The Ben Mulroney Show - Celebrating the CEO Killer: Have we lost our Moral Compass?

Episode Date: December 10, 2024

Guests and Topics on Today's Show -From Valedictorian to Cold-Blooded Killer with Guest: Dr. Oren Amitay, Registered Psychologist -Celebrating the CEO Killer: Have we lost our Moral Compass? -DraftKings Sued After Father Loses Nearly $1 Million in Four Years with Guest: Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger And Partners Criminal Lawyers, host of the podcast “Not On Record” -Some cancer patients may forgo care due to high treatment-related costs with Guest: Jennifer Gillis, Senior manager of surveillance for the Canadian Cancer Society -Groups launch legal challenge against Alberta’s new gender-affirming treatment law with Guest: Bennett Jensen, legal director at Egale Canada 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

Hey everybody, it's Ben Mulrooney. We had a packed show today, including a deep dive into the CEO killer's psychology and the reaction around it. Did a sports betting company feed a man's addiction? And a challenge to the controversial bill out of Alberta. Enjoy. If the name Luigi Mangione has not permeated popular culture completely yet, it will in short order. The world, our country, the United States has been captivated by the visual of, and at this point, he's the suspect. It's alleged. He's charged. But for the purpose of this, let's be a little, let's hit this with a hammer. This is the guy who was caught on camera shooting assassinating health care um insurance exec in the back and now it now becomes the process of trying to

understand who this guy is and we are learning that he is like so many other people or was like so many other people he what you know kim comes from a good family lived in a nice town uh high academic achiever. But also, he wasn't like this weird loner who kept to himself. He had friends. He played beer pong. He liked the outdoors. He had friends.

He was, we all know a Luigi Mangione. We all know a version of this guy. We all went to school with a guy like this in one way, shape, or form. Guy eats McDonald's. Don't know how he had the abs like that while eating McDonald's. But he was like everybody. We all know a guy just like this.

But the guys that we knew and know just like this do not wake up one day, 3D print themselves a gun, and shoot a guy in cold blood. And so the question that we have today is, how does one go from being a guy like everybody knows to so disenfranchised? And I don't like using that word because it sort of takes the onus off the guy, but let's use it anyway. How do you go from being just a regular guy to so disenfranchised that you feel either compelled to or entitled to take another person's life? And so to drill down into this, we've got someone far smarter than me, Dr. Orin Amite, psychologist on the phone. Doctor, great to talk to you again.

Thank you, Ben. Good morning. So I tried to set this up as best I can. There are people like this guy everywhere. There's nothing in his background that suggests, at least to me, that he would turn into something like this. and examined a number of cases like this where an ostensibly normal or high functioning person did what most people would consider unthinkable. You've worked with a number of them? Yeah, or examined the cases. Okay. Yes. And so when you have the right confluence or convergence of factors, people can do virtually anything. And I think research and history has proven that time and again.

Okay. So you're blowing my mind a little bit here, Doc. So talk to me about these factors and how they come together to create a killer. Okay. And we have to be very careful because I have not assessed them. So everything I say is just informed speculation. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you. Right. And so there's a few things, and I don't want to denigrate or make anyone feel bad if they have certain conditions. But let's look at some of these potential factors. So the first one is, I think a lot of people are talking about this in today's day and age. If you attend university, if you attend an Ivy League school, if you attend public school, there's a really good chance that you are going to be, quite frankly, indoctrinated. You know, he's worried about climate change. He's worried about capitalism. He's anti-capitalist. He had the Unabomber's manifesto, which I've actually read. It's a fascinating read. But, you know, so seeing all of this, being exposed to it, being told that, you know, the world is against you. There are certain people who are doing bad

against you and your loved ones, number one. And number two, if you stand up against them, if you take a stand, you are, you know, acting righteously. And unfortunately, most people can't differentiate, or many people can't, between self-righteous and righteous. Yeah, yeah. So, Doc, and I've talked many times about, you know, the oversimplified view of the world by certain kids. And you're right, there's this indoctrination that happens in certain schools, or at least certain people are susceptible to it. And when you look at the world in a binary way of oppressor-oppressed, then anything that the oppressed do to the oppressor is justified resistance.

