The Ben Mulroney Show - Best of the Week Part 3 - Nicolas Mulroney, Morgan Hoffman, Greg Layson

Episode Date: June 14, 2025

Best of the Week Part 3 - Nicolas Mulroney, Morgan Hoffman, Greg Layson Guests: Nicolas Mulroney, Morgan Hoffman, Greg Layson, Joseph Neuberger, Craig Baird 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 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. Thank you so much for joining us here on the Dilemma Panel. And reminder, we can't solve your problems unless you tell us your problems. And the vehicle for that is an email address. AskBen at chorus and dot com. That's C O R U S E N T dot com. And of course, I can't do this myself. I mean, I could. I could. Let's be honest. I solve a lot of problems on a daily basis, but I don't want to. I want to share the wealth. I want to introduce you to really great people.

And so let's welcome Morgan Hoffman, entertainment reporter for The Morning Show and Global News. Also started out as my intern. This is very true. Yes. Yes. Look out and look at, free and unfettered of Ben Mulroney. Look how high you fly. And okay, I want to make sure I get this guy's name right. He's the CEO of Bond Bakery Brands is Nicholas Mulroney. Mul, is that, am I getting that right? You got it Ben, happy to be here. My brother Nick, very pleased to have you.

I love you. You're looking terrific today. All right, let's jump right into the very first dilemma, shall we? Here we go. Dear Ben, every year, like clockwork, my husband and I start arguing about where to go for our summer vacation. I love culture, museums, little cafes, and walking tours. He wants an all-inclusive resort where he can lay on a beach chair and not move for a week.

Nick, guess which one I am there. I always end up compromising more than he does, and I'm starting to resent it. I don't want to fight about it this year, but I also don't want to spend my time bored and unfulfilled. How do I get out of this cycle? Signed, Isla. All right, so it was written by a woman.

So we'll go to the woman on the panel first. What do you tell Isla? What should she do? So here's the deal. I'm also the adventurer in my relationship. I like to see as many things as possible. So what I have found works is, I went to Sardinia last year in Italy and the first five days,

it was go, go, go. And then the last five days, we just chilled on a resort and didn't do much. So it was a good compromise. So everybody gets what they want. Yeah, because it's not fair. You're going to start resenting it and you want to look forward to your summer vacation, not feel like, oh, great, this is going to turn into a fight. Nick, there are a few people out there who have relationships as admirable as

the one you share with your wife, Katie. So how do you make it work? What would you tell Isla? How could she be more like you? Yeah, I don't feel like an expert in this situation. So I'd say, you know, I live by the rule of happy wife, happy life. So in this case, I think you can actually have both. I know there are some all inclusives that are that offer you the ability to go in town and experience certain things. So I think maybe start small, start with a tour and see how that goes. And then all of a sudden you start seeing perhaps your husband, your partner might see your perspective and see how much fun you can have outside of the resort. Yeah, I was not agree with that. And you're right, there are all all inclusives

that have like activity packages. You can go zip lining and you can go on ATVs. And yeah, you can in fact go into towns as well. I would tell Isla like, if you're starting to resent it, you do need to open up that line of communication because resentment doesn't go away at festers and then it metastasizes and then you got a problem. All right, let's go to a classic reddit am i the a-hole for walking my dogs early in the morning

waking everyone else's dogs. I live in a gated community every morning at around 5 a.m. I walk by two dogs. I have to do this early because I work during the day. The thing is my dogs get quite excited during these walks and start barking until we get to the main gate. While the barking itself isn't particularly loud it causes the other dogs in the community to start barking until we get to the main gate. While the barking itself isn't particularly loud, it causes the other dogs in the community to start barking and before long the entire community's dogs are barking. We've gotten some complaints about this but the way I see it, it's technically all the other dogs causing the noise. The actual dog from my noise from my dogs is minimal. It's the other dog's reaction to my dogs that's causing the noise. But I also understand

that it's natural for the dogs to bark at my dogs. I think dogs a lot. And if I didn't go for a walk, everyone would be quiet. I can walk them later, but I've always been a person who wakes up early and likes to get my responsibilities out of the way. Am I the a hole? I'm going to go first. You most certainly are the a hole. Absolutely. There is no two ways about it. You laid it out for us. I mean, you answered your own question. Nick, what do you think? I think you're wrong, but that wouldn't be the first time. You're talking about an adult situation.

You don't know, there's a lot of reasons why somebody's awake at five in the morning. And I think that that needs to factor into this. And so if that's the only time of day you have, it makes a lot of sense. But it's not Nick. He says it himself. I can walk them later, but I've always been a person who wakes up early. And he recognizes if he didn't walk the dogs, no dogs would be barking.

He absolutely is the a-hole. All right. You are the you're the deciding vote here, Morgan. Sorry, Nick. He's the a-hole. I'm just saying, because if he didn't say, I just like to get my responsibilities done early, this is the way I like to do things, you have neighbors complaining if you didn't have that, and it was like here and there, your dog barks. But yeah, if you can do it an hour, even 6 a.m.

