The Ben Mulroney Show - Hot Topics Monday!! A Mulroney resigns!

Episode Date: May 25, 2026

Guest: Dimitri  Soudas, Former Director of Communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper  Guest: Max Fawcett, Lead Columnist for Canada's National Observer  If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://link.chtbl.com/bms⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Also, on youtube -- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@BenMulroneyShow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Insta: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠@benmulroneyshow⁠⁠⁠ Executive Producer:  Mike Drolet Reach out to Mike with story ideas or tips at [e-mail] Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This podcast is brought to you by the National Payroll Institute, the leader for the payroll profession in Canada, setting the standard of professional excellence, delivering critical expertise, and providing resources that over 45,000 payroll professionals rely on. You are listening to the Ben Mulroney show, but you're going to dilute me with my next two guests, Demetri Soutis and Max Foster,

are joining me to talk about all things political, some things exceptionally political and others just political adjacent. Gentlemen, welcome to the show. Good to be here. Good to be here. Happy Monday. Happy Monday. All right.

We're going to start with my sister. It's news all over the place. She officially announced that she is stepping down from the Doug Ford cabinet. She has been in cabinet for eight years, three elections. And I heard Dimitri on French television. I think you didn't have any information up until it was announced to you. And you still said a few interesting things. So I'm here to answer all questions.

has any questions for me you go right ahead shoot no no no questions for you ben i was even thinking of asking you to leave the room while we talk about uh minister malruni but we'll we'll keep you for those for those who know me um it's not because i'm on your show uh that i'm going to say um what i think about uh miss malruni so eight years uh she she held four of the tough toughest jobs in government And through all of it, I would say no personal scandal, no controversy in her own writing. And it's ironic because I live in King Vaughn close to Davis Drive. So I'm literally one street over from her writing. Everything that I've been hearing about Caroline Maloney is that she showed up.

She was close to the people she represented. And the voters always, always noticed. And I would say, I love data. her vote chair went up in every single election she fought. So she's leaving from opposition of strength just over a year after the strongest win. And what I will say is politicians oftentimes don't know when to turn the page and start a new chapter. My only question for you, Ben, since you invited a question, is, is this a goodbye forever to politics or as they say in French, in French.

I suspect, and I haven't talked to her. I've been trying to talk to her all day. She's not returning my calls. I tried to get her on the show. I haven't heard from her. She'd been very busy, no doubt. But I did invite her to come on to talk. I've had enough conversations with her to know that she's,

I don't know what's going to happen five years from now. I don't think she knows. But as of right now, I can tell you, I think she's done. And if there's one thing that everyone should know about Caroline is there has never been anything, anything in her life, whether it was a high school project or whether it was running for election. She doesn't do anything at anything less than 100%. She gives it her all 24-7. She has never phoned anything in her life. And so if after eight years that the tank is dry and she wants to try something else, then that's really because she left.

it all on the field. She's no one, no one works harder than Caroline. And so if at this point she's saying she's done, she's done. The only thing I'll add very quickly is when she ran for the leadership of the party, I actually supported her. I didn't know her very well back then.

But it was my way of supporting her through your dad. And the last thing I'll say is in the family, she got both looks and the brain's bent. Not to say that you're not good looking or you're not smart, but she's a very talented person. No, she is the, without a doubt, she is the apex predator in our family, even though she looks sweet and she knows how to cook a,

a Thanksgiving meal better than anyone I've ever met. She is the apex mulrooney. And I'm very glad that she is on my side. Max, can I jump in here? Yeah, please, Max, go ahead. Well, I mean, I can't speak to her personal ambitions, but sure sounds like a great fit for a potential future opening of the Conservative Party of Canada.

You know, I've been saying for years now that, you know, A woman as leader would be an incredibly powerful message to Canadians and to a lot of the Canadians that Pierre Pollyout is alienated. I think it would solve a lot of the problems that his leadership currently represents. I'm not sure if voters are ready to do the second generation thing again. The last time we did it, it didn't go so well. But she, by all accounts, strikes me as exactly the kind of leader that the Conservative Party of Canada needs, which doesn't mean it's the kind of leader they'll elect or that she would even run, but the fit is pretty obvious.

Yeah, I've told her, I said sometimes the woman has to meet the moment, but she didn't want to hear anything about that from me. So I think when she says she wants to spend time with her husband and sort of enjoy, and enjoy just a little bit of time to do other things, I think she means it. And I think she's earned a break. And so I will not be pressing her on her future plans. but I do appreciate the kind words from both of you. And she deserves all of them because she is,

she is an amazing human being. And whoever tries to replace her is going to have big, big shoes to fill. Let's move on, guys, to the CRTC. There are people out there suggesting we don't need the CRTC anymore after making a boneheaded decision that nobody asked them to make, suggesting, not suggesting, mandating that streamers in Canada need to pay 15% of their top. line revenue to help produce Canadian content.

