The Ben Mulroney Show - Best of the Week Part 3 - Jason Kenney, Derek Burney, Craig Baird

Episode Date: May 3, 2025

Best of the Week Part 3 - Jason Kenney, Derek Burney, Craig Baird Guests: Jason Kenney, Derek Burney, Craig Baird, David Cooper, 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

Welcome to the Ben Mulroney Show Best of the Week podcast. We had so many great discussions this week, including a conversation with former Premier Jason Kenney about the desire for Alberta to separate from Canada. Plus, the Dilemma panel was so good as well. Enjoy. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. And as if you know anything about me, you know that I like to say I take the world as it is, not as I want it to be.

And the world that I want to live in is a world where the Canadian Confederation is strong and healthy and every province feels respected and everyone feels so very strongly and positively about being Canadian. That is not the world we live in. That is not the country we live in. And unfortunately there we've had bubbling resentment in all parts of the country at different times.

We've had our focus on Quebec many, many times, but over the past few years and specifically the past few months, the attention has turned out west to Saskatchewan and Alberta with a burgeoning separatist movement that could become something serious. And the Alberta government has introduced Bill 54, the Election Statutes Amendment Act on Tuesday, aiming, as they say, to enhance the integrity and accessibility of provincial elections while emphasizing referendums several times in its announcement, signaling pushback against the federal liberals. And at first blush, it looks like barriers are being taken down to make it easier for referendums to be triggered on

issues like separation. To discuss this, we're going to talk to the guy who brought, in my opinion, sanity and a calm, cool thought and discussion to CBC's election coverage. Jason Kenney, the former premier of Alberta. Welcome to the show, sir. Good to be here, Ben. Okay, so did I lay it out correctly or do you take issue with anything I said in the preamble? No, that's right. Just a little more context.

I actually, as premier, brought in the law that allows citizens to, if a number of people sign a petition, they can force a referendum on just, so if there are issues where politicians are ignoring that are really big public priorities, the population could have its say, but we kept quite high thresholds on that to avoid frivolous abuse of that. You don't want the tail wagging the dog in a democracy.

You don't want 5% of people forcing a huge, divisive debate that. You don't want, you know, 5% of people forcing a huge divisive debate that 90% don't want. Yeah. And so what Ms. Smith announced yesterday is a radical, like, I think it's about a 75% reduction in the thresholds required to trigger a referendum following an initiative petition. Yeah. So that, that, I mean, I spoke with Premier Smith yesterday on the show and I asked her on her perspective as it relates to Alberta federal relations and I said, are you worried that the feds might cross a red line from which Alberta won't be able to come back? You cross the Rubicon and once you're there, you're there. And she said, no, they've already crossed the line and now I'm asking them to walk back.

And so that to me is an interesting perspective. And given this new context and given this lowering of the threshold, I've got to, I've got to wonder whether, I mean, is it wrong to suggest or to ask is, is she, is she, is she laying the groundwork for what would ultimately be a referendum on separation? Well, I think she probably doing two things. One is implicitly using the separatist threat as a potential leverage against Ottawa. And then secondly, playing to a very angry cohort of Albertans looking like she's throwing them an opportunity potentially to separate. So the context here then is that, you know, there's a long history, Western and Alberta alienation, it really peaked around the National Energy Program when Pierre Trudeau in the

early 90s tried to, well, basically destroyed our largest industry with the government massive regulation takeover uh... a certain prime minister you knew uh... repealed that policy in the nineteen later nineteen eighties and uh... for the better part of thirty years that was really issues with their but it was really a it had a big a lot kretchen approved all the big oil sands projects, Stephen Harper is a hometown boy. And then, you know, Trudeau has brought in policy after policy slamming our ability to develop our resources and people get increasingly

frustrated. But that doesn't make Albertan separatists. And I think that for this conversation is counterproductive. Yeah, because I think Albertans overwhelmingly patriotic Canadians. Yeah. And that's where this conversation is counterproductive. Because I think Albertans are overwhelmingly patriotic Canadians. Yeah. And that's the thing, Jason, the fear, the pushback to even asking the question is, if you say it, you're going to make it real. And you don't want to manifest something that isn't actually happening. And so, you know, you've been the premier of Alberta, you've also worked with the federal government. So, so give me give me your snapshot of where

you think the people of Alberta are today. And what do you think Mark Carney and his new liberal government need to do to start mending those fences? Well, I think that he made some, I i think positive noises early on that uh... i hope albert ns can take at his word one was he wants to turn canada into energy superpower it was an unqualified statement it was borrowing a phrase from steven harper the speech he gave in two thousand six

and he talked about getting major energy projects done uh... including pipelines. And basically he said he wants to sit down with provinces, companies, unions and First Nations to figure out which projects to get behind. So that's all, that all sounds very good. But on the other hand, he has promised to continue this emissions cap, which is basically a cap on production, which implies that we will, even if we build more pipelines, there will be the signal, the regulatory rule will be

