The Ben Mulroney Show - Why is anti-Semitism allowed at Canadian Universities?

Episode Date: December 5, 2024

Guests and Topics on Today's Show -Jewish speaker banned from speaking at a Canadian University with Guests: Yoseph Haddad, Arab-Israeli Journalist and Melissa Lantsman, Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition -Did Jaguar re-brand the entire company just for one electric Car? with Guest: Tom Sorotschynski, Co-Founder and President of Chatter AI -How Bad is the Fentanyl Crisis in Canada with Guest: Adam Zivo, National Post columnist and Executive Director for the Centre For Responsible Drug Policy If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-ben-mulroney-show Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy

Hey everybody, it's Ben Mulrooney and welcome to the podcast. We had a packed show today including how big is the fentanyl crisis in Canada and is Trump right to bring it up as a major issue. A Jewish speaker banned from speaking at a Canadian university. We talked to him and Melissa Lantzman. Plus, did Jaguar change their whole brand just to unveil their electric car? We'll talk to a marketing expert about that insane decision. Enjoy. Just when I think we've plumbed the depths of the rot,

we find a new basement. And look, if I were here, here's here's what I knew in college about Israel. I knew that it was the only democracy in the Middle East, and I knew that it was the only place in the Middle East where Jews, Christians and Muslims could live relatively peacefully and coexist in the same place. So if I were at university knowing that and I had heard that there was a journalist coming to speak at my university who was a Christian Muslim Israeli, I would want to hear what he had to say. That was the opportunity presented to students at concordia in montreal but then an hour before yosef haddad was scheduled to speak the dean of students katie broad canceled the event because according to a post on twitter jews and israelis are not welcome on campus that's an an editorial decision that the

writer of the tweet said. So apparently on Concordia, on the Concordia campus, jihadists are calling for Jews to go back to Europe. They're welcome with open arms. And apparently this woman, Katie Broad, was also caught on camera asking the pro-Hamas side if they ever needed anything as they were blocking access to classrooms. So Yosef Haddad was told, you can't speak. And there is video of him walking behind the dean asking to engage in conversation. Why did you cancel my talk? Why did you cancel my talk? And she just walks away.

She just walks away. A, it's disrespectful to those who wanted to hear this person speak. And B, it is shameful and abhorrent behavior that you would turn your back on the person who you just canceled. But this is the world that we're living in. This is the world that we're living in. And a little bit later today, we've got Melissa Lansman of the Conservative Party to come on the show. I want to ask her about what she thought when she saw this. I want to ask her about what she thinks the state of higher education is in Canada. show i want to ask her about what she thought when she saw this i want to ask her about what she thinks the state of higher education is in canada and i want to ask her if

it's time in canada for us for these universities that depend in a lot of cases on government funding to be held to account hauled in front of committee in the house on parliament hill and be talked to and dressed down and uh the way that Elise Stefanik did so very admirably in Washington a few months ago when she was when she took on the heads of MIT, Brown University and Harvard. It was, I think, a watershed moment where where the hypocrisy and the anti-Semitism that has been allowed to fester and develop and morph into this quasi

educational anyways, it's all BS and she highlighted it very well. We'll talk to Melissa a little bit later, but in the meantime, let's talk to the person at the center of this issue, Yosef Haddad, the journalist who was told you can't speak here. Yosef, thank you so much for joining us on the Ben Will Rooney Show.

Thank you for having me. So tell us, what was to about the state of Israel, about the partnership between Jews and Arabs, to actually distort the myth of Israel being an apartheid state as an Arab citizen of Israel. And, of course, to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and all the other nonsense that they're talking about the war. But I wasn't surprised. Honestly, I wasn't surprised that they are not willing to listen. Because apparently here in Canada now, freedom of speech goes only to one side,

and that's the side that is violent. That's the biggest problem. So, Yosef, I have to assume you went through the proper channels. You were brought in through an organization. You had the room that was ready. People signed up to come listen. All that typical stuff happened. Of course.

I came here with our Voices of Israel. We're partnering in this tour, and we are doing amazing things. I mean, you have to understand, the whole idea is bridging gaps between Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Druze. That's the idea out of it. But the other side don't want to listen because, one, Muslims, and Druze. That's the idea out of it, but the other side don't want to listen, because one, they cannot handle the truth. Second, they cannot handle the facts. And you know, with their emotions, we need to say

it loud and clear. Facts don't care about your emotions. Facts are facts. Well, Yosef, it seems to me they did the only thing they could. Had it been me, a white man from Canada, saying the things that you're saying, they could. Had it been me, a white man from Canada, saying the things that you're saying, they would simply label me a racist and send me on my way.

