Militarized censorship in Europe CELEBRATED by the media (ft. Barbara Kay)
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
181.87204
Summary
Barbara Kaye joins Candice to talk about J.D. Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference, and the legacy media's reaction to it. Plus, a story about a right wing magazine in Germany being accused of spreading "hate speech."
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hi, I'm Candice Malcolm, and welcome to the Candice Malcolm Show. Hope everyone is having
00:00:11.800
a great day so far. We have a wonderful show lined up for you today. Now, usually the focus
00:00:17.000
of our show is on Canadian politics and the Canadian news, and we will get to the Canadian
00:00:22.180
news today. But I want to start the show by focusing on a broader trend that we're seeing
00:00:27.540
around the world, and the epicenter of it is in Europe. And I'm talking about the assault
00:00:33.380
on free speech, this idea that somehow there is hate speech out there, there is misinformation
00:00:39.240
and disinformation, and we need government forces to correct the record, to regulate our speech,
00:00:45.100
and to crack down on ideas and opinions that society or government finds inappropriate. And
00:00:51.980
I think that this all came to a head with a speech that was given by Vice President J.D.
00:00:57.380
Vance at the Munich Security Council. So we're going to walk through the speech, we're going
00:01:01.380
to talk about the reaction, some of the really deranged takes when it comes to cheering and
00:01:07.040
celebrating what's happening in countries like Germany by the legacy media, and talk about
00:01:12.120
how it could impact Canada. We're already seeing signs of this sorts of behavior from the Trudeau
00:01:17.260
government from the Liberals in Canada. And it could possibly be a preview of what is
00:01:21.780
to come in our country. And I'm so pleased today, folks, to be joined by Barbara Kaye.
00:01:27.040
She's here for the whole show. Barbara is an author and columnist who has written for many
00:01:31.440
publications, but she's a regular columnist in the National Post. And she always has the
00:01:37.500
most interesting and intelligent take specifically on Canadian culture and values. So I'm really excited
00:01:43.600
to have her on the show. Barbara, thank you for joining us today.
00:01:45.660
Barbara Kaye. Pleasure to be here. Thanks, Candice.
00:01:48.860
And just one quick note to everybody watching. If you're watching the show on YouTube, please
00:01:53.600
subscribe to the channel. It really helps us out. And if you're watching on X, don't forget
00:01:57.740
to share this and repost it. If you're listening as a podcast and you enjoy it, please consider
00:02:02.460
leaving us a five star review. All of that really helps us out. It doesn't take you much
00:02:05.740
time and it really helps us find our audience. Okay, so I want to start with J.D. Vance.
00:02:10.940
This happened last Friday. So he was speaking at the Munich Security Conference in Germany,
00:02:16.660
and he gives a speech, a tremendous speech, I think. He's right sort of in the belly of
00:02:21.500
the beast in Europe, going into sort of their environment, going to one of their conferences.
00:02:28.700
And he says something that I think is entirely true, that there's so much consternation and outrage
00:02:35.980
from the establishment elites over this idea that somehow free speech is dangerous. This idea that
00:02:42.220
Elon Musk having X, taking over Twitter and having X, that there's something wrong with it. And somehow it
00:02:47.820
creates a threat to democracy, that when right wing parties win elections, somehow it's a threat to
00:02:52.060
democracy. So here is a clip, a brief clip of J.D. Vance that was really going viral,
00:02:57.740
talking about how expressing your opinion is not a threat to democracy and it's not election
00:03:03.260
interference. Here's that clip. Expressing opinions isn't election interference. Even when people express
00:03:10.060
views outside your own country, and even when those people are very influential. And trust me,
00:03:16.780
I say this with all humor, if American democracy can survive 10 years of Greta Thunberg scolding,
00:03:23.820
you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk.