that oil companies cannot develop more energy to ship through those pipelines. So that's a huge problem. And that means that that will, that means there'll be a flight of investment. But the other things like the clean electricity standard, Alberta doesn't have any hydro, neither does Saskatchewan. We don't have nuclear, not yet. So that would say we have to take out gas, which means we're left with intermittent unreliable wind and solar and brownouts. A lot of other policies, increasing the industrial carbon tax massively, which would be a real uncompetitive slam to our trade exposed industry. So these and other policies seem in conflict with the generally pro-energy signals that he's given. And I just hope he comes out of the gate quickly, not just for national unity purposes, but for national prosperity. The key

issue around this last election where most Canadians agree that to deal with the threats from Trump, we need a stronger Canada. That begins with developing our most valuable export product, our energy. Jason, where does the Conservative Party go from here? There's a lot to hang their hat on, a lot to be proud of in this election, but the fact is that Pierre did not get them over the hump, which is what he said he was going to do. I believe that automatically triggers a leadership review. What do you think the next six months to a year look like for the conservatives? Well, I think he's earned the right to stay on. Obviously, the loss of his own writing is is really tough. I know he he was a very focused constituency MP. But for the last few years, he's had to be all across the country, not in his riding. But listen, he had the

highest share of popular votes since your dad in 1988, 37 years ago for a conservative, the most gross votes ever for a conservative since 1867, broke new ground. I was just looking at results in Windsor with this massive swing from apparently blue collar union working people from the NDP to the conservatives all across southwestern Ontario, other parts of the country, younger voters doing very well amongst new Canadians. There seems to be a strong correlation of support in, for example, South and East Asian Canadian communities. So like all of those are quite remarkable positives. He was the most, he has been the most effective

opposition leader in my lifetime, if not post-war history. I think the problem there is he was probably too effective. He was so effective opposition leader. In my lifetime, if not post-war history, I think the problem there is he was probably too effective. He was so effective, he got rid of Justin Trudeau, but the liberals realized they had no choice but to repeal the carbon tax. And a lot of people started to see him as leader of the opposition rather as prime minister. That was probably part of the vibe or brand issue at the end between him and Mr. Carney. So I think given all of that, it would be counterproductive for the Conservatives to change leaders yet again, to do that every three or four years. I don't think

that there's any wisdom in that. If we assume for a second that Pierre Poliev does find his way to continue leading this conservative party. Do you think it would behoove them to affect a tonal shift in the House of Commons? To be more, I appreciate the role of the official opposition is to oppose, but perhaps oppose in a less aggressive confrontational way? Yes, in a word, yes. The role of the leader of the opposition is to oppose but also to propose an alternative government. And I think he did that with a lot of good policy stuff, but maybe not as much in tone as he should have. Some advice I would have given him is get on a plane a year ago, go to Washington, meet the congressional leaders in both parties, give a speech at a centrist think tank about the importance of NAFTA, which distances you from Trump's protectionism. Do something like that in London. Go to Kiev and meet Zelensky. Go on the

world stage. Look like a prime minister. Turn down the volume knob on the opposition stuff, because people already know who's really in opposition. Jason Kenney, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thanks, Ben. Jason Kenney, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thanks, Ben. So, as I've said, now is the time to be as constructive as we possibly can, giving good

faith ideas and suggestions to this new government as they try to find their footing and they try to work on behalf of all Canadians. I am not going to present myself as a stumbling block. As a matter of fact, I would like to facilitate those good ideas getting to the people who need to hear them. And our latest guest, who is a great friend and knew my father very, very well, Derek Burney. He was the former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. and he led the Canadian delegation in concluding negotiations on the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. This guy knows a thing or two about a thing or two. And he, along with another very well-respected man who was also

the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Raymond Chrétien, got together and put a piece together in the National Post entitled, A Ten-Point Plan for the Election Winner to Fix Canada. So here to break it down is Ambassador Bernie. Mr. Bernie, thanks so much for joining us. Thank you, Brian. Good to be with you. So I love that the topic is a 10-point plan for the election winner. This is not a political statement. This is the view from two people who

know a thing or two about the domain that they are talking about. Yeah, well, I think the government faces two huge challenges. And just to be summarized, the 10-point plan we gave, one is to obviously manage tactfully but firmly relations with the United States under Donald Trump. And that's a big priority. But the more important one in our view is to fix the Canadian economy.

Yes. It's been languishing for more than a decade in terms of performance and productivity. And so what we've advocated in essence is that the economic policy framework on taxes, on regulations, on investment initiatives, and the project approval processes have to be revamped in order to build a more competitive Canada and we have to keep the needs of small and medium-sized businesses up front. That's right. Sorry. Go ahead, sir. Well, I was just going to add that, you know, first and foremost, we have to remove all the impediments to the development

of our huge energy and natural resource products and expedite permitting of facilities that would support exports to receptive markets in Europe and Asia. And I could articulate more on that, but basically this is what has been hamstringing our economic performance over the last decade. If we don't fix that, we're going to languish even more poorly for the next decade, in our

opinion. Prime Minister Carney stated that he intends to bring down the vast majority of inter-provincial trade barriers along with the help of the provinces by Canada Day. Do you see that as a feasible realistic goal? Given how long it's gone, I gave a more charitable six-month deadline, but I also put a stick with it and that is the provinces either shape up within six months to remove all the internal trade barriers, which they've talked about for decades, or they would face a reduction in federal grants. That puts some teeth in it, Ben, and I think that's what needed.

