Each week on Chatter That Matters, I share a story of someone who overcome circumstances. And in doing so, they get to chase their dreams and change their world and ours for the better. But once a year, in honor of Canada's birthday, I break format. Instead of focusing on an individual, I look at Canada and what our country needs to do to dream and to set up future generations to have the same opportunities we did.
Today's show features 2 brilliant Canadians, John Ruffalo and John Stackhouse, And both of these individuals worked tirelessly to create the circumstances we need as a country to create growth and success. Before I invite John Ruffalo to join me, I also want to share my thoughts on Canada. Mind over matter is what truly matters. Let's be honest, we have stopped believing in the Canadian dream, and I don't blame you. The math and daily reminders do not lie.
Our economy, our standard of living, and our productivity are in a free fall. If Canada was a product that a grocery store, it might be stamped outdated, and the alarmist would say expired. And I ask, how is that possible for a country with so few people and so much wealth? What if we focused on what really Matters, Growing Canada. It's time for Canadians to believe in what we can be if we have the will, and my belief is that Canada can become an economic and
cultural superpower. But first, we have to shed our inferiority complex. Key have to believe in our ability to do much bigger things. Next, we must stop boring and burring our way to fiscal collapse. And finally, as voters, we must replace our love for handouts with a passion for dreaming and doing. Every level of government and
academia needs to support the dreams of the mass majority. I want a country where crime doesn't pay, hard work is rewarded, entrepreneurship is celebrated, and academia is for preparing our students to Three, And our tax dollars are revered, and we see accountability, efficiency, and transparency are the only guarantees for a public service job. Canada needs to unlock our 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars of natural resources,
our farmable land. We need to show the world that Canadians and the Indigenous peoples can harness this opportunity in the most ethical and environmental sound manner possible. And these taxes that we garner will fuel our new economy and fund our dream of being a superpower in Made in Canada Three Technology. It's also looking to strengthen our social net and pay down our debt. We also have to realize that much of the future economy is business without borders. It operates
in the cloud with fewer restrictions and freer enterprise. Three creative entrepreneurs who drive the future are nomadic and will choose to locate where the best conditions for their ideas to flourish and the best place for their talent and themselves to live and raise a family. So why not Canada? We've all the ingredients to create the best living place, democratic, energy, water, diversity, culture, and abundant nature. We just need the growth conditions
for entrepreneurial ideas to come alive and thrive. Instead of wet cement poured in the feet of dreamers and doers, we must jackhammer away bureaucracy restrictions and political narrative in favor of an environment that champions our economic drivers. They are the heroes. We must give our growth engines the fuel they need, supercomputers to model their ideas, capital to fund their growth, and a
favorable taxation system that understands risk and reward. We that Key and identify and target equally strong talent worldwide and fast track their citizenship. Canada, it's time to rekindle our dream and, more importantly, our collective will. Let's shift our mindset to positivity and possibility and chase purpose and pursuit. I hope you find time within your busy schedule to
stick around for the entire show. And whether you live in Canada or any country around the world, this message of hope, prioritization, and unification applies to It's a great country. Why wouldn't you wanna live here? This is Chatter That Matters with Tony Chapman presented by RBC. My first guest is John Ruffler. He's both a friend and someone I admire for his acumen and how our economy works and the delicate dance between private enterprise
and the role government can and must play. John pulls no punches, nor does he believe in the luxury of time. Canada must go after the future. Canada must make things happen versus watch and wonder what happened.
John Ruffalo, welcome to Chatter That Matters. So, John, before we get into the show and talking about productivity and what matters most to Canada, I have to ask you because the last time you were on the show, and I think it was almost 4 years ago where I interviewed you, you had just come through a horrific accident and a lot of people said much of what you've we take for granted is gone but everything I've seen of you for the last 4 years is your way of saying,
I'm not a victim, I'm not disabled, yes, I've got circumstances to overcome, but you're lifting the spirits of a lot of people, not just in Canada, around the world that says attitude and approach matters. Yeah. That you very much, Tony. And I again, I'm not trying to preach or to, virtue signal, but I I actually really do not feel or identify myself as a disabled individual even though I've I I know that I am and I'm not one of those guys that, you know, will
use different words. I'm a disabled individual, but it doesn't stop me from doing the things that I need to do. I still on a daily basis do physio. I do about 18 to 20 hours of physio after about 4 years. It's a part of my life right now. I'm not going to stop until I start walking independently. I do walk with, on treadmills, with walkers, with poles, but I do have an aided device. I do cycle with my feet. Not as fast as I used to. I'll be at about 2,500
kilometers of cycling this year. So I try to do the things that, that I know I could do, and I I tend to not fret about the things that I can't do. I always said to my Matters, if I could find that switch and just turn it on. You know, when you Key, when people are in the zone, they have that attitude, they are parting water, I mean, they are doing things that people think are impossible and they're making it
possible. Is that also maybe the core idea that we gotta talk about today in the show that Canada and Canadians have to start feeling that way versus being pushed on their back feet. I cited Carolyn Rogers, the World Economic Forum, basically pronouncing as dead, like, as a country. How do we find a way to have Canadians start saying, there's so much that's possible that we can be creating as a country if we just believe in each other? Let's
talk about the great things in Canada. We are blessed. We are we are a country that's blessed with natural resources, you know, a welcoming, population as it relates to immigration, good people. We have a a good standard of living. These are all the great positives. But we're also a nation that relies on victimhood and more so in the last dozen years or so. And this is where
we start running into a problem. We are believing that, the folks who do have the grit, who do wanna make the difference are are disincentivized or in some cases, you saw this from from a recent Canadian federal budget, demonized for their success tenacity. And it's, you know, an obligation owing to them that, while we're a generous nation with progressive systems, progressive taxation is not enough. And again, there's victims out there that it's not their fault, and all of a sudden we need to
feel guilty about it. And the the thing that I really believe in is kind of how I think about it with my disability. That this country really owes you is the equality of the opportunity. This is what I believe in, but not the equality of the result outcome. You know, I always talk about entrepreneurs. You've invested entrepreneurs. I've been an entrepreneur all my life, and they they don't mind getting on a high wire act between the sense of risk to
