0:04

Each week on Chatter That Matters, I share a story of someone who overcome

0:07

circumstances. And in doing so, they get to chase their

0:11

dreams and change their world and ours for the better.

0:15

But once a year, in honor of Canada's birthday, I break

0:18

format. Instead of focusing on an individual,

0:22

I look at Canada and what our country needs to do

0:26

to dream and to set up future generations to have the

0:29

same opportunities we did. Today's show features 2 brilliant Canadians,

0:37

John Ruffalo and John Stackhouse, And both of these

0:41

individuals worked tirelessly to create the circumstances we need as a

0:44

country to create growth and success.

0:51

Before I invite John Ruffalo to join me, I also want to share my thoughts

0:55

on Canada. Mind over matter is what truly matters.

0:59

Let's be honest, we have stopped believing in the Canadian dream, and I don't

1:03

blame you. The math and daily reminders do not lie.

1:07

Our economy, our standard of living, and our productivity are in a

1:11

free fall. If Canada was a product that a grocery store,

1:14

it might be stamped outdated, and the alarmist would say

1:18

expired. And I ask, how is that possible for a country

1:21

with so few people and so much wealth? What if we

1:25

focused on what really Matters, Growing Canada.

1:29

It's time for Canadians to believe in what we can be if we have the

1:32

will, and my belief is that Canada can become an economic and

1:36

cultural superpower. But first, we have to

1:40

shed our inferiority complex. Key have to believe in

1:43

our ability to do much bigger things. Next,

1:47

we must stop boring and burring our way to fiscal collapse.

1:52

And finally, as voters, we must replace our love for handouts

1:56

with a passion for dreaming and doing. Every level of government and

1:59

academia needs to support the dreams of the mass majority. I want a

2:03

country where crime doesn't pay, hard work is rewarded,

2:07

entrepreneurship is celebrated, and academia is for preparing

2:11

our students to Three, And our tax dollars are revered,

2:15

and we see accountability, efficiency, and transparency are the

2:18

only guarantees for a public service job.

2:22

Canada needs to unlock our 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars of natural resources,

2:26

our farmable land. We need to show the world that Canadians and the Indigenous

2:29

peoples can harness this opportunity in the most ethical

2:33

and environmental sound manner possible. And these taxes that

2:37

we garner will fuel our new economy and fund our dream of being a superpower

2:41

in Made in Canada Three Technology. It's also looking to strengthen

2:45

our social net and pay down our debt. We also have to realize

2:49

that much of the future economy is business without borders. It operates

2:52

in the cloud with fewer restrictions and freer enterprise. Three

2:56

creative entrepreneurs who drive the future are nomadic and will choose to locate where the

2:59

best conditions for their ideas to flourish and the best place for their talent and

3:03

themselves to live and raise a family. So why not

3:07

Canada? We've all the ingredients to create the best living place,

3:11

democratic, energy, water, diversity, culture, and

3:14

abundant nature. We just need the growth conditions

3:18

for entrepreneurial ideas to come alive and thrive. Instead of

3:22

wet cement poured in the feet of dreamers and doers, we must jackhammer

3:26

away bureaucracy restrictions and political narrative in favor of

3:29

an environment that champions our economic drivers. They are the

3:33

heroes. We must give our growth engines the fuel they need,

3:37

supercomputers to model their ideas, capital to fund their growth, and a

3:40

favorable taxation system that understands risk and reward. We that Key and identify and target equally strong

3:53

talent worldwide and fast track their citizenship. Canada, it's time to

3:57

rekindle our dream and, more importantly, our collective will. Let's

4:01

shift our mindset to positivity and possibility and chase purpose

4:05

and pursuit. I hope you find time within your busy schedule to

4:08

stick around for the entire show. And whether you live in Canada or any country

4:12

around the world, this message of hope, prioritization, and

4:16

unification applies to It's a great country. Why wouldn't you wanna live here? This is

4:49

Chatter That Matters with Tony Chapman presented by

4:53

RBC. My first guest is

4:57

John Ruffler. He's both a friend and someone I admire for his acumen and how

5:00

our economy works and the delicate dance between private enterprise

5:04

and the role government can and must play. John pulls no punches, nor

5:08

does he believe in the luxury of time. Canada must go after the future.

5:12

Canada must make things happen versus watch and wonder what happened.

5:16

John Ruffalo, welcome to Chatter That Matters. So, John, before we get

5:19

into the show and talking about productivity and what matters most to Canada,

5:23

I have to ask you because the last time you were on the show, and

5:25

I think it was almost 4 years ago where I interviewed you, you had just

5:29

come through a horrific accident and a lot of people

5:32

said much of what you've we take for granted is gone but everything

5:36

I've seen of you for the last 4 years is your way of saying,

5:40

I'm not a victim, I'm not disabled, yes, I've got

5:44

circumstances to overcome, but you're lifting the spirits of a lot of people, not

5:47

just in Canada, around the world that says attitude and

5:51

approach matters. Yeah. That you very much, Tony. And I

5:55

again, I'm not trying to preach or

5:59

to, virtue signal, but I I actually really do

6:02

not feel or identify myself as

6:06

a disabled individual even though I've I I know

6:09

that I am and I'm not one of those guys that, you know, will

6:13

use different words. I'm a disabled individual, but it doesn't

6:17

stop me from doing the things that I need to do. I still on a

6:20

daily basis do physio. I do about 18 to 20 hours of

6:24

physio after about 4 years. It's a part of my life right now.

6:28

I'm not going to stop until I start walking

6:32

independently. I do walk with, on

6:35

treadmills, with walkers, with poles, but I do have an

6:39

aided device. I do cycle with my feet.

6:43

Not as fast as I used to. I'll be at about 2,500

6:47

kilometers of cycling this year. So I try to do the things

6:51

that, that I know I could do, and I

6:55

I tend to not fret about the things that I

6:58

can't do. I always said to my Matters, if I could find that switch and

7:02

just turn it on. You know, when you Key, when people are in the zone,

7:05

they have that attitude, they are parting water, I mean, they are

7:09

doing things that people think are impossible and they're making it

7:13

possible. Is that also maybe the core idea that we gotta

7:16

talk about today in the show that Canada and Canadians have to

7:20

start feeling that way versus being pushed on their back feet. I cited

7:24

Carolyn Rogers, the World Economic Forum, basically pronouncing as

7:27

dead, like, as a country. How do we find a way to

7:31

have Canadians start saying, there's so much that's possible that

7:35

we can be creating as a country if we just believe in each other? Let's

7:38

talk about the great things in Canada. We are blessed. We are we are

7:42

a country that's blessed with natural resources,

7:46

you know, a welcoming, population as it

7:49

relates to immigration, good

7:53

people. We have a a good standard of living. These are all

7:57

the great positives. But we're also a nation

8:00

that relies on victimhood and more so in the

8:04

last dozen years or so. And this is where

8:08

we start running into a problem. We are believing

8:12

that, the folks who do have the grit, who

8:16

do wanna make the difference are are

8:19

disincentivized or in some cases, you saw this

8:23

from from a recent Canadian federal budget,

8:28

demonized for their success tenacity.

8:32

And it's, you know, an obligation owing to them that,

8:36

while we're a generous nation with progressive

8:40

systems, progressive taxation is not enough.

8:44

And again, there's victims out there that it's not their

8:47

fault, and all of a sudden we need to

8:51

feel guilty about it. And the the thing that I

8:55

really believe in is kind of how I think about it with my

8:58

disability. That this

9:01

country really owes you is the equality of

9:05

the opportunity. This is what I believe in, but not the equality of the

9:09

result outcome. You know, I always talk about entrepreneurs. You've invested

9:21

entrepreneurs. I've been an entrepreneur all my life, and they they don't mind getting on

9:25

a high wire act between the sense of risk to

9:28

reward. You know, they feel that they have they're surrounded with the right people,

9:32

they've thought it through, they're not you know, they're very careful, but they're not afraid

9:35

to get on it. But it seems like as a country, we're pouring wet cement

9:39

on that high wire in terms of bureaucracy, taxation,

9:43

to the point where nowadays, I don't necessarily need to be in Canada

9:47

to be on that wire. If we lose that energy and that those beacons

9:51

of people that have that have blazed the trails, what do we have left?