00:03:27.660
And so, you know, maybe being a little bit provocative there, Barbara, but the idea remains
00:03:33.740
the same. Like, I applaud J.D. Vance for going into the environment. This is like, kind of like how
00:03:39.180
Javier Mele went to the World Economic Forum and spoke at WAF to tell them that what they were doing was wrong,
00:03:45.420
and that we needed change and that they should stop demonizing citizens for wanting transparency
00:03:50.060
from corrupt government. So I give J.D. Vance credit for that. And just like to provide more context. So
00:03:56.860
he's talking about the European Union, which is fully trying to enforce regulations and rules over
00:04:02.940
social media. The European Union constantly tries to interfere with these social media platforms,
00:04:08.220
enforcing speech codes, enforcing rules over their platforms. And another story that is happening
00:04:15.580
recently in Germany. They basically, the country, the top security officials banned a right-wing magazine,
00:04:22.780
accusing it of spreading hate. So we're talking about Compact magazine, which is a magazine that's
00:04:27.900
associated with the political party, the alternative for Germany, the conservative right-wing party.
00:04:32.540
The magazine was shut down, okay? The police force went in, raided the offices, raided the staff of
00:04:38.380
the homes, took their computers and everything else. The magazine had a circulation of about 40,000 people,
00:04:45.660
a pretty big publication. And again, the AFG is not like this alternative for Germany is a radical fringe
00:04:54.380
party. It's a mainstream party, Barbara. It got 16% of the vote in the recent election for the European
00:05:00.860
Parliament, which was the second highest vote count. So we're not talking about like a fringe
00:05:06.060
1% party. We're talking about a mainstream party. And I think that JD Vance going in there and saying
00:05:13.100
that was obviously necessary, given what those parties and what those countries are doing to
00:05:20.220
dissident voices. And again, I mean, we're seeing signs of those sorts of things happening in Canada
00:05:25.260
as well. What's, what's your take on all this? Well, I think that Germany has, unlike most countries
00:05:32.140
in the world, has a very special relationship with the whole idea of Nazism and people expressing Nazi,
00:05:42.700
what they consider to be neo-Nazi views. I have a certain sympathy for their, they do have a Holocaust
00:05:49.580
denial law. It's, you cannot, you may not deny the Holocaust. I kind of get it in their case.
00:05:57.820
That's a horrible legacy to be walking around with. And you see it playing out in many of their
00:06:03.580
discussions. In terms of the AFD, I think we should make a distinction between some of the members of
00:06:11.180
their party or people that, that intend to vote for them and make it clear that they like the party,
00:06:15.820
who are in fact neo-Nazis or, or who have sympathy or who try to minimize Germany's Holocaust history.
00:06:27.740
People that vote for them as one thing, they should have freedom, total freedom of speech. And so should,
00:06:31.500
I suppose, people that are within the party, but those people that have those kinds of views within
00:06:37.580
the party, you don't have to shut down their speech, but you do have to get them out of the party. And
00:06:41.660
that's, and they do have a few people within the party that are expressing problematic views. If
00:06:47.820
they're smart, they'll, like Marine Le Pen did, you just, you just draw a line and you say, you can't
00:06:53.500
do that in our party. We're not going to shut down the speech of Germans who vote for us. It's unfortunate
00:06:59.340
that they like us, but you know, you could say the same about the left-wing parties. They have some
00:07:05.660
horrible Islamo-fascists in their party. I mean, not within the party voting for them. It's the same
00:07:13.580
with on both sides. You have, you have terrible people on both sides, extremists at the margins,
00:07:19.820
but that's the distinction I would make. I think it's important what you mentioned
00:07:24.380
about how Germany obviously has to be careful with their past and they don't want to go down,
00:07:29.180
you know, past that they had gone down in the past and drawing the line around, for instance,
00:07:34.220
the Holocaust. That, that makes sense. It seems to me though, Barbara, that the, the consternation,
00:07:39.180
it's, it's being like blown out of proportion and this idea that you can't like, to me, when I look
00:07:45.260
at the alternative for Germany, I see a party kind of based on more ideas that are becoming more
00:07:50.620
mainstream with immigration, saying that we don't want mass open borders. We are worried about crime
00:07:56.380
that comes from refugees. We're worried about people coming that have totally different values.