5 a.m. is awfully early, 6 a.m., let's compromise. Yeah, 6 a.m. I think 6 a.m., like, if people are, people should be getting up, or you can understand that people are up at 6. There's a, you, 5 a.m. like if people are getting people should be getting up or or it's you can you can understand that people are up at 6 there's a day you 5 a.m. That's for weird people like me. Okay, let's go Go to the morning Ben. I know that was awful over the morning show I would wake up I would wake up as people were going to sleep. I'd wake up and Donald Trump was still awake And so I'd wake up to him rage tweeting in the bathroom

And I had to turn him off on my Twitter because I wake up to him rage tweeting in the bathroom. And I had to turn him off on my Twitter because I wake up to anxiety. I stopped following him on Twitter. Fortunately, Twitter took care of that and kicked him off. Okay, let's go to the next one. We got time for another one. Yes, I work in a mid-level position at a company I've been with for almost five years.

I've always gotten good performance reviews and I get along with everyone. But over time, I've learned that several coworkers with the same job title and responsibilities as me are making significantly more money. Some are newer to the company than I am. The thing is, I'm not the most assertive person. I've never asked for a raise before.

I've always figured if I did good work, it would just happen. Now I feel stuck, part embarrassed, part resentful, and part unsure how to even bring this up without sounding ungrateful or unconfrontational. How do I approach this without making it weird or burning any bridges? Signed Daniel. Daniel Nicholas, you employ a number of people, you're the CEO of a company. What would you do if you if you heard through the grapevine that you had an employee like this? Yeah, it's a hearing this

problem is it's familiar. I think that a lot of people face this. They don't they don't want to come in and ask for that conversation, which I think is very, very important. You always have to have that two way dialogue. And again, I think it's important for you to focus on the dialogue. You might have certain demands, but it starts with the conversation. You might want to come prepared, explain all the things you've achieved, all the things you want to achieve that you want to bring to the company, but be be direct and be collaborative, see what what the company needs from you to get to that point. And I think that you'll have a really strong sense of purpose when you do open that line of communication. So that's where I would start. Is there a scenario where two people could be doing similar jobs have similar titles, but there's a justification for why one would make more than the other. That's all. It's all situation dependent. Yeah.

You could have people working on different projects at different times and one project might, you know, it might seem more important because there might be a time commitment. But I think that the really the important process is whether it's somebody that you report to, whether it's human resources, that you open a direct line of communication and see what does the company need from me? And here's what I can offer the company. And here's what I want to strive to achieve. And it all starts with a collaborative conversation. So yeah, so if you're if you're saying if somebody comes in advocates for themselves and highlights what they think is is an issue, so long as it's addressed in a way of, I want this to serve the company,

I want us to all do better, that will be well received from the corporate side. Absolutely. I think that it's, it's, you have a lot of people that say, okay, that we're a team, we're a family. And, and oftentimes those messages ring hollow. And so I think it's really important to say, here's what I'm willing to do. I think, and here's what I need on a personal level to feel fulfilled professionally. So I think that's a really important communication. Anytime you develop a bond with the person that you report to with, in that case,

I think that it benefits you professionally as well as personally. A bond from the CEO of Bond Bakeryery brands. Morgan, listen, you've been rising the ranks in entertainment television for years you've you have to advocate for yourself. I know I speak from personal experience as well. Does this ring true to you? Oh, I it's as if I wrote this myself. I had this exact experience. I actually asked my therapist how to handle this because I'm not the most assertive

I also think I work hard at one point in time on another show is working with six other reporters I was on paper doing way more interviews traveling way more and I knew for a fact I was getting paid the least amount and so I very calmly went in talked to my boss and opened my line and it shocked him and I just said I want to let you know I'm not happy here anymore and It's like he really stood up listened and, I want to let you know, I'm not happy here anymore. And it's like, he really stood up, listened, and then I explained to him what's going on. I had to like lay out all my responsibilities. And within a month, I got a huge raise.

Good for you. But it was very hard. I had to go to my therapist. Yeah, yeah. Sometimes you hope the work is going to speak for itself. Oh, I've learned it does not. That's not always the case. And so yeah, you got to pump your own tires. You got to learn how to do it with all while projecting that you

want the best for the company. Yeah. Well, that was a very good chat. And we've got more coming up on the Dilemma Panel after the break. Don't go anywhere. This is the Ben Mulroney Show. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show and welcome back to the Dilemma Panel. I'm joined by Morgan Hoffman and my brother Nicholas Mulroney. And before we jump back into the into the dilemmas themselves, if Nick, there's a dilemma that a lot of Canadians are going to be going through over the next few months, it's barbecue season. And so we we're going to know we need to know what the best bun is for the different things that we put on the grill. For example, what's the best bun for a juicy hamburger? Like a big one, not a smash burger. I think that's a Portofino brioche bun.