9:55

Entrepreneurs are odd creatures.

9:59

Some of the the greatest entrepreneurs are extremely

10:03

odd. Money doesn't drive most of them. Solving

10:07

something big in particular is what motivates

10:11

them doing something that changes the world. And this is

10:15

why again, I'm gonna, devolve back to this

10:18

federal budget. It wasn't about the tax. It was the narrative

10:22

and the narrative of taxing success and demonizing

10:26

the success. And in essence,

10:32

popularizing the notion that we're all better off if

10:36

we're employees, you know, and perhaps

10:39

employees of the state, you know, as opposed to even employees of

10:43

private enterprise. And and the the

10:47

problem with that narrative is the

10:51

people who you're directing it to are actually the

10:54

most mobile of people. And then, frankly, let's go back to point

10:58

number 1. Their focus is not maximization

11:02

of their wealth. Their folks their their their focus is,

11:05

can I solve this big problem? And if I can't solve

11:09

it in Canada, I am obligated to solve it

11:13

anywhere in the world that, allows me the

11:16

greatest advantage in winning. And

11:20

that's the mindset that we need to think about in Canada.

11:24

At a bare minimum, bare minimum, do not get in the

11:28

way of these folks. Ideally, get out of the

11:31

way and support him in some of

11:35

the areas that could actually help them compete on a global

11:39

basis. It seems so obvious, yet when I look

11:42

at what our leaders are excited about is cutting a ribbon at a

11:46

branch plant or, you know, investing in something

11:50

big and as opposed to going you know

11:53

there's such strength in numbers if we unleash this entrepreneurial

11:57

class and we're solving these problems, they're not just problems we're solving

12:01

for Canada. These are problems and solutions we can be exporting around the

12:05

world. Yes. I mean, it's it's kind of funny, you know, from a public policy

12:08

perspective. So when you look at no. So so Canada

12:12

has great people and natural

12:15

resources. That just use 2 as two examples. One of the

12:19

things that we are lacking is the

12:23

deep capital pools that that perhaps the

12:26

United States has. And so we need to

12:30

invite foreign direct investment that

12:33

coming in and in particular as a source of capital. This

12:37

has been a big weapon in the innovation industry. You

12:41

need a strong domestic source of capital, but you need to

12:45

supplement it, particularly when you need large capital.

12:49

So inviting that in is definitely

12:52

great for our economy. What's bizarre, though, so

12:56

here we are capital constrained. And then what are we

13:00

focusing instead? We're focusing in on

13:03

inviting foreign based multinationals,

13:07

giving them 1,000,000,000 of dollars as opposed to trying to

13:10

help create the local winners. Now there might be

13:14

some narrow cases where it's it's it's it's required,

13:18

particularly if there's opportunities for technology transfer.

13:22

But what we're really doing is subsidizing with

13:25

massive taxpayer dollars jobs that

13:29

frankly, I think we can do in a far more effective basis. So I

13:33

agree with you, But I'll tell you, you know, it's the easiest thing for a

13:37

lot of politicians to do is to cut a check

13:41

that not their Tony. It's the taxpayer Tony. You know,

13:44

cut a cut a ribbon and say, look, look at us as

13:48

opposed to solving some of the underlying fundamental

13:52

issues. I wanna pull us back a bit because one of my

13:55

thesis is that we can't have voter literacy without

13:59

having financial literacy. And one of the words that's been talked

14:03

about a lot is productivity and I'd love for you to

14:06

explain to listeners what is productivity

14:10

and why does it matter? Why is it in fact the lifeblood of our standard

14:13

of living? When I describe productivity to folks,

14:17

I separate the notion of productivity

14:21

from innovation. They're not the same thing, but

14:24

they're related. So productivity and it's frankly

14:28

a more of an old economy, computation,

14:32

that's becoming less and less relevant, frankly, with with the the

14:36

digital economy, but it's the best that we have right now. It is the

14:40

value of goods or services produced

14:44

per unit hour labor worked.

14:48

So you you have two choices to

14:52

increase your productivity. You either produce

14:56

or provide higher valued goods or services,

15:01

which, is really the great

15:05

value or the great driver in the long run, but it's harder to

15:08

do, or you cut the human

15:12

input costs, which is a little

15:15

easier to do. Well, how do you do that on the the

15:19

denominator? Well, you replace human labor with

15:23

machine labor. And machine labor is really coming

15:26

from the innovation industry, whether it's robotics,

15:30

artificial intelligence. And the problem

15:34

that Canada has is both a numerator and a

15:37

denominator. Let me start off with the easier one being the

15:41

denominator. Many of our companies

15:45

in the variety of industries are not

15:48

utilizing or producing that product in the most efficient

15:52

manner possible. And it's important, particularly when you're

15:56

competing on a global basis, because if you don't have

15:59

the best product or the most, effective pricing,

16:03

you're just not going to sell your product. One of the issues that we do

16:07

have in Canada is that we do have a lot of regulatory

16:11

protected industries, in which case they're not

16:14

actually competing globally, but they're enjoying the

16:17

protections of that of of that regulatory

16:21

environment in Canada and are not being as productive

16:25

as perhaps that should be. And when you look to see

16:29

Canada, not just use the United States, the robotics

16:33

that are used in manufacturing process in the United States

16:36

outweigh Canada tremendously.

16:41

And when I see the Canadian firms that do the same thing,

16:44

I was just speaking to the founder, Key of Linamar,

16:49

and that was their key to success in

16:52

in in leveraging robotics in their manufacturing

16:56

processes. Where it gets a little bit harder, but it's

16:59

absolutely essential is how do you produce higher

17:03

valued goods? Let me give you a very easy example. In the natural

17:07

resource industry, we extract

17:11

oil from the ground, but we don't refine it here.

17:14

And or if it's LNG, we don't refine that here. So we

17:18

send off the raw materials. We have somebody else process

17:22

it. And most astonishingly, we're actually

17:25

buying a bunch of it back as a finished product

17:30

and paying an exorbitant price. Well, if you

17:34

keep the value chain here and capture the

17:38

profits throughout the value chain,

17:42

productivity would also increase. So those are kind of the

17:45

22 levers. I want to break it down for the listener.

17:49

So what I'm hearing is we could measure productivity. The average

17:52

person could cut 10 logs in an hour. You give them

17:56

a chainsaw, it goes up to 15 logs. You put it on an a more

18:00

advanced machine, it goes to 20 logs and you can get so far with that.

18:03

But if we really wanna think big is Key shouldn't be thinking about

18:07

harvesting our tree and even cutting it a log. We should be thinking what can

18:10

we do with that wood to turn it into a finished product and enjoy the

18:14

margin that comes from that innovation. Correct. So

18:17

that's a core component of of Canada that, you know, we're still that

18:21

hewers of wood and pumpers of oil versus it. You've come

18:25

out and really talked about the move we gotta make on the

18:28

chessboard is one where we're gonna drive this

18:32

innovation economy. You know, we've got so many

18:35

resources, intellectual, emotional, natural resources, diverse

18:39

population. We just have to have a mindset. But you you talk

18:43

about team Canada in some of your articles. Talk to me about

18:47

team Canada and why this must be a collective and conscious

18:51

act upon all of us versus just maybe isolated to

18:55

even some people like you that are just very focused on innovation.

18:59

And I'll use the innovation industry. So this is more of the

19:02

classically technology industry. So why is that important?

19:06

We for two reasons. Number 1, if we build the innovations

19:10

and sell them to the rest of the economy,

19:14

it makes the rest of the economy more productive. But with

19:18

a vibrant innovation economy, the value of

19:22

the goods or services produced can be extraordinarily

19:26

high because, you know, you look that, say,

19:29

a company like, like Google,

19:34

they're they're producing all of their profits based

19:37

on intangible or intellectual property.

