The Ben Mulroney Show - Second Hour of the Ben Mulroney Show on Monday April 14th

Episode Date: April 15, 2025

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

Now, our change will honour the Supreme Court of Canada, where justice and truth have guided decisions since 1875. As the country's highest court, it plays an essential role in protecting the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. The new one-dollar coin features a semicircle of laurels, symbolising the nine judges and their enduring pursuit of justice. Find the limited edition, 150th anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada coined today. Okay Martin, let's try one. Remember, big. You got it. The Ford

It's a Big Deal event is on. How's that? A little bigger. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Nice. Now the offer? Lease a 2025 Escape Active All-Wheel Drive from 198 bi-weekly at 1.99% APR for 36 months with $27.55 down. Wow, that's like $99 a week. Yeah, it's a big deal. The Ford, it's a big deal event. Visit your Toronto area Ford store or Ford.ca today.

Welcome to the Ben Mulroney Show. Thank you so much for listening wherever you listen to us on this Monday. Like I said, as I always say, we find you wherever you are. You may be on listening on the radio, you may be listening on a podcast, you may be listening on a streaming app. We don't care. An ear is an ear is an ear, to paraphrase our former prime minister. It was a very interesting weekend with lots of news being made. I always know that at the end of a workweek during an election campaign there's gonna be some stuff that comes up but you never know what it's gonna be and I was surprised and dumbfounded and gobsmacked over some of

the stuff that I saw and some of it really really angered me. Some of it I found really interesting. For example, I think I woke up, it was Saturday, when I woke up to a massive endorsement of Pierre Poliev by 30 of the most significant titans in Canadian business. Everyone from the chairman and CEO of Fairfax Financial, to the chairman and CEO of Matamie Homes, which is one of the biggest builders in the country. You've got people in the financial sector. You've got people in the banking sector. You've got people in the mining sector.

You've got the energy sector. You've got entrepreneurs. You've got real estate investors, and so on, and so on. You've got that CEO of Sleep Country on this, 30 of the biggest names in Canadian business coming together saying that all is not lost in Canada, but we can reclaim it if we subscribe to the vision of the future of Pierre Poliev and the conservatives. And I tweeted this saying this is, in my opinion, the most significant endorsement for Pierre Poliev. Yet, I urged everybody to do their own research on the signatories. And I said, these are Canadian Titans who have for decades invested in our communities and helped build our

economy. And those on the left who really wanted this to be a resume measuring contest have officially lost that battle because what I'm looking at when I see this list ofiev. So the banker who came back because of the crisis, that everyone's saying, oh, we gotta get behind him because look at his resume. Well, these people know his resume. And a lot of these people have similar, if not better resumes. And they are saying, we don't believe him. And then of course the blowback is,

oh, well, these are elites. But your guy is an elite. Your guy is the embodiment of an elite. I've said before, Mark Carney makes me look marginalized. That's how elite he is. But he's your kind of elite. These guys, in any other circumstance, they would be rubbing shoulders at the same parties,

at the same events, around the same boardroom tables. But they've decided that based on their experience of trying to grow their business and investments and building jobs and building communities and building industry, they're saying the best way forward is to vote for Pierre Poliev. And they did it all together,

30 of the biggest names in Canadian business. And if I were a betting man, I'd say this is not the end of that endorsement train. Let's also not forget that police are lining up to say our communities will be safer based on the conservative plan. You've got trade unions saying the trades will be more successful under him. You've got the energy sector saying he's going to come out and he's going to do what should have been done for the past 10 years, which is unleash our energy sector. These are the endorsements that should matter. And if you're the type of person who looks at this and says, oh, look, these are rich and entitled people

who don't stand up for Canada, then do Mark Carney. If you're so eager to do that for the 30 people on this list, do Mark Carney. All right, simple as that. You can't have one without the other. So I thought that that was a tremendous wind in the sails moment for Pierre, only time will tell. And last week, you'll remember I took great issue with Adam Vancouver and acting beneath the office that he seeks by trying to unfairly tar former Prime Minister Stephen Harper,

because he endorsed Pierre Poliev, by linking him in a tweet to some Americans who may or may not be people that you respect. And I waited for Mark Carney to condemn that. He did no such thing. And then Mark Carney, Adam Vancouver did what politicians do. It was Passover over the weekend.

