that others can look at. Thank you 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. At Desjardins, we speak business. We speak startup funding and comprehensive game plans. We've

mastered made to measure growth and expansion advice. And we can talk your ear off about transferring your business when the time comes. Because at Desjardins Business, we speak the same language you do, business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us and contact Desjardins today. We'd love to talk business.