The Ben Mulroney Show - Should Canadian judges interpret the law? Or make public policy?

Episode Date: August 12, 2025

- Bronwyn Eyre/former minister of Energy/Justice in saskatchewan - Mohit Rajhans Mediologist and Consultant -COLIN CRAIG — SECONDSTREET.org   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 Enjoy   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a paid advertisement for better help. These days, it feels like everywhere you turn, someone's got a new theory on how to improve your mental health, from ice baths to meditation apps. There's a lot of noise out there about what's supposed to make you feel better. But the truth is, finding what actually helps you isn't always that simple. When it comes to mental health, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. That's why speaking with someone who is trained to listen and to help,

someone who can meet you where you are and help you figure things out, can make such a difference. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. BetterHelp connects people with mental health professionals from around the world offering access to a huge range of experiences and expertise. They've worked with millions of people already and with thousands of therapists available,

it is easy to find somebody who fits your needs. It's flexible too. You can schedule a session with just a click and you're free to change therapists whenever you need to until you find the right fit. Talk it out with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com slash Mulruni today to get 10% off your first month.

That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P.com slash Mulruni. This is a paid advertisement for Better Help. These days, it feels like everywhere you turn, someone's got a new theory on how to improve your mental health. From ice baths to meditation apps, there's a lot of noise out there about what's supposed to make you feel better. But the truth is,

finding what actually helps you isn't always that simple. When it comes to mental health, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. That's why speaking with someone who is trained to listen and to help, someone who can meet you where you are and help you figure things out can make such a difference. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. BetterHelp connects people with mental health professionals from around the world offering access to a huge range of experiences and expertise. They've worked with millions of people already, and with thousands of therapists available,

it is easy to find somebody who fits your needs. It's flexible, too. You can schedule a session with just a click, and you're free to change therapists whenever you need to. until you find the right fit. Talk it out with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com slash Mulruni today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P.com slash Mulruni. Welcome to the Ben Mulroney show on this Tuesday, August 12th.

Thank you so much. for spending a little bit of your day with us. We know that you could be anywhere. You could be listening to anything. Heck, you don't have to be listening to anything. And you're choosing us. And I want to say that we... Excuse me.

Appreciate it. I think in a moment like that, I should probably kept the microphone on, right? So people could appreciate the majesty of my sneeze. That was a horror show of a sneeze. The older I get, the louder my sneezes get. Yeah, yeah, no, that was your drum bursting. Yeah, there might be another one coming up.

I'm just warning you. You know, the deal. These things rarely happen in isolation. Something else that doesn't happen in isolation. It seems there is a trend on the bench in Canada with judges who are making public policy. At least that's how it appears to the layman or maybe to other people as well. We're joined now by Bronwyn-Air. She's a former Minister of Energy and Justice in Saskatchewan.

She's a senior fellow at Aristotle. And she has written a piece. Judges should interpret the law, not make public. policy from the bench. Bronwyn, welcome to the show. Thank you for joining us. Lovely to be here, Ben. I apologize for the sneeze off the top.

But no, we have been witnessing. I mean, you can keep them in isolation, but you've actually brought them all together, everything from what we just witnessed, although this is in the article, what we just witnessed in British Columbia, the bike lanes in Toronto, drug injection sites across the country,

homeless encampments. These are all decisions that are made at the judicial level that are flying in the face of policies that levels of government are trying to implement. Yeah, I think it's a matter of everyone sticking to their lanes. And courts are increasingly ideological. They're increasingly self-appointing as social and political arbiters. and frankly weaponizing the charter of rights. Yeah, every day I hear almost every day,

there's a charter challenge, section seven of the charter. It's probably the most quoted expression whenever we're talking about sort of civil issues in this country. And I don't remember being like that. Yeah, Section 7 is really increasingly the favorite, life, liberty, and security of the person. And so we are seeing, you know, too many cases, often brought by only a handful of complainants, which are dismantling whole swaths of government policy.