00:08:01.500
And the fact that a party that is so regularly demonized by the media as being far right,
00:08:06.060
and I take your point that there are some people probably within the margins or that vote for the
00:08:10.540
party that are extremists, that are Nazis, that are, that, that should be, uh, disassociated with the
00:08:15.340
party. Uh, but I think that the reason why they probably got 16% of the vote is because enough people
00:08:20.940
in the country don't care about those labels anymore. Like you can call someone far right all day,
00:08:26.140
but if their message resonates with you and you want to send a message to the elites saying,
00:08:30.860
I don't, we don't want this to happen to our country anymore. I think that that's, that, that,
00:08:35.660
that's, that's what's happening. I want to read a bit more of the reactions to JD Vance's speech.
00:08:39.900
So Andrew Coyne, uh, columnist of the global mail wrote on X, he said,
00:08:44.380
Yankee go home. Vance meets with the leader of the far right German party exports mega message.
00:08:50.220
We also had, uh, Tom Nuttall from the economist who wrote this. He said, it's hard to overstate
00:08:55.900
the outrage in Munich over JD Vance's actions today, a de facto campaign speech on behalf of the AFD
00:09:03.020
one week before the election, entirely devoid of substance on security as Europe caves, um,
00:09:09.580
craves an understanding of us policy on Ukraine. Then he goes on to say, and some context for my
00:09:14.540
us followers, the AFD is considered sufficiently extreme that parts of the party are under
00:09:20.060
under domestic surveillance. And then he says that it's no trivial matter for the VP, uh, to meet
00:09:25.900
with them. But I think to me, Barbara, this undermines, this underlines the point, the idea
00:09:30.860
that the government has weaponized part of its security apparatus to go after a political party
00:09:36.700
to try to shut down their speech, even though they're what I would call a mainstream party. If
00:09:41.260
you're getting 16% of the vote in a multi-party system, number two, um, out of all the parties,
00:09:46.300
it, it, it shouldn't be considered extreme. Them calling it right wing or far right. And them
00:09:51.340
saying that it's under domestic security to, to me, that's, that's exactly the kind of thing that
00:09:56.700
warranted JD Vance to be speaking out against it. I do think there, yes, I think there is certainly,
00:10:02.460
uh, uh, a spectrum that that's the trouble when you start to, uh, shut down certain kinds of speech
00:10:09.500
that are really disturbing. Uh, then you'll start, you'll start working your way back to speech that
00:10:15.020
is, I think there are too many immigrants, which is obviously should be not totally uncontroversial,
00:10:20.940
um, and isn't, uh, the leader of the AFD is Alice Vidal. She is herself a lesbian. Her partner is from
00:10:29.740
Sri Lanka. I mean, I don't think that she is going to be calling for all non-ethnic Germans to be leaving
00:10:38.060
the country anytime soon. Um, so yes, I agree with you that, uh, to, to, uh, be terribly frightened
00:10:46.620
about their, I think you should look at their policies and if their, their actual policies don't
00:10:51.180
seem to be terribly different from, um, a lot of Republican policies in the United States. Uh, so
00:10:59.100
it's, I think it's unfair to keep calling the AFD far right, far right, far right. Like they,
00:11:03.100
they, every time they mention that party, there's, you know, uh, there's always that attached to it.