If people thought that Doug Ford Ronald Reagan ad was a problem, wait until the president of the United States really digests this one, Max. Yeah, I mean, I'm not super convinced by that part of the argument against it because he opposes everything that we do here that has any even a hint of sovereignty in it. you know, he opposes supply management, he opposes cultural content, he opposes any attempt by Canadians and the Canadian government to stand up for our sovereignty. So I'm not super, you know, swayed by that. But I think that the CRTC and more broadly our digital institutions, or excuse me, our institutions need to react to the digital landscape that we're in. We do need more Canadian content, but I'm not sure that the way they've prescribed it is the way to go about it.

I think there are better ways to ensure that our stories are told and our voices are heard. And we need to ensure that our regulatory environment is built for the situation we're in now, not the one that was there 25, 30 years ago. Yeah, look, I'm looking at heated rivalry, for example. And, you know, I haven't been in TV in a very long time. But there is a lot of competition amongst all the streamers to find that next global hit, right? and when you are the guy who missed out on heated rivalry, you're going to make sure you're paying attention.

And there is a part of me wondering whether this mandate of 15% of their revenue should be spent on Canadian content. I kind of, I mean, that's equity, for example. I'm thinking of equality of opportunity. Part of me thinks that they should be mandating that a certain amount of the pitches that they hear are Canadian. because there is great talent here, and that talent will prove itself if they get a chance to pitch themselves to Netflix

and to Hulu and to all of the streamers. As opposed to outcome, I kind of want to look at opportunity. I don't know how you feel, Dimitri, but I think our Canadian talent can stand on its own, and they can go toe to toe in a pitch meeting with anybody. Well, of course it can. But if you look at it from Canada's creative industry, this is huge, but the timing couldn't.

be worse. Yeah. It's huge because it gives them stable funding. It's around $2 billion a year. As you know, Ben, in Quebec especially, this kind of support is what keeps French language film and television aside. Alive, sorry. Now, the reality is that the politics are sharp behind it. Mr. Palliev, and with good reason, calls this a Netflix tax. And ultimately, it's a cost that will get passed on, to the consumers. I suspect, Ben, without any inside knowledge, I suspect that the government, the Carney government is going to intervene on this one.

It is going to intervene and not allow for revenues to go from 5% to 15% of revenues paid. And what we're talking about here is all the American giants, Netflix, Disney, and so on. Yeah, I think you're right. I think you're right. Listen, we got lots more to get to. We're going to be talking about a New York quarterback introducing Donald Trump and all hell breaking loose as well as, as what one premier referred to as the most ridiculous ruling in judicial Canadian history. That's coming up next right here on the Ben Mulroney show.

Welcome back and I want to thank my guest, Dmitri and Max, for sticking around. Guys, I want to talk about culture wars for a second. And these aren't even our culture wars. It's the American ones. There's a story of the New York Giants quarterback, Jackson Dart. Great name for a quarterback, by the way, who introduced Donald Trump. And all hell exploded. And the media was writing outraged stories about an individual supporting a politician.

And it feels weird. It's like one rule for the one rule for me. I mean, shouldn't we be allowing these people to have whatever opinions they want? I mean, if somebody supports Kamala Harris, nobody has a problem with that. Bernie Sanders. Nobody has a problem with that. But God forbid, somebody support the president. I mean, let him figure it out on his own. If anyone has a problem with that, the endorsements will dry up and that'll be that. But this clutching of the pearls when they support one politician, but ignoring it for another, to me, is an issue, Max.

Well, I can assure you that they don't ignore it for other politicians. It's just on Fox News or further reaches of the right-wing ecosystem. They get just as mad. I mean, let's not forget that Colin Kaepernick was basically a minor celebrity in the Fox ecosystem for years because of his willingness to take a knee during the national anthem. You know, the stick to sports people

are not very consistent on the rules of sticking to sports. So, yeah, you know, this quarterback is getting criticized for appearing at a political rally, which is, to be clear, a step further than just supporting a politician. That's pretty active support. And he's going to bear the consequences, whatever they might be. I think that's fine.

That's free speech. That's how that works. Hold on. So let me think about it. Let's take sport out of it. Let's throw it back to Sidney Sweeney when she had the Sydney Sweeney's got good genes. Remember the ad campaign? And some industrious, Paul, journalist discovered that she at one point had been a registered Republican.

As if that's some sort of gotcha thing. I just I'm just I just don't I don't know that that's necessarily a helpful journalism and Demetre I'll ask you If it's a quarterback of whatever team wants to support Donald Trump It's his right as a citizen he gets to cast a vote and he gets to express who he supports when he wants to how he wants to where he wants to And and I would say there's a I disagree for example taking a knee during the national anthem It was his right to do it, I guess, even though I profoundly disagreed with him. I think the criticism, and I see Max's point, Fox News, has a field day when Hollywood stars endorse Democrats. But nine times out of ten, and I'm not quantifying this in a way that can be quantified,

but most of the time, the majority of the time, it's always the woke cancel culture left that basically wants to prevent people to endorse somebody that they don't agree with. It's his right, good for him. Well, in our last few minutes, Max, I'll start with you. You know, I had a great conversation with a young chief out of British Columbia

has got a great podcast. Aaron Pete has got a podcast called Nguenced. And we were talking about, you know, some of the roadblocks and stumbling blocks on the path to reconciliation. And he really did, he did point out that a lot of the, a lot of the problems that we have there,

that have, that have issues in the press that, that blow up. I mean, it starts with the judiciary. And at any point, you know, the, the legislature could come, come back and rectify those things.