And you mentioned some of them. I mean, we've seen homeless encampments, climate policy, the bike lanes. Yeah, let's remind our listeners. So there have been many attempts to clear homeless encampments. If you don't have somewhere else to put them, it is a violation of their charter, their charter right to what, human dignity or something? Well, basically, there's a case out of Waterloo, and it's had pretty major precedent impact across the country where the region of Waterloo via municipal bylaw tried to, or was looking to dismantle a homeless encampment on city land. 70 structures and the judge said you can't do that Ontario Superior Court judge said you can't do that until you have found every single resident of that

encampment a place to live you know truly make the the connection between them and and somewhere else to to reside and and so of course this is having pretty major impact here you know cities and and provincial governments and others are trying to actually implement policy and solve some of this stuff. Yeah, and we saw it with safe injection sites. Provincial plans were halted due to a charter challenge. And I believe for some reason in my head, I'm remembering a court case that was brought

forth. I think there was, you know, can addicts shoot up in playgrounds? And the parents want to use the playgrounds for their kids. And for some reason I'm remembering this, I could be wrong. But I believe that there was a court fell on the side of the addicts saying that it was a, it was a, they had the, I guess, the right to do drugs wherever they wanted. Because they were endangered. Right. Goes the line of argument if they, you know, weren't able to access the safe injection site.

But you're right. I mean, in, in Ontario, we've seen Section 7 impact the homeless encampments. We've seen Section 7 impact the drug injection site. near schools, that's currently, and daycares, that's currently on pause, another government policy, which Premier Ford has tried to put through, also brought forward by a handful of complainants, which has shelved, you know, the entire thing. The bike lanes, again, section seven. Yeah. Yeah. And the judge went so far, because he said, even if you move these bike lanes somewhere else, that is still not, that's not enough to satisfy.

the charter rights of these cyclists. And we're seeing this play out in real time as well with an announced protest in Toronto for the pro-Palestinian movement where they say they are going to block access to the TTC up and down the Danforth. And that is a clear violation of the law. And a city councilor, Pasternak, said

these people will claim they have a charter right to do what they're doing. But what about everybody else's charter? rights. And I've got to wonder, Bronwyn, could there be a situation where, like, I would love, I would love to force this issue. I would love somebody to force this issue. I'd like them to back up the paddy wagon, arrest everybody at the protest, because if you're there, you're part of a protest that has a stated goal of breaking the law. So it's a criminal conspiracy. Back them up, get them all in court, have the courts figure it out, and have a judge look at, look at the

situation and tell law-abiding citizens that their charter rights matter less than people who break the law? Well, and I think it's the selectiveness that we're seeing, right? It's the ideological slant, the tendentiousness, which is increasingly coming, you know, into some of these decisions where they're, you know, and Premier Ford, I thought, put it very well on the bike lanes issue. He said that, that really the people of Ontario are not being listened to because ultimately it's the people of Ontario who vote for Doug Ford or vote for anyone else for that matter.

And so we're really being, you know, it goes so far out of whack that really what has traditionally been called parliamentary sovereignty and the right of governments to actually bring forward policy and be voted out or not voted out based on, you know, what they're bringing forward is being next by a judge, often, as I say, because of a handful of complainants in the bike lanes. I think it was two. Yeah. You know, a bunch of youth climate activists have brought forward some cases across the country on everything from challenging, you know, nuclear buildup to Ontario's climate plan. And they managed to shelve the whole thing, box in these policies and this legislation in some cases. And basically have it be completely scrutinized by the charter, which takes years.

And millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. I want you to have the last word in about a minute and a half. You know, one of the remedies you say that we can bring to bear on this is quite a hot take. You're going to have a lot of people saying that up in arms over it, but you're saying that governments should be using the notwithstanding clause far more than they are. Well, I mean, keep in mind that Quebec used the notwithstanding clause on absolutely everything from 1982 to 1985 and are the biggest users of the notwithstanding clause because, you know, as a province, it feels that, you know, provincial rights, but also government rights, rule when it comes to policy.