19:41

You don't need as many

19:45

workers to do this because there's not

19:48

physical supply chains building these products. So innovation is

19:52

a huge driver of productivity. Now,

19:56

so speaking on the innovation community, you know, when I talk

19:59

about a a team Canada approach, I I

20:03

use the analogy of a farmer. Think

20:07

of the farmer as the as the entrepreneur.

20:12

And it's up to the farmer to find the plot of land,

20:15

to to hire the the, you know, the the the

20:18

farmhands to pick the seeds, to determine which seeds

20:23

will generate the greatest amount of value. And

20:26

then the farmer relies upon the

20:30

government to, perhaps

20:33

make fertilizer more cheaply

20:37

available, might develop the

20:40

land, so that it is available for

20:44

farming. It might provide irrigation systems so

20:47

that the farmers could actually tap into. So it's those

20:51

infrastructure like things. It might also pull

20:55

away things that get in the way. So maybe there's an infestation

20:59

of, of, invasive species

21:02

or there's certain weeds that a government could kind of come

21:06

in and take those away to maximize, the success for those

21:10

entrepreneurs. And the third part of the wheel are,

21:16

things that make the plants or food

21:20

grow bigger, faster, stronger, better. So these are the sources of

21:24

capital. This is venture capitalists, accountants, lawyers,

21:28

the ecosystem around it. All Three

21:32

need to be brought together to ensure the success of

21:35

that farmer. And what happens, the entire community

21:40

benefits from that success. And why doesn't that happen? Every

21:44

time I listen to you, whether you're talking or when I read one of your

21:46

articles or watch one of your videos, you really make such

21:50

common sense. But it seems like more often than not when it

21:54

comes to team Canada, there's a lot of uncommon sense.

21:57

To be blunt, politics seems to be getting in the way. Canada

22:01

Key to be pretty smug about the

22:05

vast majority of Canadians for many, many years, for as long as I've been

22:09

in my working life, have been really been

22:13

governed and followed in the Chatter. Whether you were

22:17

slightly left of center or slightly right of center,

22:21

It never mattered because this is what Canada

22:24

really is. And the United States, we witnessed

22:28

the United States really over the last 2 to 3 decades, start to

22:32

polarize and start to move away from the center

22:35

and and folks starting to grab

22:39

either either the left end or the right end. And we were kinda

22:43

smug here, kind of astonished what was happening in United States.

22:47

And it's crossed it's crossed the border.

22:51

And what's happening is that when you start getting that polarization,

22:56

you start pitting groups

23:00

against one another. And, you know, that United States

23:04

has its challenges on how they're pitting groups

23:07

against one another. But in Canada, for some bizarre reason,

23:11

we pit people against one another, economically speaking.

23:15

And, you know, we're starting to see a lot of words around class

23:19

warfare and zero sum gain. And

23:23

when you start dealing in a zero sum

23:27

gain and somebody is responsible for your

23:30

perceived lack of financial success, this is when we start

23:34

getting into the problem. So using my analogy, all of a

23:38

sudden, people may not want to see that farmer so

23:41

successful. Successful? And and, you

23:45

know, I don't think that's very, very fair. And this

23:49

is where Canada is starting to get into trouble and what we need to really

23:53

stop. I believe that the first

23:56

group that starts to come again together into

24:00

the center and starting to work together,

24:05

I think that will focus in on what the real

24:09

prize is. It's not us against each other, but it it is

24:12

Canada versus the rest of the world. And the only

24:16

way that we're going to win, just like team Canada and

24:19

hockey is getting our best, coming

24:23

together and competing against the rest of the world and not

24:26

within each other. So you talk about, you know, how Canada and

24:30

I I agree with you. Paul Martin, Jean Chretienst, Stephen Harper,

24:35

Brian Tony, they they really weren't that far apart, and much of

24:38

our consensus happened in the middle ground. Do you

24:42

think it's politicians, or do you think social media

24:45

also has to be accountable for how effortlessly

24:49

they seem to hurt us into these castles where we're surrounded by

24:53

like minded people, liking like minded content, validating each

24:57

other Three realizing, well, this is, this is all that's right,

25:01

then those people across that across the valley must be wrong.

25:04

Yeah. I don't think it's actually politicians at all. The politicians

25:08

are a reflection of what's already becoming

25:12

polarized, and then the politicians are responding

25:16

to that polarization. It is interesting. It's kind of hard to

25:20

put your finger on it. But, you know, when

25:24

social media started to truly cross the chasm, it was

25:27

about 2,008. And

25:31

I don't know if you remember, Tony, in 2,008 when we were

25:35

talking about the social graph and all of this great stuff

25:39

that was going to happen. One thing I have learned over

25:42

30 years of being in technology is that every single technology

25:46

that I've ever invested in is a double edged sword. Everything.

25:50

And on the social media, we were all looking at the bright

25:54

side of this. So it's the same thing what's gonna happen on generative AI, by

25:58

the way, unfortunately. And what happens is

26:02

it was leveraged as an echo

26:06

chamber following 2,008 Three

26:09

slowly and haphazardly. And then all of a sudden you

26:13

started listening and engaging

26:17

with only the folks or only the sources that you really

26:21

wanted to believe. And and

26:25

seeing the other side, was was

26:28

viewed as something bad. And and when the discussions

26:32

from a economic or political perspective

26:36

are Three decided not based on the quality of

26:40

your thought, but rather which end of the

26:44

political spectrum you belong. This is when

26:48

we have a problem. And, you know, the funniest

26:52

thing is even I'll use the political parties,

26:55

we have far more in common than we have

26:59

differences, but yet Key never ever talk

27:03

about the similarities and and what we have in Chapman.

27:06

Like family, like, you know, frankly, everyone wants

27:10

a good environment. Everyone wants sustainability. But we

27:14

deal with all of the small stuff in there or all

27:18

the house because we believe in doing it in a different

27:21

manner. So it is a very complicated issue,

27:25

but I worry we're spending so much time on those

27:28

differences that we're forgetting about the farmer. I wanna talk

27:32

about some of the other things that you've you've been so vocal in the

27:36

media lately, which I I totally respect a lot. A lot of people with your

27:39

smarts don't have the courage or conviction to come

27:43

out the way you are. First of all, impact to the capital gains that

27:47

changes. You we touched on it a little bit when we're talking about incentive, but

27:51

you're very against this for the very reason, not so much that

27:54

entrepreneurs, whether it's about they're there for economic reward. It's just

27:58

simply telling the world that the conditions for succeeding aren't there. So that's the

28:02

problem. And this is the misnomer. And it's very, very hard to talk in

28:05

in in sound bites. But it's not

28:09

the taxation per se. It's the narrative around it.

28:13

So so the full narrative is

28:17

we've got ourselves into a spending problem in this

28:20

country. I mean, again, let's just use common

28:23

sense. Does anyone spend money that they don't have,

28:27

or will they be incurring debts that your children

28:31

or grandchildren are going to have to repay? Of course, you'd say that's absolutely

28:34

nonsense, but that's what we're doing fundamentally. And then

28:38

we're figuring out after the fact is how the heck are we going to

28:42

pay for all of this stuff? And the part that

28:45

really infuriated me was that, you know, about 4 or

28:49

5 months beforehand, it wasn't

28:53

us who characterized this upcoming budget as

28:56

the productivity and innovation budget. It was the government that

29:00

actually said this is what it's going to be about. And

29:04

the really sad part is, is that I was involved in the

29:07

in the development of a few of the ideas,

29:11

that r and d tax credit reform, the artificial intelligence.

29:17

I was involved peripherally on the open banking, some really

29:21

great things. And that's the sad thing I was saying. You know, there was some

29:24

really good stuff in this budget, but then you

29:28

overlaid it with the capital gains tax. And again,

29:32

the entrepreneurs, ultimately, they don't even give it. They

29:36

don't give a hoot about paying additional that. They're going for

29:40

success. But but it's challenging for

29:44

them at the best of times. They're struggling getting people in.