And what about for a smash burger? I think that's a Portofino potato bun. There we go. And for a hot dog? I think it's a Portofino hot dog bun. I actually didn't know. Yeah, I didn't know you had a hot dog bun. All the tools in the toolbox for you. Oh, yeah. Okay. I'm hungry. I'm hungry. I gotta be careful. Sometimes I start talking food on this show and my brain, my tummy thinks that I'm gearing up for a meal. I am not down boy. You started talking about your favorite fast food. You went on for 30 minutes. All right, and Morgan, you're on the entertainment beat and this is that time of year with a big tent pole.

The movies, what movies are you looking forward to this summer? Well, we were just talking about this. At the end of the month, I'm going to go do interviews for Superman. I know. I'm not trying to make you jealous, but how cool is that? Can I tell you, that is going to be the only movie that I've ever seen with my other brother, Mark. We're going to go see, I haven't seen a movie in the theaters with him in maybe 40 years.

Oh, wow. We're going to go see this one together. Nick's going to feel left out. What are you doing there? Nick, you can come too if you want. Nick's like, nah. No, that's okay. He's building a business.

Okay, so Superman, definitely. Superman, materialist, I want to see that's coming out very soon with Pedro Pascal. Chris Evans is in that. Dakota Johnson, she's a matchmaker. So yeah, there's definitely some really cool projects coming up. F1. Oh my gosh, F1 with Brad Pitt. Hello. I just want to see like, how fast does he really go in those cars. That looks amazing. That looks great. Sometimes my mouth, I think it's the food. Okay, Dear Ben, my son is turning six next month and we wanna throw him a fun little birthday party with a handful of close friends from his class. The issue is the school has a rule

that if you're handing out invitations at school, everyone in the class has to be invited. I understand the reasoning. No one wants their kid to feel left out, but hosting a party for 25 kids plus parents is not financially or logistically feasible, nor does my son even play with most of them. What would you do in this situation?

Signed, Nancy. All right, Nick, I'm gonna go with you first. I have a horror story to tell about a birthday party, which I will in a second, but you go first. I think the rule is really important in this case so that people don't feel left out. Yeah. But that being said,

you understand the cost of living is high in Canada. And so I think if you can go around it with some selective emails and teach your child, some type of candor, some discretion, exactly. But also there's an opportunity for you to perhaps send in some cupcakes to the school on the birthday and represent it that way. There are little tokens that you can respect the rule, but perhaps even go around it a bit. Morgan, is the solution is paperless post? I mean, a hundred percent. Yeah. I mean, listen, I actually love this rule. You don't want people to feel left out, but what's going to happen then is you're going to have sneaky

birthday parties and people are going to find out about it anyway. But regardless, yeah. I mean, in this case, if I had a kid, I would definitely say a handful of people. I'll be in charge of the invitations. I'll handle this with the parents and we'll keep this on the down low. So, so years ago when my sons were, I want to say like eight, maybe seven. My wife was out of town. And so I was doing their birthday party at the Cineplex at Yorkdale. Of course you were.

And we invited everybody in the class and I figured I'd just get a bunch of quarters and in anticipation before we went into the movie and then we had the pizza, we would just play video games. And the parents kept dropping their kids off and they're like, you sure you don't want me to stay? I was like, I got it. It's good. Go have two hours to yourselves.

And then so they left. But then what I noticed is I didn't have a list of how many kids were there. I hadn't checked anybody in. And also it was an open air, like there were no walls around the arcade. And so I was like, I don't know. I don't know what I'm dealing with here.

And then when we go into the theater, I had rented out like more seats than I needed, but I didn't know how many seats. And I'm watching all these empty seats that are reserved for Ben Mulruna. There could be a child abduction imminent, but I don't know yet because I don't know who I've got. We go into the pizza room and I'm waiting for the axe to fall. I'm waiting for the parents to show up and I'm just staring at their faces, hoping to God they immediately recognize their kid and a couple of times they were looking around the room and I started panicking by the grace of God I didn't lose a single kid that day I will never do that again that was the dumbest thing I think I have ever

done in my life. Oh my gosh. It's important to note today I think you have a birthday today right Ben? Well yeah it's my sister's birthday today and my daughter's birthday tomorrow. Oh, that's exciting. The camp counselor in me is panicking. Head count. Everyone gets a number. Call out the number. One, two. I got it. Go have fun. It was the most stressful four hours of my life. That's amazing. It was awful. All right, back to the dilemma. Did we solve that? Yes. Paperless post, Nancy. Okay, next one. Classic. Am I, would I be the a-hole if I told my wife to get off her phone and take

care of the baby? The title basically says it all, but to add some detail, we have an 11-month-old. I work full-time. My wife stays home indefinitely taking care of the baby. That was a mutually agreed arrangement that couldn't work any other way as her income would have been less than half of mine. My wife seems to have a phone addiction where she will be glued to the screen for hours either watching reels, videos or messaging or exchanging audio messages with friends. I have no problem with that. I'm on my phone often myself. It is what it is. That's the way most of us decompress in 2025. The difference is I'm on my phone in my downtime and I can drop it at a moment. She's on it constantly. Would I be the a-hole for calling it out

and saying that she needs to at least put in eight hours of phone free baby time every day, and then we can split the evenings? Morgan, you go first. Okay, so hold on. The concern is that when he comes home, she's still on her phone, or he's concerned she's not looking after the baby.