I think that it is potentially sadly, while, you know, I guess a bit of a blunt instrument, also a pretty sophisticated one when it comes to asserting government's right to govern. It's sunset after five years. And if you're going to introduce climate policy and you're voted in to do that, you have, you know, if you're being completely thwarted by the courts over, over and over. I think the notwithstanding clause is something that governments are looking to do more and more. Yeah. Well, Bronwyn, I have to say my hot take is those people who uphold the charter as the end all be all, as the what has led Canada into this enlightened place we are,

all while denigrating and clutching their pearls at the notwithstanding clause, which is part of the charter, means they don't have the respect for the charter or the understanding of the charter that they claim to have. It's absolutely right. And Alan Blakeney, who was an NDP premier and constitutional scholar, was a big believer in the notwithstanding clause. He fought hard to have it included in the charter and talked about how it can be used for economic, social policy, which governments have the right to bring in.

Well, Bronwyn, if you can stick with us a little bit, I'd love to continue this conversation after the, after the break. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show. We are living in an era of judicial activism in Canada where seemingly politicians can put forth a platform and they can ask for your vote. They can get your vote. They can form government. And then when they try to enact that platform, somebody can take them the court and the judges will tell them, no, you can't do that. And this has become, I mean, it's not the rule, but it's certainly.

more and there are enough exceptions that it may become the rule at some point. We're joined now. We're continuing our conversation with Bronwyn-Air, former minister of energy and of justice in Saskatchewan, and she's written a piece called Judges should interpret the law, not make public policy from the bench. Bronwyn, in your piece, you do point to 1982 as more or less a turning point, the sort of the adoption of the charter in this country. Talk to me about what that did.

Well, it really got the ball rolling in terms of all of this. And I think what we've seen post-1982 is really the entrenchment of the so-called living tree doctrine, right? That the constitution continually adapt to social and political contexts. And judges have absolutely taken that to heart. They have internalized that. And it really has led over time to this. this weaponization of the charter, this ideological bent, where judges are making policy from the bench,

which really should be the lane of governments. It's ironic that anybody would refer to our Constitution as a living document. It is unchangeable. It was viewed in 1982 by whoever designed it as infallible and representative of the country then and in perpetuity no matter the changes that would come to this country. So I find that very ironic. But the charter also, I want to go back to that because it's a hang-up of mind. Anytime a government other than Quebec suggests that they might consider using the notwithstanding clause,

the chattering classes in this country are up in arms as if this is some sort of egregious affront to democracy and to the law, when in point of fact we wouldn't have the charter that these chattering classes love so much had the not-withstanding clause been. included. Had that not been in it, we would not be having this conversation. And it is this ability to suck and blow at the same time that I find perplexing. Yeah, I totally agree with you. And I think there's a great deal of condescension, dare ones say, to other provinces, particularly Western provinces every time they consider using the notwithstanding closet, somehow, you know, respect your betters and don't use it, whereas Quebec clearly has used it. And that's not necessarily an excuse in.

in every case, but the point is that Quebec has interpreted it very much as a government, parliamentary sovereignty issue. And I think it is actually a very sophisticated instrument, as you say, integral to the charter, fought for by Peter Lougheed, fought for by Alan Blakeney, who was an NDP Premier. It's part of it and it's part of what truly is a living tree, which is that one lane cannot superimpose on another. Well, you know what? I'd love to open up the phone line. So if you want to give us a call here at the Ben Mulroney show, give us a call. Let's talk about this world that we're now living and we're seemingly judges Trump politicians in terms of policy. And like I said, it's not happening every day, but it's happening enough that we that certain people like Bronwyn have taken note. I can tell you, Bronwyn, that as somebody who, you know, doesn't doesn't look at this with the expertise that you have, I am constantly shocked with how emboldened. some judges are. And, you know, I wish, I wish that they would air on the side of, um, of, of, of the

everyday citizen, for example. There's it, they, they do seem to be following a political, uh, perspective. If my humble opinion, they tilt to the left, uh, because if they, if they, if they didn't, then we'd have judges saying, you know what? The, uh, I don't think that, uh, that, that the sentence. Guidelines are tough enough. And so, no, you're not getting a slap on the wrist. I'm sending you to jail for two years.