It's like herding cats to try to get the 10 Canadian premiers to agree on anything. Well, that's right. They're all going to say they agree in principle, but they're going to say, oh, of course we agree, we want to bring down every trade barrier, but not this one thing that matters to us.

And then that gives license to the next guy and the next guy. That's right. Everybody will want an exemption. And you end up with a rabbit hole. Yeah. Now, the fact that this comes from two former Canadian ambassadors to the United States that were appointed by prime ministers

from two different parties means this should carry a lot of weight, especially as it relates to near the end of your of your ten points, you start talking about the the need to rebuild the Canadian relationship with the United States. I I wasn't very charitable to Prime Minister Carney on the election campaign when he talked writ large that the relationship is over and this is what the Americans want. I thought it was I thought it was a too negative of a tone and I thought too

fatalistic and I also didn't think he had a mandate to say it was over, given how much hard work Jean-Claude Kretzschia and Prime Minister Mulroney and Harper put into tending to that relationship. But now that the election's over, I hope he takes a more optimistic view, a more bullish view, on a future Canada-U.S. relationship. And you say it definitely does need attention. Yes, but I would add to that a realistic view. I mean, we can't, we can't erase the fact that the US is and will be our most dominant trade partners going forward. And it's the cornerstone of whatever we hope to achieve in terms of foreign

policy. But that doesn't prevent us from being very firm, very cautious, but very firm in trying to get, make some sense out of what I call Trump tariff mania. Yeah. Yeah, you know, he changes his position on tariffs every day. Oh no, Mr. Bernie, he doesn't change his mind.

He's demonstrating flexibility. That's what he tells us. It's the art of, no, Mr. Bernie, he doesn't change his mind. He's demonstrating flexibility. That's what he tells us. It's the art of the deal, Ben. Yeah. I love that you move beyond the economics of it and into the importance of Canada having a military, a strong military with which we can then promote Canadian values around the world.

Talk to us about that point in your 10-point plan. Well, the one legitimate grievance the Americans have about us is that we have been lax in military spending. You know, the last prime minister who met our 2% NATO commitment was your father. It hasn't been met since 1993, and that's a disgrace. It dishonors the proud military tradition Canada has. But Mr. Bernie, even when we weren't hitting 2%, we still were able to live up more or less to the commitments that we made.

We were able to promote Canadian values by way of military force around the world. When we were called upon, we could answer. It's not just that we're not spending the 2%, it's that the way we're spending it is not optimal. That's absolutely true. And the biggest weakness is in the Arctic, where we face competition that we didn't face 10 years ago or 20 years ago. We now face real competition from China and Russia in the Arctic. That's our Arctic. And if we can't protect that, we don't have the right to run the country. Yeah. And then from that, we even suggested, Ben, a way of paying for the increases. We want

to double the size. We want to double the expenditure. But what we suggest as one way of getting there is to reduce the public service in Canada, which grew 40% over the last 10 years. And especially at the senior level, it wouldn't achieve the total goal, but it would show the right spirit in terms of how government should be spending its money. Well, it seems to me, I mean, listen, those priorities that you list, those don't surprise me coming from somebody from the center-center right of the political spectrum. It doesn't surprise me coming from somebody who was appointed under, I'd sort of call

it the Kretzian liberals. Mark Carney has a task ahead of himself to demonstrate that he is not representative of the ten years of Trudeau liberal rule. And if he were to accept these ten points and try to govern according to them, that would go a long way to showing people that he has tacked his party far more to the center. Wouldn't you agree? Absolutely. And, you know, I would have suggested as well that if we had a minority government, I guess it's not very clear what that minority is going to be yet. One thing you should consider is a formal coalition with the conservatives. So we have a genuine national unity government in Canada that could achieve a better outcome

with the United States, number one, but it could also fix our problems without the nagging of the competition between parties. I mean, at least the splinter parties had been neutralized, but they shouldn't have the whip hand in a minority government. So I think they should at least consider a coalition with the conservatives. I think it's interesting that you bring that up because I brought up that goal. Wouldn't it be a laudable goal to try to achieve that if this is in fact the crisis of our lifetime that Mark Carney got elected on, then wouldn't it behoove him to at least strive to find three or four key policies that he could bring the conservatives along with, get them to co-sign it. That would represent over 80% of the electorate. And I think,

yes, Mark Carney would look like he's doing things differently the conservatives would able would be able to reskin themselves from a tonal perspective as more more willing to work with as opposed to break down I think it would be a fantastic fantastic I wish we could talk more Mr. Bernie but thank you so much it's a tremendous point it's in the national post a 10-point plan for the election winner to fix Canada and I hope to talk to you again soon. Thanks Ben. Hi I'm Donna Friesen from Global National. Life moves fast these days and we want to make it even easier for you to get the news you need. That's why you

