David Pivnick on Canadian Sensitivity 8-5-26

Speaker A: Um, Grainger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, uh, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog H VAC on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Grainger for quality products, easy reordering, and 24. 7 support. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

Speaker B: This is Scott Becker with the Becker Business and the Becker Private Equity Podcast. Uh, today we're visiting with David Pivnick. David is a brilliant lawyer. He's a partner at McGuire woods, heads up a large area of practice there. He's also a brilliant Canadian by background. And so really, on all things that relate to Canada, we typically ask David for his opinion. David, Today's subject comes out of. You know, we have a, uh, conference coming up at Becker's Healthcare, and two of the featured speakers are Kevin o' Leary and Anthony Rizzo. And one of the, you know, and we've sent out lots of promotional direct messages and emails and things about the conference. And one of the responses that we got this week to the discussion on, uh, Kevin o' Leary speaking was, you know, a very, very negative discussion, um, from somebody who is, um, Canadian. And, and he, he, he, he said something along the lines of, you know, that, that he has publicly suggested that Canada should become part of the United States, defend Trump in connection with business controversies, that he's had lots of trouble with, all kinds of other things that he, uh, you know, responded to. He was involved in a boating accident, two fatalities. And we said something like, it's entertainment. It's not intended, given where he's not supposed to be really necessarily a role model, but I find him fasting and entertaining. And, and the person from Canada responded back, canada being part of the United States is not entertainment. Business fraud is not entertainment. Defamation is not entertainment. Um, you know, and so we responded back that we agree with you to this Canadian person who is lovely, and that we respect our Canadian brethren greatly. And so I guess what I have a, uh, question for you as one of our resident experts on Canada. Is this person from Canada, albeit a Canadian, taking himself too seriously and being so critical? Kevin o', Leary, or does Kevin o' Leary deserve that type of criticism? Um, and you are, uh, you know, you hail from two brilliant parents who are strongly patriotic Canadians, and we're huge fans of Canada. We certainly don't believe Canada should be. Canada is a great country, should be its own country. Of course, I think that's, like, just a given. But is this, you know, is Kevin o' Leary that. That, um, uh, you know, challenging and, and that infuriating to Canadians? Uh, that we shouldn't allow Kevin o' Leary to speak? Where are your thoughts on this as a Canadian and sort of a cultural expert?

Speaker C: Yeah, cultural expert. That might. Might be the kindest thing anyone's ever said about me. And, and I. One thing, it's always good to be on, and, um, never in a million years would have guessed this was the particular topic you were going to ambush me with today. But glad to talk about it. Uh, especially after your question, which was the longest question you've ever asked in the history of the podcast. So love that. I, uh, think the short answer is some people, and I don't know who this anonymous Canadian is, I have some concern you're going to surprise me afterwards by being like, oh, yeah, they have the same last name as you or something. But, uh, it seems to me the main takeaway is some people are overly sensitive, and I think this is an example of that. And we will likely now get criticism and feedback to the podcast about that comment. But, I mean, your response was pretty on point, which is you're clearly not bringing in Kevin o' Leary to talk and deliver a lecture on business ethics or the efficacy of voting effectively. I, um, don't know whether or not he was directly involved in a voting incident as, you know, someone in his boat was. I think there's arguments he's made that he wasn't driving it, if I understand correctly. Uh, but that's obviously not why you're bringing him in. And amongst controversial speakers, I would say Kevin o' Leary is on the lower side. And that kind of feedback to you sort of begs the question of, uh, is this anonymous conference attendee, or perhaps someone who's just monitoring conference speakers around the country for sport, also complaining to Shark Tank and to CNN and NBC and all of the myriad other places that, like you have determined that Kevin o' Leary is interesting enough that people want to hear him speak on a variety of topics. And he is an interesting guy who attends fancy galas in New York, has a massive, very lucrative watch collection that I happen to monitor that has a huge card and fourth memorabilia, uh, collection. Like, there are lots of things about the man that are interesting and that would warrant the very function that you bring him in to speak on, which is keeping an audience actively engaged for an hour where they want to see him speak. So I think the short answer is, uh, it really belies reason that somebody would take such significant umbrage with that. And there is a very simple solution, which is they could simply choose not to attend his one hour speech at the conference while otherwise enjoying the myriad offerings of, uh, more educational and substantive content that will also be provided in all the other meeting rooms at the event. Like that. This feels to me like complaining for the sake of complaining, which I think is unfortunately all too common, uh, these days. But not terribly productive.

Speaker B: No, and I, and I took the same approach, but, um, you know, people have serious thoughts. Uh, this is a person at a serious company. Um, you know, and so, you know, we don't, we don't, you know, we're used to getting that kind of criticism. You know, we try and bring, not bring in people that are too inflammatory. We think of Kevin o' Leary as more of a business driven person. He's got maybe a little political, but not over the top one place or another. But obviously people can tend to disagree with that. And you have this fine line between getting to be too vanilla and boring versus trying to keep things interesting and exciting. I mean, we have Anthony Rizzo speaking, but, you know, again, uh, you know, uh, won a World series with the Cubs. But is he that exciting to listen to? I don't really know. I mean, it doesn't, it doesn't take fine, but doesn't do anything particularly for myself, to have Anthony Rizzo speaking where Kevin o' Leary at least gets a rise out of people. So at least more interesting. And that's part of the goal. Without being inflammatory, Stephen, that at least are, you know, inspiring, interesting and exciting and could cause people to be like they actually want to be in the session that this, that the room's actually crowded to see them. I think a lot of people would be like, you know, would be. Who exactly is Anthony Rizzo? Particularly if you're not particularly a baseball fan, Whereas Kevin o' Leary is more of a household name, I think. So to me it's, it's much more interesting, even if a little bit, I guess, inflammatory to some.