We saw it after October 7th. We saw it after President Trump was almost assassinated. There was this glee that followed tragedy. Exactly. And not just glee, but the person committing these acts is rewarded. And that's a big factor because people, when they feel that they don't have anything to contribute, when they feel powerless, you said the word disenfranchised. That is the correct word. When someone feels that way, to think that I can get glory from this act, no matter how heinous it is, that is very intoxicating. And that can,

again, most people are not going to act on it. But those are several of the factors. The other factor that is going to very powerfully predict if someone is going to act on this. And again, I haven't assessed him, but a level of narcissism. And I want to be clear, there's narcissistic personality disorder, which is relatively rare, but then there's narcissistic traits. And people are being groomed into having these traits, whether it's in school, whether it's a TikTok, and this self-centeredness, this entitlement, this grandiosity. OK, and thinking that I'm the one who can somehow solve the problem.

I have the right to take justice into my own hands. You know, that kind of thinking. Doc, am I am I wrong? I'm fine. Tell me how I can reconcile the notion of feeling disenfranchised with feeling like I'm the I'm the chosen person. I'm the sword that will be wielded to extract justice. Are those, in my mind, I'm viewing them as mutually exclusive. Am I wrong?

Well, that's a good thinking because it does seem paradoxical. But if you're feeling disenfranchised, there's disenfranchised and disempowered, but then there's disenfranchised and saying, well, I do believe that I have the capacity. And it's a just act. I'm acting righteously, like I said earlier. So there are, you know, so some people will go one way, feel just totally disempowered and just complain about it. And others will go

the other way. You know, again, there's that grandiosity. That's kind of what differentiates the two. So these are the factors. And now I want to be very careful here because I don't know anything about him. But when we look at the Unabomber, you know, there are several factors that people didn't know about him that can send somebody over the edge. You know, they thought he had schizophrenia. He had gender dysphoria, which a lot of people don't know. He may have been what we call an autogynephile. Again, I'm not saying this about Luigi, but he also may have been autistic or had autistic traits. And again, none of these, nothing that I'm saying should ever be used to, you know, to denigrate a group of people. I'm not saying that, but we don't

know about Luigi. Does he have certain, you know, qualities about him that would make him see the world in a slightly different way than other people, which would make him think that this is a good idea. Because I mean, if you look at how he acted after committing such an act, you would think he'd be so smart and capable and able to pull this off why would he make it so easy for himself to be caught yeah so something is a bit off kilter did he want to get caught do you want to be the person who is you know glorified and and you know and uh you know revered basically uh by a certain segment of the population we don't know this yet is is there a fear doctor as, you know, that there could be many of support by a certain type of person to him could that maybe spur somebody who's sitting on the fence saying you know what i kind of feel

like i've got i've got something in me that could make me a hero and i know that if i do it i'm going to get that support that that luigi just got is there a fear that social media could push that next guy across the line? I wouldn't call it a fear. I'd call it an almost certainty that that's going to happen. And I think we will see this happen. Now, how many people? I don't know. I think it's going to be a very small number. I don't want to stoke irrational fears. But to think that someone else is not going to try this, I think that's a crazy prediction. But I'm telling you, someone will do something. And the important thing, one more factor that's common to everybody, do not discount the next person who's going to save the planet. I'm going to save society.

They can rationalize it that way and they can do truly heinous acts. Dr. Orin Amitai, I've got to say, this has been one of the most eye-opening segments I have ever had on radio. And I want to thank you for taking time to lay this out for us. I think you did it judiciously and responsibly.

And I hope to talk to you again soon. Thank you very much. I really appreciate that. Did a deep dive into the psychology of what could drive what looked like an average regular guy to feel entitled to shoot somebody on the streets of New York City.

And he's been caught, and this is going to be a manhunt that we will be studying for years. From what I understand, it was so many levels of government and so many levels of policing in multiple states using technology and boots on the ground to lead to his arrest. Upon his arrest, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro took to the microphone and said something that we never used

to have to say, but for some reason today, it needs to be said. This killer is being hailed as a hero. Hear me on this. He is no hero. The real hero in this story is the person who called 911 at McDonald's this morning. The real heroes every day in our society are the women and men who put on uniforms like these and go out in our communities to keep us safe this killer was not a hero he should not be hailed yeah i mean to me that's a given to a lot of people that's a given but not to everyone and there's a bit i don't know how big the chunk of people is who celebrate this man and celebrate what he did.