And Adam Vancouver, with a beautiful happy Passover image, said, as Passover begins, we honor the story of liberation, resilience, and hope at the heart of the sacred tradition. To all my Jewish friends and neighbors celebrating, happy Passover. Isn't that a lovely sentiment to say, and let me just read it again.

The story of liberation, resilience, and hope. Okay's let me just read it again. The story of liberation, resilience and hope. Okay, that's what he's celebrating. So explain to me why after saying that to Jews, he went into a mosque and said this to Muslims. strong in Ottawa, strong to condemn the genocide and end the genocide in Gaza, to continue to make sure that the Palestinian voices are heard in Ottawa by our leaders, and to make sure that Canada continues to stand strong for Palestinian safety and sovereignty. Make that make sense, Adam. Which one is it? The story of liberation and sacrifice of the Jewish people and effectively the story of liberation and sacrifice of the Jewish people

and effectively the state of Israel or the genocide and Palestinian sovereignty. Those two things don't work. You can explain it, but you haven't explained it. Saying one thing to one group and one thing to another, that is the stock and trade of the Liberal Party, I concede that, but where is Mark Carney on this? What do you believe? I know that Poliev came out and gave us his staunch commitment to the people

of the Jewish Canadians and to the people of Israel. You may not like it, you may not support it, but you know where he comes from, you know where he stands for. I do not know what this Liberal Party stands for. Now, according to their party platform, they stand in solidarity with Israel. So explain to me how you have a candidate who can talk about a genocide that is not happening, even though you stand with the people of Israel. That needs to be explained.

Of course, it won't be explained. Of course, the accountability will not be there, but I wanna lodge my complaint that I think we as Canadians deserve to know what you believe. And is this behavior by Adam VanCouverden acceptable to the Liberal Party, saying one thing to one group

and something different to another? I know they've done it before. I've never seen it done by the same guy on the same day, practically. But, you know, it's worked in the past. So maybe it'll work again. One thing that the liberals were hoping would work could possibly be illegal.

There was a convention in Ottawa, a conservative convention in Ottawa, and the liberals who had been trying doggedly and determinedly to link Pierre Poliev to Donald Trump with fact, couldn't do it with fact and have resorted to lies by disseminating buttons on the floor of this convention to make it look like everybody who had their hands on them that had messages on them that would instinctively make you think that there was a movement afoot to stop the steal.

You remember that nugget from the States? Stop the steal, have people doubting the election, threatening to lock up political opponents, fomenting Western alienation and Western separatism movements. All of these buttons were thrown out there to make it look like this was a topic of conversation at this event.

No such thing was true. The liberal war room turns out according to CBC reporting was responsible for putting those buttons there. And and then they got caught because they were overheard by that same journalist that night bragging about it in a pub. This is misinformation to the T. And so when you hear, whenever you hear Mark Carney saying, oh, you know, other parties want to, want to bring American style politics to Canada, lie.

Not true. Your party is doing it. And you're trying to suggest, not suggest, you are trying to lie your way into scaring people into a connection that does not exist. And if you want to go online and read the statement by the Liberal Party, not good enough. There's no apology in it, there's no explanation of it, there's no accountability in it, there are no names in it,

it is not good enough. This is toxic and corrosive to our democracy. This is possibly illegal according to the Canada Elections Act, and I think we as Canadians need answers now because this is some BS and it should anger each and every one of you whether or not you're liberal or conservative or NDP or any other party. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show and years ago in my previous life when I was an entertainment reporter, I was very

fortunate to go to New York City to do the press junket for the movie Minority Report. And you'll remember that's a movie set in the future, set in Washington, DC, where people with ESP are put in some sort of organic computer and they're able to predict violent crimes. And so there's this pre-crime police force that arrests people before they commit murder. And then they are held and convicted because they're called pre-cogs, gave them the evidence that they need to stop the crime.

