Canada’s Biggest Problems | Pierre Poilievre | EP 253

when you look at canada at the moment what are our problems well the the central underlying illness is a monstrous growth in the power and cost of the state at the expense of the agency and freedom of the people i'm here simply restoring what can it already belong to canadians um by virtue of their 800-year inheritance of english liberties going back to the magna carta i'm just among the common people who are custodians of that freedom while we're alive you know edmund burke said it's a contract between the dead the living and the yet to be born and we're the living generation has the duty to pass on that inheritance and that's what i i see myself doing is to re-kindle that inheritance and pass it on to my kids and so they can pass it on to their kids and i'll pass away into the fade away into the the past one day but hopefully we'll have secured the freedom that we inherited for many more generations to come and that's that's what i mean when i want to give people back control over life in the present it's also um to extend it into the future so that's my purpose that's why i'm running i you know people want to support me my by pierre4pm.ca um yes that's pr4 the number four pm.ca is how you can sign up become a member and do that and i would be honored to have people's support in this enterprise [Music] hello everyone i'm very pleased today to have with me mr pierre pauliev he is the current front-runner in the race for leadership of the federal conservative party of canada and he is therefore a likely candidate for prime minister of canada within the foreseeable future within the next few years the conservatives in canada have served historically alternatively to lead canada competing with the liberals primarily at the federal or national and provincial or state level although the liberals their primary opponents have been more historically successful they've served more terms have served as a senior cabinet minister in prime minister stephen harper's conservative government prior to the recent election of justin trudeau and the liberals and has served as a member of parliament for seven terms and with that brief introduction i'm going to turn the discussion over to mr pauliev who can fill us in on little biographical information so we know who he is and then we'll turn to more specific issues thanks very much for agreeing to talk to me today and welcome thanks very much uh dr peterson great to be with you so we'll do jordan and pierre how was that that's fine by me all right away we go so let's let's start who are you who are you where'd you come from and how did you get interested in politics and why are you the man for the job here thank you well like you i'm from alberta although further south i come from calgary and my folks are from saskatchewan uh they married in 77 moved to calgary where they adopted me i was born of a 16 year old unwed mother whose mother had just died and so she was in no position to raise a child so she put me on for adoption and i was blessed to be adopted by marlene and dawn paulia two teachers from saskatchewan and a pretty normal upbringing i grew up in the 80s and like i was born in 79 so my early childhood was in the 80s uh it was kind of a brutal time to be a homeowner or a family because there was these monstrous interest rates so some of my early earliest memories as a child were the financial stress that my folks were going through uh and a lot of people were losing their homes and their livelihoods at that time and uh i think that made an early impression on my thinking even though at the time i didn't really understand what was happening or why i was able later on to look back at that strain and stress and then try to diagnose it when i i was old enough to understand and um and that kind of formulated some of my political ideologies we can return to that later on but i you know i grew up uh middle class a couple of uh teachers who got divorced when i was in my mid to teens and uh sort of bounce back and forth between mom and dad's place throughout my teenage years went to university of calgary yeah so we do have a fair bit in common because my one of my parents my father is a teacher they're both my parents are from saskatchewan they moved to alberta same lots of people from saskatchewan did i got interested in politics at an early age i remember that period of inflation because well well i might my parent my father and maybe your parents did they lose their pensions when the banks collapsed they teach because the teachers did mine didn't lose their pensions we did have to move um because i i think in retrospect that was because of the interest rate hikes we i'm guessing my folks were not able to pay the mortgage at the higher rates um and then we had to move to a smaller place and uh we to sell our car and get us to get a down downgrade our automobile and all of the above just to kind of keep our heads above water and that would have been i'm guessing around sort of 83-84 and that was a really kind of hellish time particularly in alberta because the central government had unleashed a wicked assault on the energy sector called the national energy program uh and simultaneously the worst of the trudeau socialist years were coming to bear on the entire national economy so you had 12 percent inflation 12 percent unemployment 24 mortgage rates that's real fun for everyone yes and um highest misery index in canadian history that's unemployment plus inflation that was under justin's father yes surprise surprise yes and here we are with the same policies leading to the same results just as the dog returns to its vomit and the sow returns to its mire the burn fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the fire as kipling would write um but um you know uh it was a miserable time for a lot of people now i was blessed because my folks were teachers so they ultimately didn't lose their livelihoods um and uh you know we were able to we had a modest upbringing but i would never have called myself poor um and my folks worked hard to make sure we could play hockey and enjoy life and go on camping trips so um i'm not uh i would not cry poor but uh it was a modest upbringing one i'm very proud of and one i'd like to pass on to my kids as well how old were you when you got interested in politics and what were you like in high school well i was a scrappy kid who loved sports and then i got a terrible tendinitis in my shoulder which made it impossible for me to do any amateur wrestling or football or any other sports that i enjoyed so i'd get home from school and be bored out of my skull my mom used to go and attend progressive conservative meetings uh and so i said why don't you take me to one of these meetings because i've got nothing to do and she took me and i fell in love with it and i just started reading books uh all kinds uh about oh god you should do that i'm still recovering from and uh so why in the world were you attracted to conservatism because that's not a particularly what would you say it's not necessarily an attractive proposition for the typical young person although you know maybe something could be done about that so but what attracted you to conservative philosophy it was a bit of a winding road i started off by reading a lot of left-wing books and commentary and was very very briefly persuaded by that but then i stumbled on a book called capitalism and freedom by milton friedman and i you know i didn't agree with a hundred percent of what he wrote i still don't however the fundamental logic of the free market system to me is inescapable okay what is that logic as far as you're concerned why is that why is it inescapable because in a free and open market you can't get ahead unless you make someone else better off so i use the old um apple orange eye analogy if you have an apple and want an orange and i have an orange and one in apple and we trade we're both better off even though we still have an apple in orange between us it's like when you go to a coffee shop and you buy a coffee you say thank you to the lady who gave it to you and then she says not you're welcome but she says thank you back now why is that well the answer is because each of you has something has gained something more valuable than you had before you have the cup of coffee that's worth more than the 250 you paid for it the coffee shop has the 250. and why do you think the free part of that is important so that's the trade part why is the free part important because that's the only way to guarantee both people sides believe they're better off right because in in the form of in taxation government forcefully uh imposes a transaction it is considered to be a transaction tax taxes right you're paying for a whole plethora of services but you didn't choose it so even if you've decided that the cost of your tax bill is not worth the benefit of the government services you have to pay it anyway whereas back to the coffee shop you have to if you don't believe the coffee's worth more than the money you won't pay it and if they don't believe the money money's worth more than the coffee they won't they won't sell it um so the only way in a market system to make yourself better off is to make someone else simultaneously better off so why did you now look lots of young people in it today either are not exposed to the ideas that you just put forward or they don't find them persuasive say in contrast to what appears on the surface to be the more compassionate left-wing view that's characterized frequently and sometimes realistically you know by concern for the working class like i worked for the ndp when i was a kid and at that time in alberta grant naughtly ran the ndp and he was an old union guy in some fundamental sense and so were most of the people he associated with you know and they they did have a real concern for the working class at least some of them did and i would say that was particularly true the leadership not so much the activists but you know you were pretty young when you came across friedman i didn't have that uh experience when i was say the same age as you why did you find that persuasive in contrast to the left-wing ideas the ideas of socialism this rooted in this hypothetical compassion that seems so attractive to kids today because i didn't see the compassion playing itself in any out in any uh real way it was it's a it's a catch phrase um but um what is god what we're actually debating is not who's more compassionate and there's no evidence that people on the socialist left are especially generous with their own money sure they like to spend other people's money but what you see is really uh with socialism is uh animal house playing itself out over and over again uh you know when the animal farm excuse me animal farm playing itself overnight definite differences definite difference animal farm uh you know the pigs didn't say they wanted to take the house so that they could be more comfortable and spoiled they said they were doing it to make everyone equal and to remove the oppression but then when the when they actually took the house they basically they became the new masters and served themselves and that's what you act that's what actually happens in socialism it doesn't eliminate hierarchy so why did you why did you buy that argument was it for as a consequence of encountering orwell as well or i think it's because i witnessed