can now get Global National every day as a podcast. The biggest stories of the day with analysis from award-winning global news journalists. New episodes drop every day, so take this as your personal invitation to join us on the Global National podcast. You can find it on Apple podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you find your favorite podcasts. Welcome to the Dilemma Panel. No question is too awkward. No problem too petty and no opinion goes unchallenged. Our panel of overthinkers is here to dissect, deliberate and sometimes derail the conversation

entirely. Grab your popcorn. This isn't just advice. It's a front row seat to life's most hilariously relatable train wrecks. Here's your host, Ben Mulrooney. That's right. Welcome back to the show. The country has spoken and they have decided that is the Liberal Party and Mark Carney who will solve the national dilemma. But here on

our show you come back time and time again for us to solve your personal dilemmas every Wednesday. And if you have a personal dilemma that you want us to look into and solve next week, just send us an email at askbenn at chorusent.com. Of course, I can't do this myself. I mean, I could, but it'd be very boring. It wouldn't be as entertaining. So instead, I'm joined by two great guests, Mohit Rajan's mediologist and consultant at

thinkstart.ca and David Cooper, the host of the last show with David Cooper on the Chorus Radio Network. Mohit, David, welcome to the Dilemma. Good day, good day. Oh my goodness. Thanks for having me. All right. Let's let's jump right into the first one. Shall we?

Ben, recently I put a political sign in my front yard for the election. I knew not everyone in the neighborhood would agree, but I didn't expect it to become a problem. One of my neighbors who I am close with told me a few people in the neighborhood have commented on it in a neighborhood group chat, a group chat that I'm not in, mind you. I feel like I should confront them, but it might cause further alienation.

The election is now over, the signs are all gone, but I can't stand to look at them in the face. Should I say anything or are politics left undiscussed? Signed Chandra. David, let's start with you. Well, you can't stand to look your neighbors in the face because they view things politically different than you and yet you're surprised that they're upset by this.

I don't know, this person should have known better. Politics are pretty polarizing these days. Yeah, I agree they are polarizing, but I think we only improve things when we discuss things mo hit. I'm a little confused only because of the fact that I thought every community has multiple chat groups going about

multiple topics. And I'm just confused that this is the first time it's coming to light in this community. For example, they probably had discrepancies and arguments, etc. You know, about different things. And so just to hear about this coming to the surface over politicalness is actually a surprise to me. Well, I'm going back to the final line. Should I say anything or are politics best left undiscussed? Well, the whole point of lawn signs is to spur conversation,

to let you know that we all live together. We have different opinions. you might live next to somebody you have a completely different opinion on and the best thing to do is to discuss it, that's why you put those signs out in public. And if you don't wanna talk about it, you don't put up a sign. And so if you're putting up a sign,

you're inviting conversation. I would- But Ben, what I'm saying is that these people in communities are speaking regardless whether the sign is a You know on the lawn or it's a Facebook group or a chat group Yeah and so You might not want to look somebody straight in the face because they're opposed to a certain thing that you're opposed to and you don't

Have that law of lawn sign. You know what I mean? Yeah I think we have to get to get to a place where we understand that our neighbors because where they're because where they're placed They're not our best friends that aren't going to agree with us the whole time. No, not at all. But if you are living next to someone, David, and you can't stand to look at them, that's only going to get worse over time if you don't address it, don't you think? You're already polarized not standing to look at your neighbors.

But I do think there's another way to deal with this. How? Let's get the serious conversation out first. you suggesting arson? Put up more signs like I voted for Beyonce or maybe one that says I'm not in the group chat, but I know things I'm watching. I love that sign that says, ask me about my cult. Oh, dude, I love the I'm not in the group chat, but I know things is a great sign. It's a great, I would- I'd wear that t-shirt. I'd wear that t-shirt.

I think that is great. But listen, I personally don't think there's anything wrong with turning the temperature down and saying, listen, I've heard through the grapevine that there is a group chat and on that you're not happy with my political beliefs. I'd love to chat with you about them if you're open to that. Or you can go with the passive aggressive sign. I think that makes, that's funnier. But I think if you want to deal with the problem head on, there's a way to do it respectfully. I still love that, the lawn sign though, David.

Let's move on to the next one. This is a classic Reddit dilemma. Am I the a-hole for making my sick husband clean up his vomit? Oh my God. My husband has been dealing with a stomach bug of some kind over the last few days, vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, indigestion. It's been that commercial. I've been taking care of him and the house and kids by myself because of which it's a lot with two children under five. This morning my husband wanted to try eating something

so I made him toast as requested. As he was on the couch nibbling on his breakfast, I was making our toddlers their breakfast and feeding them when I hear him violently gagging in the other room. He'd been hanging out in the living room during this entire illness, so he had a trash can there in case he would puke or whatever.

I called him out to remember to use it or go to the bathroom. He didn't listen and he threw up all over the floor and got some on the couch. Husband then went into the room and told me to clean it up because he's not feeling well. I had been doing that for the past few days but felt this was a step too far. I refused and made him clean it himself. He's now mad at me for not showing him good bedside manner. Who's in the wrong? Mo hit who's in the wrong?