reward. You know, they feel that they have they're surrounded with the right people, they've thought it through, they're not you know, they're very careful, but they're not afraid to get on it. But it seems like as a country, we're pouring wet cement on that high wire in terms of bureaucracy, taxation, to the point where nowadays, I don't necessarily need to be in Canada
to be on that wire. If we lose that energy and that those beacons of people that have that have blazed the trails, what do we have left? Entrepreneurs are odd creatures. Some of the the greatest entrepreneurs are extremely odd. Money doesn't drive most of them. Solving something big in particular is what motivates them doing something that changes the world. And this is why again, I'm gonna, devolve back to this
federal budget. It wasn't about the tax. It was the narrative and the narrative of taxing success and demonizing the success. And in essence, popularizing the notion that we're all better off if we're employees, you know, and perhaps employees of the state, you know, as opposed to even employees of private enterprise. And and the the problem with that narrative is the people who you're directing it to are actually the most mobile of people. And then, frankly, let's go back to point
number 1. Their focus is not maximization of their wealth. Their folks their their their focus is, can I solve this big problem? And if I can't solve it in Canada, I am obligated to solve it anywhere in the world that, allows me the greatest advantage in winning. And that's the mindset that we need to think about in Canada. At a bare minimum, bare minimum, do not get in the
way of these folks. Ideally, get out of the way and support him in some of the areas that could actually help them compete on a global basis. It seems so obvious, yet when I look at what our leaders are excited about is cutting a ribbon at a branch plant or, you know, investing in something big and as opposed to going you know there's such strength in numbers if we unleash this entrepreneurial class and we're solving these problems, they're not just problems we're solving
for Canada. These are problems and solutions we can be exporting around the world. Yes. I mean, it's it's kind of funny, you know, from a public policy perspective. So when you look at no. So so Canada has great people and natural resources. That just use 2 as two examples. One of the things that we are lacking is the deep capital pools that that perhaps the United States has. And so we need to invite foreign direct investment that coming in and in particular as a source of capital. This
has been a big weapon in the innovation industry. You need a strong domestic source of capital, but you need to supplement it, particularly when you need large capital. So inviting that in is definitely great for our economy. What's bizarre, though, so here we are capital constrained. And then what are we focusing instead? We're focusing in on inviting foreign based multinationals, giving them 1,000,000,000 of dollars as opposed to trying to
help create the local winners. Now there might be some narrow cases where it's it's it's it's required, particularly if there's opportunities for technology transfer. But what we're really doing is subsidizing with massive taxpayer dollars jobs that frankly, I think we can do in a far more effective basis. So I agree with you, But I'll tell you, you know, it's the easiest thing for a lot of politicians to do is to cut a check
that not their Tony. It's the taxpayer Tony. You know, cut a cut a ribbon and say, look, look at us as opposed to solving some of the underlying fundamental issues. I wanna pull us back a bit because one of my thesis is that we can't have voter literacy without having financial literacy. And one of the words that's been talked about a lot is productivity and I'd love for you to explain to listeners what is productivity and why does it matter? Why is it in fact the lifeblood of our standard
of living? When I describe productivity to folks, I separate the notion of productivity from innovation. They're not the same thing, but they're related. So productivity and it's frankly a more of an old economy, computation, that's becoming less and less relevant, frankly, with with the the digital economy, but it's the best that we have right now. It is the value of goods or services produced per unit hour labor worked. So you you have two choices to
increase your productivity. You either produce or provide higher valued goods or services, which, is really the great value or the great driver in the long run, but it's harder to do, or you cut the human input costs, which is a little easier to do. Well, how do you do that on the the denominator? Well, you replace human labor with machine labor. And machine labor is really coming from the innovation industry, whether it's robotics,
artificial intelligence. And the problem that Canada has is both a numerator and a denominator. Let me start off with the easier one being the denominator. Many of our companies in the variety of industries are not utilizing or producing that product in the most efficient manner possible. And it's important, particularly when you're competing on a global basis, because if you don't have the best product or the most, effective pricing,
you're just not going to sell your product. One of the issues that we do have in Canada is that we do have a lot of regulatory protected industries, in which case they're not actually competing globally, but they're enjoying the protections of that of of that regulatory environment in Canada and are not being as productive
as perhaps that should be. And when you look to see Canada, not just use the United States, the robotics that are used in manufacturing process in the United States outweigh Canada tremendously. And when I see the Canadian firms that do the same thing, I was just speaking to the founder, Key of Linamar, and that was their key to success in in in leveraging robotics in their manufacturing processes. Where it gets a little bit harder, but it's absolutely essential is how do you produce higher
valued goods? Let me give you a very easy example. In the natural resource industry, we extract oil from the ground, but we don't refine it here. And or if it's LNG, we don't refine that here. So we send off the raw materials. We have somebody else process it. And most astonishingly, we're actually buying a bunch of it back as a finished product and paying an exorbitant price. Well, if you keep the value chain here and capture the profits throughout the value chain,
productivity would also increase. So those are kind of the 22 levers. I want to break it down for the listener. So what I'm hearing is we could measure productivity. The average person could cut 10 logs in an hour. You give them a chainsaw, it goes up to 15 logs. You put it on an a more advanced machine, it goes to 20 logs and you can get so far with that. But if we really wanna think big is Key shouldn't be thinking about
harvesting our tree and even cutting it a log. We should be thinking what can we do with that wood to turn it into a finished product and enjoy the margin that comes from that innovation. Correct. So that's a core component of of Canada that, you know, we're still that hewers of wood and pumpers of oil versus it. You've come out and really talked about the move we gotta make on the chessboard is one where we're gonna drive this
innovation economy. You know, we've got so many resources, intellectual, emotional, natural resources, diverse population. We just have to have a mindset. But you you talk about team Canada in some of your articles. Talk to me about team Canada and why this must be a collective and conscious act upon all of us versus just maybe isolated to even some people like you that are just very focused on innovation. And I'll use the innovation industry. So this is more of the
classically technology industry. So why is that important? We for two reasons. Number 1, if we build the innovations and sell them to the rest of the economy, it makes the rest of the economy more productive. But with a vibrant innovation economy, the value of the goods or services produced can be extraordinarily high because, you know, you look that, say, a company like, like Google, they're they're producing all of their profits based on intangible or intellectual property.