00:11:07.900
Although nobody ever says the far left Democrats, even though a lot of Democrats within the party
00:11:14.060
are extremely, uh, far left. Uh, and even in the Republican party, there are some far right. There's
00:11:20.460
like Marjorie Greene. I mean, there are far right, uh, extremists. Um, so I really, I, I think you have to
00:11:28.140
watch what, what, what the policies are. Uh, and if all those people are supporting them,
00:11:33.180
then you have to take a good look at why and why they can't, why they can't find what they're
00:11:38.140
looking for in the other parties, which are completely normal things like too much immigration
00:11:43.500
and all of that. Right. And so on top of all of this, this is an amusing thing that happens. So
00:11:49.100
the American news network CBS has a show called 60 minutes. It's one of the best media and journalism
00:11:56.700
shows that, you know, that has existed for decades and they go in right at the same time
00:12:02.140
and do a special on German prosecutors who are cracking down on free speech. So, you know,
00:12:08.620
we had the JD Vance speech, everybody's talked about making headlines over the weekend. And then
00:12:12.780
on Sunday, CBS airs the 60 minute clip, Barbara, it is unbelievable to me, this segment, right? So the,
00:12:20.940
the premise is that in Germany, it is a crime to insult people and it is a crime to
00:12:26.700
lie online, even if you don't even know that you're lying. And so CBS covers this,
00:12:31.580
but not in a critical way at all. They're basically cheerleading this idea that in Germany,
00:12:37.020
the police can go after people online. I didn't sense a little, even, even a hint of criticism or
00:12:45.180
skepticism towards these activities by the German prosecutors that, you know, from a North American
00:12:51.660
mind. It's like, it, it's wild that they're doing this and to have a journal, like journalists are
00:12:56.540
supposed to advocate for free speech and believe in it as a good. Um, I'm going to show this clip.
00:13:03.180
Um, so this is what it looked like. A, uh, CBS reporter, uh, Chiron Alfonsi, uh, talking to the
00:13:09.660
German prosecutors, what they're saying is wild and her reaction, like not to push back, not to question
00:13:14.540
it, not to be skeptical, but just to go, Oh wow, that's interesting. Uh, really something to behold.
00:13:18.620
So let's play that clip. Is it a crime to insult somebody in public? Yes. Yes, it is. And it's
00:13:25.500
a crime to insult them online as well? Yes. The fine could be even higher if you insult someone
00:13:32.780
in the internet. Why? Because in internet, it stays there. If somebody posts something that's not true
00:13:40.620
and then somebody else reposts it or likes it, are they committing a crime? In the case of reposting,
00:13:47.260
it is a crime as well because, um, the reader can't distinguish whether you just invented this
00:13:53.020
or just reposted it. That's the same for us. And so from there, from this interview where,
00:13:59.580
you know, they, they, they say, yes, um, saying mean things about politicians is against the law
00:14:05.020
in Germany. You cannot say it. Um, and it's even worse to do it online. Uh, so, so from there, Barbara,
00:14:11.020
we get to see a CBS camera crew join the German police as they raid somebody's house again for
00:14:18.460
the crime of posting a meme on the internet that the government didn't like. Let's play that clip.
00:14:23.580
It's 6.01 on a Tuesday morning. And we were with state police as they raided this apartment in
00:14:31.980
northwest Germany. Inside, six armed officers searched a suspect's home, then seized his laptop
00:14:41.980
and cell phone. Prosecutors say those electronics may have been used to commit a crime. The crime,
00:14:49.420
posting a racist cartoon online. And so I guess this is nothing new. We've seen this kind of
00:14:56.460
thing happening in the UK. Possibly it'll come to Canada soon. But the thing that really blows my
00:15:02.060
mind, Barbara, is to hear the giddy CBS reporter talking about it. Like here we are raiding this
00:15:08.700
house, knocking down the door with our, with our police squad here, uh, to arrest this person for
00:15:14.140
a meme that we didn't like. It's pretty creepy. It's pretty creepy. Um, I, I, I, I think there are
00:15:22.460
similar laws in, in the UK. I've seen some same kind of footage, somebody being arrested for having
00:15:30.380
made some, it wasn't even, I mean, it was a very nothing comment on the internet and the whole SWAT
00:15:35.900
team arrives and sees him and his computer, um, or the woman who was arrested in, in England, uh, in London
00:15:43.660
for praying silently, uh, outside an abortion clinic. She wasn't even moving her lips. I mean, and she was
00:15:51.180
arrested, uh, for doing that. Yes. I think free speech is in dire trouble in Europe and the UK. And I
00:16:00.140
don't think that what JD Vance said was so harsh at all. I think it was pretty, I think it was pretty
00:16:09.900
transparent, strong. Uh, but I heard that some members of the audience were actually weeping, uh,
00:16:17.260
at, at what he had to say. So it does give you a portrait of, of a Europe that really, um, what's
00:16:26.460
happened to their values, what's happened to their, their, you know, if this is what they have to stoop
00:16:31.340
to and they don't even define insult. I find, I find it very disturbing when somebody won't define,
00:16:37.100
won't automatically define what they mean. Well, when I say insult, I don't mean, you know,
00:16:42.540
oh, you looked fat on TV today or something like that. I mean, you know, that it has.