Speaker C: I mean, one thing I will note on the topic of famous Canadians that you've had and are having at an upcoming conference to speak, you know, the great one. Not you, Scott, the other great one, Wayne Gretzky, is a terrific speaker, a terrific Canadian, and has also become somewhat controversial in Canada, uh, for being perceived as not being sort of full Throated enough in his support of the country and being present, you know, for events related to our president. And I think, you know, Wayne Gretzky grew up and grew to fame by being the greatest hockey player ever, of which I think there's little doubt, other than maybe for Bobby Orr, but clearly one of the two best that I would say pretty clearly the best. And is a great Canadian and a Canadian that I think people should be proud of, but has had that same controversy. But seeing him speak brought pride in me, and he's an entertaining person, which is the whole point. So I think there's a difference. If you were bringing these folks out to speak on politics or to render opinions on controversial topics, I think the criticism would be a bit better taken as, uh, compared to the function that they are serving and likely serving quite well at the conference, which is entertaining folks who are choosing to see them speak.

Speaker B: Where do you put, you know, one. We agree with you, and I guess thank goodness for your perspective, because we could put to rest the concept that Canada as a whole has become too sensitive. Uh, because I. I hear you, and I sense that you are not too sensitive to everything and. Okay. And I think you're probably a good barometer of. Not to generalize, but you're now our Canadian sample and survey. So, uh, ultimately, we've got 50% that are very sensitive, 50% that are not. And is that a good take on Canadians in general? I mean, Canadians in general are. Other than President Trump poking the bear the last several years, he never struck me as being so sensitive to everything, but I guess President Trump has hit some really, you know, as. As both the bare sum, and it's led to that kind of, you know, back and forth. But generally, we've always found Canadians to be, overall, a pleasure, present company included. Uh, is that a fair sentiment, that at the end of the day, Canadians are. Are really nice people, really good people. That. That's a generalization. There's some bad, there's some good, but not insanely sensitive, any more than people are in the United States.

Speaker C: Uh, totally agree. I think your comment on me not being overly sensitive, um, I think my wife would heartily agree with you to a fault, uh, that I'm not sufficiently sensitive. But, um, I think as a general statement, Canadians as a country, not to group a whole country together, but are. It's a proud country. And I think it is a point of pride in Canada that there are some differences in culture and the nature of the country between Canada and the States that they're not just, you know, one in the same. Um, but I think that has been. That tension has been heightened relative to some of President Trump's comments, which I think have given rise to a higher level of m. Maybe not national pride, which I think was always there, but in this severity, the seriousness with which these topics were taken. Whereas I think several years ago, and probably with just about any other president, you know, Wayne Gretzky showing up on the podium at an inauguration wouldn't have even warranted much news coverage, if any. It would have just been something that happened that no one thought about. And I think it's sort of reflective of the fact that, for better or worse, President Trump can tend to give rise to big feelings, uh, in people, good, bad or otherwise, frankly, like the people who like him, like him a lot. The people who don't tend not to. And I think his comments, which I think are easy about Canada to say, well, it was largely tongue in cheek, or to get a rise, uh, succeeded in doing that in a way that I don't think is necessarily reflective of broader, more general sentiments. And I think that's sort of part of President Trump's charm, or lack, depending, I guess, on how you're looking at it in terms of being able to get right to the root of things and cause people to have pretty strong reaction.

Speaker B: No, it's interesting. So I take it, by the fact that you've mentioned that President Trump can bring out strong feelings in people, um, you know, positive and negative, but can really touch people. That must make you a big President Trump fan, that he's got that emotional depth, that he could take those feelings, you know, out of people and bring those out of people. That's a really nice thing to say, David, about the American President. That's really nice.

Speaker C: I think that. I think that's bait, Scott. I think what you just. I am going to rest on my statement that. And as you know, I try and stay apolitical on these discussions that I'm going to do so here and simply say again, uh, the people that like President Trump like him a lot, and I think the people that feel differently about it feel very strongly differently. And I think the ability to, uh, give rise to those big emotions is, for better or worse, one of his qualities. And for what it's worth, just. Just on a much more micro level, uh, I think I tend to give rise to big emotions and big reactions in people, whether or not I necessarily intended so, uh, maybe I'm sympathetic to that quality because his is under media spotlight and scrutiny, whereas mine is at least more contained. But I am sympathetic to the notion of making statements that are tongue in cheek or uh, in my, in my life at least tongue in cheek and intended to be sort of folksy. That may not land always as intended.

Speaker B: No. Uh, thank you so much, David. No, I enjoy the discussion tremendously. I was. I love getting your perspective on everything. It's great fun for me. I hope our audience enjoys it. Again, David Pivnick on uh, the Canadian sense of empathy. Uh, we appreciate you joining us so much. I always love learn something, uh, very different people's points of view and I appreciate that greatly. Thank you David for joining us.

Speaker C: Thanks for having me.

Speaker B: Scott

Speaker A: when you're a maintenance engineer in a beverage manufacturing plant, you keep production lines moving and quality on track because there is no room for slowdowns. With Grainger's best vast selection of high quality motors, sensors, belts and hard to find parts, you can get what you need fast and all in one place. So nothing gets in the way of getting the job done. Call 1-800-granger clickranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.