You don't need as many workers to do this because there's not physical supply chains building these products. So innovation is a huge driver of productivity. Now, so speaking on the innovation community, you know, when I talk about a a team Canada approach, I I use the analogy of a farmer. Think of the farmer as the as the entrepreneur. And it's up to the farmer to find the plot of land, to to hire the the, you know, the the the farmhands to pick the seeds, to determine which seeds
will generate the greatest amount of value. And then the farmer relies upon the government to, perhaps make fertilizer more cheaply available, might develop the land, so that it is available for farming. It might provide irrigation systems so that the farmers could actually tap into. So it's those infrastructure like things. It might also pull
away things that get in the way. So maybe there's an infestation of, of, invasive species or there's certain weeds that a government could kind of come in and take those away to maximize, the success for those entrepreneurs. And the third part of the wheel are, things that make the plants or food grow bigger, faster, stronger, better. So these are the sources of capital. This is venture capitalists, accountants, lawyers,
the ecosystem around it. All Three need to be brought together to ensure the success of that farmer. And what happens, the entire community benefits from that success. And why doesn't that happen? Every time I listen to you, whether you're talking or when I read one of your articles or watch one of your videos, you really make such common sense. But it seems like more often than not when it comes to team Canada, there's a lot of uncommon sense.
To be blunt, politics seems to be getting in the way. Canada Key to be pretty smug about the vast majority of Canadians for many, many years, for as long as I've been in my working life, have been really been governed and followed in the Chatter. Whether you were slightly left of center or slightly right of center, It never mattered because this is what Canada
really is. And the United States, we witnessed the United States really over the last 2 to 3 decades, start to polarize and start to move away from the center and and folks starting to grab either either the left end or the right end. And we were kinda smug here, kind of astonished what was happening in United States. And it's crossed it's crossed the border. And what's happening is that when you start getting that polarization, you start pitting groups
against one another. And, you know, that United States has its challenges on how they're pitting groups against one another. But in Canada, for some bizarre reason, we pit people against one another, economically speaking. And, you know, we're starting to see a lot of words around class warfare and zero sum gain. And when you start dealing in a zero sum gain and somebody is responsible for your perceived lack of financial success, this is when we start
getting into the problem. So using my analogy, all of a sudden, people may not want to see that farmer so successful. Successful? And and, you know, I don't think that's very, very fair. And this is where Canada is starting to get into trouble and what we need to really stop. I believe that the first group that starts to come again together into the center and starting to work together, I think that will focus in on what the real prize is. It's not us against each other, but it it is
Canada versus the rest of the world. And the only way that we're going to win, just like team Canada and hockey is getting our best, coming together and competing against the rest of the world and not within each other. So you talk about, you know, how Canada and I I agree with you. Paul Martin, Jean Chretienst, Stephen Harper, Brian Tony, they they really weren't that far apart, and much of
our consensus happened in the middle ground. Do you think it's politicians, or do you think social media also has to be accountable for how effortlessly they seem to hurt us into these castles where we're surrounded by like minded people, liking like minded content, validating each other Three realizing, well, this is, this is all that's right, then those people across that across the valley must be wrong.
Yeah. I don't think it's actually politicians at all. The politicians are a reflection of what's already becoming polarized, and then the politicians are responding to that polarization. It is interesting. It's kind of hard to put your finger on it. But, you know, when social media started to truly cross the chasm, it was about 2,008. And I don't know if you remember, Tony, in 2,008 when we were talking about the social graph and all of this great stuff
that was going to happen. One thing I have learned over 30 years of being in technology is that every single technology that I've ever invested in is a double edged sword. Everything. And on the social media, we were all looking at the bright side of this. So it's the same thing what's gonna happen on generative AI, by the way, unfortunately. And what happens is it was leveraged as an echo chamber following 2,008 Three
slowly and haphazardly. And then all of a sudden you started listening and engaging with only the folks or only the sources that you really wanted to believe. And and seeing the other side, was was viewed as something bad. And and when the discussions from a economic or political perspective are Three decided not based on the quality of your thought, but rather which end of the political spectrum you belong. This is when
we have a problem. And, you know, the funniest thing is even I'll use the political parties, we have far more in common than we have differences, but yet Key never ever talk about the similarities and and what we have in Chapman. Like family, like, you know, frankly, everyone wants a good environment. Everyone wants sustainability. But we deal with all of the small stuff in there or all the house because we believe in doing it in a different
manner. So it is a very complicated issue, but I worry we're spending so much time on those differences that we're forgetting about the farmer. I wanna talk about some of the other things that you've you've been so vocal in the media lately, which I I totally respect a lot. A lot of people with your smarts don't have the courage or conviction to come out the way you are. First of all, impact to the capital gains that
changes. You we touched on it a little bit when we're talking about incentive, but you're very against this for the very reason, not so much that entrepreneurs, whether it's about they're there for economic reward. It's just simply telling the world that the conditions for succeeding aren't there. So that's the problem. And this is the misnomer. And it's very, very hard to talk in in in sound bites. But it's not the taxation per se. It's the narrative around it.
So so the full narrative is we've got ourselves into a spending problem in this country. I mean, again, let's just use common sense. Does anyone spend money that they don't have, or will they be incurring debts that your children or grandchildren are going to have to repay? Of course, you'd say that's absolutely nonsense, but that's what we're doing fundamentally. And then we're figuring out after the fact is how the heck are we going to
pay for all of this stuff? And the part that really infuriated me was that, you know, about 4 or 5 months beforehand, it wasn't us who characterized this upcoming budget as the productivity and innovation budget. It was the government that actually said this is what it's going to be about. And the really sad part is, is that I was involved in the in the development of a few of the ideas, that r and d tax credit reform, the artificial intelligence.