And it's a heck of an ethical dilemma because can you arrest somebody before they do anything wrong? What if you have all the evidence that points in that direction? Well, there's a story coming out of the UK that makes it feel like we're getting a little bit closer to that as a reality. I'm sure we're not, and we're going to drill down in just a moment closer to that as a reality. I'm sure we're not, and we're gonna drill down in just a moment with Dr. Kerry Bowman, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Toronto.

Dr, welcome to the show. Hi, Ben, happy to be here. I'm so glad. So I remember one of my favorite moments in that movie was in an effort to convince Colin Farrell of the value of pre-crime. Tom Cruise takes a ball and throws it across a table. And as it comes off the table, Colin Farrell caught it.

And he said, why'd you catch that? He said, because it was gonna fall on the floor. He said, but it didn't. He said, just because something doesn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't predetermined to happen. And that was a pretty compelling argument for pre-crime. Talk to me about what's going on in the UK and why it might be slightly different.

Well, my one deficit been for this interview is I haven't seen the movie. I was even going to try and watch it last night. But I didn't believe it or not. I've never seen it. But but that's actually a really good analogy that you just rolled through. So um, so what they want to do in the United Kingdom now do remember for everyone listening in the United Kingdom, now do remember for everyone listening, the United Kingdom obviously has different laws. Also, they have a very different attitude

towards confidentiality and surveillance than Canada or the United States. So, they were originally calling it something close to the murder prediction tool, which is a pretty creepy name, has now been renamed the Sharing Data to Improve Risk Assessment. So it would be through the police forces, as I understand it to be, of both London and

I believe the second city was Manchester. And what they would do was look at massive amounts of, we're looking at over half a million people potentially, where the police have files. Now with these files, some people have had criminal pasts absolutely but you know their files also include a lot of things. They would include allegations, they would include people that are phoning in to report a crime not not convicted of a crime to report a crime and this would cross over almost certainly into mental health status,

addiction, self-harm, you know, and history of contact with police. Well, history of contact with police is quite extensive and doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. So, and it would cross over into vulnerability and disability. So, there's really something quite dystopian about it. And, you know, would it work? I can't answer that question, but what I can say is that tech time and time again, meaning, you know, technology, the argument for it is we're just down to cold, hard facts. We're trying to protect people's lives.

But time and time again, tech is created by us people. And our prejudices just have a way of weaving their way into all of this. And you know, the argument in the United Kingdom, which is not a lot different than here are a lot of Western nations, is that low income and marginalized people are often highly and racialized. Yeah, are highly over policed. And therefore they're going to have more data. Yeah. And in fact, you would have a race problem with it. So there's just a lot of stuff here.

Doc, to me, if they told me that they were doing this to... They were putting together files and with the more information they had, the more alarming somebody's possibility to offend could be and therefore they were gonna take steps to help them come out of that danger zone. In other words, if it was determined that somebody was marginalized or had mental health issues, then they were gonna take proactive steps

to help that person deal with those mental health issues, as opposed to saying, oh, this person is likely to be a criminal, and therefore we're going to treat them as a criminal, even though they haven't done anything yet. Those, to me, are two different things. Yeah, and I would agree. They really are two different things. And so that would be the concern.

And I'm not a crime expert, but, you know, I've read a great deal about this. And, you know, it's essentially profiling. It's more reductive than expansive. It narrows the field of suspects, but it doesn't really identify anyone. It can also create stereotypes very, very much because there's individuals under that.