29:47

Cost of living for their employees is tougher. Their markets

29:52

are better than the United States. US government is a

29:55

better procurer of Canadian innovation than Canadian

29:59

governments on. I can list like, so many you know, the capital

30:02

availability goes on and on and on, and they're still here

30:06

because they love this country. And then the

30:09

government comes out and in their narrative

30:13

basically said, you know what? You

30:17

are benefiting too much. Yeah. I don't

30:20

care about the risk that you're taking. I don't

30:24

care that you're betting it all and can lose it all. And frankly, you

30:28

know, Tony, you would know as well as anybody. The odds of success

30:32

are so stacked against you. And they're daring

30:35

compare this to employees

30:39

of public services who

30:43

never take a risk. It's they're needed and they're valued,

30:47

but they take no risk. They get, you know, huge

30:50

pensions. Their jobs are largely guaranteed, and

30:54

you're basically saying, I don't like the fact

30:57

that, you know, they're they they might,

31:01

and I say might have, a a

31:05

higher effective tax rate. Well, they don't have a higher effective tax

31:08

rate. One element of the income of an entrepreneur

31:12

might be a capital gain once in their lifetime after

31:16

blood, sweat, and tears, and earning nothing. And it was

31:20

received as a big slap in the face. It was

31:24

received by the entrepreneurs of, goddamn it.

31:27

I'm killing myself. I could make that move, and it's

31:31

very easy for me to do it, but I am patriotic. But

31:35

at some point, now that you're shitting on me and you're

31:39

vilifying me and people are calling me greedy, screw

31:43

you. I'm just gonna go to the United States because frankly,

31:47

that's probably where the logical answer is. And

31:50

this is where I was astonished in trying to explain

31:54

to government saying, folks, do you know what you're

31:57

doing? You're actually biting the hand that feeds

32:01

you. But at the end of the day, what we're dealing

32:05

with is a political issue of solving

32:10

a massive spending, frankly, to attract

32:14

votes. You know, the polls are not, you know, lying here.

32:18

The prevailing government is so far behind,

32:23

the opposition that they're doing desperate measures, but it's

32:26

bearing them further into the ground. And

32:30

that is why there has been a massive,

32:35

opposition to that, not only from the innovation sector, but from all

32:38

of the small business owners, doctors, dentists, cottage

32:42

owners Three realize, oh my god. You're coming after me too. And it's

32:46

that little adage of you better speak up because you

32:50

know what? You just might be next. That, that's one area that I

32:53

think is just a massive psychological blow and I think your point

32:57

is this is is the narrative is even more powerful

33:01

than the actual number and I think that's that's profound. I I also wanna

33:04

talk to you about talent and immigration, because to me, I

33:08

never thought that immigration as a quota is a number. I always thought it was

33:12

a strategic advantage for Canada. People would, cut off their arm

33:16

to come and live in this country. And with that scarcity

33:19

and that opportunity, we had the ability to attract the best and the

33:23

brightest. But it seems to me now that it's not about the

33:26

strength and talent, but it's about this number that

33:30

I just can't believe that we can be vetting all of these people and

33:34

saying that they make sense for what we need to do as a

33:37

country going forward. Canada has great talent.

33:42

I put it up against anyone in the world. No question.

33:46

The issue is building a lot of these companies, particular innovation

33:49

just requires a lot of talent. And we're not just producing

33:54

enough of the talented folks, whereas other countries, you know,

33:57

particularly India, China, etcetera, are.

34:01

And we need those folks in order to

34:04

compete globally. So, you know, we need to be welcoming these

34:08

folks. Now Canada also has a birth rate

34:11

that's well below the 2.1, children per person. We're down to a I can't

34:19

remember if it's 1.3 or 1.5, so extremely

34:23

low. And so we need a replenishment factor or

34:26

else we're not gonna have people, to help

34:30

support all of the social programs that we that we value in

34:34

this country. What the change has been, though,

34:37

in Canada was actually relatively consistent for for

34:41

a few decades that we were sort of

34:45

averaging around Three ish 1000

34:48

immigrants. You know, I think the peak immigration

34:53

in the last, almost 100 years was in the

34:57

mid 1950s where it peaked at around 400,000

35:01

people. But we had a much smaller population.

35:05

But so again, so we've averaged in Three 300, 350

35:09

for a number of years. It still was above the

35:13

rate of housing. Our housing was a number

35:16

that was between 200 and 300,000

35:20

housing starts. So still didn't quite make it, but it was reasonably

35:24

close. Our infrastructure was a was a different story.

35:28

But what they would do is that they would cap categories of

35:31

immigrants. And my understanding was, is that they capped

35:35

the refugee immigrants at 25,000 out of that Three

35:39

ish, which, you know, Canada is a great country. We have a

35:43

social conscious. Let's do that. And but the rest

35:47

were family unification, but mostly

35:51

economic immigrants, which we need. So basically, these are

35:54

folks who are coming here to work and to add value,

35:58

whether you Key in the trades, doesn't matter, all good, but but

36:02

basically skilled labor. What's happened running the clock

36:05

over the last few years is that now we're at 1,200,000,

36:11

like monstrous increase. We are, if I'm not

36:14

mistaken, the biggest immigrating company country in the

36:18

world. I although I gotta double check that with the

36:21

United States. But if it's not if we're not number 1, we're in the top

36:25

2. Population size, we're certainly number 1. We we're number

36:28

1 pop yeah. A relative population by by far.

36:32

And and yet Key didn't change any of our infrastructure and housing, and

36:36

we don't even have enough jobs to support that. And and frankly, and if

36:40

we did, we're not even bringing in the same skilled labor.

36:44

We're bringing in many folks who are

36:48

then going on social assistance, and we're just

36:52

compounding the actual

36:56

problem. So we went from a great advantage

37:00

of immigration, and I would call it, you know, it was it was never perfect,

37:04

of course, but I'd call it smart immigration to

37:08

irresponsible immigration. And now what's gonna happen is that

37:11

we're gonna have to massively cut that right

37:15

back and to fix our problems, and that has to happen. And

37:19

and again, we took this wonderful advantage

37:23

into now something that's now a political hot potato.

37:27

And a lot of folks are now vilifying immigration when in fact

37:30

we still need it, but not the way it's being done right now.

37:34

How many jobs will be lost because of AI and making

37:38

and how many jobs will be created because of AI? And that has to

37:42

factor in in terms of our immigration, or we're just gonna be, as you

37:45

said, bringing in a lot of people that are gonna be relying on social assistance

37:49

when they really wanna be chasing the Canadian dream. Yeah. This is

37:53

a complicated analysis. And, again, lots of different

37:57

views, so I'll give you my view. We have

38:01

definitively shortages in certain areas of the economy,

38:05

so the trades. My my friends who are home

38:08

builders can't find anybody at all. And you've got a lot of

38:12

talented folks around the world who would do anything

38:16

to become, you know, plumbers, electricians, bricklayers,

38:20

you name it. So folks like that welcome them

38:24

in. You know, we really need to,

38:27

to to to move the needle. Now when it

38:31

relates to, say, innovation jobs in AI,

38:35

let's go back to what I said at the very beginning.

38:39

Productivity is, you know, on the denominator front is

38:42

about the replacement of human labor with machine

38:46

labor. In the short term, you will need fewer

38:50

folks. And the difference on AI is it tends to be white

38:54

collar folks, not the blue collar folks. The blue collar folks

38:58

went through their changes over the last few decades

39:01

before that. I do believe it's a temporary friction.

39:05

I don't know how long it's going to last, but what does what is likely

39:09

going to happen is there are going to be a number of folks

39:13

who were in white collar, who will find themselves

39:17

that if they don't retrain, they may be

39:20

displaced. And finding jobs that are

39:24

below their their their skill sets.

39:28

And that will create frustration and that will

39:31

require social assistance to to help support

39:35

them through the transition. But like every

39:38

other introduction of transit of

39:42

technology, this has happened since the industrial revolution

39:46

that, you know, the replacements Chapman and then people figure

39:50

out different jobs Chatter never imagined before.

39:53

The difference this time, though, versus the last

39:57

150 years, the rate of change of

40:01

displacement is the fastest it's ever been.