We never see that. What we hear is, oh, yes, you might have sexually assaulted that woman, but because you, because of your immigration status, I'm not going to send you to jail because that would prevent you from bringing your parents over from wherever you came from. This is the nonsense that is masquerading as judgment on the bench. Well, and you're seeing, I mean, to the point that politics is getting kind of mixed up in all of this and, you know, you have to look at something like the court challenges program. So the court challenges program is a federal program. Since 2017, it has spent $25 million, the federal government funding interveners and challenges that are on the liberal side, 96% of the time. That is the McDonnell-Lory Institute did that work. And it really goes. to show that where you have cases, the government, the federal government is funding intervenors

to shelve government policy, which is undesirable from the perspective of those intervenors, and 96% of them are on the liberal side. So, you know, on the small liberal side. So I think that it is getting to be, and the sentencing thing, which you raised, Ben, I mean, a lot of that is ingrained in the criminal code when it comes to sentencing, that, you know, you must release, you know, every opportunity. It's truly a catch and release structure and principle of restraint, which is that, you know, no matter or sometimes a violent background, a repeat background, use of, you know, a pattern of violence leading up to a sentencing or a bail sentence that you are seeing release where there really poses a threat to communities.

Well, we've got a call here. Let's welcome David to the Ben Mulroney show. David, what are your thoughts on the charter and on the world we're living in right now? Ben, I'm glad you guys are talking about this because it's actually very important for people who want to follow the law. I think that the weaponization of the judiciary has been something that has been a long-term plan for several decades. And we're now seeing what it is. and the people in power are like, yeah, we know you know, but what are you going to do about it? Because we control the law schools, we control all of the judiciary,

and the only way you can get into these law schools is if you tow a certain ideological line, and if somehow you get in and you think possibly right of center, there's no way you're going to get any appointment or any job in any sort of substantial law firm. So this is a very serious issue for those of us who want to continue to follow the law of Canada. David, thank you very much for your call. Bronwyn, what do you think? Is it that complex of a situation? Is it a system?

It's not just the judges, but an entire system that is indoctrinated. I think that there's a silent, I'm not sure if majority, but I think a silent element, which feels they have to be quite silent. And I think there's proof of that in a number of cases. For example, there's a case in Saskatchewan going on right now about a student who challenged certain things in a class and was then implicated in human rights complaints about how he'd created an unsafe space by challenging certain things,

that kind of thing. I mean, I think those things are happening. And I think that there has come to be a kind of a culture, a certain culture, ideological culture in law schools and in the fraternity of law. And I think that we are seeing that entrenchment, you know, rear its head too much on the bench where everything from homeless encampments to bike lanes to climate policy, which people actually want action on some of these things. And then they're frozen and shelved for years at a cost of millions as governments appeal this

and challenge them. sometimes as I say brought by two people Bronwyn, I've got time for I've got time for one more question Ian can you get to your question very quickly yeah this is a thing that's bothered me with these judges for a while all I want to know is there

any mechanism to remove these judges from the bench that's awesome okay thank you Ian Bronwyn very quickly is there a quick answer to this well that's very difficult I think we did touch on the notwithstanding clause which is I think at least a way that governments can

try to get their policy forward in terms of removing, that's a more complex issue. But I think that governments have to look at how they can actually get some of their policies on the front burner without being shelved for years. Bronwynair, thank you so much for being here. I hope you come back soon. I'd love to chat with you again. Thanks, Ben. It was a pleasure.

And if you've heard it once, you've heard it a million times. AI will never be as bad as it is in this moment. In other words, it's a forward progress towards perfection, the singularity. I don't know. But that is not necessarily true because with the update with chat GPT5, a lot of people are saying chat GPT4 was better. To talk about that and more, welcome Mohit, Rajans to the show. Mohit, thanks so much for being here.