00:16:50.780
Investing is all about the future. So what do you think is going to happen?
00:16:54.860
Bitcoin is sort of inevitable at this point. I think it would come down to precious metals.
00:16:59.900
I hope we don't go cashless. I would say land is a safe investment. Technology companies.
00:17:05.660
Solar energy. Robotic pollinators might be a thing. A wrestler to face a robot. That will have,
00:17:11.580
they'll have to happen. So whatever you think is going to happen in the future,
00:17:16.060
you can invest in it at Wealthsimple. Start now at Wealthsimple.com.
00:17:20.380
It's, it could be anything. It could be anything that you say that it's taken. It's the person who
00:17:29.820
decides, right? The person who feels insulted that decides. This is, this is a very slippery
00:17:35.100
slope. There's no question. Well, it's interesting because I think that so many people, including
00:17:39.340
sort of elites in North America and Canada and the US, sort of believe that Europeans are more,
00:17:45.980
more enlightened or, you know, more sophisticated in their political views than us in North America.
00:17:52.300
And they kind of look to Europe, like we should be more like them. I just want, when I, when I look
00:17:57.340
at what's happening in Europe, I mean, the fact that they're cracking down on speech like this,
00:18:02.460
the fact that they've completely opened their borders and flooded it with migrants that many,
00:18:08.220
many cases aren't well suited to live in the West, they're kind of giving it all away. And to me,
00:18:13.740
it's, it's, it's kind of a terrifying idea that you have someone like Mark Carney, who identifies
00:18:19.020
himself as European, who has this sophisticated views, like we need to be more like the Europeans.
00:18:24.220
I think it's the exact opposite. It's, it's, it's frightening. And I think that Canada should do
00:18:28.860
everything it can to, to, to, to move away from this kind of speech regulations and codes and
00:18:35.180
trying to censor the internet. Oh, absolutely. What goals me, of course,
00:18:40.220
and many other Canadians is that they talk a lot about our speech, but they don't seem to
00:18:47.980
care much when you hear speech in our streets, in violent demonstrations of the worst kind of hatred,
00:18:54.780
that true Nazi style violent speech that is insightful. And that is absolutely totally
00:19:06.940
unacceptable. And even by the criminal code is, is considered insightful incitement to violence.
00:19:13.420
Those people are not arrested in their homes or they don't get SWAT teams, you know, they don't go to
00:19:18.940
jail, most of them. So, um, the hypocrisy, the double standards are, are disturbing to me as well.
00:19:25.420
Okay. I have one more thing from CBS and again, to do with Germany. So on the same evening, Sunday
00:19:31.580
evening, we had CBS news news is Margaret Brenner on her show face the nation. She was on with secretary
00:19:37.900
of state, Marco Rubio. And she makes quite a bizarre statement, Barbara. She says that free speech was
00:19:45.260
weaponized in Nazi Germany and that that is what caused the Holocaust. Marco Rubio very, very calmly
00:19:53.580
and very correctly, uh, sets the record straight here. Uh, but let's, let's play this clip and then
00:19:58.780
I'll have you react to it, Barbara. He was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to
00:20:05.260
conduct a genocide. And he met with the head of a political party that has far right views and some
00:20:14.220
historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that,
00:20:24.540
that the censorship was specifically about the right. No, I have to disagree with you.