They can't do that to you, so they have to silence you. You know what else they do? They threaten me. How so? The entire time I was at Concordia University, I got threats, cursed, telling me that I'm next, which means that I'm next to be dead. This is the language there. But you know something?

I found it really amazing. Out of, I don't know, let's say 90% of the anti-Israeli terror supporters, I didn't see a lot of Canadians, original Canadians. I saw immigrants, a majority of them coming from the Middle East, speaking Arabic. I spoke Arabic with them, not English. And this says everything. But the problem here, and this is what Canada needs to hear, that when they come from the Middle East, under their dictatorship, who prevented them from freedom of speech,

who prevented them from having actual freedom, freedom of religion. And when they came to Canada, instead of adopting the Western values of Canada, instead of adopting the Canadian laws, what they want to do is change everything. Make sure that there is a Sharia law here, and make sure that they adopt their own mentality. And this is something that if today Canadians are looking and say, you know what, it's about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we don't care, let me warn you, now it's about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But the second, it is a different issue, different topic in Canada. And you do not ally with them, they're going to come after you exactly the same way. Wake up, please. Yosef, I have to ask, because the video is quite telling, as you are outside of the theater you start walking towards a woman who is walking away from you am i right to assume that that is the dean who canceled your your uh your talk and and is it in fact katie broad was that the person's name yep okay and she and she would not engage with you no which is which which i really i really do not understand

you know um an arab israeli comes to speak at Concordia University, comes to say hello to the dean, and not only she doesn't have the decency to say hello to me, but she turns her back and runs away. And I'll tell you why. She's scared. She's scared of them. But let me also clarify one thing.

Yosef, before you get into it, she may be scared. She may also simply be in agreement with them. Absolutely. But it goes two ways, because I'll tell one thing. Yosef, before you get into it, she may be scared. She may also simply be in agreement with them. Absolutely, but it goes two ways, because I'll tell you why. She's kind of like the ostrich. You know, you put your head in the sand and think that if you put your head in the sand, the problems will go away. No, it will be easier for them to chop your head. That's what's happening.

And she doesn't realize that. So she could be brainwashed. She could be scared. She could be all of it. But the bottom line is she disrespected the fact that a speaker comes from Israel, from the Arab society, to share a little bit about the partnership between Jews and Arabs. And what she do? She bowed down to terrorist supporters. What a shame.

And, Yosef, I would simplify it further. Her job as an educator is to put students in uncomfortable places where their ideas are challenged. The only way conversation moves forward is through the collision of ideas and debate. And I have never seen one of your talks live, but I have to assume you don't shy away from having tough conversations with people who disagree with you. I wish always to have tough conversations. And so one last thing, and then I'll let you finish. Because you've confirmed what I suspected, this woman, I believe, is in dereliction of her duty. She is duty-bound to put students in a place where they learn and are challenged and feel uncomfortable and is doing no such thing. I just ask, what about the pro-Israeli and the Jewish student in the university?

Because if the dean is acting like this, their life is in jeopardy. She is actually throwing them under the bus. And this is something really, really worrying me. And I hope, I hope, maybe because of the videos gone viral and whatever happened in Concordia University, which I assume happened for the entire year. But this time, it went viral, and everybody is speaking about it. And I'm happy about that. I'm happy about that because we need to show the truth about them

and the reality of every pro-Israeli Jewish student as well. You know what? Every student, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, when you don't have a safe environment, such as in the universities, where freedom of speech should be number one. It should be, Yosef. We're going to leave it there. You're after a place where you have no freedom anymore.

Yosef, I got to leave it there. But thank you so much. And I look forward to seeing you live one day. Welcome to Kidsplain, where kids explain how underfunded our schools are. Let's take a call from a listener. Kelly, are you there? Hi. I was wondering why I get less one-on-one time with my teachers.

Great question, Kelly. there hi i was wondering why i get less one-on-one time with my teachers great question kelly it might have something to do with the fact that we have 3 500 fewer teachers under doug ford that sounds about right want to help support students and teachers visit no more.ca that's k-n-o-w-m-o-r-e.ca a message from the ont English Catholic Teachers Association. Welcome back. Another day, another disappointing story of bad decisions and horrible priorities and speak on campus an hour before he was slated to speak. And when he pushed on the person who canceled the his talk, the dean, she walked away from him and would not tell him why. But I think we can all surmise why I spoke with Yusuf Haddad, the cancelled speaker, a little while earlier. But now I want to look at this from a broader perspective, because I think there is a role for government to play in bringing these schools of higher education in line with Canadian values. And to talk more about it, I'm very pleased to have Melissa Lansman, the deputy leader of the official opposition on with us. Melissa, thank you so much for being here. I was not surprised that this happened. I was obviously disappointed, but not surprised. What

did you think when you saw that this speaker had his voice silenced? No, of course, this is not surprising because this comes after, you know, a year of blockades and outright vandalism. You saw the urban camping that took place on the front lawns of some of these universities, particularly McGill, just down the street. You saw advertisements for terrorism summer camps and, you know, pretend terrorist cosplay happening all over uh all over campuses and frankly within a lot of our institutions within unions within uh uh within long-standing bodies that used to be a place like i have to say this universities are are supposed to and they used to be a place where the worst ideas are are discussed and they can be challenged and they can be discredited with more open and free debate. And that's the exact opposite of what we're seeing here.