I was involved peripherally on the open banking, some really great things. And that's the sad thing I was saying. You know, there was some really good stuff in this budget, but then you overlaid it with the capital gains tax. And again, the entrepreneurs, ultimately, they don't even give it. They don't give a hoot about paying additional that. They're going for success. But but it's challenging for them at the best of times. They're struggling getting people in.
Cost of living for their employees is tougher. Their markets are better than the United States. US government is a better procurer of Canadian innovation than Canadian governments on. I can list like, so many you know, the capital availability goes on and on and on, and they're still here because they love this country. And then the government comes out and in their narrative basically said, you know what? You are benefiting too much. Yeah. I don't care about the risk that you're taking. I don't
care that you're betting it all and can lose it all. And frankly, you know, Tony, you would know as well as anybody. The odds of success are so stacked against you. And they're daring compare this to employees of public services who never take a risk. It's they're needed and they're valued, but they take no risk. They get, you know, huge
pensions. Their jobs are largely guaranteed, and you're basically saying, I don't like the fact that, you know, they're they they might, and I say might have, a a higher effective tax rate. Well, they don't have a higher effective tax rate. One element of the income of an entrepreneur might be a capital gain once in their lifetime after blood, sweat, and tears, and earning nothing. And it was received as a big slap in the face. It was received by the entrepreneurs of, goddamn it.
I'm killing myself. I could make that move, and it's very easy for me to do it, but I am patriotic. But at some point, now that you're shitting on me and you're vilifying me and people are calling me greedy, screw you. I'm just gonna go to the United States because frankly, that's probably where the logical answer is. And this is where I was astonished in trying to explain to government saying, folks, do you know what you're doing? You're actually biting the hand that feeds
you. But at the end of the day, what we're dealing with is a political issue of solving a massive spending, frankly, to attract votes. You know, the polls are not, you know, lying here. The prevailing government is so far behind, the opposition that they're doing desperate measures, but it's bearing them further into the ground. And that is why there has been a massive, opposition to that, not only from the innovation sector, but from all of the small business owners, doctors, dentists, cottage
owners Three realize, oh my god. You're coming after me too. And it's that little adage of you better speak up because you know what? You just might be next. That, that's one area that I think is just a massive psychological blow and I think your point is this is is the narrative is even more powerful than the actual number and I think that's that's profound. I I also wanna talk to you about talent and immigration, because to me, I
never thought that immigration as a quota is a number. I always thought it was a strategic advantage for Canada. People would, cut off their arm to come and live in this country. And with that scarcity and that opportunity, we had the ability to attract the best and the
brightest. But it seems to me now that it's not about the strength and talent, but it's about this number that I just can't believe that we can be vetting all of these people and saying that they make sense for what we need to do as a country going forward. Canada has great talent. I put it up against anyone in the world. No question. The issue is building a lot of these companies, particular innovation
just requires a lot of talent. And we're not just producing enough of the talented folks, whereas other countries, you know, particularly India, China, etcetera, are. And we need those folks in order to compete globally. So, you know, we need to be welcoming these folks. Now Canada also has a birth rate that's well below the 2.1, children per person. We're down to a I can't remember if it's 1.3 or 1.5, so extremely
low. And so we need a replenishment factor or else we're not gonna have people, to help support all of the social programs that we that we value in this country. What the change has been, though, in Canada was actually relatively consistent for for a few decades that we were sort of averaging around Three ish 1000 immigrants. You know, I think the peak immigration in the last, almost 100 years was in the mid 1950s where it peaked at around 400,000 people. But we had a much smaller population.
But so again, so we've averaged in Three 300, 350 for a number of years. It still was above the rate of housing. Our housing was a number that was between 200 and 300,000 housing starts. So still didn't quite make it, but it was reasonably close. Our infrastructure was a was a different story. But what they would do is that they would cap categories of immigrants. And my understanding was, is that they capped the refugee immigrants at 25,000 out of that Three
ish, which, you know, Canada is a great country. We have a social conscious. Let's do that. And but the rest were family unification, but mostly economic immigrants, which we need. So basically, these are folks who are coming here to work and to add value, whether you Key in the trades, doesn't matter, all good, but but basically skilled labor. What's happened running the clock over the last few years is that now we're at 1,200,000,
like monstrous increase. We are, if I'm not mistaken, the biggest immigrating company country in the world. I although I gotta double check that with the United States. But if it's not if we're not number 1, we're in the top 2. Population size, we're certainly number 1. We we're number 1 pop yeah. A relative population by by far. And and yet Key didn't change any of our infrastructure and housing, and
we don't even have enough jobs to support that. And and frankly, and if we did, we're not even bringing in the same skilled labor. We're bringing in many folks who are then going on social assistance, and we're just compounding the actual problem. So we went from a great advantage of immigration, and I would call it, you know, it was it was never perfect, of course, but I'd call it smart immigration to
irresponsible immigration. And now what's gonna happen is that we're gonna have to massively cut that right back and to fix our problems, and that has to happen. And and again, we took this wonderful advantage into now something that's now a political hot potato. And a lot of folks are now vilifying immigration when in fact we still need it, but not the way it's being done right now. How many jobs will be lost because of AI and making
and how many jobs will be created because of AI? And that has to factor in in terms of our immigration, or we're just gonna be, as you said, bringing in a lot of people that are gonna be relying on social assistance when they really wanna be chasing the Canadian dream. Yeah. This is a complicated analysis. And, again, lots of different views, so I'll give you my view. We have definitively shortages in certain areas of the economy, so the trades. My my friends who are home
builders can't find anybody at all. And you've got a lot of talented folks around the world who would do anything to become, you know, plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, you name it. So folks like that welcome them in. You know, we really need to, to to to move the needle. Now when it relates to, say, innovation jobs in AI, let's go back to what I said at the very beginning. Productivity is, you know, on the denominator front is about the replacement of human labor with machine
labor. In the short term, you will need fewer folks. And the difference on AI is it tends to be white collar folks, not the blue collar folks. The blue collar folks went through their changes over the last few decades before that. I do believe it's a temporary friction. I don't know how long it's going to last, but what does what is likely going to happen is there are going to be a number of folks who were in white collar, who will find themselves that if they don't retrain, they may be
displaced. And finding jobs that are below their their their skill sets. And that will create frustration and that will require social assistance to to help support them through the transition. But like every other introduction of transit of technology, this has happened since the industrial revolution that, you know, the replacements Chapman and then people figure out different jobs Chatter never imagined before.