I think his concern is she's not giving the kid the attention. I mean, if you're going to stay home, sure, then it's not the act of being home. It's the act of being present when you're home. Otherwise, what's the point? I mean, honestly, I think that's a wonderful question to have. I think unfortunately, a lot of people don't really realize how addicted they are to their phones. Like you just do it until someone kind of calls it out and you're like, oh, right, you'd have to do in a very delicate way because I'm sure there's situations where it's like the baby's stressful, this is how I decompress. But yeah, that would be concern free.

I'm not gonna lie if I felt like my partner was on their phone all the time and not giving the time to the baby as I feel like they should. Yeah, Nick, it feels like this guy has an important conversation to have but if he doesn't deal with it properly, if he doesn't thread the needle,

he is walking into a buzz saw and landmines. Bingo, I think it's important to note that, you know, as this person goes to work, there is an outlet you have, you can speak to your colleagues about, you know, what you saw on TV or what happened in the news the day before. You're at home with the baby, there's, there's no outlet for you. Your phone is your outlet, I guess. So it's important to have that context, but yeah, you're right. Thread this needle very carefully. Yeah, I mean, listen, your wife is, you gotta remember, your wife is taking a hit for the team. She had a job, right? And she's the one staying home.

You're out there living your life. Yes, you are providing, and that's vital to the family, but she is also providing in her way. And Nick is absolutely right. You, she's completely alone at home with a kid that is, let's be honest, in those early days, kids kind of suck. You sort of manufacture joy. Oh, the kid burped and smiled.

Okay. Take, take the win. But she needs some sort of human contact. And if you go in guns a blazing and you in an effort to get what you want, demean her motherhood, it's not going to end well for you. You are going to be you're going to be back at the one yard line. So on close to your end zone and you're going to be the doghouse. So I have to I urge caution here, man. I urge.

Yeah, we put screen time on our kids. It'd be, you know, this guy have to, I urge caution here, man. I urge real caution. Yeah, we put screen time on our kids. It'd be, you know, this guy having to put screen time on his wife. This was, this is a tough one. Yeah, it is. Anyway, I don't, I don't have time to get into another dilemma. So I want to get back into Bond Bakery brands for a second because you've got the Portofino, you've got the cake pops, you got the pizza. What else? Yeah, you got it, Ben. That you got the pizza. What else? What?

Yeah, you got it, Ben. Yeah. That's it. Yeah, so we're coming up to barbecue season. Interesting to note that the weather has impacted us. Not something you really think of, but yeah, we're excited that the weather's turned. We're excited that you can enjoy our products across Canada. And it's going to be a good year.

And look, as good as his bread is, nobody makes better pizza than Nick. He's got a pizza oven at home. And look, as good as his bread is, nobody makes better pizza than Nick. He's got a pizza oven at home. He legit lives by the bread code. Legit lives by the bread code. I was going to ask about the pizza. What's like your go-to pizza? What are the toppings?

He's got his frozen pizza, but he makes pizza. Oh. What's your specialty pizza that you make? Oh, it's whatever the group wants. Great answer. The toppings are the commodity. It's the dope. Pizzeria Nico.

Hey Morgan, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. Knick Knack, love you. I will see you. I'll see you at dinner tonight. See you Uncle Ben. All right, love you. I'll talk to you soon.

I'll be back on the Ben Mulroney Show. This is the Ben Mulroney Show. It is June 11th, 2025. On this day in 1983, a certain Martin Brian Mulrooney became the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and our lives, my life, changed forever. Dad, I miss you every single day. Oh, and on this day, I'm not gonna say what year, my sister Caroline was born, happy birthday, Caroline. All right, so when the CEO of an automotive company

comes out and says that the appetite for EVs has sunk like a stone, has fallen off a cliff, and it is time to reverse course as a country by getting rid of the mandate that would ensure that at a certain point, I think in 2030 or 2035, every single car sold in this country is a zero emission vehicle, it's time to reverse course on that. That should tell you something, somebody in the thick of it, a position of authority is telling us that the appetite that the market has spoken and the market does not want these mandates and it's time to change and pivot, we should probably pay attention. So when Melanie Jolie, our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, gets in front of a microphone and says this, I've got some questions.

You know, I think our goal has been always the same. To get to net zero by 2050, we need to make sure that we take actions towards that. And that's why it was part of our vision and our plan to have EV mandates. I think also that what the government can do, which will help to increase the demand, is definitely making sure that we're bringing back EV subsidies and that's in our platform. So we're looking forward to bring that back and of course continuing to engage with the auto sector that is going through a very difficult time. But I think that the auto sector is reacting to the fact that there's less demand than anticipated.