And, you know, even if you know, I don't know the prevalence of homicide within British society, but I'm guessing it. Look, I could be wrong here, but I don't think it's a leading threat to society. I, you know, I'm sure it's there and it's a living nightmare to anyone whose lives it's touched. But, you know, is this the highest priority? So, you know, I would very much worry about that because, you know, you have to look at, you know, what's going to work in a mature democratic society, which Britain is, which Canada is, which a lot of countries are. And I see as an ethicist, a lot of concerns with consent, trust and confidentiality and

trust of the police is not great in most Western countries and this will not help. Well, also as somebody who is a casual observer of what I see in the UK, it does seem that there are some fairly draconian laws that have come onto the books in terms of what you can say online, you know, your digital footprint,

how it can be weaponized against you in ways that I think would make a lot of North Americans get very, very scared. So that's why I would be concerned that this would be a way of directing people who don't belong in the criminal justice system into that world, as opposed to using this information for good and ensuring that people who may be going down a path

that could lead there are diverted into more productive ways of getting them help. Look, if the information exists, then leverage it to the benefit of society, making sure these people remain productive members of society as opposed to saying, once a criminal, always a criminal, let's lock them up before they do anything. Yeah, I would agree and I would agree fully.

And I agree with you, you know, the other thing in Britain is, you know, the amount of surveillance is, whoa, I mean, it would not fly here. But, but you know, there's cultural and legal differences. It's not our country. But, but, you know, a lot, there's an interrelationship between all these countries. So it's very important. We keep an eye on all of this. Well, and yeah, and I remember years ago, when they talked about how, how many close circuit TVs, CCTVs they have in the UK, a lot of people said, okay, well, if that leads to lower crime rates and more people playing by the rules,

then great, if we give these tools to the police, then the ends justify the means. I mean, and that's a debate that we can have at a later date, but it doesn't seem to me, at least in the sense that I get of the UK, that there's less crime and less violence and less good order in the streets than in places that have less surveillance. And so surveillance for the sake of surveillance sake, if all you're doing is grabbing data that you can then use to weaponize against people later on, that's a problem.

Yeah. And remember, AI, you know, is, I'm not saying this is completely an AI initiative, but AI waves its way into all these things. And AI will be a powerful force here. And remember, we've now got facial recognition. So that's an awful lot of data, depending on how it's used. Now, no one in here is talking about facial recognition, let me be honest, but that I've seen. But, you know, it's a very heavy handed form of surveillance. It's got a lot of dystopian elements to it that make people nervous, including me. And there's kind of a lack of transparency. Now they're saying it's in the research stages, but you know, mostly people do research because they're trying to decide whether they're gonna move ahead or not. So it's good that it's drawing attention,

including some media attention because this is a very important story. I've been talking to Dr. Kerry Bowman, professor of bioethics at the University of Toronto. We're talking about could the minority report come to the UK? Professor, do yourself a favor, block off two and a half hours and go watch this film.

It is phenomenal. I watch it at least once a year. It does it ages very, very well. There is a massive plot hole in it, which you and I can discuss at a later date, but that does not take away from the enjoyment of it. Thank you so much for joining us on this Monday. You're very welcome. Take care, Ben. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. And every election is an attempt to solve problems. Take care, Ben. Wednesday, we on the show here have our dilemma panel where we try to solve your personal problems. We like to get granular, we like to get in the weeds with you our listeners, but we can't do it without you. You got to email us and let us know what your personal dilemma is. And so we ask you to email us at ask Ben at chorus and calm that's ask Ben at co r us

ent.com. It may not change your life, but it is entertaining, sometimes far more entertaining than what we see on the campaign trail. And every Monday we are joined by one of my favorite guests, Tony Chapman, who's the host of the award-winning podcast, Chatter That Matters, and the founder of Chatter AI, so that we can talk about messaging and strategy and all these, and we get to look at a lot of the stories

that we all know and are dealing with, but in completely different ways. So welcome to the show, lot of the stories that we all know and are dealing with but in Completely different ways. So welcome to the show Tony. Thanks so much for joining us and happy Monday Happy Monday to you Ben. So on Saturday I posted what I what I called on Twitter the most significant endorsement for Pierre poliev and the conservatives yet when 30 of Canada's business titans got together in one single endorsement To say that they believe that his is the path forward to prosperity. And of course, there was some pushback by the people

who reflexively have a problem with the conservatives saying, well, this is the elite. These are the people who don't care about Canada. And I said, okay, well, if you believe that, I mean, they all know Mark Carney. So now do Mark Carney. What do you think? Did I overstate it?