40:05

And we as humans cannot move that

40:08

fast in society. And so, yes, will there be

40:12

a temporary friction in society for sure?

40:15

Hopefully, it's not permanent, but that is the social

40:19

challenge, with the, with the introduction of AI.

40:22

So if you even took a conservative estimate of the jobs that would

40:26

be lost, is it fair to say that even though we're

40:30

not creating the birth rate to keep our to sustain our

40:34

population, it is possible to say that

40:37

Canada could be run very efficiently at

40:41

15,000,000 or 20,000,000 people or 25,000,000. It doesn't

40:44

necessarily mean that the numbers we've always put

40:48

forward because it it we're gonna be going into an era where

40:52

less people and more potentially more productivity. Yep. Yeah. I mean,

40:55

there's a live experiment going on in the world today called Japan.

41:00

Japan's had, I guess, about 3 decades of stagnant

41:04

productivity, but it hasn't imploded

41:08

as fast as we thought. Because if you go to

41:11

Japan, the amount of replacement

41:15

from a robotics perspective is astounding.

41:19

Just walk in the streets of Tokyo, you'll see vending machines

41:24

absolutely everywhere where they used to be

41:27

humans that would be, you know, if you wanted a drink or

41:31

snacks, etcetera, or convenience stores. And so

41:35

you're absolutely right. It's a big question whether,

41:40

do you need, aside from the trades and building

41:44

stuff, which I'm not right now, we, AI is not gonna physically

41:47

replace that, at least not today Takeaways, but, you know, maybe in the future.

41:52

But maybe we don't need the same level of replacement.

41:57

But I would say to you, once you do

42:01

get below the 2.1, Three is

42:04

a hole there. But it feels like

42:08

we're we're we're filling in a gap that's getting us

42:12

beyond the 2.1 needed to sustain a society. You've

42:16

talked about Canada enjoys these great free trade agreements with

42:20

countries all over the world, but when we look inside, we've got massive

42:23

walls and barriers preventing us from doing business with each other. How

42:27

does that change? Go back to the common sense. I'd use energy policy for a

42:31

moment. And here's Germany. After Fukushima

42:35

that, the anti nuke lobby in

42:38

Germany convinced the government to decommission all of their

42:42

nuclear power. And the very last

42:45

one was being decommissioned as, the

42:49

Russians moved into the Ukraine. And there was this

42:53

moment of Tony shit. What did we just

42:56

do? And I don't think that timing was very coincidental.

43:01

And now without the nuclear power, the Germans were

43:05

reliant upon the Russian natural gas, you know, and

43:09

we're supporting the Ukrainians and and the Germans

43:13

ask us, can we ship them LNG?

43:18

And we have so much capacity of LNG, and

43:22

we basically gave them the proverbial finger, and Germany

43:26

had to turn around and go to the Qataris,

43:31

a country where, you know, we have some serious

43:34

concerns with, number 1. But number 2,

43:40

if we said no, the only energy supply

43:44

right now that that will give Germany enough baseload

43:48

power is coal because they do have solar, they do

43:52

have wind, but it doesn't give them baseload. So can

43:56

you imagine then, you know, here we are with our high horse of

43:59

sustainability encouraging in essence countries to

44:03

burn coal, which is the worst of all possibilities. And I know

44:07

that LNG is a carbon based fuel, but but there

44:10

are no absolutes in life. And and guess what

44:14

we get to do? We also get to,

44:18

help folks out west and will Canada makes

44:22

a great amount of money on that so that we could invest in more

44:25

renewable energy, etcetera. So we get caught in

44:29

the way of politics, and that's what drives me nuts.

44:33

We view Canada as team Canada first, and how do we

44:37

most effectively compete against the rest of the

44:40

world, I think that would help us go a long way.

44:45

That something Canada can turn into a competitive

44:49

advantage globally because a lot of investors

44:52

looking for those long term opportunities. I've sat around

44:56

tables. It's been a beautiful sight to see how they see

44:59

that in indigenous leaders. And there's, there's an

45:03

opportunity there that Canadians have to, lean into

45:07

this and turn it into that national, collective advantage.

45:11

Those are the words of John Stackhouse, who works tirelessly campaigning as both a

45:14

citizen of Canada and a senior executive of RBC to

45:18

encourage positive change. He believes that we can have it all, growth

45:22

and prosperity, care for each other while also caring for Matters nature.

45:26

When we return, I pose one of the biggest questions I've ever asked on

45:30

Chatter That Matters, one that involves all of us. And

45:33

Sean's answer? Well, it might surprise you.

45:40

Hi. It's Tony Chapman. Investing in Canada? Well, that matters

45:43

to RBC. 500 $1,000,000,000 in sustainable financing

45:47

to combat climate change. 500,000,000 for future launch.

45:51

A 10 year program to prepare youth for the jobs of tomorrow, helping

45:55

to discover the next generation of Olympians, artists monetizing their

45:58

talents, women entrepreneurs pursuing their dreams, supporting mental

46:02

health, and so much more. Investing in Canada, well, that

46:06

matters to RBC. Oh,

46:09

Canada. Native land. How beautiful the country is.

46:19

Universal health health care, I think that's one thing that defines Canada and

46:22

Canadians. People are wonderful here. Mhmm. It seems to be pretty nice. You can walk

46:26

a couple blocks and there's something different. Everything. Maple

46:30

syrup. Maple syrup. The weather. It's amazing. And I love Canada

46:33

in, in the summertime. It's awesome. It's just so

46:37

clean, free, open, and everyone just is so friendly. All the

46:41

different arts and community, culture, outdoor life as

46:44

well. I'm free to be me. Fuck this. These people. A

46:48

happy Canada Day. You're listening to Chatter That Matters with Tony Chapman presented

46:58

by RBC. My guest today is John Ruffalo. His mind fires with

47:02

brilliance, his heart roars with passion, and his ideas are

47:05

pragmatic and actionable. You talk

47:09

about government procurement support and how there's

47:13

a lot of countries that say small business is the lifeblood of our

47:16

economy. We take advantage of the the size of the

47:19

government spending and give them their fair shot. But that's not really happening in

47:23

Canada the way it should be. Not at all. It's actually it's atrocious.

47:27

So if I were to pick the number one

47:31

bow bone to pick by innovators, it's the procurement

47:35

policies of all three levels of

47:39

government. The innovators are not asking for a handout

47:42

at all. What they're really saying, all else

47:46

being equal by Canadian, and we act like

47:50

a bunch of Boy Scouts in Canada. Oh, well, we can do that

47:54

because someone's gonna complain that, you know, on the the

47:57

World Trade Organizations or what have you. And I keep on

48:01

saying, have you have any of you guys ever heard of this thing called Buy

48:04

America or have you heard of the Inflation Reduction Act?

48:08

And every country in the world has their

48:11

domestic policies. And and yet

48:15

Canada is so afraid to be proudly supporting

48:19

that. Now when you look at procurement,

48:23

2 very noticeable observations.

48:27

The risk aversion by folks that are procuring

48:30

is is astounding. And in particular,

48:34

if there is a competitive bid and there is a well

48:38

known international name, particularly US based name

48:42

versus a Canadian domestic, almost every

48:46

time the foreign international

48:49

wins the bid for a few reasons. They get

48:53

to people love to have selfies with some of

48:57

these big companies because it's sexier.