And it's so crazy to think that, you know, 18 months. ago, we would be starting a conversation with the words chat GPT. Yeah, yeah. I didn't even know what it was, an open AI. And none of that stuff meant anything to me just a few years ago. And here they are valued in some of the biggest tech companies in the world. And chat GPT is outgunning Google by a lot of metrics. But tell me what, tell me why this step forward is not necessarily a step forward.

I think what we're seeing right now is this race for product enhancements. that nobody's necessarily asking for unanimously. Chat GPT was the disruptor. When it came down to chat technology and the use of AI, everybody else in big technology started to try to catch up. What we're seeing now is this need from investors to start to see all of these improvements become part of the race to have the best product. But what we're also seeing is that it's not leaving enough room for people to be good at using their product.

So it's like you're relearning each time, at least with the iPhone re-releases. You didn't really have to re-learn each time you got a new iPhone or new iOS. A couple of things were shifted around, and we don't want to talk about the Photos app. But you see what I said. I will say so. Just one thing about the iPhone, because I think it bears, some people don't notice it until you tell them. It is one of the most complex pieces of technology that we have ever bought in our lives.

What this thing can do is Trump's almost everything else in our lives, and it doesn't come with an instruction manual. That's how easy it is. Yeah, that's how easy it is to use. Okay, let's, yeah, so chat, GBT, so yeah, that's interesting. So is it, do you think that happened because of the cutthroat competition in that space that they're just moving so fast that they're not actually asking what does the consumer want? That's part of it.

And it's definitely getting really confusing for anybody. You know, I think the people that are operating in the world of AI don't believe that the rest of world is caring about anything else. Yeah. And so it's very siloed, you know, you're hearing about these grudge matches of stealing employees and stuff. It's becoming a little bit of theatrics versus real product value. And as somebody who geeks out about all of this, I'll tell you, I love all of the

improvements that I see, but I couldn't see myself going and try to sell my boss on using ChachyPT5 versus four. I don't see the big difference. All right. I want to talk about this story out of China. where there's like what they're calling a robot mall

which is essentially what it's like a big clearinghouse where you can go in and just buy robots oh yes did you watch any of the video yeah let me tell you

with every passing day it feels like we are getting closer and closer to living the science fiction movie iRobot well this will definitely put you on that path I've been lucky enough

I love robotic technology I've been lucky enough to test out some of the early stuff And, you know, I'm not somebody who geeks out about being able to create anything, but seeing the potential for it from the automatic bartender or the automated robot bartender, the espresso maker, et cetera, it's getting past the novelty stage and into the practicality stage. Now, when I say practicality, I think the current version of what we think is a robot is the problem here.

On one hand, a robot could just be that extra arm that's pouring the drink or could be your tutor, you know, that's there to answer the questions. Right now, we're seeing this mall being developed as a potential future economy where you're going to go, service, pick, and decide what type of robot that you might need for your own home and personal life. Well, what I find really interesting, and that is a side conversation, but we're in it right now. You know, every year, we all looked forward to those YouTube videos of Boston Dynamics,

releasing the next iteration of whatever robot they were building, and they've come so far. I mean, they have their own battery packs now. They're not tethered to a wall. They don't have a cable anymore. They can dance. They can move. They can jump. And so they've been building out that technology for so long.

And then all of a sudden, Elon Musk drops Optimus on us, which feels if it's not on par with what Boston Dynamics has been doing, it's pretty close. And so, you know, we're going to, I think we're going to get to a point where there are going to be certain jobs that are going to be done by robots around our house. We're going to, we won't mind it. a gardener or someone to clean up the house and do the laundry. I don't think we're that far off. I don't think so either. I think the fact that we have a Roomba in houses. They're already starting to pick up some of the mess as a clear indication.

And I mean that from an idea that for a lot of people don't realize that's a computer in your house. And that is a product that's informing other products as well as to what should be created for the future. So I believe we will have so many augmentations that we'll forget that some of it is robotic. All right. let's talk about smart watches. I do not wear a smart watch. I like my watch. I don't need a smart watch.