The difference this time, though, versus the last 150 years, the rate of change of displacement is the fastest it's ever been. And we as humans cannot move that fast in society. And so, yes, will there be a temporary friction in society for sure? Hopefully, it's not permanent, but that is the social challenge, with the, with the introduction of AI.
So if you even took a conservative estimate of the jobs that would be lost, is it fair to say that even though we're not creating the birth rate to keep our to sustain our population, it is possible to say that Canada could be run very efficiently at 15,000,000 or 20,000,000 people or 25,000,000. It doesn't necessarily mean that the numbers we've always put forward because it it we're gonna be going into an era where
less people and more potentially more productivity. Yep. Yeah. I mean, there's a live experiment going on in the world today called Japan. Japan's had, I guess, about 3 decades of stagnant productivity, but it hasn't imploded as fast as we thought. Because if you go to Japan, the amount of replacement from a robotics perspective is astounding.
Just walk in the streets of Tokyo, you'll see vending machines absolutely everywhere where they used to be humans that would be, you know, if you wanted a drink or snacks, etcetera, or convenience stores. And so you're absolutely right. It's a big question whether, do you need, aside from the trades and building stuff, which I'm not right now, we, AI is not gonna physically replace that, at least not today Takeaways, but, you know, maybe in the future.
But maybe we don't need the same level of replacement. But I would say to you, once you do get below the 2.1, Three is a hole there. But it feels like we're we're we're filling in a gap that's getting us beyond the 2.1 needed to sustain a society. You've talked about Canada enjoys these great free trade agreements with countries all over the world, but when we look inside, we've got massive walls and barriers preventing us from doing business with each other. How
does that change? Go back to the common sense. I'd use energy policy for a moment. And here's Germany. After Fukushima that, the anti nuke lobby in Germany convinced the government to decommission all of their nuclear power. And the very last one was being decommissioned as, the Russians moved into the Ukraine. And there was this moment of Tony shit. What did we just do? And I don't think that timing was very coincidental.
And now without the nuclear power, the Germans were reliant upon the Russian natural gas, you know, and we're supporting the Ukrainians and and the Germans ask us, can we ship them LNG? And we have so much capacity of LNG, and we basically gave them the proverbial finger, and Germany had to turn around and go to the Qataris, a country where, you know, we have some serious
concerns with, number 1. But number 2, if we said no, the only energy supply right now that that will give Germany enough baseload power is coal because they do have solar, they do have wind, but it doesn't give them baseload. So can you imagine then, you know, here we are with our high horse of sustainability encouraging in essence countries to burn coal, which is the worst of all possibilities. And I know that LNG is a carbon based fuel, but but there
are no absolutes in life. And and guess what we get to do? We also get to, help folks out west and will Canada makes a great amount of money on that so that we could invest in more renewable energy, etcetera. So we get caught in the way of politics, and that's what drives me nuts. We view Canada as team Canada first, and how do we most effectively compete against the rest of the world, I think that would help us go a long way.
That something Canada can turn into a competitive advantage globally because a lot of investors looking for those long term opportunities. I've sat around tables. It's been a beautiful sight to see how they see that in indigenous leaders. And there's, there's an opportunity there that Canadians have to, lean into this and turn it into that national, collective advantage.
Those are the words of John Stackhouse, who works tirelessly campaigning as both a citizen of Canada and a senior executive of RBC to encourage positive change. He believes that we can have it all, growth and prosperity, care for each other while also caring for Matters nature. When we return, I pose one of the biggest questions I've ever asked on Chatter That Matters, one that involves all of us. And Sean's answer? Well, it might surprise you.
Hi. It's Tony Chapman. Investing in Canada? Well, that matters to RBC. 500 $1,000,000,000 in sustainable financing to combat climate change. 500,000,000 for future launch. A 10 year program to prepare youth for the jobs of tomorrow, helping to discover the next generation of Olympians, artists monetizing their talents, women entrepreneurs pursuing their dreams, supporting mental health, and so much more. Investing in Canada, well, that matters to RBC. Oh, Canada.
Native land. How beautiful the country is. Universal health health care, I think that's one thing that defines Canada and Canadians. People are wonderful here. Mhmm. It seems to be pretty nice. You can walk a couple blocks and there's something different. Everything. Maple syrup. Maple syrup. The weather. It's amazing. And I love Canada in, in the summertime. It's awesome. It's just so
clean, free, open, and everyone just is so friendly. All the different arts and community, culture, outdoor life as well. I'm free to be me. Fuck this. These people. A happy Canada Day. You're listening to Chatter That Matters with Tony Chapman presented by RBC. My guest today is John Ruffalo. His mind fires with brilliance, his heart roars with passion, and his ideas are
pragmatic and actionable. You talk about government procurement support and how there's a lot of countries that say small business is the lifeblood of our economy. We take advantage of the the size of the government spending and give them their fair shot. But that's not really happening in Canada the way it should be. Not at all. It's actually it's atrocious. So if I were to pick the number one bow bone to pick by innovators, it's the procurement policies of all three levels of
government. The innovators are not asking for a handout at all. What they're really saying, all else being equal by Canadian, and we act like a bunch of Boy Scouts in Canada. Oh, well, we can do that because someone's gonna complain that, you know, on the the World Trade Organizations or what have you. And I keep on saying, have you have any of you guys ever heard of this thing called Buy America or have you heard of the Inflation Reduction Act? And every country in the world has their
domestic policies. And and yet Canada is so afraid to be proudly supporting that. Now when you look at procurement, 2 very noticeable observations. The risk aversion by folks that are procuring is is astounding. And in particular, if there is a competitive bid and there is a well known international name, particularly US based name versus a Canadian domestic, almost every time the foreign international
wins the bid for a few reasons. They get to people love to have selfies with some of these big companies because it's sexier. They they have the companies have far greater, lobbyists on staff, marketing budgets, wining and dining budgets, all of this sort of stuff. But the the even if all of that was solved, they are, and I say I see this so many times, far more deceptive in the way that they win their procurement. So what they do is
the biggest brownie points goes to cost. And frankly, it's almost always cost because they can't assess the value differential. So they just simply say, Key. Who's got the lowest cost? Well, if you have a big multibillion dollar organization, let's go and and, let's go with them. And, it looks like that the lowest price. But what they don't understand is that there is differences in scope. And then what ends up
happening is there is a variety of scope Chatter. And then over the course of time, they actually end up spending a lot more than they've ever imagined. You want a real live example? We're going through one right now, which is under criminal investigation as the whole ArriveCAN app. When you see what that original procurement I I I can't remember if it was 800,000 or it was some small number and it ended up being $54,000,000 with all of
these additions, changes, and blah blah blah. Like, the number of Canadian companies that said with the with what they actually delivered, like, I could produce that at a fraction of that dollar, but yet our Canadian companies, you know, frankly, maybe it's wrong. They go on Three on an ethical basis saying, well, you've you've said this is what you
want and this is what it's going to cost. And maybe it's the lack of sophistication of our folks who, you know, don't realize maybe there's an opportunity for them to cheat the government. But, you know, it it drives me nuts. There's a is that is the single easiest way where you basically say every department, all else has to be equal. So this would add tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars of revenues to the Canadian companies.