And it is encouraged by the cowardly administrations in these universities. And they must be held to account. They have to be held to account. And that's what I want to talk about next, because I was pleased south of the border to see to see former students and donors taking their power back by saying, you know what, I want my money back. I didn't give you a 10 million dollars for your endowment so that you could churn out a generation of anti-Semites. We saw lawsuits. We saw. But my favorite part, which I believe was the watershed moment, was Representative Elise Stefanik, who's now going to be Donald Trump's ambassador to the UN,

take on those in leadership positions at Brown, MIT, and Harvard and called them out for the anti-Semitism that they have allowed to run amok. And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?

It can be, depending on the context. What's the context? Targeted as an individual. Targeted at an individual. It's targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of antisemitism? I will ask you one more time.

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no? Antisemitic rhetoric. And there it goes. We can end it there because it just goes on. But this was a woman who acquitted herself with honor.

And in my opinion, Jewish students must have felt a little bit better knowing that there was a voice that was going to champion them and their rights. Melissa, I don't believe that we've seen an analog

to this in Canada yet. And that to me is very disappointing. We did afterwards, we did have a study within the Justice Committee that called a couple of university presidents, actually four of them. And this happened after the U.S., one of the clips that you just shared, after the U.S. congressional hearings. And the problem here, Ben, is that you have a government that is complicit in this, that has chosen the wrong side of history on almost every single unique issue. They've appointed a person that is supposed to take care of anti-Semitism outside of government with no ministerial accountability. You have university presidents in this country saying that we're taking it seriously, and what you see on campuses

week after week suggests that that's not true. There are very, very clear violations of the criminal code happening on these campuses and anything that endangers students going to campuses. And there is absolutely no enforcement, no enforcement from the province, no enforcement from police officers, no enforcement from university administrations. And as a result, what we are going to do as a federal government when we are elected in this country is to make sure that every piece of funding is cut off to those universities until they stop engaging in the open, virulent anti-Semitism and the Jewish students can feel safe on campuses. Otherwise, we are going to have an entire generation, like you said,

be raised in those institutions to embrace radicalism. Well, we have news today that we've been talking about, about how one third of Jewish doctors in Ontario are considering leaving the country because they don't feel safe here anymore, that they have decided that they're going to look elsewhere because the spike in severe anti-Semitism that they've experienced went from 1% of doctors in before October 7th of last year to over 43% today. So we're already seeing the knock-on effect of this laissez-faire um uh behavior by the uh by the trudeau liberals and and you're seeing you're seeing a government that is that is egging this on by continued bills that restrict uh for uh free speech decisions from the top like funding uh anti-semites for anti-racism training, like Leif Marouf, or appointing Birju Detani to be the arbiter of anti-Semitism,

who said that terrorism was an understandable means to an end. Here's the problem. The militant left in this country, they embrace radical activists. They preach open dialogue and ideals of free speech. And when a view that they don't agree with comes into the fold or is introduced to them, they claim that they feel unsafe or they resort to threats of violence. And the universities have succumbed to that playbook, and it is an unfortunate thing to say. And the only way to hold them to account is to make sure that those funding sources, particularly from the federal government when there is a new federal government in town, and also from the provinces, they've got to get strong on accountability from these institutions.

Well, and I have to assume, I don't know enough about the funding models of the Canadian versus American universities, but I have to assume that Canadian universities rely more heavily on government subsidies than their American counterparts. It would seem that we've got some levers to pull here that could really make them feel it on their bottom line. Certainly, the federal government has levers to pull in research funding and granting councils. The province is, you know, I think it's their fifth or sixth potentially largest budget items. These universities are publicly funded. They don't have the endowments necessarily of some of the U.S. counterpart schools or comparable schools in the U.S. So this is very much an issue that government should be seized at.