But one of those people is journalist and firebrand and controversial social media pundit, Taylor Lorenz. She was on TMZ and yeah, she disagrees with Josh Shapiro. Apparently. Look, I'm going to say I'm, I I'm with the people in the sense that if you have watched a loved one die because insurance has denied them life saving essential health care, it is natural to wish that the people who run those systems would suffer the same fate as your loved one.

And millions of people across America have had this experience. So, yes, am I, you know, when I say do I wish someone dead, you know, is that advocating for them to be killed? No, of course not. But am I going to shed tears or have a lot of empathy for somebody that has facilitated the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans through intentionally denying them coverage. I am not going to, you know, weep over it. I do think that loss of life is a tragedy. I'm very against death generally, you know, as a principle. But I think, again, why do we why do we mourn certain deaths and condone other deaths of innocent, vulnerable people. Yeah, she's all over the map there. She's all over the map. I think she tried to make a big,

bold statement and then maybe tried to walk it back a little bit because she sounded like a ghoul. She sounded like an absolute ghoul. Anyway, she loves a microphone and she loves a camera and she loves the attention. So went on piers morgan and piers pushed back i do believe in the sanctity of life and i think that's why i felt along with so many other americans joy unfortunately you know because it feels like serious i mean joy the man's execution maybe not joy but certainly not no certainly not empathy because again we're watching the footage how can this make you joyful this guy's a husband he's a father and he's being young down in the middle of manhattan why is that making joyful americans that be murdered so are

tens so are the tens of thousands of americans innocent americans who died because greedy health insurance executives like this one. Well, he goes on and asks, so do you want them all to die? If they're all part of a system that needs to be broken down, then surely you'd be happy if they all died. Oh, no, no, of course not. Of course not. And he keeps going. He says, well, how many then? Because if you're happy that one died, then and there are other executives who I guarantee you in your mind, Taylor Lorenz would be worse. You don't know this guy, but objectively all things being equal, let's assume he's in the middle, right? he deserves to die and he must have friends who deserve to die and underlings who helped him build

the system that you want to dismantle so surely they must be should die as well the whole thing collapses under its own hypocrisy and he with a simple push she her her her paper tiger falls apart it falls apart and there are so many people like her. She, listen to her credit. She had the courage to go and debate her position, her disgusting inhuman position that this was an, not, this was an acceptable thing. But of course, we're living in a world where if you view the world through the lens of there are oppressors and there are the oppressed. And therefore, if you view the world

in that binary simpleton way, then anything that the oppressed do to the oppressors is fair game. It is not terrorism. It is not murder it is trying to restore balance it is trying to assert agency over your life and and it's trying to help the underprivileged and those who are living under the boot of the oppressed and listen i i could go on but there is one person who said it far better than i could and that is um uh chris cuomo so let's listen to what he had to say many will shake their head and

say the furious few keyboard bullies more proof social media is toxic okay but i see it as much bigger, badder, especially because the rabid response to the CEO killing is not an isolated event. It is the third flashpoint of vincing a pattern. October 7th, Trump's assassination attempt, and now the UnitedHealthcare CEO assassination. All three were not just suggestive of rampant rudeness, departure from the accepted principle here that we remain humane no matter what matter of inhumanity is confronted. Otherwise, what separates the virtue from the vice, the good from the evil? The reactions we have seen are signs that many have lost the plot of how things change in a constitutional republic. We have entered the era in America of an acceptance of violence as a legitimate way to change systems or policies. He is Chris Cuomo has been on point on so many things, but listening to him break this down, he was saying everything that I was feeling.

Let's continue. When violence is embraced as an accepted means for political or regime change, that is called terrorism. These people celebrating the CEO's death are embracing terrorism, like those saying Israelis got what they deserve on October 7th. Not in terror camps, on our campuses, they're saying it. Here, those seeing Hamas terrorists as freedom fighters, baffled at first, right? We were. How could people be so confused? But maybe they're not confused at all.

Maybe they see Hamas as the good guys because they themselves embrace the fundamentalism and terrorism. I even noticed pro-Palestine accounts celebrating the CEO's assassination. Same with when Trump was shot. How could people pretend it was fake or lament that he lived? And when you listen to him, and if you think about it for a little bit, it's all part of a new organic system where, you know, we keep wondering, why do you call Donald Trump Hitler? Well, you have to call him Hitler because if you call him Hitler, then murder is justified because who wouldn't want to kill Hitler? And that's why the truckers were Nazis. They had to be Nazis to justify taking away their bank accounts and jailing a great number of them.