The greatest value you can drive to any business is to deliver them revenue, and particularly if it's recurring revenue. And yet Key can't do this very basic ask. Before we wrap it up, you touched upon, you know, being a superpower in LNG to our allies. Isn't that same argument Key could be the most ethically sourced food, could be involved, like, some of the places we could be a superpower in. I mean, we were a superpower
superpower in AI. Can we hold on to that? I think of Nortel years ago with our switching technology and basically those patents ended up in in China. Our lithium mines are getting sold. I mean, is there a way we can, have this north star as a country that says in these 3 or 4 areas, we are gonna be a superpower to the world, at least to the allies that value the moral compass of Canada. You know, all things being equal, they'd rather buy from us than anywhere else in the world.
Why can't we bring that forward as a strategy for a new economy? Tony, you're you're you're absolutely bang on. You know, I always worry that we don't devolve back to our past of being, you know, the drawers of water and hewers of wood. Yeah. But we should not be ignoring our strategic advantage. Let's talk about sustainability and EV. What did we focus in on? We focused in on paying 1,000,000,000 of dollars to have, foreign based multinationals to set up
battery assembly plants. Yet that raw materials, whether it's lithium, cadmium, graphite, nickel, you name it, is being imported by other countries. And why isn't it that we're not linking that to a Canadian supply chain, doing it in a sustainable way. I mean, in the past, we did these things horribly. It created environmental damage. Well, we figured that out, mostly, and and use that advantage in exactly what
you said. You know, one thing about Canada, which, you know, as a proud Canadian, we used to have this moral authority in the world, And we we did lose it and but it's not gone forever again. And if we want to be the champions of, say, sustainability and renewable energy, and boy, very few countries know energy like like Canada. Let's take advantage of the great resources we have, you know, encourage the transition to the world, mine the materials that are that are needed, and
we have the expertise. And how do we get it to be bigger, faster, cheaper, more sustainable with all the great innovations that we have? It's all a nice virtuous circle. But we need to get started on it. And, you know, the last thing I would just say is, it was part of the question you asked me earlier.
Canada is going to be in serious trouble where if the focus of our nation is how do we carve up our pie by making each one of us fight over remaining crumbs of that pie as opposed to how do we just make this pie bigger for absolutely everyone to participate and enjoy? That's the mindset. That's the mentality that we need, and it takes strong leadership to get everyone thinking along those same lines. You think democracy as it stands today
can bring us to that? I fundamentally believe in democracy and but I also fundamentally believe in capitalism. I believe in smaller government, not from an ideological perspective whatsoever. I just believe that the private sector is the most efficient allocator of scarce resources through pricing mechanisms. And until something else shows me it's more productive in the long run, I'm still waiting to hear that. So based on those 2, I think that,
you know, we don't really have a choice, number 1. And number 2, I think it's very possible. I do think, though, where we're on this treadmill is whenever I go back to the polarization issue and you could see it very clearly and the U. S. Was even a little bit of a better example. Once you start to pull away from the center, then you get an equal and opposite reaction from the other side of the political spectrum that pulls it not even equally, but just a little bit
more. And then you get the opposite. And then you start to realize, oh my god. We're really far apart on the political spectrum now. How did this happen? Well, what it really is going to take, and I would say specifically in Canada, and I'm gonna say that 80% of Canadians like to be governed in the Chatter, and everyone who I speak to. And it doesn't matter on their, what their station in life or what they do, you know, again, they they're kind
of in that center. I think we just gotta stop keeping on yanking to the to moving further to your political spectrum and move back into, you know, as close as possible to the center. And again, doesn't matter if you're left or right, it's all the same thing. I think that's the path forward. And and hopefully the first person to offer the olive branch is saying, you know that I love to see? I love to see this in question, period. Somebody get up and say to the government, you know what?
That was a really good idea. Well done. And sit right back down. Wouldn't that be it would Key, like, I think we'd be shocked and wondering what the heck is going on. And of course, you will always get the 20%, you know, on extremists on the other side. And who cares? Because the 80% in the middle is is what we should be focused in on. But but I would love a little bit more of actually governing and doing things to create value and not so much politics.