But, and they're good at a lot of things. And one of the things that they've been really pushing is they are going to help you understand your health situation far better than you would otherwise. But now we're learning that the one thing that's not really good at measuring is stress. I don't, okay, so I'm with you on the gadget that is the smart watch. I don't believe it is ever proven to be smarter than the phone or our laptop. So I've never had an interaction with a smart watch that's given me something that's made me think, oh, that's something that I really needed in my life. The second part of it is any of the health information and apps that it is able to track,

I think it's getting better to track and actually be able to use. But I have yet to meet a healthcare professional that says, just bring me the data, I'll figure it out. And that's where I think the disconnect is, where a lot of people are starting to use. use wrist watches as being their all-encompassing guide, whether it's something from catching a fall or a heart rate. And we're at a point now where we can't necessarily use them as medical devices. Well, it is going to, they say that in a little while, it's going to be able to be a precursor and alert you if you're about to have a heart attack. And so, and obviously different watches do different things. I think that's specific to the Apple Watch. But it's going to be able to

to monitor the oxygenation in your blood, your blood pressure and all that stuff. I mean, isn't an indication of stress arise in your blood pressure? Are you? Yes. But I think we're also in a situation, though, with reference to Apple Watch, for example,

they know that they are incrementally getting better. They are becoming better for the elderly, for example, just fascinating. But we can't necessarily say to ourselves, strapping ourselves into one thing is the clearest indication that we're, in trouble. That's where we have to understand that. In some cases, if you're not connected properly to the internet, the information isn't gathered properly. And people need to understand

that. I will tell you why I do not wear an Apple Watch. I've tried many times. I just can't get behind it. I love so many of Apple's products. It's just that one is not for me. There's no market fit, as they would say, for that watch and me. But my problem with it is you cannot call it a watch. Because to me, there are a few things that are essential. to a watch. One, you shouldn't have to charge it every day. That's the first thing. And two, it is something, a watch, a timepiece is something that when you buy it, if you take good care of it, it will increase in value or increase in personal value. You will want to pass it on to your son or your daughter or to someone else. You would never do that with an Apple Watch. The second

you buy an Apple Watch, they're already working on the next one and you're going to toss the old one to get the new one. So to me, it's not a watch. Okay. So let me ask you this. Is it a phone? Well, yeah, don't, the newest ones can exist untethered from your phone, correct? No. Is your phone a phone? Oh, my phone's a phone. Of course it is. I'm, I'm, listen, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm almost 50. I still use my phone to call people. See? That's another thing that somebody on the other end is saying, if you don't, oh, you there? I will tell you honestly very quickly that everyone in my life swears by them. So you and I are the last of the whole day.

That's fine. Well, we will be the exceptions that prove the rule. I hope everybody enjoys their Apple Watch. It's just not for me. You and I, we are the difference makers, you and me. We like to zig when everybody else zags. Definitely, definitely. All right, thank you very much, my friend.

I hope you have a great weekend. Take care, Ben. Cheers. Yeah, I've tried many times. I know, Mike, you wear your Apple Watch. and it's I'm glad I'm glad you enjoy it it tells me things that well actually you know what I probably don't use it to the full extent

that I should I think I think people use it too much they that when they first released it it we'll do this real quick that when they first released it they had this little vibration they called it a nudge right so you would be able to look at your messages without interest except people found that very rude as I'm talking to you and you look at your watch so they realize that that was actually creating problems

you notice I do that though right all right we got to run we got to run more on the Ben Mulroney show when we come back Freddie the Yeti here. You know, the abominable snowman. Yeah, I'm real, and I don't talk like the Yeti. Just like you hairless yeties, I love summer. Camping, hiking, everything.

My Subaru, with standard symmetrical full-time all-wheel drive, is also great in winter because summer's too short. Am I right? So head to your local Subaru dealer for lease rates from 1.99% for 24 months on select models. Like me, they're made to summer and bill for winter. Conditions apply, see dealer for details. In the 70s, four young women were found dead. For nearly 50 years, their cases went cold.