In a lot of cases, our elected parliamentarians don't want to, don't want to take that step. And now we find ourselves not on the, on the, on the, on the, on the, um, reconciliation path, but moreover, the sort of judicial overreach as it relates to the decision by a judge to clear a Kitchener encampment in favor of building transit. Here's what the, here's what the Premier Ford said about the Waterloo homeless situation.

There's 30, roughly 30 homeless people that want to encamp in a middle of a transit in a transit bill that will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars building go. expansion and all sorts of development and and thousands of new homes. And we're letting 30 people trump millions and millions of transit riders and thousands of people that want homes. And the judge is saying, well, they just have to stay there. You can't move them. You've got to be kidding. Max, do we have a problem with judicial overreach in this country?

Nope, we don't. In this situation here, you know, the judge was very clear. If the Premier wants to move these people and provide them with housing, then the problem is solved. But the whole point of the courts is to prevent the tyranny of the majority, to prevent, you know, governments steamrolling the rights of smaller communities, smaller groups of interests. And it's, I think, very convenient to describe that as judicial overreach until it's your rights that are being trampled by the majority. And then you very much welcome it. So, no, we don't have a problem with judicial overreach. this case can be appealed

and the premier can simply provide these people with housing and solve the problem that way. But he prefers to punch down on the courts because that is a very popular strategy for conservative premiers lately. I think it does tremendous damage to the fabric of this country and our trust in our judicial system. But Premier Ford doesn't seem to care about that.

Demetri, this judge did define homelessness as an immutable trait, even though it is by definition mutable. I wonder what you think. So what we've seen, unfortunately, what we've seen over the last decade is homelessness has increased exponentially. Canadians needing to use the food bank has also increased exponentially. My challenge with this decision is try building low-income housing or social housing in an area. The community is up in arms and governments aren't able to proceed with it. And what this decision means if it is upheld elsewhere, it basically means that municipalities

across Canada could face a de facto legal limitation on clearing encampments unless they can provide adequate shelter capacities first. So I would say that this is a bit of a judicial overreach because judges are making policy decisions that governments themselves are struggling to finance or make operational. So the danger for governments that this president sets is we can go down the path that it could affect public parks, transit corridors, school zones, riverbanks,

downtown zones, infrastructure lands. So once a court establishes that a stronger, around lack of shelter availability. Municipalities will immediately become hesitant to enforce bylaws out of fear of litigation. My last question is, is my most important. And Max, I'm going to come to you. And we've talked about this before, but I'm coming back with a stronger pitch. Is it not incumbent upon every single Canadian in an effort to push back against the Americans,

to support the Montreal Canadians in this moment. Is it not time for by Canadian to actually mean something and for every Canadian, including Maple Leaf fans and Euler fans and Flames fans across this nation to say elbows up, we are supporting the last team in these playoffs to bring the cup home. Talk to me like somebody who's not from Montreal. Look, I could not agree more. When there's only one Canadian team left,

then we're all fans of that team. And it doesn't matter who it is. We should tell that to the Lee fans in this city. Well, I mean, you've got to take that up with them. But look, I tell you, I've seen some Montreal-Canadian's jerseys out here in Calgary. We're behind them. You know, I think the timeline started to go a little askew in the early 90s. The last time we won a cup, maybe we can get it back on the good timeline here by winning one again.

Dimitri, last word to you. You got about 30 seconds, my friend. So a couple of weeks ago, I put the Habs logo on the hood of the head of the, my car. And as we speak today, both sides of the car is getting installed with the Habs logo and the red, white, and blue stripes. It is, go Habs go. It is incumbent on everyone in this nation as a matter of civic responsibility to support this Canadian team in this moment. Never before. It's either an existential threat or it's not. And we need to be pushing back against Americans, not just at the supermarket, not just in the tariff war, but in this war for hockey supremacy.

because you either believe it or you don't. And on that note, I said thank you to the both of you. Go Habs go. I will talk to you soon. Go Habs go. All right. He's 22. He's never seen a lake, roasted a marshmallow, or had a break from survival.

Until now, Good Shepherd nonprofit homes sends adults in their care to camp. It helps them heal, breathe, and remember joy. You can give that moment of peace for just $290. or send a group for $9,500. Give the gift of healing through an escape to the outdoors. Visit goodshepardcenters.com.ca and donate today.