And if there's any student that doesn't feel unsafe on a public university campus, well, then it's time for government to step in and say something about it. What does your party make of Bonnie Crombie, the leader of the Ontario Liberals, saying that identity politics is dead. Well, look, I think that more and more people are seeing that identity politics is just not the way forward in the future. It hasn't worked. And it has certainly curtailed a Canada that we used to know and love by pitting people against each other and driving divisiveness in the population that I think people are waking up to. Yeah, but if there's going to be one last bastion standing,

it's going to be the schools in this country. I really think so. I think they're going to be the ones who will hold on with grim death. Again, they've got to be held to account, and there's got to be real consequences for these cowardly institutions and the cowardly administrators that are at the helm of them. Well, I look forward to that day. I think that reckoning needs to come and I look forward to you and your team leading that charge.

Melissa Lansman, deputy leader of the official opposition, one of the busiest people around. Very thankful that you've taken time to join us on the Ben Mulroney Show. Appreciate it. We got to talk about Jaguar. I've been chomping at the bit to talk about this rebrand redesign that fell flat on its face. Because I mean, if this had been something that had been done three, four years ago at the height of peak wokeness, we would have, you know, anyone who had a problem with it would just sat on the sidelines and we would just dealt with it. But we're now in a place where we're not putting up with this nonsense. And some are saying that it's probably, possibly the single worst rebrand in the history of sort of consumer goods.

They launched an ad about a car company and never showed off a car. And I guess it was because they were about to show us the car and when they showed us the car it it was even worse than the rebrand itself it's a boxy pink all-electric car that some are calling the hot mobile uh and and and people just they are shaking their heads at this what it is corporate suicide on on a level we haven't seen since bud light and uh i mean i could talk to myself in circles about this but instead i'm going to bring on somebody who knows a thing or two about marketing let's say hi to tom sorochinsky co-founder and president of chatter ai tom thank you so much for being here hey ben thanks for having me i love the

angle that you're already taking on this i gotta say to say. Yeah, well, so just at first blush, Tom, my sense is that had they launched the car first, it would have maybe not been as panned as it was. But given the backdrop of the rebrand in the time that we're living in, you can't help but see it through that lens. Because devoid of the, of the backdrop, it is kind of cool in a lot of ways. Yeah. I mean, there's some interesting aspects to it. Absolutely. I think the biggest question for me this whole time has been who is this rebrand for? I mean, at the end of the day, like I'm not the target. You are very much likely,

probably not the target as well. 99.9% of people who are talking about or complaining about it online likely don't have a Jaguar in their driveway and likely won't have one in the future. And so they're seemingly going after this like ultra luxury, super niche EV buyer. And, and even for those potential buyers or everything I'm seeing online, like even they're not buying it right there. The reaction is mixed at best.

There's just a ton of negative sentiment, which we're obviously seeing everywhere. And Tom, like my dad owned a Jaguar in his when he was on the back nine. My mom bought him a classic old Jaguar and it was absolutely beautiful. And the attention to detail and the craftsmanship, if when you when you sat inside, I mean, it didn't look like other cars. It looked like a Jaguar. This car is doesn't about face on all of that rich tradition. And it's so clean on the inside. It's so futuristic.

And there is appeal to that. But you're essentially throwing away the hundred some odd years of tradition as well as the legacy buyers who have always gravitated towards Jaguar. It doesn't make any sense to me. I agree. It's funny. I actually mentioned that to someone the other day. I was like, you know, I was like, why are people having such a negative reaction? And I said, well, imagine you were a kid and you grew up and your dad had that prized Jaguar

in the driveway. And every time you saw him get into it, you know, his face lit up and he was just, you know, at the peak of happiness and he loved this. And then all of a sudden, this brand that you've always held so dearly in your heart, they come out and with this, what everyone's calling it, just complete abomination. I mean, I get why people are having such negative reactions. You're throwing away all this brand equity that you've built over these years, this beautiful, you know, this notion of this Jaguar like this, this wonderful beast that exists out in the wilderness and it's

just a phenomenal creature and you're just kind of you know throwing it all to the side and going after as you mentioned on on your intro there this ultra woke approach to it and it's just it's baffling for everyone who sees it the the misstep from because there are people whose job it is to question and push back and none of them seem to have done it. And there's a place for differing views around the boardroom table. You need them. You need different perspectives because all it takes is for somebody to have a blind spot to say, hey, this is a great idea. You need somebody to say, oh, you haven't thought about it from this angle and this is why it's a bad idea. And that's how you come up with a better version of the idea. It seems like this was designed by

one person or one team and then all the way down the pipeline, it was, that's a great idea, that's a great idea, fantastic, this is the best, and nobody pushed back. Oh, just the worst kind of echo chamber you could ever possibly imagine. I don't think there is a marketer or advertiser in the world right now that would not pay absorbent amounts of money, absorbent amounts of money to get a hand on that brief, that initial brief that kicked off this madness. Because you're right, it just doesn't make sense. I mean, I don't know who wasn't pushing back. The way that they looked at this, you know, it just seems like it was missteps along the way.