I am really sorry dudes, but the dude is in the wrong here. We tend to take on all of these illnesses at amplified effect. And unfortunately our partners take the burden in so many different ways. And I don't necessarily think that he has any right to ask anybody to clean anything. Suck it up. Those are your feelings. You're the one that should be as the dude should be cleaning up. Clean up. Don't suck it up because it's vomit and that's gross.

David, your thoughts? You missed the designated puke zone. There are consequences. I don't know, that's like jumping out of a plane with a parachute and choosing to land on the power lines. If he's really so sick he can't clean it up, she should do it, but then he owes her big time, like so big time.

I don't even know how big time, but he's like in the hole. Yeah, and you know, she's not in the wrong. He is absolutely wrong. She gave him everything he would need to take care of this himself. He didn't listen. He's not a child and he's not a dog. I've cleaned up vomit from kids.

Actually, last week as a matter of fact, one of my kids missed the toilet. I cleaned it up, no problem. That's my job as the parent. And when my dog gets sick, I clean it up and I tend, this man is not your child and is not your pet. Therefore, they have to do a little bit of something.

And if he's mad at you, well, he'll get over it. Because when he's healthy again, you will make him feel the brunt of your ire, I suspect, ma'am. So you are not in the wrong. All right, let's move on to Dilemma Number Three. Dear Ben's Panel. So this is directed at you guys, I should just shut up. I've been dating my girlfriend for almost three years and I know without a doubt that I want to spend the rest of my life with her. A few weeks ago, I decided it was time to

take the next step and ask her father for his blessing before proposing, something I knew meant a lot to her and her family. I'm also a traditionalist that way. To my shock, he said no. He didn't raise any specific concerns about me or our relationship or even the idea of marriage in general, just a vague feeling that, quote, it's not the right time. I left the conversation feeling confused, disappointed, and unsure of what to do next. I love my girlfriend deeply and was planning to propose soon. Do I wait and hope her father changes his mind?

Do I take my girlfriend, do I talk to my girlfriend about what happened even though I wanted the proposal to be a surprise? Or do I go ahead with it anyway, knowing it might start, we might start the next chapter of our lives without her father's approval. Signed anonymous. Okay, I'm glad it's directed at two of you because I want to hear what you have to say first before

when I say my thing. David, you go first. I got three reads here. The father's a controlling jerk, read number one. Number two, she doesn't wanna marry you and she's told her family and her father's taking the hit. She just doesn't have the courage to dump you. Or number three, there's something wrong with you, dude.

But I honestly, I don't know how you try to figure out which one is which. Yeah, okay. Those are all very interesting reads. Wildly divergent. And, and but all possibly valid mo hit. So I did this back in the day. And while I was reading this, I started to cringe because I was putting myself in the position where I was trying to figure out, you know, what would I do? Yeah. Right. Would I have changed my destiny and destination? The truth is the plot is twisted now. And so you will forever have on your shoulder and your father-in-law, if you go ahead and

go against him, you will have him on your shoulder, like, gazoo, warning you that it wasn't the right time to do this. I think the guy's got to rethink his whole plan here. I don't think he should be looking at this as an actual just sidestep. This is a red, red, red flag. Yeah, when I went to, when I asked my father-in-law, my eventual father-in-law for my wife's hand in marriage,

I was trying to do it while Jess's sister was keeping her occupied in the other room, but the sister didn't tell me how long she was going to take with her. She just took her, didn't let me know that she was going to give me like the five minutes, 10 minutes that I needed. So I had to do it as quickly as possible. And I said, I don't have a lot of time here,

but I love your daughter, and I want to marry her. May I have her hand in marriage? And both the husband and wife looked at me and said, well, we didn't know people did this anymore. I was like, hey, focus up. I need a yes or a no. And all that to say, I think he deserves to get a, oh shoot, we got to go to break. Oh, I will continue this after the break.

More with the Dilemma Panel on the Ben Moroney Show. Welcome back to the Dilemma Panel. My dilemma is apparently is time management. I was in the process of telling our guests here for the Dilemma Mohit Rajdhanz and David Cooper what my solution would be for the previous dilemma of a guy who asked his soon to be father expected father-in-law for the permission to marry his daughter and he got a very amorphous now's not the right time sort of answer and he's trying to figure out what to do next. And so gentlemen, my solution, what I would say is

he needs to go back to that father-in-law and say, listen, I love your daughter. I have told you that I see in her somebody I want to build the next generation with. I wanna build a family with her. This is the biggest decision I would ever make. I demand and I deserve far more respect than what you just gave me.

If you have a real problem with me, you need to tell me. If there is a red flag that you see that I don't see, I need to know about it. But I deserve far more than you putting this roadblock in front of me that is going to force me to ask myself the question, do I go around you and try to build a life with your, your daughter on an unsound foundation? I think he deserves that. And I think if he point,

if he pushes back and demands the respect that he should get as somebody who is showing respect himself, I think he'll get a better answer. David. I think David's point about, being, him might being weird. And it's a read on the father's part is what I'm leaning into on this. Sure, but he deserves to know that. Don't you think David, like that's not, he can't work with the answer he was given.