I'm Nancy Hixed, a senior crime reporter for global news. In the season finale of Crime Beat, I share how investigators uncovered shocking evidence of a serial killer. And hear exclusive interviews with the killer's family. Listen to the full season of Crime Beat early and ad-free on Amazon, on music by asking Alexa to play the podcast Crime Beat. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show. All right, poll after poll after poll suggests that there is no government institution,

no government program that matters more to Canadians than our health care system. Our health care systems, rather, because each province has its own that has to abide by the laws that governed health care in this country. And while that is a lovely, aspirational wish at this point, if you asked anybody, there's really very little, or there's a lot less to be proud of in our system today than in years past. Never before have we put more money in, and never before have the outcomes by and large been as bad as they are. So what to do? How can we fix it? Well, one of the things that one should do is go around the world and see what's working elsewhere and ask ourselves, is there anything from that system that we can import to our system? We're joined now

by Colin Craig from second street.org. They just released a new 22-minute documentary on Japan's universal health care system. Colin, welcome to the show. Well, thanks for having me, Ben. So, all right, so they have a universal health care system in Japan. That's correct. And it works. It's fantastic. Okay. So by what metrics, what makes it fantastic? Well, I'll tell you, it was a bit of culture shock because we do a lot of research here in Canada on, you know, what's going on in our healthcare system.

And when we got there and started talking with people in their system again and again and again, it didn't matter if we were talking to people running hospitals or academics or everyday Japanese people, we were told they can get treatment right away. If you have a serious problem, like a heart condition or something like that, you need surgery, you're getting in right away. You're not dying on a waiting list. If you need something like hip or knees, you're getting in within a month. You're not looking at a year or two years or whatever. I mean, you're getting surgery right away.

You're not waiting six months just to see a special. So it's instant health care. How much of that can be attributed not to the system, but to the legendary, efficiency of the Japanese people and Japanese society? I think a bit. I think it's sort of a society where they think about efficiency. And I think you see that represented in the health care system like you see it in other industries. Also related to that is just sort of the fact that Japanese people are healthier in the first place.

And so the documentary we produced, it's 22 minutes. We do talk about that because that is a factor for sure. but fundamentally they still have people that have health problems but the differences they don't wait and we talk about the big factor in our documentary and that is that their approach to health care is come on in if if you want to provide health care you are welcomed to open up a clinic a hospital whatever okay so all right therein lies my next question because in this country uh there are so there are there are if if you want to open up a private clinic that is you might as well just torch the entire thing uh to a certain type of person because anything that isn't part of the

system uh anything that might take pressure off of the system uh is viewed as seeking to destroy and undermine the system uh and and so do they have a single single payer system there as well uh yes essentially, yeah. If you need care, you go to whichever provider you want, whether it's a government facility, a nonprofit or for-profit, and then when you get the care, the government pays most of the bill. It depends a little bit on income. There are some user fees, but people we talk to say, yeah, it's affordable. I mean, no one's going bankrupt there because they have to pay a little bit of the fee. But yeah, it's a model that I think Canadians would appreciate, right? Everyone's covered.

No one's getting bankrupt quality care. You're getting it right away. I mean, this is what a lot of people want right now. Yeah, but Colin, there is, there are entire organizations in this country devoted to attacking

and undermining anyone who brings forth an idea that involves some form of private health care. And it is, they are so hung up on the single payer system that they, that they don't realize that these new alternatives could help with the end goal, which is affordable and universal health care for all.

They forget that the single payer is not the raison d'être of the system. It is a means to an end. It is the means to the end of universal health care. And I don't care about the single payer system so long as we have a system that takes care of everyone. Yeah, I mean, we've got to think of it this way, I think, Ben, whether the money's coming out of your left pocket or your right pocket, I mean, it's still your money. So whether it's going to the government and then the government pays for it or most goes to the government and then you pay a portion as a user fee, I mean, you're still paying for health care either way.