And, you know, whoever it was that was at that boardroom table who, to your point, just wasn't pushing back or looking at it from another angle. I mean, you know, Jaguar right now, they're in, you know, pretty steady decline since 2018. I think they're sold about, I think, like 180,000 units. They'll be lucky this year if they sell 65,000 or 70,000. So they absolutely needed to go and do something to, you know, to change the discussion that's happening and get people's attention.

And, you know, we always say, you know, attention is the oxygen of all endeavor. And without it, you're not going to be able to do anything or accomplish anything. And they certainly have everyone's attention right now, but just in the worst possible way. And it's going to be hard, I think, to come back to this. And that's, that's what I want to talk about next, because this, this is proof positive that not all press is good press.

I'm so tired when people say, cause that's not true. This is terrible press, but people are watching and it doesn't, all it takes is a creative out of the box thinker to find a way to take this hole that they're in and turn it into an opportunity. So where's the opportunity here? I've been asking myself that question quite a bit. Again, you know, I've saw a ton of stuff online where people are hoping that this was just some huge gag and they're going to come out saying, ah, gotcha. And in the end, it was just going to be a big joke. And they were going to come out with something that was far more meaningful that people loved. You know, I think at this point, they're so pot committed, like this has to work for them. It's kind of a, yeah, it's kind of this or but it feels like right now. And so, you know, the best thing they could do is maybe introduce

some interesting new colors that are more appealing to a broader audience. They could smooth out the lines a little bit. Like, obviously, what they showed was a bit more of a concept car. So it's got to evolve from that anyway. They could try to bring back some of those sleek designs that we've seen in the past that really, you know, to your earlier point was sort of that iconic look and feel of the Jaguar. And so they could try to bring back some of the old visual elements,

but they've gone so far one way. It's going to be hard, I think, for them to come back. What is on their side is they have a year before any of these vehicles are even going to come to light or come to market. And so they do have some time to try to right the wrongs, but as it stands right now, this has to work for them. Otherwise, they're in big trouble. Well, Tom, what about a corporate reorganization where they put this car out into the world, but it's not a Jaguar.

It's a new name for their EV division. And then they build off of this as a template for something that's more akin to what people recognize as a Jaguar. See, that's a great point and one that we've heard quite a bit as well is, you know, why wouldn't they have just started this as a whole new brand? If the whole thing is just a completely just throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you're starting completely fresh. It wasn't by any means a redesign. This wasn't just a logo refresh. You know, this was like a complete rejuvenation, a complete reinvention of the brand. And so it begs the question, why not just create a new brand? right? Yeah. And so could they do that?

At this point, I think that could be a challenge. I think even still then where does Jaguar go? Because they committed to an all electric lineup moving forward. And so for them to take that approach would be insanely costly. I think their only option would really be to close down Jaguar as a brand and, you know, start fresh with something new, which absolutely could be an option for them. I mean, obviously, they've invested a bunch of money in this direction and all these new car designs and, you know, all the advertising that's going along with it. But at this point, that, you know, seems like maybe one of their only options. Well, and they were so proud of this new direction.

They were so, the speech that the head of design gave, it was so in your face. This is, we are bold. We have vision. This wasn't a mistake. This is entirely by design. Yeah, somehow. Again, this would have made more sense a few years ago. In the climate, they weren't reading the tea leaves.

Did they not see what happened to Bud Light? It makes no sense to me. No, I would agree. Right. And those cultural cues were out there and we're seeing the way that the dynamics are shifting, you know, south of the border. Absolutely. And then some of that's trickling north as well. And sort of this anti-woke ism piece. And so for them to come out so boldly with, with this approach. Yeah,

absolutely. I, you know, I'm not sure. We're going to end it on scratching our heads. Tom Sorochinsky, co-founder and president of Chatter AI. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your opinions. Thanks so much for having me, Ben. This is the Ben Mulroney Show, and let's talk Donald Trump. He's nothing if not direct.

And when he says he wants something, he lays out why he wants it. And let's be honest, in almost everything he talks about, there's a mishmash of a few things. There's always, if not always, at least the nugget, a nugget of truth that he builds his narrative around. And there are elements of bluster. There are elements of theatrics. There are elements of exaggeration. That's just who he is. So I want to go to his complaint about the Canadian border and the fentanyl crisis that he claims is so rampant that he needs to address it with the fear of 25% tariffs being levied on every single product coming into the United States from Canada. The new Mexican president seems to agree with him. Oh, yeah, you got a big problem up there.