I think that working on the demand side through subsidies will be helpful. So it sounds like the mandate isn't going anywhere. And on top of that, we're going to double down by bringing back the federal incentive for people to buy cars that they have already told us that at this point in time, they don't want to discuss this to make sense of this. We're joined by Greg Lason of the automotive news Canada, Greg, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. Okay, so let's take a step back. And before we talk about what we what we just heard, can you explain what attributed the collapse? What what to what do

you attribute the collapse in the appetite for EVs in this country? Right now, currently, the appetite is not there because there aren't incentives. The bottom line is this electric vehicles cost thousands more than their internal combustion engine gasoline counterparts and people just don't have the money up front. You know, a parliamentary budget officer report yesterday suggests that in 2026, EVs will cost $9,000 more upfront than an ICE vehicle. No one has that right now. We are out of the people who could afford EVs, the early adopters,

the affluent buyers, the environmentalists, the activists, they have all purchased their electric vehicles. Now the focus shifts to the middle class. And the middle class, the people driving minivans, the people driving pickups, the people driving SUVs, they can't afford that $9,000 additional expense upfront or on their monthly payment. Even though studies suggest you save money on gas in the long run up to about $5,000 over eight years, it's just not worth it.

The middle class Canadian yet 10 years ago, if I had what I had, if I had in the bank, if I was making what I was making 10 years ago, I would be one of those people. My second car would be an EV. I don't have a second car right now because my reality is different. I suspect a lot of people are like me. So you got Donald Trump south of the border saying he's dumping all of the EV subsidies and which probably had something to do with his schism with Elon Musk, north of the border,

we're gonna bring back the individual subsidy, incentive rather. And what do you think that's going to, what do you think the impact of that, those dueling systems is going to have on the EV market in North America? In North America, very little in Canada. If you bring back those incentives, you will see sales increase once again. And I suspect if they make that incentive bigger, and now here's what I mean by this, Essentially globally the average

incentive is about $10,000 Canadian. If you looked at Joe Biden's policies in America over the past few years before Trump was elected, that incentive was $7,500 US. Do the math, that's about $10,000 Canadian. I think the only way you increase sales here is by bringing back incentives. But here's the thing. We only represent about 2% of the global auto sales. And so we are not going to move the needle for automakers to make more EV. That's not to say they're going to stop making them. They still will. They're still a future in electrification. It's just further out. Anyone ever anticipated. Yeah. The incentives come back. We'll buy them. There are, there are great cars being produced,

but they are expensive. They're expensive to buy. They're expensive to ensure. Is there any truth to the stories that car companies lose money on EVs because the cost of production is so expensive? Yes, we've run stories that automotive news, standard and automotive news out of Detroit, our U S colleagues. We have run stories that automakers lose upwards of $6,000 per unit. The reason being the auto industry is building a supply chain from the ground up. That has never existed and it's reliant on China. That's also a problem.

It's relying on overseas batteries materials. That's a problem. That makes it expensive. And so when you don't have that in place and you don't have economies of scale, you don't make as much money on an EV and you have to charge more for them just to offset the costs of building a supply chain

from scratch. And I understand the stubbornness of various levels of government on a sort of, if not doubling down, then sort of sticking with the plan despite, you know, Ford Canada coming out and saying, get rid of the mandates, because we have invested so heavily on being part of that supply chain of the future.

But it really does seem that we might be throwing good money after bad. And at some point you got to say like, future, but it really does seem that we might be throwing good money after bad. And at some point you got to say like, maybe we, we bet wrong or we bet too early on this EV revolution. Now what do you make of a middle ground of possibly getting rid of the mandate or pushing the mandate so that, you know, we, we hit that target of a hundred percent, I don't know, in 50 years as opposed to 15 years or now it's 10 years. Like would that make sense?

We just discussed this on our editorial call this morning. That is what we as journalists are watching for in this industry. We believe that there will be enough pressure applied by the automakers to get Ottawa to tweak the mandate, maybe less than the penalties. Look to me, the penalties are the bigger concern maybe lessen the penalties. Look, to me, the penalties are the bigger concern. What are the penalties? $20,000 for every vehicle you fall short of that 20% that you're supposed to sell in model year 2026. And right now with no incentives and faltering sales,

none of the 26 models sold this summer will count towards that 20% or you might, sorry, you're losing those sales because of the incentive. So you're not selling as many as you thought you would. And so those penalties are going to add up in a hurry. And now here's the rub on that. You have a few ways to pay it. You can invest in infrastructure,

which is good for the country, but it's on the automaker to do that, $20,000 worth of infrastructure. The other way is to buy credits from your competitors who sold electric vehicles. I don't know many businesses, whether it's muffins or coffee or cars that want to pay their competitor $20,000 a crack. These automakers are fretting over the penalty, fretting over sales. Something has to be tweaked and I'm with you. I see this being pushed out to 2050.

I see the percentages falling over those years, not 20%, maybe 10 or 15 in 2026. And I see the penalties being less. Greg, here's a hot take. And I'm not saying I support this. But if they want to get more people into the EV market by making sure that there were low cost EVs available, flooding the Canadian market with Chinese cars is certainly one way to get there. We've discussed this as well. It is an easy solution for Mark Carney and his liberals to open the doors to Chinese EVs.