And when you see violence on the other side, no, no, no. That's resistance to this oppression that exists on the other side. And the more you think about it. To dismantle this. Is going to take generations. And to go back to our conversation. In the first segment. This could go back to. We're going to have to go into the universities. There is a level of indoctrination.

That is happening amongst our youth. That is creating the. The breeding ground. For this. Worldview that is untethered from reality, that is allowing for a bloodlust and a bloodthirst to be created and a justification for that bloodlust. And short of a complete, we got to take some of these things down to the studs or this bloodlust is only going to grow. Welcome to Kidsplain, where kids explain how underfunded our schools are. Let's take a call from a listener.

Kelly, are you there? Hi, I was wondering why I get less one-on-one time with my teachers. Great question, Kelly. It might have something to do with the fact that we have 3,500 fewer teachers under Doug Ford. Ugh, that sounds about right. Want to help support students and teachers? Visit nomore.ca. That's K-N-O-W-M-O-R-E dot C-A.

A message from the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association. This is a new show. A lot of you don't know me, so you're going to get to know me. One thing you should know is gambling and me, I don't get it. I just don't get it. If I go to Vegas, I might play a couple of hands of blackjack, and that's it. I don't get it. I just don't get it. If I go to Vegas, I might play a couple of hands of blackjack and that's it. I don't get the thrill that other people get. And I appreciate that it can be a pretty dangerous addiction. And this next story highlights that. There is an online gambling company called DraftKings and a lawsuit has been filed against DraftKings in the state of New

Jersey. It claims that the sportsbook operator preyed on a person's gambling addiction for nearly $1 million. The lawsuit claims that the gaming company actively participated in his gambling addiction. It also claims that the user had four VIP hosts that knew of his gambling addiction and did not verify the source of his funds. So this is a gentleman who at one point was, you know, betting never more than $3,700 a month. But within a few years, he was betting as much as $125,000 a month. So to drill down, let's welcome to the show Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger and Partners criminal lawyer and host of the podcast Not On Record. Joseph, thank you so much for being here. My pleasure to be on. Thank you, Ben.

So this is virgin territory for me. I have never online gambled, so I don't know the hoops that one has to jump through. But I've been told that in order to play, you got to prove how much money you have as sort of a guardrail against betting too much. Yeah, so you and I are the same. So I think I've bet once in my life and it's hard for me to understand because the dangers are high.

Gaming institutions, especially where you're betting large amounts of money, have to verify source of funds. In Ontario, I can speak about the regulatory regime, that there is a very strict, allegedly strict regime, so that you are licensed to operate through the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. And there are regulations in particular, which I think is very relevant to your comments here, because in Ontario, you're not supposed to advertise inducements, bonuses, and credits, such as free spins and other things like that, or make any misleading claims so that you are not induced. And what you're describing in this lawsuit was the VIP hosts who are literally

preying on this gentleman's addiction without verifying where funds are coming. And when you say preying on him, how would a VIP host do something like that? I haven't been on these, but you just know how casinos work and everything. So they can provide you with gifts. They can provide you with a free trip. They can provide you with all these types of inducements and incentives, just like what the legislation is prohibiting from operators who are licensed to operate within Ontario. But again, you can get access to sites that are outside of the Ontario jurisdiction. That's the danger. And then once you get trapped and you're losing money, it's like any other addiction.

And if they try and make you feel like some elite status where you're getting these meaningless to them, these meaningless incentives that cost them a few thousand dollars compared to the million dollars being lost, that's where you're trapping and preying on a person's addiction. I remember years ago, my dad took all of us down to Las Vegas for a weekend to go when Celine Dion first opened her show. He took us all down there. We stayed at Caesar's Palace, and he didn't understand why he was waiting in one line. And these people that didn't look like anything special were being treated like gods. And my brother pointed out to him, he's like, if you spent a fraction of what you're willing to actually spend on this trip at the tables, you would get most of what you're arguing to spend for free. They make their money

at the tables, dad. And so my dad, a few hours later, my dad's got this big smile on his face. Like I hit the tables. I said, how much did you win? He's like, I didn't, I lost $200. I was like, that's not going to cut it, dad. But yeah, it's a question of scale, right? And where they place the importance. That's exactly correct. It's the same, they use the same idea as the brick and mortar gaming institutions do these online. And what's worse about online is there's no immediacy. You're on a phone, a mobile device, or a computer, and it may not even seem real to the person at the time because it's so easy to press buttons and just send money