Dads are weird, man. I would confront the dad, but that's just me. But can we just take a step back? It is a really weird tradition asking the father. Like I asked my ex-wife's parents and they just got mad at me being like, why are you asking me? Why don't you ask her?

I can't read these people. They're just so different than me. Yeah, but it's true. We should come to some sort of society conclusion about are we in or out on this actual tradition? Because it sounds like it's one step in the process that not everybody's, you know, cool with.

Yeah, you know, that's, that's a dilemma for another day. We're talking about personal dilemmas, not societal dilemmas here, guys. Come on, come on. We're going granular on this show. If you're buying into this, all this traditional stuff and you're willing to ask for permission, you're also willing to hear a no. And it sounds like this guy can't deal with it. No, but he didn't get a no. He got a, eh, I'm just not feeling it. I'm sorry, I need more than that.

That's a no. That's a no. That's a no. From his dad, that's a no. Yeah, but you need to know why. That's the point. If you don't have the why, it's gonna follow you forever. It's gonna linger in the air like a fart.

Mm, farts are funny, best form of humor. Alright, Dilemma number four. Dear Ben, I'm engaged to a wonderful woman who has two children from a previous relationship. I have a child of my own from a prior marriage and I've made it clear that I intend for the majority of my estate to go to my child. While I care deeply for my fiance's kids and plan to support them while we're together, I feel a strong responsibility to ensure my child is financially secure after I'm gone. I recently told my fiance about my inheritance plans.

I told her that any money we make while together can go equally to the three children, but what I have accumulated before her will go to my child. Needless to say, this hasn't landed well. Any advice? Let's start with David. David, you're coming in hot today and I like it,

so give me your take. Yeah, my parents just confronted me about my will. So I live with my girlfriend, we're unmarried, but we're very much coupled up. No comment on what I'm doing with my will. I don't know, blended families have blended values. Money, it's never just about the money. It's about fairness and people's idea of future promises.

I don't really have like a good answer here. I'm sorry. Everyone's different. Yeah, everyone's different, but clearly he can see his answer that he had an idea in his head. He wasn't willing to talk it through. He sort of said, these are my rules.

And that's fine, you can do that, but you have to be prepared that what you're doing is you're setting yourself up for some prickly relations moving forward with the person that you've said you wanna spend the rest of your life with. And if you're not willing to adapt and tweak for, like you either be right or you can be happy, right Mohit? Well, I think that what we haven't figured out here

is what was her original take with her family, right? That's the other part of all of this is that I think we can all agree that at the end of the day, a marriage is also a business that you're running together and you're growing something together, you're running a family and there becomes that idea that maybe on the other side, there's more of a pot to choose from. You know, we haven't thought of it from that perspective. And I think that's another likely scenario we have to stop and consider because unfortunately, in his situation, in many situations, people think it is just black and white. You can do multiple things with various forms of your inheritance. In fact, you should be more plotting on how not

to give it all back to the government, if anything else. No, exactly. Yeah. Well, I just think like the end result here, what he's done is he gave, he said, this is what I'm doing. You can take it or leave it. And she's like, she's like, you're setting yourself up to not be as happy as you could possibly be because you've put this, you've put this, this thing out in the air that's

not making your fiance happy. I'm not suggesting you give her anything and everything she wants, but come up with a solution that that allows you to live the happiest life you could possibly have. Because, I mean, you're planning for your kid to be happy when you're dead, but you're not going to be happy while you're alive. Yeah, that's a great point, Ben. I think all of these things are departmental. I'm full of great points.

I am full of great points, Mohit. That's why we do this segment, is to showcase how right I am capable of being. That's how you know someone's full of good points, they tell you. I will tell you, I'll tell you any chance I get. All right, moving on to another classic Reddit, am I the a-hole for not letting my new neighbor put scaffolding on my drive for two weeks.

A couple of recently bought the house next door to us and are having improvements done to it. The house had an extension built on the driveway, meaning they now don't have a driveway and have no access to their back garden. Last week I saw a builder knocking at my door on the doorbell camera, and while I was at work, he said that they need to put scaffolding on my driveway

to have improvements done to the roof next door. I said no, and he asked why. I said, firstly, it's my driveway. Secondly, the new neighbors should have come around and asked rather than telling the builder to do it. He said that the man moving in had been up multiple times and tried knocking. This was a lie as I work from home 90% of the time and can see through my doorbell camera. The couple came around the following evening asked about it.

This was the first interaction I'd had with them. My main issue was that they've assumed they can use my property. Didn't ask themselves and got a builder to do it. Lied about coming up and knocking on the door saying we weren't in and now wants my driveway for two weeks. Who's the a-hole here? Mohit who's the a-hole? Ben this is happening to me right now

I kid you not okay. I wish I could send you pictures of the contractors that are in front of my house now This is beyond scaffolding. So it's definitely not happening in the real sense but this is about permission and this is about this really weird state that we're in right now where everybody feels like they have the right whether it's to block the street or it's to block your driveway and use things to get things up converted or fixed. The one problem I have is that at some point you are going to be the neighbor that needs the roof. And so I try to hold back from being the person that calls people out on stuff, but when it's something to that length of two weeks of inconvenience, I think you got to have a larger conversation with your neighbors. Yeah, I mean, two weeks doesn't sound like a long time to me in the lifetime of living in a house

and living next to somebody. I live in New York and a part of me is like, we all live here, we all share space. I do work on my apartment, my contractor annoys you. You do work on your place, your contractor annoys me. But what I did before I moved in was I went by every neighbor's house. I knocked, I brought flowers.