The fact that they all came together at once with one voice to make this endorsement. That's why I thought it was significant. I didn't think you overstated it at all. My feeling was, so I had a lot of pushback because I put it up in my LinkedIn page too and went just absolutely viral. Most people were really supportive of what they were saying

because first and foremost, they laid out a five-step plan for Canada. And it was a plan based on the math, our productivity is declining or unemployment is increasing, capital is fleeing, entrepreneurs are disappearing, crime is up. I mean, all the things that we know, just driving around the streets of Canada, they said, here's five things we need to do. And then they said, here's why we're, we are endorsing the conservatives. So I thought that for them to put their name on and actually endorse a leader in the middle

of what is one of the most contentious elections, to me, it took both courage and conviction. Because what was expected, as you said, is a lot of blowback. There's people saying, oh, they're just the rich trying to get richer. And I counted saying they have so much money already. They're great grandkids for some of these people are going to be well taken care of.

Why would they ever bother? Yeah. I mean, they've done it. And I think it's because they absolutely care about Canada and they say what we, where we are today is not the conditions we need to go forward. I think they're also saying, I'm not sure I would have succeeded the way I succeeded in the past, given the condition of today. So I give them full credit for doing it.

I'd like to see more women on the list. And I understand from talking to some of the people that there's going to be even more people coming out and forcing this, but I will. But at the same time, it takes courage. Ben, what you do every day takes courage because you're saying to somebody, this is what I believe in. And if somebody doesn't believe in it, especially with social media, you can get very violent into your attacks back. Well, and also, you know, I'm getting really tired of people saying, oh, Mark Carney, I mean, he's the guy with the big brain. He's the guy with the success. He's the guy who knows how the world works and how the economy works. Well, tell me that the heads of our the two bankers the two heads of the Ken is big banks who put their names on that

Tell me that they don't know as much as Mark Carney So so explain one and then do the 30 others and and they can't do it their heads explode And that's why I said this is this can't be a resume measuring contest anymore because these resumes stack up favorably against Mark Carney and And yes, if there are more names that come out, I do hope that there are more women involved as well, only time will tell. But we only have a couple of weeks left. So if they're going to do it, they should do it soon.

Hey, we talk a lot about I want to see. So I just want to add, I want to see people from academia, entrepreneurs. I want to see a balanced side of Canada come out and say, we're not happy with where we are. I am therefore we need change. And I think that what people listening is this confirmation bias is I don't care what you say. I believe in Mark Carney or I believe in the conservatives, whatever the confirmation bias is. All I ask of you is take that away for a moment. Look around at the candidate that exists today. Look at happened in Ottawa yesterday in the Passover, massive protests calling for the eradication of the Jewish race.

This is Canada. This never existed before. This is what must change. If you think Carney's a guy to do it, go for it. If you think Pierre is a guy to do it, go for it. But I would tell you something. I fundamentally believe we need massive systemic change in this country. Because the last 10 years, if you follow the math,

forget anything else, the math, it says our country is much worse off today than it was a decade ago. We've talked a lot on this show about the fall of the Hudson's Bay Company, and what to do with that brand, you know, they're liquidating most of their stores right now, which is a very sad state of affairs. I don't lay that at the feet necessarily of the liberals. It's a question of sort of the dying of retail, but I'm sure they haven't helped.