Don't look down here. Look up there. And so I've got my ideas. I've got my theories. But one thing I am not armed with is the cold, hard facts. The person who has those cold, hard facts is Adam Zivo, National Post columnist and executive director for the Center for Responsible Drug Policy. Adam, you're making your Ben Mulroney show debut. Welcome. Thank you for having me on the show. It's a pleasure to be here. All right. So chapter and verse, let's go through this and let's separate fact from fiction, from exaggeration, from outright lies. First of all, let's talk about fentanyl. 10 years ago, I'd never heard of it. What is it? Okay, so fentanyl is an opioid that is incredibly potent. It's about 50 times stronger

than heroin, and it became very popular in North America in the mid-2010s. Because essentially, what happened is that we developed an opioid crisis in the late 90s to 2000s because we over-prescribed pharmaceutical opioids, and then we clamped down upon that. So prescribing pharmaceutical opioids became very difficult. This pre-existing pool of drug users ended up transferring over to heroin, and over time, heroin wasn't enough for them, so drug dealers began putting fentanyl into their heroin. And that was seen as a contaminant at first because it would cause overdoses. But over time, people's

tolerances grew so high that fentanyl is what they wanted. And now, if you're in a major Canadian city and you see an opioid addict, they're predominantly using fentanyl, which is very dangerous because even just a small flip up of dosage can mean death. Where is Canada in the global supply chain of fentanyl? Do we receive it from elsewhere? Do we produce it ourselves? Well, so we used to be a net importer of fentanyl. Now it seems that we're an illicit exporter. So it used to be that China was the world's exporter of fentanyl, at least to North America. And the United States ended up clamping down on this.

So they basically told China back in 2019 that you need to stop exporting fentanyl to our markets because it's getting our people addicted and killing them. And so in 2019, Beijing basically said, OK, we're not going to export fentanyl-related products so easily. We're going to tightly control it. But then they pivoted. So they pivoted to exporting precursors instead. And precursors are essentially the chemicals that you use to create fentanyl.

80% of them are unregulated. You can purchase them anywhere, really. You can import them from China. You and I could do that. What? Yeah. So this is like an opioid version of, you know, cooking meth. You all the ingredients are technically legal, more or less.

But when you put them together and you cook them just right, you get yourself a terrible drug that kills people. Of course. But the thing is that 20 percent of them are still tightly controlled. But it's very easy for those precursors to get into Canada because our ports are completely unsecured. So in Vancouver, we have no dedicated port police that was disbanded in 1997. And so Canada Border Services Agency can only check less than 1% of container traffic. So it's very easy for illicit contraband to get into Canada through Vancouver. Now, if you want to make comparisons, Seattle, which has comparable shipping volumes, has 103 dedicated officers and 50 support employees. We have zero.

Wow. Right. So because China pivoted towards, you know, sending precursors and using tax incentives to actually incentivize the export of these chemicals, suddenly domestic production starts to rise in Mexico and in Canada. So the amount of fentanyl that was seized from Mexico increased by over tenfold. From 2019, the American border agency seized about 1,100 kilograms. By 2024, that went up to 12,000. And in Canada, we saw a tenfold increase in precursor chemical seizures. So we started producing our fentanyl domestically. We produced so much of it that the price of fentanyl went down by 30%. And now, because we have an oversupply, our organized criminals

are exporting it to other markets, including New Zealand, Australia, and the United States. Okay, so we are exporting. It is getting across the border, but I guess it's a question of scale. You want the number to be zero, but that's a practical impossibility. So let's talk scale, because the way the incoming president talks about it, Mexico and Canada, same problem. But I'm sure fentanyl is the same problem, but is it the same scale of problem? It's not the same scale of problem at all. So the United States seizes 1,000 times more fentanyl

coming in from Mexico than it does from the north at this point. And at the same time, we also have to have a caveat that seizures don't always represent real volume. So we don't know if more attention is being paid to our southern borders because, sorry, to being paid to our southern borders because, sorry, to the United States' southern borders, because the Canadian-U.S. border hasn't really been a big problem

for opioids trafficking historically, at least not when it comes to fentanyl. That being said, even if Trump's framing is misleading by drawing a false equivalency, I think that it is important for the U.S. to apply pressure here because you want to address a problem

before it grows too big. We're an emerging export market. It's better to nip this problem in the bud rather than to address in five to 10 years if volumes continue to increase. Are there any aspects of what Donald Trump is like? Donald Trump's worldview as it relates to the Canada border and fentanyl. Are there any aspects of what he believes are completely untrue that somebody needs to dissuade him from? I think that on the whole, they're fundamentally valid.

It's just that he's exaggerating the scale of the problem in Canada, which I think is unproductive in some ways. But look, if it means that he is able to develop the political will to pressure Canada to fix our drug policies, I'm somewhat OK with that. Yeah. And in your view, it seems what you're saying is in order to solve this, we need to throw more money at it. We need more manpower. We need more technology. We need more border security patrols.