49:02

They they have the companies have far greater,

49:06

lobbyists on staff, marketing budgets, wining

49:10

and dining budgets, all of this sort of stuff. But

49:14

the the even if all of that was solved,

49:19

they are, and I say I see this so many

49:22

times, far more deceptive in the way

49:26

that they win their procurement. So what they do is

49:30

the biggest brownie points goes to cost. And frankly,

49:34

it's almost always cost because they can't assess

49:38

the value differential. So they just simply say,

49:41

Key. Who's got the lowest cost? Well, if you have a big multibillion

49:46

dollar organization, let's go and and,

49:50

let's go with them. And, it looks like that the lowest

49:53

price. But what they don't understand is that there

49:57

is differences in scope. And then what ends up

50:00

happening is there is a variety of scope Chatter. And then

50:04

over the course of time, they actually end up

50:07

spending a lot more than they've ever imagined. You want a

50:11

real live example? We're going through one right now, which is under criminal

50:15

investigation as the whole ArriveCAN app. When you see

50:19

what that original procurement I I I can't remember if it was

50:22

800,000 or it was some small

50:26

number and it ended up being $54,000,000 with all of

50:30

these additions, changes, and blah blah blah. Like, the number

50:34

of Canadian companies that said with the with what they actually

50:38

delivered, like, I could produce that at a fraction of

50:41

that dollar, but yet our Canadian companies,

50:45

you know, frankly, maybe it's wrong. They go on Three on an

50:48

ethical basis saying, well, you've you've said this is what you

50:52

want and this is what it's going to cost. And maybe it's the lack of

50:56

sophistication of our folks who, you know,

51:00

don't realize maybe there's an opportunity for them to cheat the government.

51:04

But, you know, it it drives me nuts. There's a is

51:07

that is the single easiest way where you basically say

51:11

every department, all else has to be

51:15

equal. So this would add tens of 1,000,000,000

51:19

of dollars of revenues to the Canadian companies.

51:23

The greatest value you can drive to any

51:26

business is to deliver them revenue, and particularly if it's recurring

51:30

revenue. And yet Key can't do this very basic

51:34

ask. Before we wrap it up, you touched upon, you know, being

51:38

a superpower in LNG to our

51:42

allies. Isn't that same argument Key could be the

51:45

most ethically sourced food, could be involved, like, some of the places

51:49

we could be a superpower in. I mean, we were a superpower

51:53

superpower in AI. Can we hold on to that? I think of

51:56

Nortel years ago with our switching technology and basically those patents

52:00

ended up in in China. Our lithium mines are getting

52:04

sold. I mean, is there a way we can, have this north star as

52:08

a country that says in these 3 or 4 areas, we are

52:11

gonna be a superpower to the world, at least to the allies that

52:15

value the moral compass of Canada. You know,

52:18

all things being equal, they'd rather buy from us than anywhere else in the world.

52:22

Why can't we bring that forward as a strategy for a

52:26

new economy? Tony, you're you're you're absolutely bang on.

52:30

You know, I always worry that we don't devolve

52:33

back to our past of being, you know, the drawers of water and hewers of

52:37

wood. Yeah. But we should not be

52:41

ignoring our strategic advantage. Let's talk about sustainability

52:44

and EV. What did we focus in on? We

52:48

focused in on paying 1,000,000,000

52:52

of dollars to have, foreign based

52:56

multinationals to set up

53:00

battery assembly plants. Yet that

53:03

raw materials, whether it's

53:08

lithium, cadmium, graphite, nickel, you name

53:11

it, is being imported by other countries.

53:15

And why isn't it that we're not

53:18

linking that to a Canadian

53:22

supply chain, doing it in a sustainable way. I mean, in the past, we

53:26

did these things horribly. It created environmental damage.

53:29

Well, we figured that out, mostly,

53:34

and and use that advantage in exactly what

53:38

you said. You know, one thing about Canada, which, you know,

53:42

as a proud Canadian, we used to have

53:45

this moral authority in the world,

53:49

And we we did lose it and but it's not

53:53

gone forever again. And if we

53:56

want to be the champions of,

54:00

say, sustainability and renewable energy, and

54:04

boy, very few countries know energy like like Canada.

54:08

Let's take advantage of the great resources we have,

54:11

you know, encourage the transition to the world,

54:15

mine the materials that are that are needed, and

54:19

we have the expertise. And how do we get

54:22

it to be bigger, faster, cheaper, more

54:26

sustainable with all the great innovations that we have?

54:29

It's all a nice virtuous circle.

54:35

But we need to get started on it. And, you know, the last thing I

54:38

would just say is, it was part of the question you asked me earlier.

54:41

Canada is going to be

54:45

in serious trouble where if the focus of

54:49

our nation is how do we carve up

54:52

our pie by making each one of us

54:56

fight over remaining crumbs of that pie

55:00

as opposed to how do we just make this pie

55:04

bigger for absolutely everyone to participate and

55:07

enjoy? That's the mindset. That's the mentality

55:11

that we need, and it takes strong leadership

55:15

to get everyone thinking along those same lines.

55:19

You think democracy as it stands today

55:23

can bring us to that? I fundamentally believe

55:27

in democracy and but I also fundamentally believe in

55:31

capitalism. I believe in

55:35

smaller government, not from an ideological perspective

55:39

whatsoever. I just believe that the private

55:42

sector is the most efficient allocator of

55:46

scarce resources through pricing mechanisms.

55:50

And until something else shows me it's more

55:53

productive in the long run, I'm still waiting to hear that.

55:57

So based on those 2, I think that,

56:01

you know, we don't really have a choice, number 1. And

56:05

number 2, I think it's very possible. I

56:09

do think, though, where we're on this treadmill is

56:14

whenever I go back to the polarization issue

56:18

and you could see it very clearly and the U. S. Was even a little

56:22

bit of a better example. Once you

56:25

start to pull away from the center,

56:29

then you get an equal and opposite reaction

56:33

from the other side of the political spectrum that pulls

56:37

it not even equally, but just a little bit

56:41

more. And then you get the opposite. And then you start to

56:45

realize, oh my god. We're really far

56:48

apart on the political spectrum now. How did this

56:52

happen? Well, what it really is going to take, and I would say

56:55

specifically in Canada, and I'm gonna say that

56:59

80% of Canadians like to be governed in

57:02

the Chatter, and everyone who I speak to. And it

57:06

doesn't matter on their, what their station in life or

57:10

what they do, you know, again, they they're kind

57:14

of in that center. I think we just gotta

57:17

stop keeping on yanking to the

57:22

to moving further to your political spectrum

57:25

and move back into, you know, as close as

57:29

possible to the center. And again, doesn't matter if you're left or right,

57:33

it's all the same thing. I think that's the path

57:36

forward. And and hopefully the

57:40

first person to offer the olive branch is saying, you know that

57:44

I love to see? I love to see this in question, period.

57:48

Somebody get up and say to the government, you know what?

57:52

That was a really good idea. Well done. And sit right back down.

57:55

Wouldn't that be it would Key, like, I

57:59

think we'd be shocked and wondering what the heck is going on. And of

58:03

course, you will always get the 20%,

58:07

you know, on extremists on the other side. And who cares?

58:11

Because the 80% in the middle is is what we

58:14

should be focused in on. But but I would

58:18

love a little bit more of actually governing

58:22

and doing things to create value and not so much politics.

58:26

But that's what that's why I would make a very bad

58:30

politician, I guess. You know, it's it's funny because I I hear you

58:33

and John Love and some of the people that are very

58:37

accomplished CEOs. They know how to prioritize resources. As

58:41

you said, private enterprise is the best in terms of scarce resources.

58:45

So to me it's not so much democracy that I wanna take

58:48

away the right of the people to vote, I wanna have democracy

58:52

come backwards for the people and not the party. It's probably the best way I

58:55

could say it. You know? And I just look at the size of our government,

59:00

the fact that accountability is a Key that you said. I mean, that we don't

59:03

treat our tax and borrowed dollars as precious. We consider

59:07

them almost, this this magical printing press. So I

59:11

wanna leave with you sort of just saying, if you were prime minister

59:15

I know you're working that some public policy themes, and I know that there's

59:19

some big thinking that you're that you're investing in right now. Is

59:23

there anything you can kinda leave the audience with saying if I was

59:26

prime minister or if there's a prime minister that would get my full

59:30

support, what would they be doing over the course of the

59:34

next 12 to 24 months to just at least show

59:37

Canadians that there's a sense of attitude, the switch is going on? I

59:41

would say there's 2 key components without getting to

59:45

the very specifics of the categories of whether it's economic

59:49

policy or what have you. Number 1, can we have a

59:52

plan? There is no strategic plan

59:56

for Canada. What's the first thing that a CEO does

1:00:00

when they get a job in a company league and organization.