But here's the thing, you have to ask yourself this question if you are Mark Carney and the liberals. Is it morally and ethically smart to do so? Is it politically smart to do so? Look, the reason Chinese cars are so affordable is because they are government backed with an endless pool of money. They use coal fired electricity to power their plants.

They have suspect and questionable labor practices and don't pay their workers very much. So there are plenty of reasons why Chinese EVs are affordable. The question becomes, do you support the way in which China makes those? And we know that. Greg, Greg, we got to leave it there. Thank you very much. I would say that there are certain people on the left side of the spectrum who are performative enough that that is something

that they would bite on. Thank you very much for joining us in the conversation. I appreciate it. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show. This next story angered me, made my blood boil, and just gave me a bad, a bad queasy feeling in my stomach because if there's one, if there's one crime that most Canadians just cannot abide, it's child pornography and the abuse of children. And there was a court case in British Columbia where a man was caught with a just cannot abide its child pornography and the abuse of children. And there was a court case in British Columbia where a man was caught with a treasure trove

of photographs on his Tumblr account of child pornography. And he received no jail time because in the ruling, the judge said that, well, there's a lot of things. And by the way, my next guest will correct me if I'm not getting this right. But because the amount of child porn constituted a relatively modest amount,

he got no jail time. And so to talk about this and hopefully walk me back from this blood boiling position I find myself in, we're joined by Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger and Partners Criminal Lawyers, as well as the host of the podcast, Not On Record. Joseph, thank you for joining us. Ben, I want to help you with your blood pressure this morning. Okay. So tell me why, give me more information, give me more information than I just provide the audience. Okay. So in a child pornography case, there will be a very big range of the number of images or videos,

as well as what the content actually represents. Now, let's all be clear, child pornography is bad, but there are varying degrees. Some are more modest in its numbers, so we can talk about, you know, 20, 30, 40, 50, 50 60 type of images as opposed to those who amass Thousand have them saved in categories. So the higher you get in numbers the more organized the individual is if they are sharing and distributing those will typically attract a much higher sentence where somebody will be going into custody actual jail at that point. But at some point when you let me, I wanna talk about a conditional sentence

because it's not something that should be poo-pooed. They're actually quite strenuous. Okay, yeah, but before we do, I guess what I'm finding distasteful is like one instance of child pornography, in my opinion, is one too many. And that photograph represents, on the other side of the camera, an act of child abuse.

And so to learn that there are levels that if a guy does the count right, if he stays below a certain threshold, then he is going to be treated with lesser importance by the courts. I didn't think that was a thing. I thought one was too many and this is a scourge and we send a message.

And I mean, I thought that's, I didn't know that this was, this was the state of play. Well, we have this across the board with criminal cases, we always have a gradation of seriousness with all offenses. So it's not something which is just particular to child pornography. And in this case, it's possession as opposed to necessarily making that's a different situation. And there are other factors to take into consideration, which would be an accused particular background. They may have no

criminal record, they may be a youthful offender, or they may be, you know, much more mature without any prior issues. They would have gone through forensic and psychological assessment to show that they have maybe a paraphilia for children but there's no hands-on offense, this risk level is low, they would be in a high management sex offender program which is based in the community as opposed to what you get in jail. If they're employed, is this something where you really want to make sure they become unemployed and therefore what do you do with them once they step out of jail nine months or a year later?

The criminal justice system to a certain extent is about risk management as opposed to just simply incapacitation. Okay, well, let's talk about that risk. And you would know better than me, but my assumption based on what I've read in the past is that there's typically a high risk of recidivism when it comes to child pornography and child abuse.

I mean, it's sort of a lot of people are, the people are born that way. And, you know, some people are born different, you know, with a different body chemistry or brain chemistry that leads to positive outcomes. And then there are those that lead to negative outcomes, this being one of them. And so, explain this system of risk management

when you're dealing with somebody who is in a category that is viewed as, as a high risk to repeat. Okay. So let, let me make a distinction. So I understand that child pornography in itself fosters child abuse, but if you have an individual hypothetically, who's charged with simply possession and they go through an assessment, the possession does not necessarily directly correlate in the future with a hands-on offense. Okay. So it may not result in any type of a sexual assault or interference at that

at based on that assessment and that that's a common factor. So you will have lots of individuals who are drawn to pornography but never ever go on to hands-on offenses. That doesn't mean this isn't serious but that's that's the stats and that's sort of the thinking. Also an individual can have an interest in this type of sexual proclivity so I call them it's paraphilias under the actual DSM-5 but they may have also other interests So somebody might have a non-exclusive interest. So from a management standpoint, we have to step back. We can't throw everybody in jail

for long periods of time. And then when they come out of jail, just expect that everything's going to be okay. It's not going to happen. We may make somebody even worse. We don't want to do that. A conditional sentence is a house arrest. They're allowed to go to employment, you know, various things. They're under strict monitoring. Are they on a registry? Yeah, they go on the sex offender registry. They have to give up their DNA. There's auxiliary orders, including don't go to schools, parks, anywhere where you would find children. There's restrictions as to how they use their computer. These are very onerous. And there's no, there's no parole from a conditional sense. So two years less a day, they're at home in house arrest