it again and again um in as i was i studied what actually happens in socialist models it became very clear that the rhetoric about economic equality never actually came to pass it was used as a tool to mobilize the masses but ultimately the outcome was to give concentrate power more in the hands of the political elite look government is really legalized force um so if you believe in big government you believe in expanding force relationships of force always favor the powerful and in re so in reality those who have more political power than benefit from a bigger government and those people are all rich right they are disproportionately powerful in the system and so when this big beast called government gets bigger and more powerful those who have the ability to steer that beast are the ones who are going to profit from it so what do you what do you think of the success of countries like the scandinavian countries let's say well in the relative success of canada because there's been a fair solid socialist influence more the english socialist type than the communist derived type fair socialist influence in canada and it's formed some of our fundamental institutions our health care system our pension system a fair bit of labor legislation i mean when you look at and then of course the scandinavian countries small though they are and homogenous though they are they're quite radically successful in in in function so what what do you make of that and how do you how do you balance that against your emphasis on well more conservative philosophy and and your your support of the freest markets possible in some sense all right so uh let's start with the scandinavians i mean there's some really uncomfortable facts about the scandinavian countries that the left would not like to talk about like norwood 25 of norway's economy is oil so that's really tough to grapple with if you're a modern socialist moving to the other countries sweden welcomes all kinds of free enterprise and choice including in the provision of public services and they have in fact in the in the 90s the swedes moved quite dramatically to reduce the cost of government and open up markets and and free enterprise so it's not as simple as to say that that these countries are socialistic and therefore successful um and yeah i think it was even the day one of the danish leaders came to you to the united states and he was speaking at harvard and um he was saying you know he was all the socialist kids were expecting him to pump his fist in the air and and champion socialism he said no actually we're not a socialist country um and so um you know there's no question they they definitely do have a strong social safety net and i don't i don't object to that um but i wouldn't say that they are state commanded economies like like we're seeing trudeau uh attempt to adopt here in canada right so you see this is variation within the free market world right i do variation like there is between the democrats and the republicans in the u.s but fundamentally it's a free market everything is a question of degree but you know there's a lot of academic literature that shows that government that countries with smaller governments as a share of gdp tend to have less poverty and better social and economic growth outcomes um and that is true in both the developing world and the developed world so i i do believe that you can provide a solid social safety net at the same time as having a powerful free market economy that generates the wealth to fund that safety net okay so you you got interested in politics were you a popular kid in high school would you say um off and on there were times when i was interested in hanging out and being part of the club but there were other times where i just didn't care i went once i got involved in politics i couldn't care less about uh the social life at high school anymore how old were you how old are you were you when that transition took place you said that was also six years 16 17 like i said i kind of wasn't able to do any more sports and so i said you know i'm going to go do something else and once i i took that part of my life took off you didn't look at the social right no i i had like a lot of my early teens i'd been i loved hanging out with my friends and playing sports and stuff but once uh once i found a new passion i became more focused on that how did that influence your choice of education when you went off to university and that that was it did you say university calgary that's right yes um yeah i wanted to do a generalist uh liberal arts kind of program and so i did international relations which had some econ a lot of history uh some strategic studies a little bit of poli sci and and it was a good over it was a good overview a jack of all trades kind of bachelor of arts um and it worked well and was that in in hypothetical service of your political ambitions at that point or had they catalyzed i don't know that my political ambitions were clearly defined at that point i just knew i was generally interested in politics and that international relations would give me an overview of almost all parts of the of that one confronts in a political environment did you have a conception of a career path at that time or i mean not people don't you know they go to take a bachelor of arts they have an interest and i'm and i'm not saying a career path you know specifying one is necessary i'm just curious as to what what how you envisioned your future when you were pursuing your degree and and then what happened afterwards i'm trying to remember exactly but i i don't think i knew exactly what paths i was going to take i just knew that i wanted to fight for certain things that i believed in and that that would that would probably take me into the political theater were you active in campus politics yeah i was involved with the campus uh it was then the campus progressive conservatives and reform party and involved in the debate club and stuff like that you have a place called speaker's corner it's like three floors um of balconies where people could look down and someone would stand on a big stool in the middle and shout out a speech and the speaker's corner would meet every friday and there'd be lots of heckling and it was just a rowdy affair and but mostly mostly about hilarity and joking around and giving silly ridiculous addresses and that was a that was the friday tradition we'd go and belt out these speeches uh to sometimes 70 or 80 students would come and take in these speeches and i i i imagine what if we had the phone cameras back then they'd probably be circulating wildly on the internet right now no doubt god what a horrible fate they have everything you do when you're young recorded and never forgotten so yeah well you seem to have a sense of humor about such things too and you're kind of viciously satirical in the house of commons and so what what role do you think having a sense of humor plays in what you do i think it's important i try to remember it because politics is a combat sport but there has to be some joy in it as well and you have to make people feel good you know the rabbi hillel said people won't always remember what you do or what you say but they'll always remember how you made them feel and so i think it's important to make people feel good uh when you're giving a political speech make them you know there's a tendency to get up and and sh and spill doom and gloom all over the room but i think it's important to make people feel good about the moment and also good about the future and the most powerful way to do is is humor well this is very interesting to me because you've got a lot of people coming out to your rallies and that i should let everyone know who's listening internationally that's not really a canadian thing there have been times when that's occurred but it's not run-of-the-mill but you have a lot of people coming to your rallies and you've been attacked fairly viciously i would say by the press for the nature of the despicable people that you're attracting you know otherwise known as canadians and so how what is it that you're doing that's working to attract people and is it related to this sense of humor and and to an optimism that you're projecting despite you know some of the dire things that might be characterizing the canadian state i think it's um i think people are desperate for hope in canada right now um these uh these rallies have been really emotional events like um people come with um incredible stories and i do this thing after every speech i i plant myself in front of my sign and i just let everyone come up one by one and talk to me and i don't think the political class in this country appreciates how much suffering there is in canada right now um well they did get honked on out a lot you know and that's pretty rough yeah you know yes they've had i mean the political class has had a wonderful two years they have an unbelievable amount of power and a tremendous amount of comfort all of their homes have gone up by 50 in value and their stock portfolios up until recently have been inflated and so they're sort of looking at down at the working class and saying oh what are you complaining about isn't you've never had it so good well that's the the exact opposite uh has been true for the working folks if you don't own a home you're um purchasing your like if you didn't have a home before 2019 likelihood is you'll never own one unless and until there's a major reduction in housing prices and so you've got this whole generation of people of young people who have concluded that they'll never be able to afford homes they're 32 years old living in their mom's basement you can imagine the psychological impact that has on someone's personal security like how do you start a family so people come to my rallies and they're looking for an explanation about why things are the way they are and looking for some hope about how we might make them better the the situation doesn't make sense to people because like i have one go you know what perfect example um there's a guy living in the south end of my riding south ottawa and he has the same job that his mother has and he ironically works at the same desk that she worked at when she was there yet she was able to buy a house in south ottawa 40 years ago that he could not even dream of affording today and so what he's saying i wait a sec how does this make sense i thought we were supposed to be getting better off and now after 40 years our family is far worse off and i'm stuck in my parents basement and i can't get married i can't start a family i i don't even i don't know where my life is going and so they're coming they see me actually explaining why this is happening and then offering solutions and they say to me that i'm actually giving them a sense of hope that's the number one word i hear from people when they come up to me in the line they say we feel like we have hope again so that's what's bringing people out okay so you're listening to people one of the things i've learned about good politicians and i know people think that's an oxymoron but that's not an acceptable amount of cynicism in my estimation they and i think this was really true of preston manning for example they're really good at listening and if they listen then people tell them what their problems are and so you just focused on housing and housing crisis for young people when you're talking to people