But that's what that's why I would make a very bad politician, I guess. You know, it's it's funny because I I hear you and John Love and some of the people that are very accomplished CEOs. They know how to prioritize resources. As you said, private enterprise is the best in terms of scarce resources. So to me it's not so much democracy that I wanna take away the right of the people to vote, I wanna have democracy come backwards for the people and not the party. It's probably the best way I
could say it. You know? And I just look at the size of our government, the fact that accountability is a Key that you said. I mean, that we don't treat our tax and borrowed dollars as precious. We consider them almost, this this magical printing press. So I wanna leave with you sort of just saying, if you were prime minister I know you're working that some public policy themes, and I know that there's
some big thinking that you're that you're investing in right now. Is there anything you can kinda leave the audience with saying if I was prime minister or if there's a prime minister that would get my full support, what would they be doing over the course of the next 12 to 24 months to just at least show Canadians that there's a sense of attitude, the switch is going on? I would say there's 2 key components without getting to the very specifics of the categories of whether it's economic
policy or what have you. Number 1, can we have a plan? There is no strategic plan for Canada. What's the first thing that a CEO does when they get a job in a company league and organization. They develop the 5 year strategic plan. Where are we going? None of us know where we're going. We're all
confused. And even when you look at this latest budget, it looks like it was hastily put together, and we can't define the past so that if we have to go through some pain, I think everyone would be willing to go through some pain if we see what the other side might look like or where you might be going. That's number
1. Number 2, what I would do, and this is where governments run into a big problem, is that you're not engaging with stakeholders When you start to think that you know the answers, because I certainly don't, and if I was in there, the first thing that I would do is understand the various constituencies. At the end of the day, government is there for the people, not for their own self interest. So they need to really figure out not only what the strategic plan is, but what is it that the
people want? And it might be that the people want something that's not attainable, and your job is to is to get them to understand what is possible and what is not. But that dialogue and the last thing I would just say is that, you know, as part of that dialogue, Like, I really would love to see nonpartisanship. I I I I was on the board of an environmental organization, and we were looking at our board makeup and trying to figure out what characteristic of a
board member that we needed. And I said that we need to find the most influential purpose, the person that really dislikes our organization and is opposed ideologically to that organization. And could we convince that person to be on the board Because we need to listen to the objectives and to try to identify where are the points that we would agree. It would be the healthiest thing, but we tend to be afraid. We try to seek affirmation with the same people who you
already know in advance are going to agree with you. So again, it creates this echo chamber. So, you know, again, Tony, when you ask why have I been so vocal, I believe in democracy. I also believe that you need to speak up and you speak up not out of your own self interest, but what you honestly believe is for the good of Canada and give your reasons why. You might disagree with it.
The more we do that in this country and actually engage in discussion, I think will be the pathway for us to hopefully get over some of these huge impediments. So John, I always end my shows with my Three takeaways and one, I am such a fan of yours because I am so aligned with how much you love Canada because I love this country, and I see nothing but possibility and positivity if we have that north star.
And one of the things you said at the end is that strategic plan that says this is what we're gonna bet on and this is why it's gonna matter to us and more importantly, it's gonna matter to your children and future children because everybody that immigrated to Canada came here for a better life for their children. Nonstop. Every immigrant, every refugee I've had on this show, I left my country, my culture, everything I knew because
I wanted a better life for my children. And that's the first thing I would love to see that you talk about is that strategic plan that has everybody saying we're all in. I love that. Second thing I love what you said about entrepreneurs. They're not there for Tony. They're there to solve big problems. They're there to identify unmet needs and fill those needs. That's what they play with. And as you
said, they're often odd, they're different, they're unique. Sometimes they're on the spectrum, but they're extraordinary minds and that positive energy they create comes jobs and innovation and export, and we have to do everything we can to make Canada a magnetic place for them versus a plate turn the magnet around, and
we're repelling that. So I totally buy into it, And the last thing that Key really was a cornerstone of this conversation is how, as a country, we need to move back to the center and find common ground and
consensus. And left versus right really is just tiny shades of the fact that this is about Canada, what we stand for, what we're building as a country together, and having that sense of mutual respect versus what I find question period now is just being, getting snackable content from my little social media sound bites and a level of smugness that Key said and no, you said. I think all of that coming together. North star for this country, celebrate our entrepreneurship,
invest in them, support them, revere them. Isidore Sharps and the Murray the Kofflers and Aldo Shoes and and the Lululemon's, all these incredible entrepreneurs that have come out of Canada, punch the boat that a waste glass, and find the center. I think if we could do those Three and maybe convince you to run for prime minister, today would be a good day's work. Well summarized. Joining me now is John Stackhouse, who's been on my show
several occasions and why he has context. He's a former editor in chief of that Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper. Today, he sits in the office of the president of RBC as their senior VP. He heads up many strategic portfolios, including really trying to get a handle on the future. John, welcome back to That of the Matters. Hey, Tony. Great to be with you. My
first question is there has to be 3 of you. As I follow you on LinkedIn, you are everywhere, and I'm not just talking about across Canada, but around the world. And really not only participating as sort of an attendee, but very often shaping the content on the stage. So my first question is, how do you find time to do all of that? I I think Three of me is a very scary, thought, but, thank thank you that observation, Tony. I mean, 90% of it is a great team. I get to work with
wonderful people here at RBC. I think focus is really important just knowing what you're going to execute on every day, every week. There is something also to the 10000 hours school that the more you do, the more you can do. I just had Malcolm Gladwell on my show, and one of the things he said is he never ever imagined that 10000 hours would have been the thing that exploded out of his Chatter. And everybody comes up to him and says, guess what? I have
10000 hours. He goes, that wasn't the point. So you talk about focus. What are you focusing on? Because I think, you know, the way I characterized you is you are deeply committed and passionate about Canada and the country we can become. If it's one word, Tony, it's competitiveness. Key need to be more competitive as a country, more competitive as an economy. We're pretty good, but not a lot of prizes for a and a 3rd or
4th place on the world stage. We've been doing a lot of research at RBC through our economics team on productivity, as have Matters. And it's alarming. It's really alarming. We are poorer per capita when you factor out inflation than we were a decade ago. We have fallen behind the likes of Australia over the last 25 years. Similar countries, similar economy, similar people in many ways, but they've really upped their game where we have not. We've
fallen well behind the United States. And this means if you're in Ontario and looking at someone doing the same thing in California, they're producing, you know, 20, 30 percent more doing the same thing. And therefore they're going to be paid more, whether they're self employed as an entrepreneur or as an employee. That's just the math of economics. So how do we take a bit of a breath as a country and focus on that productivity
challenge? This is a mindset issue because I would argue that some countries just seem to have a swagger that says Key belong as number 1. This is our destiny. We're we're here to make things happen versus Canadians that times Key more about watch and then respond to what happens? Yeah. That part of it, Tony. And I think that goes right down to our education system. It goes down to how we
approach a number of challenges. And look, we are the envy of the world in terms of our inclusiveness, in terms of our taking care of others. And that's an incredible strength that we should not allow to erode. This is a great country to live and work in and to start a business in and to grow a business in. It's just got room for improvement. And part of that is the attitude. And
why RBC taking this on? And I'm always been fascinated with organizations that maybe move beyond their core business and say that we have a higher purpose than just answering our shareholders. This is more about sharing values with the country. Well, I I'd say, Tony, it is our our core purpose to help clients thrive and communities prosper. And that communities prospering is about society prospering. And Canada particularly,
our home market, needs to prosper more. Prosperity is not just economic growth, but it's hard to have all forms of prosperity without economic growth. We cannot afford another decade or so like we've just had. We can't go through the 2030s like we just have and expect to have the same social programs, the same infrastructure, even the same economic fabric of the country if we
don't focus on these underlying challenges. I've been incredibly fortunate to be at RBC for close to 10 years now and do get to travel the country, get to talk to business owners, get to talk to community members and leaders in big centers and very small centers as well. And love this country. Love the ambition that you see pretty much in every region and think we have a great opportunity ahead of us in the decade ahead to really, turn, turn it up.