Is that the solution to this problem? I would say yes. So we need to ensure that precursors don't easily get into Canada. I think it's absurd that we don't have, you know, at least 100 police monitoring our ports. This shouldn't be a lot of money, right? No. Like, we need to think about where the chokeholds, and the chokeholds here are our ports, which are almost completely unrestricted. Until we fix that problem, precursors are going to flow into our country and criminals are going to use that to produce fentanyl for our people and for export.

I've seen the president of Mexico taking a very active stance, trying to, as I think, misdirect the president a little bit, but of course she would. She's there defending her country. And if it means throwing us under the bus, I mean, I think we would do the same thing.

I haven't heard too, too much out of our prime minister just yet. Uh, and, and I wonder why you think that is. Well, I think he's obviously in a constrained position right now. It's difficult to push back against Trump when Trump holds all the levers of power and he is an unpredictable individual, right? I mean, this is a guy who recently joked about annexing Canada. So I think that it is wise that Trudeau is playing things cautiously right now. And I can understand that, you know, the Trudeau government may want to come up with a careful strategy before being overly combative. Well, look, we've got a lot to talk about. And you and I have talked in the past on sort of the era of safe supply and decriminalization in Canada.

And I want to prime the pump with you right now because I really want us to start talking about – perception is everything with this guy. And I wonder whether he's been watching with confusion in his head about all the legalization and decriminalization that we've been experiencing in Canada, wondering what are they up to up there? What exactly are they doing? Do you think that's playing into what he's, like, they need an adult in the room, and I'm going to be the adult. Do you think that's playing into this at all? Absolutely. I mean, you mentioned the Mexican president criticizing Canada's policies. One of the things that she criticized was the fact that we decriminalized drugs, and she drew a connection between that and our fentanyl problem. Now, that's not entirely accurate because our fentanyl epidemic precedes decriminalization, but I think that decriminalization only made things worse. And I think that for Trump,

you know, his stance on drug policy is obviously much stricter than what we have in Canada. And I think that's reasonable. And I think that that certainly informs his approach to pressuring us to have reform. Look, I'll be honest, Adam, if it takes the incoming president for us to look ourselves in the mirror and see that a lot of the decisions that we've made on drug policy in this country

have been wrong and allows us to do an about face and fix some of these self-inflicted wounds. I'm all for it. Well, I agree. It's just unfortunate that we need this kind of external pressure for us to do the right thing. It feels as if Canadian ancient policymaking has been driven by evidence-free ideology for so long, for over a decade at least. And only now when tens of thousands of people have died,

are we shifting course. I've got to say, though, when I first heard of fentanyl, I think it was in the early days of when I was doing the morning show over at CTV, it didn't make any sense to me. I said, why would you poison your own customers? Why would you do that? Why would you add a little bit of it and just one little taste of fentanyl can kill you. Why would you, why would you put that customer at risk? And then someone said, cause there's always another customer around the corner.

Um, and, uh, but when you said earlier that fentanyl, uh, that the people's tolerance has gone up for fentanyl, I thought, Oh my God, what a, what a hell they must be living in. Yeah. I mean, it's hellish for them. And what I do want to stress is that if a dealer adds fentanyl or at this point other contaminants in their drug supply and makes it more potent, more deadly, yes, that's going to kill some of their customers. But that's going to actually attract more customers in the long run. of addiction physicians and former drug users and the common narrative that comes up is that when opioid addicts hear that their friends have overdosed from a dealer's supply, one of the first questions that many of them ask themselves is, okay, who sold this and where can I go buy from that dealer, right? Because they know that this is going to be the good stuff. This is going to be the strong stuff. They want to fly as close to the sun as possible. I know that this is not the

conversation we're going to have, but when I hear that, I think this person is clearly not in their right mind. And there's a push-pull debate going on about involuntarily forcing people into treatment. And if they don't agree, then you don't have the right to send them there. But that doesn't sound like the mindset of somebody

who's in their right mind. Well, that's the thing, right? There's this big debate about how we conceptualize addiction, and it seems like many of the harm reduction activists that control Canadian addiction policymaking want to have it both ways. So on one hand, they want to say that we shouldn't moralize, that it's not a choice, that we shouldn't judge people for being an addiction because they have no control over themselves. So we shouldn't morally judge them. On the other hand, they're opposed to interventions like involuntary care, right? So they want to be exempt. They want drug users to be exempt of the responsibilities of free choice, but at the same time, they don't want