and they're monitored. And the good thing is a lot of these are then embedded in continuing sex offender treatment program without interruption. And the community-based programs are very successful. And I know in the United States, in certain jurisdictions, if somebody is on the registry, they literally have to go door to door

in their neighborhood to let people know, you're living next door to me or in my vicinity. Does that happen here? Thank God, no. Yeah, it means that that always, that feels like it's a shameful thing to do, but how does the community become aware that they have a person who's on the registry

in their midst? Police you'll see from time to time when somebody's released into the community will give a notification when justified who's an individual who poses an extreme high risk to children or other individuals. They will give that notification. But based upon particular cases, if they are not posing that high risk, they will not make an

announcement to the public. But they will be monitored. So this person will have a conditional sent supervisor, then a probation officer, and there will be regular checks on this individual, including the ankle monitor. And they will be monitored also by a forensic expert who is heading the program.

They have to sign releases. So updates of the program goes to the supervisor slash probation officer, and they will be monitored also by a forensic expert who's heading the program they have to sign releases so updates of the program goes to the supervisor slash probation officer there's a lot of intent supervision is someone keeping an eye on his computer activity his online activity yeah you can because if he trends into these social sites where you're they're not supposed to be our police services across Canada are premier in the world at cyber detection of sexual exploitation of children. So he will come up somewhere.

And there can be regular searches also embedded within the terms of his electronics. And by and large, these individuals do abide by these conditions. Well, I want to say Joseph Neuberger I came into this with a particular Thought in my head you have absolutely made me understand that this is the sky is not falling This is not an example of our criminal justice system falling to pieces So I want to thank you very much And look, I really do hope that this guy, that the goal is to keep the public safe and to ensure that the person doesn't offend again.

And yes, to reintegrate them in a positive way. So I do hope that this, that all those three things are achieved this way. So thank you very much, my friend. You have done me a kindness and a service today. Always a pleasure, Ben. Thanks for having me on. Thank you. And you have done me a kindness and a service today. Always a pleasure, Ben. Thanks for having me on.

Thank you. Thank you. Welcome back to the Ben Mo Ruby Show and Canada Class is in session. Settle down because Professor Craig Baird is here to drop some Canadian history knowledge on your brains. And Craig, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. Now, I'm laughing because whatever our listeners and viewers are expecting, they were not expecting that in 1855,

there was a brawl between clowns and firefighters. And this is a piece of our history that everybody needs to know. Yeah, it is definitely kind of a unique part of our history. You think? The Toronto firemen and Tom Rothel riot. needs to know. Yeah, it is definitely kind of a unique part of our history. You think? Toronto firemen and Tom Brothel riot. Oh, hold on. There's a brothel involved in this.

Oh yeah. Yeah. There's a whole bunch of layers to this story. Let's start at the beginning and peel away my friend. In 1855 Toronto, you know, was a very bustling city and it was on July 12th of that year that the Star Troop Menagerie and Circus arrived for a series of shows. So they gave a sold out performance and the clowns in the circus decided that they wanted to celebrate. So they got drinking, got a bit drunk and decided to make

their way to a brothel that was located at King and Jarvis. And this also happened to be a favorite brothel for the local firefighters. So when the clowns arrived at the brothel, they saw a line of the firemen from the Hook and Ladder firefighting company. Now it's not known exactly how the fight started. One source says that a clown cut in line and was punched. Another says that a clown knocked the hat off of a firefighter, but either way, a fist fight broke out and the clowns actually beat up the firefighters and kicked them out of the brothel and then kind of just took over the whole establishment. I don't know if they were still in clown makeup at the time though, but they quite possibly might have been.

Okay. I've got so many questions for you because it occurred to me that in 1855, you know, clowns may very well have been the equivalent of like celebrities. Oh yeah, definitely. I mean, they were the major entertainers of the day and, you know, definitely would have had a good chunk of money to be able to throw around at the brothel, for example. Yeah. Okay.

So I mean, I drive by King and Jarvis every day. I'm trying to picture of and when you say clown makeup, do you have any sense of what clowns looked like in 1855? I know what a clown looks like today. I know a Bozo the Clown is in my mind the archetype of a clown, but that's a modern day clown. Do you know what they look like back in the day? Well, back in the day, they wouldn't have had like what clowns do today. I don't think they had as much like white face paint and things like that, but they probably would have had some makeup on that, you know, I would imagine was probably still on some faces when they decided to start fighting the firemen

at the brothel. And so do we know how many people partook in this brawl? Unfortunately, we don't, but it was probably at least a couple dozen people, you know, probably maybe 12 on each side, maybe, that got involved in this brawl. And did the cops get involved or did they, people, you know, probably maybe 12 on each side, maybe that got involved in this brawl. And did the cops get involved or did they or did the cops show up and just witness something

that they just said, we got to let this play out because we're never going to see this again in the history of our lives. Well what happened was after they kicked the firefighters out, the firefighters went to their friends who were the police force because both had many members that were part of the Orange Order, which was a major fraternal organization at the time. So the day after the brothel riot, the clowns were preparing for another show. And that's when a large group of police and firefighters arrived at the circus and the firefighters went nuts. They started to burn the tents, they smashed things with axes.