But now we hear that there are multiple potential bidders interested in purchasing this distressed entity. And I've got to wonder, what would somebody want to do with Hudson's Bay? Do they want it just for the name? Yeah, the name and the iconic colors, the ability to produce merchandise, maybe pop-up stores. They're not gonna recreate the Bay that we once treasured in terms of these big department stores and build it,

they will come. But they have name recognition. And every tourist that comes to Canada that wants to leave, if you leave Costa Rica, you leave with a stuffed sloth, you leave Canada, you could leave with maple syrup. If they had pop-up stores, Hudson Bay stores in airports, people would walk away with a great souvenir of Canada. So that's what somebody's trying to buy is the attachment to what Hudson Bay represents to Canada. And I hope that whoever's successful is Canadian. I don't blame this at all on the Liberals.

This was a private equity investor that valued the real estate more than they valued the customer, and this is what happens. But somebody coming in can reimagine it and at least keep the expression of the Bay alive and hopefully create the product in Canada, and say this is for Canada, and I think that they could stand a great success.

I mean, I remember being at the Vancouver Olympics in 2012. I was part of the broadcast consortium, and that was really a golden age for Hudson's Bay. They had the license for the Olympic merch, and you saw people buying the striped blankets, and the striped scarves and wherever you looked, there was this expression of this identifiably Canadian brand in such a proud way

and to see how far they've fallen in just a few years, it's sad, it's disappointing and if somebody has the vision that you just laid out, well, there's hope for at least a whisper of that moving forward. I think there's a massive whisper. I mean, you could bottle Canadian fresh air and sell it in Europe under Hudson Bay, but people would go like it's, it's what we stand for as a country globally is nature and fresh and alive. And we're, we're the opposite United States. Hudson Bay could capitalize on that with the right brand strategy, but it has to be done in Canada and it has to be made in Canada. Second that comes in with a blanket saying made in China.

To me, it's just it's a disgrace and it's just opportunistic. But if somebody says this is an opportunity for Canada, I think we're going to be talking about this, this Renaissance and revitalization and profit circulating in Canada for, for decades to come. So Hudson's Bay was a brand of the people, Prada and Versace, certainly not, but very valuable as well. Really quickly, talk to me about what it means that Prada is going to buy Versace, which is a rival fashion house,

for $1.4 billion US. Yeah, it's a consolidation play. The luxury market really exists now in Asia, because that's where the money is Russia, Middle East and what they're trying to do is to consolidate the brand so that for example if one is out of favor they can emphasize the other and what they want to do with real estate because it's all about real estate people love to shop for luxury brands in store is they want to have another great brand to convince landlords that they deserve the prime locations. When you get off that cruise ship,

you're in Dubai in a shopping mall, you see those two brands together, and what they want to do is get your share wallet, whether you buy Prada or Gucci, it doesn't matter. What they have is they've got two trap lines out there to convince the luxury people that a $10,000 purse is something that will validate who you are socially. But you think that the identities

of those brands will be maintained? Oh for sure. They're not going to merge them or do anything like that? Never, never. The largest luxury brand in the world owns about 15 of these massive brands. The Berberies of the world and stuff and Versace's of the world, they're all consolidated and it's just a big brand play. It's underneath it is one house that does social media, that does the shopping center read his designs and everything else. But in front of it are all these points of distinction. You will absolutely keep those brands going and you'll see even more investment. Thank you very much, Tony Chapman. Have a great week.

Welcome back to the Ben Mulry Show. Always a pleasure to have you joining us here on the show, whether you find us on radio on a streaming app, or of course, on Spotify, Apple Music or Amazon Music in podcast form, just search up Ben Mulroney or the Ben Mulroney show, and there you will find a cornucopia, a horn of plenty, if you will, of podcast fun for you to enjoy. Last week on this very show, I received a phone call from somebody who pointed out that when pollsters call people, there is a type of person

that doesn't typically answer the phone. I mean, if you see a phone call on your caller ID and you don't recognize, you don't pick it up, and more likely than not, that's gonna be young Canadians. And I had to wonder whether that might play into why we're seeing the polls play out the way they are. Maybe young people aren't picking up the phone. If you believe that young people are voting

for Pierre Poliev, by and large large or to a large extent, then maybe they are being underrepresented in the polls because they're not picking up the phone. So I thought rather than speculate on that, I would talk to somebody right now who is not only a young person, but is a politically involved young person. As a matter of fact,

you can't even vote in this next election. Please welcome to the show, Jayden Braves, chief executive officer of Young Politicians of Canada, who, by the way, is 16. Jaden, welcome to the show. Good morning. Good morning. How are you? I'm well. I'm well. So before we get into all of that, let our listeners know who Jaden Braves is and what the Young Politicians of Canada is all about.