it's terrifying to me just terrifying and when I see these commercials I cringe yeah well listen with more and more jurisdictions around the world and especially in North America

making legal these platforms this problem that we're seeing in New Jersey could very easily multiply and show up in anywhere in North America. I absolutely agree with you 100%. And I think we're seeing that now. I mean, you know, we see these lawsuits. I would like to hear more stories about people who've lost so much money. And here's the other thing, age, you know, you know, it's 19 19 to gamble i think it's also 18 depending upon which particular online gaming i think it must be 18 to play a lottery or bingo

19 years of age to bet on sports and play online casinos like we're talking incredibly young age like i was i was so much against you know the age that they set for use of marijuana. You know, now you have gaming at 18 and 19 years of age. I mean, these are such impressionable, unformed minds. They also don't have a lot of money. Well, no. And they, you know, who knows where they can get it from. Yeah.

Yeah. Um, so I, I was just reading that, uh, you know, we want to, we're talking about what these VIP hosts can do online uh at one point this gentleman had been upgraded to something called onyx elite level status i'm sure that makes somebody feel really good if you're onyx elite and he was provided with free vacations high-end apple products just to keep playing the lawsuit alleges that if the vip hosts were doing their job correctly the user would have been cut off from action when they noticed he was betting more than four times his $175,000 annual income. But it also alleges that they didn't follow the company policy of

requiring heavy users to verify their funds by providing either what's called a W-2 or a bank statement. Now, it seems like DraftKings had systems in place to protect against this sort of thing. But it feels to me like maybe these VIP hosts went rogue. You're absolutely right again. And I think I think I, you know, I can't base this on any of the evidence, but I believe firmly that these corporations understand how the psychology works and by employing these hosts these hosts are incentivized and that will then contribute to the abuse that goes on and so even though there are these stop measures i mean one would imagine you'd put in what your income is and you could there would be a stop on you once you're betting so much.

That's not going to happen. And then by providing you with these incentives, the incentives alone, to me, is an abuse. Like, we have the regulations in Ontario. It should not be allowed at all. And I think these lawsuits have serious legs to them, because... Well, that's what I was going to ask you. I was going to ask you, if you're a betting man,

wink, wink, where do you think a lawsuit like this goes? I'm betting on the side of the plaintiff in this case. I think these VIP hosts and being at Onyx Elite level and getting Apple products so that you have products with greater access to their portal so that you can blow the money. I think this is facilitating the addiction, and they are not following protocols that they internally have in place, which we know that they are breaching. And I'm sure that they will find throughout the lawsuits that these hosts are incentivized.

In other words, they have to be getting some sort of a bonus or increase in pay, depending upon how they're able to get their gamers to spend more. Joseph, we only have about a minute left, but is there a place in society for a responsible online gaming environment? Of course. I mean, we can't protect everybody from the vices of life. I mean, but everything has to be in moderation and balance. I think Ontario regulations are pretty good, but it should be very, very strict. I think Ontario regulations are pretty good, but it should be very, very strict.

I think the age limit should be increased, and I think there should be verifications with respect to income, and there are red lines that can't be crossed. So everybody wants to have fun. I know lots of people bet responsibly and have a good time, and it's fun to bet on the Buffalo Bills, you know, to see where they'll go. But it has to be done responsibly, balanced and measured. And where there is some indication

that somebody has an addiction, there has to be an algorithm that kicks in to stop that person from betting. Joseph Neuberger from Neuberger & Partners Criminal Lawyers and the host of the podcast, Not On Record. Thank you very much for being here and laying it out for us. Always a pleasure, Ben. Thank you and take care being here and laying it out for us. Always a pleasure, Ben.

Thank you and take care. Study after study, poll after poll, survey after survey, tell us one thing consistently. Canadians value our universal health care system. In some cases, we view it as one of the defining aspects of our country. It is more than just a government program. It is definitional of who we are as a nation. But you can't fix something unless you track it, and you can't track it unless you have a good, hard, realistic look at what it is.

And never before in the history of this country have we spent more in terms of real dollars and in terms of per capita investment in terms of the percentage of our, of our budgets on healthcare and never before have we had less positive outcomes. And so we have to look at this thing from all angles so that we can deal with the problems effectively and, and optimize this service for everyone.