I've often said that much of our success can be realized if individuals improve their financial literacy, therefore, they will improve their voter literacy. Because I find Canadians often cast their ballot for the free prize inside, or what's in it for me today, where I think a lot of what you're asking for is to have voters realize that we should be thinking about what's in it for Canada tomorrow. Is
that fair? Yeah. And a a lot of it comes down to the basics of economics which have been, you know, these are truisms. Key cannot spend more than we save over a period of time. We are doing that as a society. Our governments, plural, are doing that far too much. Individuals are doing that too much. So, yeah, financial literacy, including for governments, is is pretty pretty important. So we need to save more as people and we need to invest that
saving in entrepreneurs and people building companies. We have to allow for more of that in the in the private markets. Governments have to pull back a little bit, not radically, but a little bit to create more space for that private saving and for the entrepreneurs who turn savings into economic growth. Spending a lot of time understanding our indigenous peoples, I would argue unification reconciliation is about us working
much better together. Where are you seeing the most promise, so that we can look at each other and say, above all, we're one human race, and this is one beautiful country to build. Yeah. What a beautiful way of putting it, Tony. I I I I get to spend a fair bit of time, with indigenous communities, again, across the country and and and always learn and feel very fortunate for those interactions. The desire and and and frankly, the growing demand for ownership in
enterprises and in resource projects is really impressive. This is no longer about give us the benefits, and, you know, go go ahead and do your your project. Now it's about what indigenous leaders call say and share. So they want a say in a project but they also require a share of the
project. They want to be owners, not bystanders. They want to be owners both to make more money off of their natural capital as well as their financial capital, but they also, as owners, know they can be better stewards of those projects and and think longer term which is an economy we need. That's something Canada can turn into a competitive advantage globally because a lot of investors looking for those long term opportunities, wanting to put money into something for 20,
30 years. I've I've sat around tables and, it's it's been a beautiful sight to see how they see that in indigenous leaders. And there's there's an opportunity there that Canadians, many already engaged in it, but many more have to lean into this and turn it into that national collective advantage. Big fan of yours in LinkedIn, and I love the fact that every month you're
almost doing Oprah's picks now, the books you're reading. So what one book if you could have every Canadian read a book in the hope that it helps move this agenda as a country going forward, what book would you want him to read? What a great, great, great question. I mean, a little known one that I just read was a biography of an amazing late Canadian, John
Evans. And I compared it to the stunning biography of Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson because it makes a really nice couplet for innovation, sort of that bold American take chances and and and ignore ignore the risks with which Musk does and has created, you know, challenges, but also, incredible, incredible things. To that more Canadian John Evans approach of of doing things collectively, of building teams, of of
ensuring there's support for something. And I I I think that's an important difference for Canadians to appreciate, but also to see how do we not only have that collective
approach, but maybe a bit more of that drive. The other book I'm I'm reading now, which I think is really wonderful but very poignant for National Indigenous Peoples Month is, Valley of the Bird Tale, which is a heartbreaking but illuminating and in many ways inspiring story of 2 communities in rural Manitoba, and how they have struggled, this is a non indigenous and an indigenous community struggled through, generations. Kind of a metaphor for Canada.
We live side by side, we work together, we go to school together even when we may not know that, and yet Key, are often, aliens to each other. So So John, my final question, because when I think of the people that I admire for their ability to think their heart roar, and have pragmatic actions, and you're one of them. I always ask, why aren't you going into the public service? Well,
thank that you for the the the compliment. Look, I I I feel I'm able to help the country and as many are through the work I do now and there's an extraordinary range of men and women, at all levels of government, serving. So I applaud what they, what they do and hope that we have more representation of the country. But deeper point, especially for this conversation, is how to get more business people
into public life. I'm always intrigued in the United States to see kind of this natural flow between government and, in the private sector. And it's not just about elected office. There's tremendous service that, that people can do in the bureaucracy, in administrative, positions. We've seen great Canadians like Michael Sabia go back and forth, and that's that should be an
inspiration as well. So how do we create more of those opportunities for, government employees, civil servants to spend meaningful time in the private sector and vice versa. I think that would be a good challenge for us all to take on. John, I appreciate you carving out some time in your incredibly busy schedule. I'm a huge fan of your disruptors podcast. I hope you continue to find time to do that as well, and everything
you're doing to campaign for a better Canada. So, thank you for joining me this special Canada Day, show. Tony, thank you for your leadership and always a pleasure. Chatter that matters has been a presentation of RBC. It's Tony Chapman. Thanks for listening. Let's chat soon.