individual to individual what's tugging at your heartstrings and and and making you understand the problems apart housing is a big one obviously what else do you hear and what's really concerning you people feel like they've lost control of their lives um whether it's the the people who have made a decision not to get vaccinated for their own reasons and have been had uh had the government basically steal their livelihoods prevent them from getting on an airplane ban them from ever leaving the country um or whether it's the you know single mom who's skipping meals or kids don't have to or you know the guy who can't fill up his tank to go and drive and see his parents for one last time before they die in in thunder bay um people feel like they can't make the normal decisions that a free person could could make in a free society and there's devastating personal consequences to it and then what they hear from the government is they speak out right they speak out they hold a protest they post something online instead of the prime minister saying you know what i know you're suffering i'm sorry we're going to work harder to make your life better we hear you um i feel your pain what he says is you're a nasty unacceptable fringe element and not only are we going to seize your bank account and uh and bring in the emergencies act uh we're also going to double down on the sa on the things that have made your life so miserable in the first place and so people people feel like they're under attack from a big bullying government that takes their money and tells them what to do and what they see in my campaign is that an opportunity to take back control of their lives to remove the gatekeepers so that we can build affordable housing to um unleash the the energy sector so our working class can get good jobs again to stop the money printing and bring inflation back down so folks can afford things again um and that gives them hope that there's actually a better day coming and that's why we're attracting so many people well so why do you think it's it's so interesting listening to you because you know your your your your narratives center around the individual individuals who make up the working class the working class under duress and isn't necessarily the way in that you might regard as most probable for a conservative you know and so why is it so i think that's extremely interesting and in this upside down world of ours why is it though do you think that people find you capable of delivering hope and i mean there's other candidates on the conservative front we should talk about that soon but what makes you credible on the hope front do you think in terms of your what you're offering and who you are because i speak clear plain language that makes sense to people so you know i'm i'm a believer in using simple um anglo-saxon words that strike right at the the meaning that i'm trying to convey and so i say things that people say yeah that actually makes sense so that folks say well why is it why is inflation running rampant and i explained to them in direct language that when you print more money you have more dollars chasing fewer goods it leads to higher prices folks say yeah that actually makes sense isn't that what we were taught in grade school and the explanations they get from everyone else are a bunch of convoluted nonsensical um irrational uh excuses um and so they they like my direct blunt style not because it's simplistic but because it's simply true so what do you like about political life it's a rough life and you take a lot of flack i mean obviously from your bio and i think from the way you comport yourself it's obvious that you've you've got the the constitution to some degree of a fighter which is i think would say something i lack um but what is it about your what is it about you that that attracts you to the political on the in terms of the interpersonal domain you talked about it intellectually in some sense you know these and you you talk a little bit about your care for people one-on-one but you like to listen apparently and like why do you care about ordinary people and why should people believe that you care well i think that um i wha what what bothers me most about politics in canada is that there's a comfortable establishment that sits on top and governs for itself at everyone else's expense and that the people who do the nation's work um the plumber the electrician the truck driver uh the police officer have almost no share of voice um i want to empower those people and disempower the political establishment and that's my mission it's my purpose and i believe in it i actually do believe in what i say i i truly believe that the ideas and the political approach that i advance are right so having that purpose allows me to persevere through all of the nastiness and the exhaustion of political life because if you don't believe in it then it just becomes an egotistical vanity project of which there are many in politics but it seems to me to be a a pointless life all you're doing is trying to advance trying to keep your name in the news and in high office as long as possible just so that you can say you were there um i i think you if to have a fulfilling political career you actually have to have a purpose and i do my purpose is very simply i want to put people back in charge of their own lives i don't want the state to run people's lives anymore i want them to be masters of their own destiny okay so so let's drill down into that a little bit so i would ask you two things one would be you know i'll prove i'll put a little bit of a pro drama in front of it i watched the federal leadership debate in the last election and i thought the conservatives lost before they opened their mouths because they accepted the diagnosis that was brought to the table there were five topics of conversation if i remember correctly and two of them were basically progressive talking points you know one was truth and reconciliation another was climate change there was 20 minutes devoted to the economy you know and i thought you guys made a big mistake because you left you let the progressive types define the questions and so i would say because it may be the diagnosis in some sense is more important than the cure at least you know that you know you've got your finger on the problem and so when you look at canada at the moment what are our problems the the central underlying illness is a monstrous growth in the power and cost of the state at the expense of the agency and freedom of the people that is the the override now you can i can then give specific examples of how that outputs led so let's just take let's just take monetary policy so there's no way justin trudeau could get away with spending uh all of the money he has in the last two years if he had to use real cash because people would never accept the many thousands of dollars of tax increases that it would require so he has basically turned our central bank into an atm machine for his spending they've created 400 billion dollars of new money in two years which has given us a 30-year high in inflation and bumped up boosted real estate prices by 50 percent how does that compare to previous expense expenditures by governments well it's not even there it's not off the charts if you look at the balance sheet of the bank of canada during the harper area even during the great global recession there was a minor bump in the assets it held which is represented which indicates that you know how how much uh money it was injecting whereas right now it's it's shot off the charts uh so the balance sheet of the central bank is up something like 350 percent and all that cash is particularly ballooned asset prices that's the unspoken story here everyone thinks about consumer inflation which is horrible as it is then there's asset price inflation and what that's doing is creating kind of an aristocratic economy where people with where the bigger the asset you have or before the inflation the richer you've become after it and um it is almost like the housing is is attached to a balloon and it's being lifted higher and higher up and anybody who's not already in the house will never be able to grab it and get inside and so we're but but it is all the result of this massive expansion of the money supply um and uh so we're basically seeing a transfer of wealth from the the have-nots to the have yachts as i like to say um and and and those in the managerial class uh the ceos whose stocks have been artificially inflated and they've been able to give themselves a share buybacks with with exceptionally low interest rates they can borrow money and then buy back shares which increases share value and gives them a bonus the the folks who own mansions and protected in neighborhoods that are protected by zoning laws against anyone else moving in these people have done exceptionally well over the last two years um and yet the people who are doing the nation's work are now having their salaries destroyed by inflation um you know and then at the local level you have municipalities bringing in our zoning laws that prevent new construction so that you have artifact they're invisible gates they're gated communities but they're invisible gates and the the invisible gate is government bureaucracy that prevents construction so we have fewer houses per capita than any country in the g7 even though we have the most land to build on um so what i'm proposing in both cases stop printing money start building houses i'm going to tell the big city mayors that if they don't remove their bureaucratic zoning rules and let builders build then i'm going to cut back on some of their infrastructure funds because i think it's going to need something that drastic to get these gatekeepers out of the way and actually build houses so that our youth have a place to call home um and uh you know but it's across the economy ironically all of these big government interventions seem to hurt the most disadvantaged our immigrants come here as doctors and engineers but they can't work in those fields because of occupational licensing uh protectionism um they're the gatekeepers so i want to incentivize provinces to speed up recognition of foreign credentials so an immigrant doctor can actually work as a doctor and remove the gatekeepers from our energy sector so we can build pipelines and and dig for resources and become energy self-sufficient and then remove the gatekeepers in speech and you know all about those you know the government is now pushing new censorship laws on the internet um and i promise very clearly that i'm going to get rid of all of those laws and restore uh freedom of expression on the internet so really what i see is um the need to remove the governmental gatekeepers to restore our freedom let people take back control of their lives okay so let's delve into economic policy a bit so the oecd recently predicted this is lovely that canada's economy will be the worst performing advanced economy over 2020 to 2030 and then three decades after now it ha we haven't been doing very well as a country not only under the liberals we weren't doing that great at before under the conservatives as well you know especially compared to the us and many other and many other countries that in some sense are peers and so that's a pretty damn gloomy forecast right 40 years out we're going to be the worst performing advanced economy in the world and