And when I read a story that some cancer patients may forego care due to high treatment related costs. And what are treatment related costs? Canadians with cancer are spending on average $33,000 out of pocket for medical care and cancer treatment costs are expected to grow more than 37 to more than 37 billion dollars in 2034 these are concerning numbers these are scary numbers and these are numbers i didn't expect so let's drill down with jennifer gillis senior manager of surveillance for the canadian cancer society and co-chair of the canadian cancer statistics advisory committee jennifer thank you for being here for an important conversation. Thanks for having me, Ben.

I did not know that Canadians with cancer had to spend anything on out-of-pocket medical care. What are we talking about here? What are the specifics? Yeah, thank you for that question. I think a lot of people listening today are going to feel the same way. As you mentioned, a lot of us see our universal health care system as so important to us. And what this report really highlights is not only how costly cancer is to our health systems, but how much of it is falling on the shoulders of people with cancer and their caregivers. And it's estimated that about 20% of societal costs are falling on those individuals, amounting to a staggering $7.5 billion this year alone.

And about half of that is those out-of-pocket costs that we don't expect and can often be a hidden burden. It includes transportation to and from appointments, travel and accommodation, particularly for those who have to travel far, who are living in rural and remote areas and need to leave their communities to get care. It can include drug costs that aren't covered. You know, drugs, for instance, that can alleviate side effects related to cancer treatment that might not be covered. And the list goes on. And I think that's what will be surprising to a lot of people as well. I just did some work with the Princess Margaret Cancer Center where I learned that,

you know, in the 1960s, I believe the cancer survival rate generally was 25%. And so the goal was just to survive cancer. But as we've gotten better at treating the disease, it sort of expanded what our definition of treatment is to include treatment of family, mental health. A lot of people have PTSD. And I have to assume that some of the costs that we're talking about here relate to this more holistic approach to cancer treatment. Yeah, and that's what's so powerful about this report is that we look across the phases of cancer care is what we call it, including, you know, that first year after diagnosis, which we often think about when we think about treatment for cancer. but it also looks at continuing care,

that more supportive care beyond that first year. Because as you're mentioning, we have seen really great outcomes and a lot of progress to improve survival. You know, in the 90s, even, it was around 55%. And now, you know, we're looking at, you know, over 60% for many of the cancers and 64% overall. And so we're seeing lots of progress, but that does mean that there's more and more people living with and beyond cancer who do need that supportive care. And that's what's so powerful about this report is we look at it in so many different ways so that, as you mentioned, we can really understand the scope and come together as a society to deal with this complex issue.

Well, what's the suggestion from your group that probably knows far more about this than most? What is the solution? Because as I said off the top, the solution can't just be throwing more money at a system that seems to be wasting it. As I said, more money is going into it and less valuable outcomes are being produced. So what is the solution? So to me, I've been so privileged to work with experts on this report

through the Canadian Cancer Statistics Advisory Committee and our working group experts who have been thinking so deeply about this. And so the report has a lot of really great information. For those who are interested, visit cancer.ca.statistics. But some of the things, you know, when they looked at the health systems costs, for instance, when we think about that and the rising costs over time, a couple things really come out. One is continuing to focus on cancer prevention. We are, we've seen lots of progress in that area.

And so if we continue to invest in that to help reduce the number of people who are going to face a cancer diagnosis in the future, that can help create that, you know, resilient system. And not only that, but also help individuals. The other is around early detection. And so for many cancer types, the earlier it's detected, not only do we have better outcomes for people, but we also often have less intensive treatments, less aggressive treatments, often they're less lengthy, and so that can reduce the cost as well. So really focusing on early detection too, so that we have those great outcomes, but also consider how we can create that resilient healthcare system as well. But Jennifer, what do we do for those who are suffering now? Because those seem to be like long-term fixes. But there are people, as we said right off the top, some cancer patients are

foregoing care because they can't afford these out-of-pocket costs. What do we do today? Yeah, so a couple things that come to mind. So for one, if people are listening right now who are facing financial hardship because of their cancer diagnosis, please know that the Canadian Cancer Society has support systems across the country. And we have, you know, experts who can chat with people. People can call in at 1-888-939-3333 or visit our website, cancer.ca. You know, there's lots of great supports available there and lots of information. The other side is that we're passionate and the people we work with, the people affected by cancer are passionate and are advocating because we know there are things governments can do to help reduce those costs, including, you know, creating, you know, making a refundable caregiver tax credit that puts money

back in those pockets, you know, better job protective leave. So some of those numbers include lost income. So people have to walk away from work. Creating better job protective leave gives people the peace of mind to know that they can go back to their work when they're through their cancer treatment. Expanding supports for travel and accommodation, particularly because in Canada, we have lots of people living in rural and remote areas who need to travel. And so there's lots. And so people can join us.