1:00:04

They develop the 5 year strategic plan. Where are we

1:00:08

going? None of us know where we're going. We're all

1:00:11

confused. And even when you look at this

1:00:15

latest budget, it looks like it was hastily put together,

1:00:19

and we can't define the past so

1:00:23

that if we have to go through some pain, I think everyone

1:00:27

would be willing to go through some pain if we see what the other

1:00:31

side might look like or where you might be going. That's number

1:00:34

1. Number 2, what I would do, and this is where

1:00:38

governments run into a big problem, is that you're not

1:00:42

engaging with stakeholders When you start to

1:00:45

think that you know the answers, because I certainly don't,

1:00:50

and if I was in there, the first thing that I would do is

1:00:53

understand the various constituencies. At the end of the

1:00:57

day, government is there for the people, not for their own

1:01:01

self interest. So they need to really figure out

1:01:04

not only what the strategic plan is, but what is it that the

1:01:08

people want? And it might be that the people

1:01:12

want something that's not attainable, and your job is to

1:01:16

is to get them to understand what

1:01:19

is possible and what is not. But that

1:01:23

dialogue and the last thing I would just say is that, you know, as part

1:01:26

of that dialogue, Like, I really would love to see

1:01:29

nonpartisanship. I I I I was on the

1:01:33

board of an environmental organization,

1:01:37

and we were looking at our board makeup and trying

1:01:41

to figure out what characteristic of a

1:01:44

board member that we needed. And I said that

1:01:49

we need to find the most influential

1:01:53

purpose, the person that

1:01:57

really dislikes our organization and

1:02:00

is opposed ideologically

1:02:04

to that organization. And could we convince that person

1:02:08

to be on the board Because we need to listen

1:02:11

to the objectives and to try to identify

1:02:15

where are the points that we would agree. It would be the

1:02:19

healthiest thing, but we tend to be afraid. We try

1:02:23

to seek affirmation with the same people who you

1:02:26

already know in advance are going to agree with you. So again,

1:02:30

it creates this echo chamber. So, you

1:02:34

know, again, Tony, when you ask why have I been so vocal, I

1:02:37

believe in democracy. I also believe that you need to

1:02:41

speak up and you speak up not out of your own self

1:02:45

interest, but what you honestly believe is for the good of Canada and

1:02:48

give your reasons why. You might disagree with it.

1:02:52

The more we do that in this country and actually engage in

1:02:56

discussion, I think will be the

1:03:00

pathway for us to hopefully get over some of these

1:03:03

huge impediments. So John, I always end my shows with my Three

1:03:07

takeaways and one, I am such a fan of yours

1:03:11

because I am so aligned with how much you love Canada because

1:03:15

I love this country, and I see nothing but possibility

1:03:18

and positivity if we have that north star.

1:03:22

And one of the things you said at the end is that strategic plan that

1:03:26

says this is what we're gonna bet on and this is why it's gonna matter

1:03:29

to us and more importantly, it's gonna matter to your children and future children

1:03:33

because everybody that immigrated to Canada came here for a better life for

1:03:37

their children. Nonstop. Every immigrant, every refugee I've had on this show,

1:03:41

I left my country, my culture, everything I knew because

1:03:44

I wanted a better life for my children. And that's the first thing I would

1:03:47

love to see that you talk about is that strategic plan

1:03:51

that has everybody saying we're all in. I love that. Second thing I

1:03:55

love what you said about entrepreneurs. They're not there for Tony. They're there to

1:03:58

solve big problems. They're there to identify unmet

1:04:02

needs and fill those needs. That's what they play with. And as you

1:04:06

said, they're often odd, they're different, they're unique. Sometimes they're on the

1:04:09

spectrum, but they're extraordinary minds and that

1:04:13

positive energy they create comes jobs and innovation and

1:04:16

export, and we have to do everything we can to make Canada a

1:04:20

magnetic place for them versus a plate turn the magnet around, and

1:04:24

we're repelling that. So I totally buy into it, And the last thing that Key

1:04:28

really was a cornerstone of this conversation is how, as a

1:04:31

country, we need to move back to the center and find common ground and

1:04:35

consensus. And left versus right really is just

1:04:38

tiny shades of the fact that this is about Canada, what

1:04:42

we stand for, what we're building as a country together, and having

1:04:46

that sense of mutual respect versus what I find question period now is

1:04:50

just being, getting snackable content from my little social media

1:04:54

sound bites and a level of smugness that Key said

1:04:57

and no, you said. I think all of that coming together.

1:05:01

North star for this country, celebrate our entrepreneurship,

1:05:05

invest in them, support them, revere them. Isidore Sharps

1:05:08

and the Murray the Kofflers and Aldo Shoes and and the

1:05:12

Lululemon's, all these incredible entrepreneurs that have come out of Canada,

1:05:16

punch the boat that a waste glass, and find the center. I think if we

1:05:19

could do those Three and maybe convince you to run for prime minister, today would

1:05:22

be a good day's work. Well summarized.

1:05:28

Joining me now is John Stackhouse, who's been on my show

1:05:32

several occasions and why he has context. He's a former editor in

1:05:35

chief of that Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper. Today, he sits in

1:05:39

the office of the president of RBC as their senior VP.

1:05:43

He heads up many strategic portfolios, including really

1:05:46

trying to get a handle on the future. John,

1:05:50

welcome back to That of the Matters. Hey, Tony. Great to be with you. My

1:05:53

first question is there has to be 3 of you. As I follow you on

1:05:56

LinkedIn, you are everywhere, and I'm not just talking about across

1:05:59

Canada, but around the world. And really not only

1:06:03

participating as sort of an attendee, but very often shaping the

1:06:07

content on the stage. So my first question is, how do you find

1:06:11

time to do all of that? I I think Three of me is a very

1:06:14

scary, thought, but, thank thank you that observation,

1:06:17

Tony. I mean, 90% of it is a great team. I get to work with

1:06:21

wonderful people here at RBC. I think focus is really important just

1:06:25

knowing what you're going to execute on every day, every

1:06:29

week. There is something also to the 10000 hours

1:06:33

school that the more you do, the more you can do. I just had Malcolm

1:06:36

Gladwell on my show, and one of the things he said is he never ever

1:06:39

imagined that 10000 hours would have been the thing that exploded out

1:06:43

of his Chatter. And everybody comes up to him and says, guess what? I have

1:06:46

10000 hours. He goes, that wasn't the point.

1:06:49

So you talk about focus. What are you focusing on? Because I think, you know,

1:06:53

the way I characterized you is you are deeply committed and

1:06:57

passionate about Canada and the country we can become.

1:07:00

If it's one word, Tony, it's competitiveness. Key need to be more

1:07:04

competitive as a country, more competitive as an economy. We're pretty

1:07:08

good, but not a lot of prizes for a and a 3rd or

1:07:12

4th place on the world stage. We've been doing a lot of research at

1:07:15

RBC through our economics team on productivity, as have Matters.

1:07:19

And it's alarming. It's really alarming. We are

1:07:23

poorer per capita when you factor out inflation than we

1:07:26

were a decade ago. We have fallen behind

1:07:31

the likes of Australia over the last 25 years. Similar

1:07:34

countries, similar economy, similar people in many

1:07:38

ways, but they've really upped their game where we have not. We've

1:07:42

fallen well behind the United States. And this means if

1:07:45

you're in Ontario and looking at someone doing the same

1:07:49

thing in California, they're producing,

1:07:53

you know, 20, 30 percent more doing the same thing.