I was very friendly because I knew my contractors were going to annoy them. I knocked, I brought flowers, I was very friendly, because I knew my contractors were going to annoy them. A part of me is like, I don't know, share your space so your neighbor can build, but on the other hand, don't be a jerk about it and don't do it without asking. And so, and how did that work? Did the honey, did the carrot work so that when the stick came down, it didn't hurt so bad?

No, the president of the building association banged on my door when I was doing work one day and said, you guys are too loud. It didn't work amazing, but you know what? When he does work on his place, I'm gonna be annoyed with him. It just happens. Listen, I agree with everything that's been said so far.

And Mohit, you're right. Like at some point, this guy who works from home, who is so comfortable in his sort of self-righteousness, he's gonna be the one showing up cap in hand because there's a comfortable in his sort of self-righteousness, he's going to be the one showing up cap in hand because there's a leak in his roof, or there is a pipe that is going to the street from his house that needs tending to that is running under the property of his neighbor. Like it's going to happen. Karma will come for you and you need to plan. And I have to tell you that that also happened to me just last year.

I have to tell you that also happened to me just last year. Exactly. I'm starting to wonder if this panel was produced mainly for my dilemma. It's the golden rule. Treat your neighbor the way you want your neighbor to treat you. Guys, thank you so much for joining me. I hope you get to come back to the Dilemma Panel again because I think we did a lot of good work here today, guys. Now our change will honor the Supreme Court of Canada, where justice and truth have guided today, guys. Circle of Laurels, symbolizing the nine judges and their enduring pursuit of justice. Find the

limited edition 150th anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada coined today. Welcome to the Ben Mulroney Show. Thank you so much for joining us. And this is, I mean, this is I say it every week, I sound like a broken record, but I don't care. I love this segment because I love learning something new every, every week. And I love learning something it every week, I sound like a broken record, but I don't care. I love this segment because I love learning something new every week, and I love learning something new every week about this country. And today we are joined by, as always, we're joined by Craig Baird, the host of Canadian History X. Now that the elections are done, we're turning our attention to, I don't know, let's say

cultural moments in Canadian history. And we're going to talk in just a moment about Expo 67, the World's Fair in Montreal. But before we say that, I just want to let you know how much I love the history of World's Fairs. I remember one of my favorite books of all time is Devil in the White City. That was the story of the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago, where they built this entire white city and there was And there was a killer loose in Chicago that was just killing people, taking people off trains. He created a murder house and he killed all these people. It's one of the most grotesque stories you've ever heard.

But I learned all these stories about the architect who built that white city, Burnham. He was responsible for building, I think Central Park as well. Anyway, the ambitions of Chicago were in reaction to the success of the Paris World Fair just a few short years earlier, where they built the Eiffel Tower. So then I read this book called Eiffel's Tower, and it is bananas how incredible that story is too. Anyway, all that to say, there is so much history that is told through the lens of a World's Fair.

So I'm so happy that we're talking about Expo 67 today. Craig, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. Have you read either one of those books? I haven't, but I know about the serial killer, H.H. Holmes or something like that. Yeah, H.H. Holmes. His name.

Well, and the thing was the reason he was able to work with such impunity is there were no records. At Chicago, there were hundreds of thousands of people that were coming in every month off of trains. There was no records. They were just showing up. And if somebody disappeared, it was just par for the course.

So he built this house that was, I think, a boarding house. It was supposed to be a boarding house. But there were all of these trap doors and hidden rooms where someone could show up. They'd go into a room and they would never come out. They would never come out and nobody ever they didn't know what was going on with that guy. And anyway, but Eiffel's tower is a tremendous story about what it took to build. Today, it's one of the most beautiful things in the world. Back then that people were afraid that it would literally fall on neighborhoods. And so, Eiffel himself had to indemnify the entire neighborhoods. He had to ensure entire neighborhoods personally that this thing would not fall over. Craig, you there? Craig I am. Oh, okay. Sorry. But anyway, so let's move on now to Expo 67. Yeah. So Expo 67, thankfully no serial killers that I know of at least, but, um,

we actually weren't supposed to host that world's fair. Moscow was, they actually won it in 1960 and then they pulled out. So in 1962, Canada decided to host the world's fair. It was going to be in 1967. It was our centennial year. It's just, everything was lining up. And I don't think people realize what a massive event this was for Canada. This was kind of like our first really showcasing to the world. This was before we ever hosted the Olympics or obviously Expo 86 or anything like that. So this was a very big deal and it was a massive undertaking. It took years to like build an entire island in the St. Lawrence River so people could access it from Montreal.