When you make an apples to apples comparison when it comes to Japan system versus Canada, you account for age. They have a slightly older population. And you account for that. They're actually spending less as a society on health care. They're getting better health care. Yeah. I mean, we can't continue on this path of just shoveling money into the furnace that is the health care system. And it just burns it on contact.

The money just gets shoveled into the furnace. We never see it again. And we have to take a look at the actual systems in place to see why the money isn't reaching where it's supposed to get to. Yeah. I mean, the big fundamental difference is that in other countries, countries. Japan included, we've profiled Sweden, France. There's lots of other countries that take a different approach. And that is that they fund services to patients. We fund health care systems. Yeah. So we throw money into a system and, you know, most of it makes its way down

to helping patients, but a good chunk of it is just burned up on bureaucracy. Well, that's a, I mean, it worked fine when the bureaucracy was half the size of what it is. And it worked. But now you're seeing the effects of that bureaucracy, not just on, on the funding. that gets lost in the weeds, but in terms of burnout from doctors and nurse practitioners because they're spending for every hour they spend with a patient,

they're spending three hours on paperwork. Oh, exactly. And the bureaucracy is also blocking people from entering and providing health care too. So, I mean, big picture, they have a big green light when it comes to expanding the supply of health care and in Canada, governments put up a big red light.

Yeah. So when you restrict the supply health care, you create waiting lists. And the stories across this country, I know you would be familiar with them. I mean, there are just awful to listen to what patients are going through. And really what we're trying to do by profiling other countries is to show people, it doesn't have to be this way. We can look at Europe.

We can look at countries like Japan and find universal systems that are performing better. Like I said, it's all in the documentary. People can see it on our website. On second street.org? That's correct. Yeah. Well, I'll say this. as well, you know, if this thing matters to us as much as it does, and the polls suggest it still does,

healthcare matters to us, and not just for the services that it provides, but for the part of our identity that it carves out. If it's that important, then every idea should be examined. There is no such thing as a bad idea. And unfortunately, there are certain people who want to restrict the types of solutions that we can bring to bear on these crises that are riddling our health care systems across Canada. They want to say, no, you can't have this and you can't have this. And if you do that, it's going to contravene the law. Well, maybe the law needs to be adjusted because if there are other countries, they're spending less money and delivering better care to more of their citizens and their funding model is different than ours, then we should change our funding

model or at least look at it. Of course. Yeah, we should always be updating different laws and government programs to make sure that they're modern and that they're delivering good results. I want a strong universal system. Yeah. And we don't have that right now. And every poll shows that.

And the good news about all this, Ben, is because we've done lots of polling, the public is ready for reform. It's the politicians that have been slow to respond. And, you know, we're seeing some good news stories in this country right now. But on the whole, we need a much more aggressive. approach from politicians when it comes to healthcare. Look at other countries like Japan, France, Sweden, where they have universal systems that are performing better and copy what they're doing right. Learn from their mistakes. Bring in the best policies. Colin Craig from second street.org,

the documentary focuses on the success that is the Japanese healthcare system. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. I'm Jordan Bonaparte, and this is your invitation to join me for an exploration of Canadian crime, mysteries, and the just plain weird on the nighttime podcast. Over the years, we've dove deep into many of Canada's most unique cases. From the haunting disappearance of Jack and Lily Sullivan in Nova Scotia, that's something I have to live with until truth makes its way out, and the truth always makes its way out. To the bizarre mystery of the unexplained death at a Halifax Walmart.

Walmart says a large bakery oven will be removed. And of course, we provide a weekly roundup of Canada's weird news stories. Psychic said he could make the woman fall madly in love with him. The girl loves you more. Like that. If you give $12,000. Yeah. Through interviews with those closest to the case,

to deep dive investigations and listener voices, we shine a light where few others take the time to look. So if you're interested in Canadian crime, mysteries, and the weird, get caught up on everything you missed by subscribing to nighttime right now, wherever you get podcasts.