so what do you what what do you think the conservatives conceivably did wrong in the past to fail to stave that off and what do you think you can do differently and maybe we can make so you're interested in housing you're interested in deregulation especially on the housing front i want to focus in as we progress through this part on energy in particular because that's a killer topic for everyone in the world at the moment i would say so what did the conservatives do wrong what has canada done wrong what what have the liberals done wrong apart from you know printing money like mad men and instituting these arbitrary rules and what do you think you can do differently right well i i would respectfully disagree on the conservative economic track record if you look at the 07 financial sorry the os 0809 financial crisis we came through better than any of the other g7 countries certainly way better than the americans we didn't have a housing crash here we didn't have a banking crisis we didn't have to bail out a single bank we had very modest inflation i don't think it ever cracked four percent uh and i don't think it was above three percent for more than one or two quarters in the entire 10-year period harper was around and unemployment stayed relatively low you could buy the average house when harper left office in canada was 434 thousand dollars it's kind of hard to imagine that now um but um on a fast forward to energy we need to repeal c69 that's the bill that makes it effectively impossible to build an energy project in canada today um because it has introduced a whole series of sociological questions that uh that into the um process that no that make sense to nobody um you know trudeau has said that energy projects uh are uh cause gender imbalances and therefore when someone applies to build one they have to write a sociological report on what their what the pipeline or the uh mine will do for gender relations uh well with that intro in addition to being sort of ridiculous um um pop culture so sociology it introduces massive uncertainty for investors because they don't really know how and why a project will be approved or rejected and they they don't have seven years to sit around so they'll take their money and invest it in other parts of the world and that's why the projects aren't happening here we don't mind lithium in canada even though we have lots of lithium in this electric car battery uh era you know we're but we're importing lithium from china because they actually get projects built however they burn coal to refine their lithium so ironically we're just inducing pollution in other countries when we buy electric cars that are made in whose lithium is is refined in that country so if we could approve a lithium mine in canada we could actually mine the stuff refine it manufacture it here we have the third biggest supply of oil on planet earth but we're importing 130 000 barrels of overseas oil every day the solution to which is so obvious is that right next door to the saint john uh port where we bring in the port of the the oil we have st john's newfoundland uh is uh capable of adding another 400 000 barrels of canadian production we could just approve that production that we could ban foreign oil overseas oil from canada all together and that would mean that the dollars wouldn't be leaving our country for overseas dictatorships but would be staying here paying canadian wages instead um and uh natural gas we got 1 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and you know what you do you know you you get natural gas onto a ship you have to freeze it down to a liquid what do we have in canada cold weather as you know and uh so it takes a hell of a lot less energy to liquefy natural gas in canada finally an advantage for cold weather finally an advantage uh and uh and yeah and we have also geographic advantage we're the closest point in north america to asia is bc the closest point in north america to europe is is newfoundland so we have a shorter shipping distance less energy needed to liquefy gas and yet we haven't succeeded in building a single major liquefaction facility in canada despite the fact that in 2015 there were about 18 proposed projects so you could approve those projects we could be bringing a hundreds of billions of dollars of opportunity to our people particularly our first nations people but it takes getting those regulatory gatekeepers out of the way to let it happen what makes you think you could take on the woke crowd in relationship to such things so we could say well um what about the planet what about the climate crisis you're going to turn back to fossil fuels you're going to demolish the globe in the next 30 years we should be moving towards net zero you're going to doom the poor to catastrophe while you're pretending to elevate them economically it's like and you're going to be like cut into ribbons by that crowd and so let's talk about climate change and the paris accords and all that you we want to promote you want to promote canadian energy there's a foreign policy reason for doing that you made a case for liquefication like exactly what should canada's position be in relationship to climate change and then the development of our energy infrastructure well our resources are not the problem they're the solution for example we export our natural gas we can displace foreign coal burning electricity uh the energy hungry asian markets are desperate for non-coal sources of electricity but they need things like natural gas to replace it coal with and we have that gas we also have the biggest supply of civilian grade uranium in the world right in saskatchewan that could be used to export to regenerate emissions-free pollution-free nuclear energy we have an over-abundance of hydroelectricity in manitoba and quebec that we could be exporting to the northern united states to displace their coal-fired electricity uh we have we could be using small modular nuclear reactors to uh de-carbonize the electrical grid for the oil sands and uh and we have the the the ability to do that right here in canada we have carbon the carbon and capture and storage techniques in in our home province of alberta are second to none um there are some you know white cap resources a mid-sized company there says that it's actually a now a carbon negative company in other words they bury more carbon in the ground than they put into the air and so we have the technology and the resources to do it but we're right now what we're doing is punishing our own resource sector to the advantage of heavily polluting foreign dictatorships with no environmental standards and who use the money to do great mal and so we would be better off to displace their energy with ours and use that as a method of fighting for the environment while enhancing the well-being of our working class at the same time well so if this optimistic view is true which is a view that basically says in some sense we can have our cake and share it with others and eat it too right because we can make progress on the economic front and on the climate front at the same time and i would like to point out that america's turn to natural gas has knocked their carbon dioxide output substantially down over the last 15 years is which is not a statistic you hear from the typical environmentalist types okay so if we the world could turn to canadian energy and as a consequence the net cos the net impact on the carbon economy would be positive in in meaning reduce reducing carbon carbon dioxide output and we could get wealthier in doing so then why in the world aren't the liberals already doing this if if the pathway forward is so clear and they're concerned about the environment in some genuine sense and also let's say secondarily about economic matters is there something wrong with your reasoning that they know that's made this impossible or how do you understand the fact that this isn't already happening you know it is hard to understand i think that it goes in line their their environmental policies seem more designed to give the state more control of the economy than they are designed to deliver an environmental outcome um they the by attacking the energy sector it gives them the ability to to create more of a command and control economy which is what they believe in and to redistribute wealth between industries and towards political friends in a very parasitical manner but you know we have a total uh nut as our environment minister right now stefan gilbeau he is bonkers and he he he's against nuclear it's not just oil and gas he would get rid of nuclear as well so i don't know what would be left like you can't well you know all you have to do to get electricity is put a plug in the wall yeah that's right out it comes you know plentiful i don't know why i'm over complicating it here i don't know either and yeah yeah so it is quite quite a mystery to me all of this the fact that that because i do believe at least to some degree that the reality that you put forward is actually valid that we could have our cake and eat it too i certainly think the americans have managed that as they've turned to fracking and and have become a net exporter of fossil fuel i can't see that that's done the damn world one bit of harm and well in this situation with russia is one of the things that shows just how foolish we are and depending on well countries other than say standard reliable forward moving uh stable democracies like canada so be lovely if that could all occur so okay so let's turn away from economic policy just for a moment why do you think the press in canada is so dislikes you to such a degree and are there exceptions to that rule well there are exceptions that i find the independent media gives me a fair shake um but uh and there are some columnists even in in the mainstream publications that are fair and reasonable but the political media in the parliamentary press gallery are part of the establishment and that defines me threatening because i'm upsetting the apple card um they are part of the ecosystem of big government um they and when it comes to the cbc they are big government their entire um budget comes from government um and the corporate owner we might we might want to tell our international listeners and viewers just how big a subsidy the cbc gets every year and what the cbc is and then we can talk about media subsidies in general and the collusion between the federal government and the canadian media establishment so maybe we start with cbc it's 1.2 billion a year right in that range yeah it's 1.2 billion to produce a negligible audience a very very small audience and produce almost no original content that you couldn't find somewhere else but the what this does is creates a massive state-funded ecosystem and even the journalists who don't work for cbc they get these contracts to comment on cbc this they go on these panels and they get paid i'm told three four five hundred bucks a pop to go and offer their opinion and this so as a result they all want to regurgitate the acceptable state uh generated opinion and then they uh so it basically creates uh a monolithic ideology and political narrative uh that comes from the center of the government and is designed to uphold uh the trudeau government to keep them in power for as long as possible um and so yeah i'm running against that and is that going to be hard absolutely they're going to do everything they