They threw rocks at the performers and the police just kind of stood there and watched. The only thing they stopped was the firefighters attempting to light the animal cages on fire. And then the firefighters just beat up the clowns and the clowns fled the city and pretty much never came back. But yeah, it was definitely a very strange and unique story from our history. I don't think there's a heritage minute about this one. I thought the first part was crazy, but the firemen coming in and lighting fires and the cops just standing by. This is my God. And yeah, and then the cops, I guess they were

whipped up into such a frenzy that they were willing to burn the animals to death. That's a bridge too far. That takes the comedy out of it and that just goes into dark tragedy. And so they drove the clowns out of town. That is amazing. Yeah. Oh my God. And so that, my guess is that the circus itself

didn't come back to Toronto for a very long time. Most likely. I don't imagine any of those clowns ever came back to the city. All right. Well, let's move on to the story that you feature this week on Canadian history X. And it's the story yet again of somebody most Canadians probably don't know. I would fully admit I didn't know the story either. Tell us a little bit about Judy LaMarche. Judy LaMarche was a fascinating individual,

probably one of my favorite historical figures from the 20th century in Canada. So during the Second World War, she actually learned Japanese and worked for Canadian intelligence as a translator. But then after becoming a lawyer, she was elected to parliament in 1916. She would serve for the next eight years. She became Canada's second female cabinet minister after Ellen Fairclough. She was Canada's minister of national health and welfare. She actually laid the ground work for what would become Medicare as well as the Canada pension plan. Then she was the secretary of state and she oversaw Canada's centennial celebrations in 1967 and pretty much was everywhere that year across the country. She also started the process that would lead to the creation of the CRTC.

Then she left politics and went back to working as a lawyer. In 1974, she represented the Brunswick Four in a landmark LGBTQ case and she did that completely free of charge. She also hosted a show on CBC radio and she wrote an acclaimed memoir that was called Memoirs of a Bird in a Gilded Cage, which I've read and it's a fantastic book. Yeah, and then in 1979, unfortunately, she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer

and she received the Order of Canada in her hospital bed from the governor general. And she died on October 27th, 1980. answer, and she received the Order of Canada in her hospital bed from the Governor General, and she died on October 27, 1980. Well, it's important to note that you cannot posthumously be awarded the Order of Canada. So the fact that they got it to her prior to her passing is quite significant. I've got so many questions for you. But before we do, let's take a listen to this week's episode of Canadian History X featuring

Judy LaMarche. It wasn't just Medicare that Judy Laarge focused on in her portfolio. On June 17, 1963, she rose in the House of Commons and stated, There is scientific evidence that cigarette smoking is a contributory cause of lung cancer and that it may also be associated with chronic bronchitis and coronary heart disease. While this may seem like a minor thing for a politician to say now and far from controversial, it was groundbreaking for the time. She became the first major Western world government official to oppose tobacco smoking publicly.

Wanting to practice what she preached, Lamarche went cold turkey on her two-decade, three-pack-a-day smoking habit the day she spoke those words in the House of Commons. She said, "'If I give up a habit of 20 years and one that is hard to break, I think it will indicate that I think it is serious. I didn't do this as an exercise in willpower.'" Overall, the response to her decision to quit and speak out about the dangers of smoking

was well received. NDP leader Tommy Douglas jokingly asked if she would take up pipe smoking instead, while Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson congratulated her decision to quit smoking. Hundreds of letters came into her office commending her. One letter writer sent a basket of apples for her to munch on when cravings became too bad. Of course, not all the letters were pleasant. One came from a tobacco grower who was unhappy with her comments.

And while many in the House of Commons supported her, there were other MPs who made a habit of sending her packs of cigarettes and asking her to come join them for a smoke in an attempt to sabotage her efforts. But as far as we know, she was steadfast in her resolve. My goodness, this woman seemed to be central and influential on so many key files from the Second World War right up until her death. Why don't we know who she is? Well, I think it's just, again, a case of we don't look at a lot of the people in our history, apart from the big names, you know, prime ministers and hockey stars and things like that. She does have a ship name for her with the Canadian Coast Guard, but even that, you know,

a lot of people don't know. But yeah, she was central to everything, Medicare, Canada Pension Plan, CRTC, even the Royal Commission on the Status of women was started by her. So she had a huge impact on our histories through the 1960s, which reverberates well after that. And yeah, unfortunately, apart from in places of Ontario, especially Niagara Falls, she's not that well known. The name is Judy LaMarche, and you can learn more about her on Craig Baird's Canadian History X. Real quick, how can people find the show?

You can listen to Canadian History X, that's EHX on all podcast platforms. And you can also listen to it on the Chorus Radio Network every weekend. Just check your local listings. I am shaking my head at how much I don't know. But I'm so thankful that you come here every week and give me just a little more information about the people who built this country. Thank you very much, Craig Baird. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me.