Yeah, absolutely. I'm Jaden Braves. I'm the CEO and founder of Young Politicians of Canada. Indeed, I am 16 years old. I was involved in partisan politics for a number of years becoming a federal counselor. And now I spend my time trying to find meaningful discussion between people that are disagreeing with each other, people that come from different backgrounds, people that come from different political stripes to find meaningful dialogue within Canadian democracy. We're one of the largest growing youth organizations in Canada. And I have the privilege to lead us across this election and a number of different pieces of legislation that we're building to make sure you think Canada have a brighter future.

Well, you're speaking my language because I believe that the only way we become the magic of Western democracy is the collision of ideas in the public sphere. Yes. And everything else is noise, right? And may the best argument win. And it allows you for the next battle to be honed and to make your ideas and arguments sharper. So the next time around, maybe you win the argument. And I think that without that, we lose what is special

and magic about the Western society. And so thank you very much for sort of pushing those ideals and ideas forward. There is a debate going on right now, a quiet debate, but it pops up every now and then, about lowering the voting age. And I've heard it specifically in Quebec, anytime a separatism is on the rise,

they say, oh, we wanna lower the voting age to 16. One of the reasons is because people are more emotional. The argument is that people are more emotional when they are younger and therefore they're going to vote on the emotion of having their own country over the fact that it may make life harder, at least in the near term. Where is, what's your stance on lowering the voting age? I know you're politically involved, but you must know that, I mean, you know better than I how politically involved 16 year olds are. Sure, sure. And, and I think, well, for starters, that know better than I, how politically involved 16 year olds are. Sure, sure. And I think, well, for starters,

that's such a silly argument to say that it's emotional based because I think you're no more emotional when you're 16 than you are 18 than you are 25. Your brain is still developing now they're saying until you're 29. So if your brain has a narrow plasticity throughout childhood into adulthood, this age number is pretty much arbitrary.

Outside of the Quebec front, we see not that much voter interest. And that's clear when you have 18 to 25 year olds being the lowest margin showing up to the polls. That's a big concern for me as somebody that, you know, wishes I had the right to vote pretty much every day. Have I pushed for youth voting at the federal level? Yeah, I mean, look, I look pretty involved politically, but I've absolutely pushed for youth voting at the federal level? Yeah, I mean, look, I look pretty involved politically, but I've absolutely pushed for youth voting. I think it's super important. I think it's ridiculous that a 16 year old can't get,

we can get behind the wheel of a car, but we can't show up to the polls and vote. I also think it's ridiculous simultaneously that Ontario is the only province in this country that has a civic literacy mandated program. And it's the most failed course in the Toronto District School Board. So how can you give young people the ability

to show up to a poll if that's the limitation of their civic knowledge? And also how can you expect an adult to only have the sufficiency of that level of education that's totally unfair, it's only half a credit, it barely pops up and youth don't really have the fullest knowledge. And if we had a bigger presence

of that in grade 10 civic literacy, you know, they had opportunities to show up to vote at their own high schools, they were working on these issues, they were critically discussing them while they're simultaneously maybe have a part time job or using the healthcare system using the transit system. That's a much more structured and reasonable way to get a younger person out to vote. Jayden, tell me what you really think. Okay, let's move on to this, the issue that I wanted to talk to you about, which is, you know, there is a dissonance that people feel, a disconnect between the polls that they see, especially people on the conservative side, they see these polls that say that the Tories are trailing across the country, sometimes by double digits, and yet they don't necessarily see that registering in the everyday interactions that they have,