That's the one that I think is probably the easiest one to fix. I mean, if you live in a big city near a cancer center, you can take the subway or you can take the bus or you can drive yourself there. But for other people, they have to take days and sometimes weeks off of work to get the exact same treatment. So we have the travel treatment front at the Canadian Cancer Society, but we can also call on governments to work in that area too. And as you said, people are passionate in this area,

so visit cancer.ca slash costofcancer to join us, because that is one thing. We can support people who are living in rural and remote areas and expand supports for travel and accommodation. Jennifer Gill is Senior Manager of Surveillance for the Canadian Cancer Society and Co-Chair of the Canadian Cancer Statistics Advisory Committee. It's a mouthful, but it's worth it to remind our listeners, if they want to read this study, where can they go?

Go to cancer.ca.statistics. There's voices there as well. So not just these numbers, but also the perspectives of the people who have gone through this to really ground us as to why this is so important. Jennifer, thank you so much for this conversation. Thank you. A pair of LGBTQ2S plus advocate organizations say that they followed through with their plan to challenge Alberta's three transgender bills in court. And that starting with the one that bars doctors from providing gender

affirming treatments, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for those under 16. This is a, this is a case that I'm sure will have national implications. And I'm very glad to invite to the show, Bennett Jensen, legal director of EGAL Canada and one of the groups involved in this legal challenge.

Bennett, thank you so much for being here. Thanks so much for having me on. So I just want to level set with you because I think you got to know who you're talking to. I know who you're talking to. I know who you know who you're talking to. On a personal basis, you know, I'm more or less, I haven't read the details of it, but more or less in support of the proposed law by the Alberta government. However, I want you to know that it's my firm belief that this is how things are supposed to operate, that groups like yours are supposed to challenge things like this in court.

And how we get to a place that makes sense for who we are as a country is through the courts. So I do actually very much appreciate your legal challenge to it well thanks so much and i appreciate the level set i i think that listen it when we talk think about gender diverse and trans young people we're talking about a really tiny population and the vast majority of people don't know what it's like to be trans or have a trans kid and most of the things you hear about trans people are negative right like that they face higher rates of suicide or discrimination and so it makes sense that parents would be scared of this and given the way these

policies have been talked about you would want to protect your children until they're older from anything that that seems this bad that isn't the reality of it so i'm happy to be able to chat about it a little bit more but so yeah so yeah so talk to me about the reality because i you know as a parent uh if if my children were going through something like this i i would feel it incumbent upon me as a parent to protect them until they get to the age of 18 at which point they can make these decisions for themselves. But I feel almost as if that right as a parent to make these decisions for my kids, which, and I'm allowed to make them on a raft of issues, for this to be taken away from me is the current concerning thing for me as a parent.

That makes total sense. I'll say two things. The first is that with the healthcare bill in particular, your right as a parent is what's being taken away. So the parents, based on the experience, the individual experience of their kids, so often it's a child who from the age of two, three, four has consistently and continuously identified with the gender difference and the sex they were assigned at birth. Those parents, after a decade of working with doctors and experts, have decided that this course of action is right for their child, and that is what's being prohibited by the law. So that's one thing that's concerning.

The second is one of our experts puts it really well. The denial of puberty blockers is not a neutral act. So blockers themselves are fully irreversible. They've been used on non-trans kids for decades. We fully know their effects. What is irreversible are the effects of puberty. So if you imagine that kid I talked about who has identified as a girl since they were two or three, she's having like a 10, 11, 12, having a typical childhood. Imagine that young girl going through male puberty at the age of 12, 13.