us to act paternalistically. It does seem, Adam, that things are a little bit different today, given this attention that Donald Trump has brought to our issues with illegal and illicit drugs, in that prior to him bringing it up, we were sort of in our own little bubble dealing with this. It didn't seem like we had the attention of the world. We didn't have to deal with international pressure or embarrassment. I wonder what you think the pressure that is being brought to bear on Canada because of Donald Trump will have on our own domestic conversations on safe supply, on decriminalization? Well, I think it's going to force our policymakers to be more cognizant about how our addiction policies impact surrounding jurisdictions and influence our relationships with our allies. So I'm actually going to use a very particular case study here

of how we haven't considered foreign impacts enough. So late last year, BC's top doctor, Bonnie Henry, commissioned a report from Jonathan Calkins, who's a U.S.-based drug expert. So it's known as the Calkins Report, and this report was very secret. Ultimately, its existence was leaked in April, but essentially she asked for an economic analysis of safer supply. So Calkins basically used a framework of behavioral economics to predict, you know, what can we expect from safer supply? And one of the things that he argued is that it would be foolish to imagine that these drugs won't be diverted because they have a market value and we're giving them away for free. And that organized, it would be foolish to expect that organized crime won't traffic this to other jurisdictions. So essentially, he was arguing that, look, if we do safe supply, it's going to end up in the black market. It's going to be sold to other areas, other provinces,

other countries. And despite being fully aware of this, Dr. Henry nonetheless released a report over the summer advocating for the legalization of all drugs through, quote-unquote, non-medical safer supply. So that would mean being able to purchase fentanyl or meth or cocaine in a store much like alcohol or cannabis. And if we were to do that, then it is guaranteed that these drugs would end up being resold in the United States or Australia or New Zealand. Sorry, go on. Oh, sorry. So she was aware of the fact that her recommendation would likely lead to increased international drug trafficking, and yet she didn't seem to care.

It seems to me, like I said, we've been having these very unserious conversations that are not backed by science or data or any sort of proof. It's, it's, and the impacts have been very real on very real people and families and they've torn us apart and they've ripped cities apart and ripped communities apart. It's so odd to live in a world, Adam,

where it feels like on this very important issue, Donald Trump is like the adult in the room. I mean, I wouldn't say that he's the adult

in the room. I think that he is just using his bully pulpit to give voice to many criticisms that are often ignored. Right. Like we have we had so many people in Canada who are criticizing our current suite of addiction policies, and yet they have no power. They have no leverage because they're not in government. So I think it's just it's unfortunate that Donald Trump, as chaotic as he is, is becoming the source of accountability here. and the RCMP and the OPP to figure out how best we could address these issues, at least in his province. And, you know, because we're not just going to be dealing with Donald Trump. We're going to be dealing with Tom Holman, the border czar. We're going to be dealing with ICE and the Drug Enforcement Agency. There's a lot of accountability that Canadians are not used to having.

On this file, it's not a conversation I've ever had. Canada's drug policy towards the United States, and here we are. Are we ready to be talking to people who are going to be pretty direct with us as to what they want, what they expect? I don't think we're ready because I think there are going to be a large number of difficult conversations here. And, for example, with Doug Ford, I mean, he's a conservative premier, so people assume that he's been tougher on drug policy, but that hasn't been the case.

From what I've seen, the Ford government has done seemingly the bare minimum to address the addiction crisis in Ontario. And they haven't, for example, done much to clamp down on the safer supply over prescribing. They've allowed our streets to continue to be flooded with hydromorphone, you know, this primary opioid distributed to safer supply. It seems like they're more interested in rhetoric than actual action. And so I wonder how they'll be able to explain that when they're engaging with their American counterparts about controlling the drug supply and preventing leakage into American markets. Adam, what do you think is going to satisfy Donald Trump and his incoming administration? Is he going to want to see action in terms of boots on the ground, more border, the border beefed up, more technology, more guards being hired immediately? Or is the signaling of a plan going to be enough for him? Because I don't think we can accomplish everything he wants us to accomplish by the time he takes office well the thing is with donald trump it's hard to tell what will satisfy him because he is such a chaotic individual but at the very least i think that we should try to deliver

some some hard evidence of uh of uh reform so i think that you know just providing some unspecific general plan is not going to satisfy him because you're the kind of man who who demand action for better or for worse and i think one of the easiest ways we can do this okay if we want to signal that we're at least starting to be serious is to hire more police for for our ports because that's that's simple that's straightforward and that's something that we can measure yeah just authorize the budget for that right now if you do do that, that's, that could signal to him, look, we are listening to you. We are taking this seriously. Yeah. And it shouldn't be that hard. I mean, as mentioned before, Seattle has about 150 law enforcement officials controlling their ports. We have zero hiring

150 more people to assist with the policing of our ports and increase the rate at which we check our shipping containers. It doesn't seem like a monumental task. Adam, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much for listening to the podcast. We hope you enjoyed it and that you'll join us tomorrow with another loaded edition of The Ben Mulroney Show.