And so much work went into this and it really paid off. It was, you know, the most successful World's Fair of the 20th century and really helped showcase Canada, but also Montreal and Quebec to the rest of the world. Yeah. And people don't appreciate it because it's so easy to travel. It's so easy to see things today. It's so easy to appreciate other cultures by way easy to see things today, it's so easy to appreciate other cultures by way of the internet in a way that we couldn't back then.

And so really a World's Fair allowed people to travel to one place and appreciate the diversity of the world in one single event. Absolutely, and so many famous world leaders and others came to the World's fair to expo 67. Ed Sullivan hosted two shows there. Queen Elizabeth was there. President Lyndon Johnson was there.

Charles de Gaulle was there and that was a whole thing afterwards. But we don't need to get into what happened with that. And then musicians played there like Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane. And just a massive event. 54 million people went to expo 67. And at the time time Canada had a population of 20 million. So it just shows how many people came to this amazing event that happened from April to October in Montreal in 1967. And in 1967, so much of the modern Montreal that we know today

was spurred, the development was spurred because of this one event. Absolutely. And some parts of it still exist. Obviously, the most famous is probably Habitat 67, which is now apartment buildings, but that was made for the World's Fair. And so many other aspects to it. You wouldn't have had the Olympics in Montreal without this World's Fair. And obviously you had the Montreal Expos as well. They were named for the XO67. Such a long legacy of this amazing event. And they expected 200,000 people to show up on opening day, but 300,000 to 350,000 arrived. I mean, this was incredible. And of course you need to, yeah, you had to build roads

and you had to build infrastructure to host the world. And so, yeah, so Montreal experienced a massive boom. Mm-hmm. And yeah, it was really showcasing the city to the world. All right, well, let's take a look. Let's move to something a little bit different, and not as a proud moment, but the Halifax Riot of 1945.

Yeah, the Halifax Riot of 1945 was a very interesting time, because it was a riot in one way, but it was also just a massive party that got completely out of hand because the Second World War had ended and you had all of these servicemen and women and citizens who just wanted to release all of the stress of the previous six years. And they did that in the streets of Halifax by just partying their heads off. 9,000 soldiers went into the streets. Eventually that swells to 12,000 and they lay waste to the downtown core of Halifax. Wow.

Really, huh? So yeah, 363 people arrested, hundreds of businesses damaged. Why don't we listen to a snippet of your episode of Canadian History X featuring the Halifax riot. A young man, Donald Douglas, wrote a letter home after the riot stating, snippet of your episode of Canadian History X featuring the Halifax Riot. A young man, Donald Douglas wrote a letter home after the riot stating, the three liquor commissions were broken into in the entire contents released to the use of the people. Every store on Barrington Street, the main street, was almost demolished. There wasn't a window left and the contents were either looted or thrown into the street. There were shoes, boots, Chesterfield clothes, cash registers, pots, pans and nearly everything you could imagine on

the street. One liquor store was broken into so the security guard called police and when they arrived the mob threw bricks and stones at them. The police retreated and the liquor store was liberated of every drop of beer, wine and hard liquor. Some intrepid members of the mob deduced that if they could rob a liquor store, they could also pillage the source. A portion of the crowd went to the Alexander Keith Brewery and overpowered the guards, and a steady stream of people carrying boxes of beer out of the brewery began. Within a short time, the brewery was empty. Craig, talk to me about how an event like that morphs, because it started with the best of intentions.

At what point did authorities in the city know that they had something on their hands they didn't anticipate? Well, they really did respond to it quite late. And what happened was on the ships, you had your canteens and they had alcohol and the soldiers, the center of the semen, eventually drank all of that very quickly and started to go into Halifax. And because they had been serving their country, a lot of people didn't really want to stop them because they felt like they had earned the right to party a little bit. And unfortunately it gets out of hand. And like I said in the clip, you know, 61,000 liters of liquor, 8,000 cases of beer, 1,500 cases of wine are stolen.

Only three people died, two by alcohol poisoning, which is, you know, obviously they drank way too much. And then one possible murder. And it was $5 million in damages after they were said and done. Five million in 1945 dollars. Do you have any sense of how much that is today? I think that's about 30 million dollars today.

30 million do entirely to damage from, I mean, listen, I like to talk on this show about how Canada has an unhealthy relationship, a dysfunctional relationship with alcohol, but people who want to put the rain in alcohol consumption should point to this, should point to this event as one of the reasons we can't just let people drink willy-nilly. But in just a few short seconds, can you let me know, were there lessons that were learned by Halifax after the fact? Well, not really. Once it was said and done, we kind of just all moved on. There were some people who were arrested and there were obviously some retromans that happened, but overall, we kind of just moved on. We just let everybody celebrate the end of the war. Craig Baird, host of Canadian History X. Thank you so much. As always,

I love nerding out on history with you and we'll talk to you next week. Absolutely. 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. When I found out my friend got a great deal on a designer dress from Winners, I started wondering is every fabulous item I see from winners,

like that woman over there with the Italian leather handbag, is that from winners? Ooh, or that beautiful silk skirt. Does she pay full price? Or those suede sneakers? Or that luggage? Or that trench? Those jeans, that jacket, those heels.

Is anyone paying full price for anything? Stop wondering, start winning. Winners find fabulous for less.