can to tear me apart i have no doubt about that would you defund the cbc yes you've made that claim you you absolutely would do that yes even though okay so let me push back against that for a bit okay because this is an important question to me because i'm not very fond of the cbc especially as it's managed itself over the last decade let's say i used to watch it a lot when i was a kid i used to listen to cbc radio a lot too and i thought it was a reasonably credible and reliable purveyor of information i think those those days are long gone in any case many conservative politicians in canada have made gestures in that direction you know and then the the people who are going to come after are going to say well you know you're not a fan of canadian culture and because of the overwhelming influence of the united states and foreign media we need to subsidize canadian journalistic and it and and entertainment activities because otherwise we'll have nothing at all and generally what happens is the cbc continues to survive regardless of government so what makes you what makes you think you do it and how do you think you could survive and this is back to that question before right how do you think you can push back against the woke types who are so good at savaging reputation and interfering with the kind of well policies that you're trying to put forward so on the cbc there was a time when you could make an argument for a market failure you could say look here we are american culture is so massive and noisy um competing it with it is like trying to have an argument with a marching band right it's just so loud and it'll just drown out everything in canada but that that was only the case because the massive cost of production and distribution made it very hard for canadian talent to even get on with the airwaves without some assistance but now there are almost there are like the cost of production and distribution of culture information and content is negligible i mean any teenager with you know seven or eight hundred bucks um can use his or her phone to start producing content put it online if people want to see it um or any disgraced university professor that's right but uh no i mean like the reality is that um you know if you had a if you if you were a canadian artist in 1980 you didn't have the capital to compete with hollywood now you actually don't need a lot of capital um and so with the free and open internet uh anyone can break through as long as they have a willing audience so the reason that cbc's content requires subsidy is not because of some market failure it's because it's not appealing to canadians well that's just because canadians aren't smart enough to appreciate it you know well that's the narrative right you know that and that's the irony about the canadian media today they think their job is to hold the people accountable to the government rather than the government accountable to the people so what about other media subsidies what's your policy on that because during covid in particular but over the last few years you know obviously print journalists have taken a beating from the internet because well for the same reasons you just outlined i mean it what do you think is there a rule for the subsidy of the press in canada and if there is a rule what is it and if not what would you do well i haven't uh uh the trudeau policies are definitely designed to basically make the entire media apparatus dependent on the goodwill and the good um yet the good will of the state um they have a government uh bureaucracy that determines what is considered to be a qualified journalistic uh company and they pick and choose uh based on their own political views who then qualifies and therefore gets the subsidy i think this is designed to again create more dependency on the government and curry more favor with the state um i haven't made an announcement on exactly how i'm going to fix that problem yet but i but i guess i would say stay tuned on that i i want to de-politicize that and basically restore the freedom of the press in this country again by getting the state out of it so you're at least philosophically opposed to the idea of let's call it government press collusion and might take see that part of the problem is i think that once you obtain power let's say the temptation to have the media under your thumb in some sense as a consequence of such subsidies you can see how that would tempt people right i think it's it's very useful to be cognizant of the sorts of temptations that do beset someone as they acquire a position of authority and power and this is why i want to push hard on the cbc issue because it's a signal issue it would be quite a dramatic move to defund the cbc because it has been a standard bearer in some sense of a whole vision of canadian culture and so that would that would send a powerful message like if if they do have such an incredibly loyal audience then they can support themselves through their audience like other institutions do i mean uh you know there are countless other journalistic organizations that support themselves through subscriptions sponsorship advertising and other means and i think that's what we we need to do with cbc if they genuinely have an audience then they can go get support from their audience i don't i know there's lots of publications to which i subscribe i don't ask the taxpayer to pay for my subscriptions i pay for it out of my pocket and i watch either that or i suffer the advertising um but i don't expect that other people are going to pay for me to uh consume the media that i like so why should i why should other canadians be forced to pay for this far left uh liberal propaganda that that makes up most of cbc's coverage all right well it'd be it'll be interesting to see what all comes that that should make uh it's even some more friends on the journalistic front so but you know that's the thing people say well you're gonna you're picking a fight with cbc they're gonna come after you in the next election well they went after harper they went after sheer they went after o'toole what we found is that by not proposing to defund them they're just as vicious uh as they were what would otherwise be they campaigned full time to get justin trudeau elected prime minister even though harper had run a 10-year government without defunding them so yeah they're going to come at me uh guns blazing i know that but they would do that even if i weren't taking the principled stand on defunding them right so so okay so that's that's a good that's a good point you've got nothing to lose on that front in some sense so that's problem with depriving people of theirs of their support for you you know you can't take anything away when there's nothing there to begin with okay so let if you don't mind um let's turn to trudeau and to sing these are your two uh well the two people who will you'll be facing off against in some real sense and you do face off against quite regularly in the house um what do you think of mr trudeau so i think he's an egomaniac and i think everything he does is comes back to his egomania um even his political ideology you really think about his his ex expansionistic role of the state um it never comes back to [Music] serving an individual objective other than to make him more powerful or his legacy more grand so let me give you a few examples so he he slashed the amount you can put into a tax-free savings account but then he simultaneously increased the amount you were forced to pay into the state savings plan he um killed multiple pipelines then he invested state money in a pipeline he attacked parents ability to take care of their own children by by removing tax uh fairness for families of the state-home parent and then he brings in a government program to replace it um so what you're seeing there is you say well this sounds like these are utterly inconsistent positions and the answer no they're not they're all very consistent in all cases what he does is takes away the ability of business or individuals or families to do things for themselves and it requires they do things through him and through the state um and and his ideology is always about creating a pretext in order to justify the state garnering more control over every aspect of your life how you raise your kids how your business functions what you see and say on the internet he believes the state has to be everywhere always but that's because as uh king louis would say the state is him well you know that that's okay so let's i got a couple of things to throw at that the first is you know i think it's a very dangerous thing to attack the man rather than the ideas but you're making you know as a rule of thumb but you're making a case that in this case that can't be done because there is a personality trait that is uniting diverse policy decisions that isn't ideational or ideological even it is in fact personal and so my sense of truth initially i was very upset with it with his decision to run for prime minister because i thought well you don't know anything and you're attractive and you can behave well in public and you and you have a charming facade but you don't know anything in any real sense and there's no and there's no indication that you do you're not particularly well educated and you're not particularly accomplished and this is actually a hard job but worse than that the only reason you even have the vagus possibility of succeeding is because you have the same last name as your father and so and then he ran and i thought well how do you justify that to yourself because the gap of knowledge must have been painfully evident to him and the fact that the trudeau name you could you could say well you know the liberal party came to me that's his justification they came to me and there wasn't another person that could win on the liberal side and better a trudeau liberal even if it's a consequence of family name than any damn conservative let's say but i still saw it as a manifestation of a really profound narcissism i think a reasonable person would have said i'm not prepared for this certainly not yet and i'm not the man that need that there needs to be in this position so i don't know what you think about those musings but that's how i looked at trudeau and i certainly haven't seen anything in the preceding years that has disabused me of any of those notions i mean i think there's some truth in that he is his victory was definitely not a meritocratic one he was probably the least vetted prime ministerial candidate in our history the media just glossed over so much of his life um to go straight to to help him and protect him it was almost like they built a protective cocoon around him and uh and you know like he had he had dressed up in grotesque racist costumes so many times he says he by his own claim he can't remember them all i mean the average politician had done that once it would have been exposed and that person would have been expelled from politics altogether um you know but uh you know he had run as a middle-class champion even though while he sheltered the millions he inherited from his grandfather in a tax preferred trust fund all these things would have been front and center in the public uh sphere had it been anyone other than a trudeau um and but he was protected by it by the media who still protect him because he really is their camp candidate he he represents the political class