1:07:57

And therefore they're going to be paid more, whether they're self employed as

1:08:00

an entrepreneur or as an employee. That's just the math of

1:08:04

economics. So how do we take a bit of a breath

1:08:08

as a country and focus on that productivity

1:08:12

challenge? This is a mindset issue because I would argue that some

1:08:16

countries just seem to have a swagger that says Key belong as number

1:08:19

1. This is our destiny. We're we're here to make things happen

1:08:23

versus Canadians that times Key more about watch and

1:08:26

then respond to what happens? Yeah. That part of it, Tony. And I think

1:08:30

that goes right down to our education system. It goes down to how we

1:08:34

approach a number of challenges. And look, we are the envy of

1:08:38

the world in terms of our inclusiveness, in terms

1:08:42

of our taking care of others. And that's an

1:08:45

incredible strength that we should not allow to

1:08:49

erode. This is a great country to live and work in and to start a

1:08:52

business in and to grow a business in. It's just got room

1:08:56

for improvement. And part of that is the attitude. And

1:09:00

why RBC taking this on? And I'm always been

1:09:03

fascinated with organizations that maybe move beyond their core

1:09:07

business and say that we have a higher purpose than just answering our

1:09:10

shareholders. This is more about sharing values with the country.

1:09:14

Well, I I'd say, Tony, it is our our core purpose to help

1:09:18

clients thrive and communities prosper. And that communities

1:09:21

prospering is about society prospering. And Canada particularly,

1:09:25

our home market, needs to prosper more. Prosperity

1:09:29

is not just economic growth, but it's hard to have all forms

1:09:33

of prosperity without economic growth. We cannot

1:09:37

afford another decade or so like

1:09:41

we've just had. We can't go through the 2030s

1:09:45

like we just have and expect to have the same social

1:09:48

programs, the same infrastructure, even the

1:09:52

same economic fabric of the country if we

1:09:55

don't focus on these underlying challenges. I've been

1:09:59

incredibly fortunate to be at RBC for close to 10 years

1:10:02

now and do get to travel the country, get to talk to

1:10:06

business owners, get to talk to community members and leaders

1:10:10

in big centers and very small centers as well. And love

1:10:14

this country. Love the ambition that you see pretty much in

1:10:17

every region and think we have a great opportunity ahead of

1:10:21

us in the decade ahead to really, turn, turn it up.

1:10:25

I've often said that much of our success can be

1:10:28

realized if individuals improve their financial

1:10:32

literacy, therefore, they will improve their voter literacy. Because I find

1:10:36

Canadians often cast their ballot for the free prize

1:10:40

inside, or what's in it for me today, where I think a

1:10:43

lot of what you're asking for is to have voters realize that we should be

1:10:47

thinking about what's in it for Canada tomorrow. Is

1:10:51

that fair? Yeah. And a a lot of it comes down to the

1:10:54

basics of economics which have been, you know, these are truisms.

1:10:59

Key cannot spend more than we save over a period of

1:11:02

time. We are doing that as a society. Our governments,

1:11:06

plural, are doing that far too much. Individuals are doing

1:11:10

that too much. So, yeah, financial literacy, including for

1:11:14

governments, is is pretty pretty important. So we need to

1:11:18

save more as people and we need to invest that

1:11:21

saving in entrepreneurs and people building companies. We have to

1:11:25

allow for more of that in the in the private markets.

1:11:29

Governments have to pull back a little bit, not radically,

1:11:33

but a little bit to create more space for that

1:11:36

private saving and for the entrepreneurs who turn

1:11:40

savings into economic growth. Spending a lot of time

1:11:44

understanding our indigenous peoples, I would argue

1:11:47

unification reconciliation is about us working

1:11:51

much better together. Where are you seeing the most

1:11:55

promise, so that we can look at each other and say, above all, we're

1:11:59

one human race, and this is one beautiful country to build. Yeah. What a

1:12:02

beautiful way of putting it, Tony. I I I I get to spend a fair

1:12:06

bit of time, with indigenous communities, again, across the

1:12:09

country and and and always learn and feel very fortunate for

1:12:13

those interactions. The desire and and and

1:12:17

frankly, the growing demand for ownership in

1:12:21

enterprises and in resource projects is really impressive. This

1:12:24

is no longer about give us the benefits, and, you know, go

1:12:28

go ahead and do your your project. Now it's about

1:12:32

what indigenous leaders call say and share. So they want a say

1:12:36

in a project but they also require a share of the

1:12:39

project. They want to be owners, not bystanders. They want to be

1:12:43

owners both to make more money off of their natural

1:12:46

capital as well as their financial capital, but they also, as

1:12:50

owners, know they can be better stewards of those projects

1:12:54

and and think longer term which is an economy we need. That's

1:12:58

something Canada can turn into a competitive advantage

1:13:02

globally because a lot of investors looking for those

1:13:06

long term opportunities, wanting to put money into something for 20,

1:13:10

30 years. I've I've sat around tables

1:13:14

and, it's it's been a beautiful sight to see how

1:13:18

they see that in indigenous leaders. And there's

1:13:21

there's an opportunity there that Canadians, many already

1:13:25

engaged in it, but many more have to lean into

1:13:29

this and turn it into that national collective advantage.

1:13:33

Big fan of yours in LinkedIn, and I love the fact that every month you're

1:13:36

almost doing Oprah's picks now, the books you're reading. So what

1:13:39

one book if you could have every Canadian read a

1:13:43

book in the hope that it helps move this agenda as a

1:13:47

country going forward, what book would you want him to read? What a great, great,

1:13:50

great question. I mean, a little known one that I just read was a biography

1:13:54

of an amazing late Canadian, John

1:13:58

Evans. And I compared it to the stunning

1:14:01

biography of Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson because it

1:14:05

makes a really nice couplet for innovation, sort of that

1:14:08

bold American take chances and and and

1:14:12

ignore ignore the risks with which Musk does and has created,

1:14:16

you know, challenges, but also, incredible, incredible

1:14:19

things. To that more Canadian John Evans approach of of doing

1:14:23

things collectively, of building teams, of of

1:14:26

ensuring there's support for something. And I I I think

1:14:30

that's an important difference for Canadians to appreciate, but

1:14:33

also to see how do we not only have that collective

1:14:37

approach, but maybe a bit more of that drive. The other

1:14:41

book I'm I'm reading now, which I think is really wonderful but

1:14:45

very poignant for National Indigenous Peoples

1:14:49

Month is, Valley of the Bird Tale, which is a

1:14:53

heartbreaking but illuminating and in many ways inspiring

1:14:56

story of 2 communities in rural Manitoba, and how

1:15:00

they have struggled, this is a non indigenous and an indigenous community

1:15:04

struggled through, generations. Kind of a metaphor for Canada.

1:15:08

We live side by side, we work together, we go to school

1:15:12

together even when we may not know that, and yet Key,

1:15:15

are often, aliens to each other. So So John,

1:15:19

my final question, because when I think of the people that I

1:15:23

admire for their ability to think their

1:15:26

heart roar, and have pragmatic actions, and you're one of

1:15:30

them. I always ask, why aren't you going into the public service? Well,

1:15:34

thank that you for the the the compliment. Look, I I I feel I'm able

1:15:38

to help the country and as many are through the

1:15:41

work I do now and there's an extraordinary range of

1:15:45

men and women, at all levels of government, serving. So I

1:15:49

applaud what they, what they do and hope that we have

1:15:53

more representation of the country. But deeper point,

1:15:57

especially for this conversation, is how to get more business people

1:16:00

into public life. I'm always intrigued in the United States to

1:16:04

see kind of this natural flow between government and,

1:16:08

in the private sector. And it's not just about elected office. There's tremendous

1:16:12

service that, that people can do in the bureaucracy,

1:16:16

in administrative, positions. We've seen great Canadians like Michael

1:16:19

Sabia go back and forth, and that's that should be an

1:16:23

inspiration as well. So how do we create more of those opportunities

1:16:27

for, government employees, civil servants to spend meaningful

1:16:31

time in the private sector and vice versa. I think that would be a good

1:16:34

challenge for us all to take on. John, I appreciate you carving out some time

1:16:38

in your incredibly busy schedule. I'm a huge fan of your disruptors

1:16:42

podcast. I hope you continue to find time to do that as well, and everything

1:16:45

you're doing to campaign for a better Canada. So, thank you for joining me this

1:16:49

special Canada Day, show. Tony, thank you for your leadership

1:16:52

and always a pleasure. Chatter that matters has been a

1:16:56

presentation of RBC. It's Tony Chapman. Thanks for listening.