So developing an Adam's apple, developing facial hair, having her voice drop. All of those things are irreversible. So what blockers do is press that pause button until the young person is a little bit older and has a little bit more maturity to make the right decision. So that's just an example of how there's some confusion around how this actually operates. Now, there's also part of Bill 26 that includes a prohibition on gender affirming what they call top surgeries for minors. Where does your group stand on that? So I think, again, a couple of things to say. The first is that these are also exceedingly rare. The second, though, is that when they are appropriate, we're talking about

normally very older teens, so like a 17 year old, and it's under medical advisement as being necessary for that young person. And the other thing to keep in mind here too, is that we're not prohibiting surgeries, other chest surgeries for minors. So young people are getting breast enhancements, breast reductions, facial surgeries like plastic surgery and nose job, et cetera, all the time. So this is a real specific targeting of one population. Okay. And finally, another point that I think is worth bringing up, and if there are others that you want to bring up, you feel free, but the part of one of the bills that would require children under 16 to need parental consent if they want to change their names or pronouns at school.

Where does your group land on that one? So that's a similar policy to what we've seen in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick. And we have concerns with it for, again, a couple of reasons. The first is just to, again again level set that we're not talking about any legal name changes or anything we're talking about you know informal uses of a different name and pronouns at school and what we litigated this issue in saskatchewan we're still in the court there and a court on expert evidence found that the policy that's being pursued in alberta that was also pursued in saskatchewan will result in irreparable harm. And that's because

for, you know, the vast majority of parents, if not all parents want what's best for their kids, and most will be able to love and support their kids through whatever that, you know, kid comes home with or shares. But there is a portion of parents who won't ever be able to accept having a trans kid. And we know that for that population, having a single supportive adult at school who just informally is able to recognize their identity can be the difference between getting from, you know, adolescence to adulthood, like the suicide rates in that population are so high. So that's what's wrong with the policy. It makes sense. Of course, parents want everyone knows that parents should be involved in their young in their kids lives,

like that that isn't disputed. It's just to make sure that we protect that tiny minority population. Are there any other aspects to these bills that you want to highlight? Well, I think I would just say I really appreciate this conversation. And I think that parents' gut reactions on these things make sense. The rhetoric here has been really heightened and scary. And so I just really appreciate being able to sort of take the temperature down and talk about what the realities are for these young kids. Because if supported and loved, trans kids are, you know, typical kids, just like anyone else. And some of these policies are just ill-advised and will put them in harm's way.

Well, Bennett, the collision of ideas, the respectful collision of ideas, be they in the court, be they in the legislature, in newspapers, online, in person, that's how we advance ideas. At least that's how I see it. And so I get what a successful result would be for you in court would be to have these cast down. If you were to get that and

then the um the alberta legislature were to come back with a modified version so what's a compromise that that you would be happy with or you would be able to live with well i think it's hard with the health care portion because we have all medical associations in the country saying that the policy is ill-advised so i think a really great solution would be for provincial governments including alberta to think about how can we increase access to health care for everyone so that would include mental health support for everyone um you know reducing uh wait times making health care more accessible for everyone is probably the best thing that can be done. And that benefits trans kids and their parents as well. But there was no problem that needed solving here, unfortunately. You think this is a solution in search of a problem?

Exactly. That's exactly what it is. And if honestly, these kids that I talked to, they want nothing more than to just be left alone. They want to be out of the headlines. They want to go back to fighting with their siblings, worrying about getting their homework done, you know, what's happening on their sports team. They just want to go back to being kids. And it's okay that the average parent doesn't know what's best in these situations, but tons of people do. The parents who've been raising trans kids, the doctors, you know, there are a bunch of experts that can help guide parents if they find themselves in these situations. And the political attention doesn't help, unfortunately.

Lastly, Bennett, is there, in your opinion, is there one jurisdiction in Canada or somewhere in the world that has got it right, that has got the balance right? Oh, that's a great question. I mean, I think that the health care wait times is a real challenge. I think BC has been doing um some great stuff they have sort of wraparound supports that help guide families through uh you know the the medical and because it's not always a medical question either right just like how do you understand this issue our partner organization skipping stone out of calgary does incredible work here because you know as we've talked about parents might not know anything about this and

need some guidance and help and so jurisdictions that are able to provide that sort of holistic support to families and view this as just a complex issue that requires some expertise guidance yeah humanity compassion that's i think how we're getting it right benna jensen legal director at egal canada i uh i i really value this conversation and I thank you for taking this to the courts and we'll be following it very closely. Really appreciate the interest.

Thanks so much, Ben. Thanks for listening to the podcast. We hope you enjoyed it and we hope you'll join us again tomorrow for another packed edition of The Ben Mulroney Show.