and the establishment in canada uh those who profit off a big um bloated bureaucracy and regulatory state um in the the old uh upper canada era aristocracy uh know that he will always deliver for them and he has his deliveries he's delivered mightily for and that's why they're doing so well and that's why they'll fight tooth and nail to keep them there why do you think he was and still remains attractive to a substantial subset of canadians i mean people seem to regard him as charming and caring and i think he is charming in a kind of shallow sense but it isn't obvious to me at all that he's caring but he he seems to play the part and he plays it well enough so that while many people and this is true of people all over the world certainly by the by the act so why do you think that is and and how do you combat that yeah look he is charming i won't deny that um and he's a good-looking dude uh but i don't think he's actually that popular so people people forget he got he got 32 percent of the vote in the last election 68 of those who cast ballots voted against him that's the lowest he got the lowest share of vote of any prime minister in canadian history and before him the record was set by him in the previous election he got 33 percent of the vote um he never actually reached the height uh the vote share that harper got in 2011. so we we sometimes we think he's an extremely popular guy because of the adulation he gets from the mainstream media but in fact he's not that popular with ordinary canadians what he succeeded at doing to his credit is engineering a very efficient distribution of votes so that with 32 percent of the vote i think he got something like 45 or 46 percent of the seats um and that is the nut we need to crack he wins a lot of seats with with with few votes we win few seats with lots of votes in fact the last two elections conservatives have beat him in the popular vote we just haven't got them in the right places so we need to we need that's the change we need to make and i believe we will make in the forthcoming election so you don't think that it is a preponderance of canadians who have had the wolf pulled over their eyes it's no he's not by look by any objective analysis of the data he's not an especially popular prime minister um and in fact he's probably more on the side of an unpopular prime minister what about mr jagmeet singh who for our international watchers and listeners is the leader of the canadian socialist party and in some sense the ndp new democratic party and in some sense the person who holds the balance of power right now in canada's house of commons and therefore the keys in some real sense to the federal government what do you think about mr singh well he lacks on that right why does he exist you've already got an ndp prime minister a socialist prime minister in justin trudeau so that means the socialist party has to try to figure out what to do with itself um and um uh he is so so so far jagmeet has said well he'll just support trudeau in a coalition and the problem is when you go back to the elector electorate people are going to say well you're part of the same problem like i had a gentleman in um i was in charge lee in quebec lifelong ndp supporter um very upset with how life is the guy was telling me he's had to reduce his his diet to one meal a day because food is so expensive and he was voting for the ndp until he signed the ndp formed a coalition with trudeau the guy who's caused all the misery it's gonna be very hard for jagmeet to go to the people and claim that he represents anything other than the trudopian status quo and i think that in the next election people will be looking for a drastic departure from trudeau so um they'll be looking for the anti-trudeau and so what do you think of him on the personal front i mean one of the things that's really struck me about sing apart from his unconditional support for trudeau in exactly the manner you described is that he seems almost stunningly and singularly devoid of ideas i haven't seen anything come out of the ndp federally that isn't just woke nonsense that constitutes a genuine appeal let's say to the working class and i also thought that his we can talk about this too his response to the truckers convoy was something remarkable to behold because here you had the party the putative party of the oppressed working class if anything even more dismissive of that protest than the liberals which is really saying something because true as you pointed out called them misogynists and bigots and claimed completely falsely with the collusion of the cbc that the vast preponderance of the money that funded that protest had come first from the bloody russians and then from the like from the american republicans who were apparently you know trying to stage a coup in a country they don't even really it isn't even really on their radar for reasons that no one's been able to i was in the states you know for three months i went to 50 cities in the last three months and i talked during the q a period about because people kept asking what's going on with canada and i said well you're not going to believe this but our government and our media have told canadians that mega type republicans basically tried to stage a coup to destabilize our democracy and they would ask and this was democrats and republicans alike they would ask but why would we do that what possible motive if we cared which we don't why in the world would we possibly want to destabilize canada's democracy and the answer to that is well i i always felt as a representative candidate in that situation i always felt like i was in some sense out of my mind because i couldn't believe that i could present that complex of ideas as a reality and that there wasn't just something wrong with the way i was looking at the whole situation it's so utterly preposterous so well back to mr singh he ned he didn't support the truckers and at all no in and the ndp has abandoned the working class uh they they become another party of the elite institutional aristocracy uh that they represent um the those with um big salaries doing managerial work um in my many of whom have been able to work from home with fully protected salaries and incomes for the last two years um which is fine i mean there's nothing wrong with having there's no i don't begrudge anyone for having had that good fortune but it certainly if you are such a person um then you shouldn't be judging those who are protesting because they've lost everything over the last two years and you would think that you know the ndp would have actually stood for the downtrodden but that is not what they really believe and that goes back to what i was saying earlier like you were saying you know isn't it isn't that the left isn't the socialist parties that really care about the downtrodden and the disadvantage the answer is of course not that is the rhetoric what they really care about is a powerful state and anyone who threatens the state is the enemy and and that's what we saw with jagmeet singh you saw a group of people who were independently raising their voices for their freedom he said we can't have that we're gonna i'm gonna join with trudeau and call them a bunch of horrible names um and and that's what he did which is exactly the opposite of what you're supposed to do if you really care about working-class people well they seem the the the people who purported to to care for the working class and this certainly happened with the american democrats under clinton seem perfectly willing to sacrifice the economic interests of the real working class those people who exist right now to some hypothetical utopian future and every time push comes to shove the real working class takes a walloping hit in the name of this hypothetical future utopia you see that on the energy front we talked about policy there and that's certainly not only the case in canada it's like it's like a church show when he visited our home province of alberta and uh he just he saw the working classes in the energy sector and his son randolph said said these are not uh members of the cultural elite and he said churchill said to his son yes but the the elite are but the glittering scum that floats upon the river of production yeah well i think i think maybe that was part of the backlash against the truckers you know because these real people came out and said we got a problem here with you guys you're you're pushing us down a little too hard and maybe you could stop doing it you're fundamentally violating our civil liberties and we might point out that this is in a country that still does not allow its citizens to travel yes that's right and you know what what i think the real backlash by the elites against the truckers was a this idea that truckers have no business going to ottawa and raising their voices that's that's the idea that that the elites were trying to push back against they want they think that the working classes should just shut up and pay up and let the let the um the experts just run things for us and and and provide and with the population should provide total deference to these institutional elites to just run our lives for us and uh do what we're told now you stood up for the trucker so now you've had some time it's been a couple of months you've had some time to consider your position and so can you tell me what you think happened with the trucker protest and and then i'd like to segue into the imposition of the emergencies act which um you know is grist for the mill let's say in terms of discussion so tell me tell me your response to the trucker's protest in convoy and where you stood and where you stand so i as i said before the truckers even arrived on parliament hill when media asked me about it i support those peaceful law-abiding truckers who came to ottawa to peacefully protest for their livelihoods and liberties and i simultaneously condemn any individuals who broke laws behave badly or blockaded critical infrastructure i think it's possible to hold individually accountable in bad actors without painting every single person with the same brush if you went to any protest that had nine or ten thousand people you will find bad actors but that doesn't mean that all nine or ten thousand are uh are themselves bad actors um you know for example i was uh confronted by a journalist the other day said yes but what about those journalists who sorry what about those um those truckers that were angry at journalists who behaved badly or conducted themselves poorly uh what do you say to them i said well they should be individually held to account for their behavior but he said well don't you take some responsibility for supporting the cause i said well let me ask you this do you hold every single environmentalist personally responsible for the acts wielding terrorists who went to the coastal gaslink pipeline construction site and started trying to kill pipeline workers does every single person who's spoken out against pipelines take personal responsibility for what those ax-wielding terrorists did or are the t are the are the axe wielders themselves personally responsible and even i would say no you can criticize a pipeline i disagree with you you can criticize a pipeline without taking personal responsibility for the violence of some eco-terrorist you've never even met um and so i walked around i saw the truckers on parliament hill by the way those who most