be it with their friends, in their cohort, or at rallies and that sort of thing. And if you believe that the youth vote is by and large tethered to the conservative party, do you think that that disconnect has something to do with the fact that young people do not answer their phones? And I speak as the father of two 14 year olds with cell phones, the only calls they ever pick up are from me, their mother, or their

friends. Sure. And that's a good point. And I you know, I appreciated your intro. I think it's a worthwhile thing to raise and mention. I also think it might neglect the fact that a lot of the polling we're seeing is done online. So I know as a young person, I would click on a link to pull my perspective on a random app. If a company pops up and say who are you most likely to vote for, anonymous, press a button and then it disappears. I'm actually working with a data company that does something similar to that where you will

find a random survey on your phone, you'll click a button and it'll disappear. And that's the type of stuff that young people will be inclined to click. So I don't think calling is the largest way of surveying right now. In fact, it's only about 15% of the amount of surveys that are leading to this aggregative polling standard that we're seeing in Canada. So it'd be hard to make generalization that young people aren't the ones, you know, maybe contributing to what we're seeing in this left-wing swing. The other thing I'll mention is that young people, as we have established, don't really show up to the polls, right?

We have about 36% projected for young people between 18 to 30 to show up to polls, which is the largest gap, lowest we've had in probably 20, 30 years. Do you think that's going to happen? You think that's project that that projection is going to bear out in this election? I do. I really do. I think the pessimism from social media and the pessimism from what's going on around the world that doesn't feel like young people can actually take action on or be heard in

has led to enough disinterest and apathy. That's interesting. I would have thought given what I'm seeing at these rallies, then that to me is, and again, a rally is a rally, right? It's an indicator, it's not a predictor. But I would have thought that there is a groundswell of, I mean, look, in 2015, the youth showed up to vote for Justin Trudeau's help sweep him into power.

So that if enough of them show up, that could make a difference. Well, Ben, it's true, but it's a cash 22 because if we don't have an education program that will empower them to understand that if you protest, you can show up to the polls and make your voice heard by protest in a form of a vote, then we won't see that manifestation. Here's an example. It's like 50% of young people in Canada consider themselves activists, but we see how many actually show up to the polls. And so if an activist won't even show up to the polls, won't even spoil their ballot, then how can we understand that those

protests are also manifesting in voting numbers? Because they're not. And that's because we have an education system that doesn't facilitate that basic understanding of how constitutional democracy functions. Jayden, in the next, the last 45 seconds, based on the conversations you're having with a young cohort, what are the top issues in this election for them? Let's have stability.

Let's have a government that we can trust in. As Canadian values reflect, our government is something that we take pride in, that we trust regardless of who's in power. Let's have stability, affordable housing market, a climate crisis that's actually being grappled with, that's being handled with a viable plan, regardless of what that plan is, it's something that's being implemented and followed. And let's stop having polarizing discussion because Canadians have conversations with one another. We disagree and then we figure out the solutions by our disagreement. That is the beauty of living in a constitutional democracy.

That's something we need to educate on. That's something we need to protect. That's something we need to standardize at the national level. And we're going to keep doing it over at Young Politicians of Canada. Yeah. And I'm glad you're doing it. I think we have to restore the nobility of debate. I think we have to remind people that it is a privilege to be able to debate in an open forum in this country, free of reprisals.

And I think you guys over at the Young Polit of Canada are hopefully instilling that in people in a young age. It is a privilege to be able to talk openly about the things that matter to ourselves. And look, if you lose a debate, there's always another one to fight the next day. Thank you so much. Talk to you very soon. Thank you so much. Absolutely. Talk to you very soon. Want to transform your space and your Sundays? Well, Home Network is giving you the chance to love your home with $15,000. There can only be one winner. Tune in to Renovation Resort every Sunday and look for the code word during the show.

Then enter at homenetwork.ca slash watch and win for your chance to win big. Amazing! Ha! Ha! The small details are the difference between winning and losing. Watch and win with Renovation Resort on Home Network.