people weren't actually there the media depiction was total nonsense if you watched it on television you would think that it was armageddon um jordan every single member of parliament that that condemned the truckers in the house of commons during the protest had to walk right through the tucker trucker convoy right because they they were parked right up front there was no way to get in without walking through them and not one of them were prevented from from walking through um it was peaceful it was most of the time sort of a jubilant type celebration um and people came and went they walked around on parliament hill members of parliament of all political stripes walked through the protest every day without incident and yes it was some some businesses were inconvenienced and lost money they should be compensated but by and large it was a peaceful protest by people who generally don't get involved in political activism they're truckers they drive truck all day yeah they have things to do man they have things the other thing is what you know why didn't they all go home after the first week jordan they had nowhere to go because the government had taken away their jobs they weren't allowed to go back to their jobs you can imagine if trudeau had just said we're going to lift the mandate on the truckers they would have fired up their machines and hit the road to go back to work but he took away their jobs and their livelihoods no wonder they stayed there for so long and it was absolutely unscientific and malicious look if anyone is going to spread a virus as sure as hell's not the guy who's sitting alone by himself all day in a truck so this was never about medical science it was about political science it was about demonizing a small minority uh for political gain and i'm i'm proud of the fact that people stood up and fought for their freedoms in that uh that case yeah well there is a contempt associated with that on the liberal and the ndp side that was really quite striking to see like really quite mind-boggling to see and you know the other thing that struck me about the truckers because i talked to quite a few of them also publicly when the protest was occurring and suggested near the time when they did decide to leave that they should probably leave because the crazies were going to show up and cause trouble because i think if you occupy anything if you protest long enough and the people who want to cause trouble are going to gravitate and i think they left about exactly when they should and that they reached a lot of their goals i mean first of all they did blow up the conservative party which i know they didn't exactly intend to but that wasn't nothing and also um and maybe you disagree with that interpretation but also canada really started to move on the mandate front pretty much at the same time the truckers jumped up and down about it and so i thought they did extremely well and i also think the world responded that way because that protest became a model for similar and peaceful and useful protests all across the world so now do you what do you think happened to the conservatives in the aftermath of the trucker's protest am i being too harsh or no i look i i don't know that there's a direct link between the two um but i think um i think by and large uh the concert it was a difficult political challenge to hot potato for any political party to manage um but i can't speak for how everyone else in the caucus managed it or commented on it but i i'm happy with where i landed um i i pushed through the controversy and stood my ground and i i'm happy to say that i that my position on that protest is exactly the same as it was before it even arrived in ottawa and i believe i can defend everything i did and set on i'm going to ask you one last question i'd like to talk to you for about two more hours but we can't do that and i don't want to push the patients of the viewers listeners either let's talk about the emergencies act so what do you have to say about that well i mean it's ironic that trudeau brought in the emergencies act um [Music] after the the border crossings were cleared of protest which is the only you know the blockades of the border were wrong i said so at the time the but that being said they had been resolved by the time trudeau actually brought in the emergencies act and so what we effectively had at that point was about you know 10 or 11 blocks in downtown ottawa that were blocked by trucks you know to put this into perspective the emergencies act is sort of like a war measures act almost it's almost kind of like martial law yeah a lot like it we haven't actually done that in canada since this law was actually instituted his father did use the war measures act to a tackle um some terrorist attacks by the by a radical quebec separatist group but since that time we've not done it even in 9 11 when 24 25 canadians were killed in a terrorist attack in new york or when a terrorist shot dead a soldier at the war monument and then stormed parliament spraying bullets around in all directions we didn't use it then um and so we we've never really used this law you would think that it would be used in a case where there was a foreign invasion or a monstrous terrorist attack or something of that magnitude but we never did and then we trudeau did it for this protest i think he ultimately uh was um just angry that he was personally facing a political protest and didn't want to uh to to to face the con the political consequences of a democratic protest he also wanted to be as malicious as possible to deter any similar protest so he he actually seized bank accounts which caused a lot of people to have fear that if they ever donated to the wrong political cause that the state might freeze their account and shut them out of business so um i think there's a lot of um you know fear is a powerful political tool and i think that's what he was trying to invoke with the use of this act so what do you think should be done about the fact that he did in fact invoke it because this is a major league suspension of civil liberties this along with the fact that unvaccinated canadians still can't leave the country or fly within the country or take a train and i see no excuse whatsoever for the imposition of those restrictions as of now it's maliciousness it's vengefulness as far as i can tell so how how is the government going to be held accountable when we have what's essentially a coalition in place well it's going to be hard i mean i think it's going to have to be voters that will hold them to account when we finally have an election but um they will you know they've appointed a someone who was a former liberal liberal staffer to be the to to oversee the inquiry into the use of the act um i think uh we need i'm consulting with scholars legal scholars on how we can curtail the power and limit the use of the emergencies act in the future um i want to be very careful though in how i do it because i you know this is an incredibly blunt instrument but it you know in in times of war or foreign attack or something like that you could understand why there might be an occasion where these powers might be needed so we need but i do think we need to craft changes to the act that will prevent it from being abused for political purposes like this again so i said at the beginning i would be mindful of your time in our private conversation before we started and we are unfortunately running out of time and there's at least twice as many things as we got to that i would like to get to and so maybe we can do that in the future so i'd like to give you the opportunity at the end just to well is there anything we didn't talk about today that's of signal importance that you would like to bring up today and and and and close with yeah i i would just say um you know i think that we're we're divided right now in canada because of a deliberate strategy of divide and conquer governments that want to enhance their control they have to turn citizens against each other they have to make you afraid of your neighbor your co-worker your trucker so that you'll turn to the state for protection against your fellow citizenry and that's the oldest trick in the book divide and conquer control is by its definite by its nature divisive because it's a zero-sum game if one gets more control another must have less freedom is not the is the quite the contrary um if you your neighbor gets more freedom you don't get less freedom the likelihood is you'll have more as well so if your friend has more freedom of speech well you'll have freedom of speech if you are if the immigrant has the freedom to work as a doctor then you'll have the freedom to have a doctor if the local small businessman has the freedom to function without red tape then you'll probably have the freedom to buy his products more affordably or your teenager might get a job with the freedom to have a job with them you know if the muslim or jew gets more religious freedom then the christian gets more religious freedom and that's why freedom is a unifying principle it brings people together because it allows each of them to be masters of their own destiny without taking anything from each other we fight over control whereas we fight for freedom that is the difference and um i i believe we can bind up the nation's wounds by reinstating the ancient freedoms that we inherited from our ancestors and so i really see my role as quite an uh an unimportant one i'm here simply restoring what can it already belong to canadians um by virtue of their 800-year inheritance of english liberties going back to the magna carta i'm just among the the common people who are custodians of that freedom while we're alive you know edmund burke said it's a contract between the dead the living and yet to be born and we're the living generation has the duty to pass on that inheritance and that's what i i see myself doing is to re-kindle that inheritance and pass it on to my kids and so they can pass it on to their kids and i'll pass away into the uh fade away into the the past one day but hopefully we'll have secured the freedom that we inherited for many more generations to come and that's that's what i mean when i want to give people back control of their life in the present it's also um to extend it into the future so that's my purpose that's why i'm running i you know people want to support me by pierre4pm.ca yes that's pierre four the number four pm.ca is how you can sign up become a member and do that and i would be honored to have people's support in this enterprise mr pierre olive thank you very much for talking with me today much appreciate it i hope we get a chance to continue this conversation there's many more things that it would be a pleasure to jointly bring to the attention of canadians so and i would also say thank you for your i think your courage in allowing me to do this you know i've asked other politicians including some on the conservative side and i've had some agree um to speak with me but generally they seem intimidated by the span of time that stretches out in front of them or perhaps you know not cognizant fully of the power of youtube dialogue but um you well thank you very much for participating and for talking to me much appreciated thank you dr peterson i really appreciate your uh prodigious work and um we have enjoyed your books and uh look forward to continuing our conversation into the future [Music] you

Channel: Jordan B Peterson

Views: 2,742,349

Keywords: Jordan Peterson, Jordan B Peterson, psychology, psychoanalysis, Jung, existentialism, maps of meaning, biblical series, free speech, freedom of speech, biblical lectures, personality lectures, personality and transformations, Karl Jung, Jordan perterson, Dr Peterson, inflation, socialism in canada, canada socialists, canada socialism, Canada inflation, Justin trudeau opposition, Pierre Poilevre, Challenging Justin Trudeau, Future of canada, Canadian elections, Canada Trudeau

Id: C51jWWcrFc0

Length: 88min 59sec (5339 seconds)

Published: Mon May 16 2022

Reddit Comments

[u/rbatra91]

I think this video shows how stark the contrast is in how well-read poilievre is vs someone with a shallow understanding of the world like Trudeau.

[u/Canumpkin20]

Good interview. Regardless how one feels about Peterson, this type of format is (or should be) the future of how political ideas are communicated - rather than pointless debates or contrived corporate interviews.

If the interviewer is good, there's nowhere to hide. I thought JP did a pretty good job here & Pierre came across very well. Had no idea he was adopted, interesting part of his story.

I hope JP does one of these with Roman Baber aswell.

[u/urban_squid]

Good interview overall. A lot of talking points from his campaign, but still good stuff. I know Justin Trudeau would never do an interview with Peterson, so that speaks volumes about Pierre's character. He's honest and doesn't hide. Good for him. Has my vote.

[u/gatorback_prince]

Nice and straightforward interview as I'm listening to it.

[u/[deleted]]

Oh, this will be interesting. Peterson sometimes goes on weird tangents but I generally like him, and he's not afraid to be critical and ask tough questions. Hopefully that's what he does (I could see this being about Poillievre just flattering Peterson and letting him ramble on, but I know where Peterson sits and want to see how PP is).

Enough rambling and speculating, time to watch.

[u/[deleted]]

I ended up buying the $15 membership after watching this. When it comes time to vote, does anyone know the process?

[u/uberratt]

Not at all I asked to explain and instead of answering you give out gobbley goop.