00:20:31.020
Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi
00:20:35.580
regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they
00:20:40.060
hated those that they, they had a list of people that hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free
00:20:44.540
speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. Well, and it's even more interesting than that because it was
00:20:50.140
actually, uh, censorship laws in the Weimar Republic that in many ways led to the rise of Nazism because
00:20:57.420
they had such strict codes on speech in Germany between the first and second world war. So I just
00:21:02.940
want to play a quick clip. Um, this is from an organization called fire the foundation, uh, for,
00:21:08.380
I think it's independent research and education, um, an American free speech group. They, uh, this clip
00:21:14.060
started circulating. It was from a year, a year or two ago. Um, but here we have, um, basically, um,
00:21:21.500
a scholar at, um, um, uh, uh, sorry, a fire senior fellow, Nadim Strawson explaining how the history of
00:21:30.300
censorship actually made antisemitism much worse and it paved the way for the Nazis. Let's play that clip.
00:21:37.580
We obviously know that despite the speech suppression, the punishment of speech,
00:21:44.940
it was hardly effective in preventing the rise of Nazism. To the contrary, the Nazis themselves,
00:21:53.260
as well as many historians believe that the net impact of those laws censoring Nazi speech
00:22:06.700
Megan Brenner was completely wrong. The exact opposite, actually, the things that they're doing
00:22:11.580
today to censor what you could argue led more to the rise of Nazis than this idea that somehow
00:22:17.740
Nazi Germany was like a free speech utopia and that's how they managed to carry out the slaughter.
00:22:22.700
Um, what, what was your take on all that, Barbara?
00:22:25.100
I think you're absolutely right. Uh, she, she's very wrong about, uh, by the time the Nazis, uh, gained power,
00:22:33.100
nobody was, uh, everybody was very careful of what they were. I mean, they, they had absolute control
00:22:39.260
and, uh, uh, uh, the punishment could be quite dire if you, you know, expressed hatred of them or you, or,
00:22:46.540
or criticism of them. So she was, she was totally off base there. And I do believe that the second
00:22:51.900
speaker Nadine Strauss was right in that, uh, the more you try to suppress certain things, uh, the more
00:22:58.940
pushback you're going to get. And if it's a free society and people can vote, they will vote against
00:23:03.900
you. I think, look, you just look at our past history and then in the last nine years, people
00:23:07.820
that weren't allowed to talk, say what they felt about issues, gender. And I mean, the whole DEI thing is
00:23:14.860
suppression of speech, cancel culture, culture, all of that. Um, and they are reaping, you know,
00:23:21.180
the liberal party has, has reaped their just reward in becoming more and more unpopular. And it's
00:23:27.340
largely due to, and the same in the United States and accounts for Trump's victory. A lot of it was
00:23:32.460
cultural. Uh, they, people were tired of, you know, having to keep their mouth shut about this,
00:23:38.140
that, and the other, uh, and, and that was their former rebellion and who can blame them.
00:23:42.860
Well, I hope you're right. I hope that this, uh, leads us away from this regime of the,
00:23:47.980
you know, the online harms bill that Justin Trudeau and his government are introducing,
00:23:52.060
um, along with, uh, you know, a whole host of other regulations and legislation designed to try
00:23:58.300
to regulate the internet, to try to crack down on so-called hate speech or misinformation,
00:24:02.860
uh, terms that are always very vaguely defined, Barbara. Um, I want to pivot now to talk about Pierre
00:24:08.460
Polyev because he, he gave a speech on Saturday night and we, we did discuss it on the show on
00:24:14.700
Monday, but I think that there was so much to the speech, uh, that it's worth going through it
00:24:19.740
in a little more depth. And also just to talk about this moment, right? Cause here we are
00:24:24.140
in 2025, all of a sudden, um, patriotism and Canadian pride are, are back in, in style, uh,
00:24:31.020
after five years or even longer of liberals and elitists and left-wingers saying that, that there's
00:24:36.620
something disgraceful about Canada, uh, that Canada's genocidal, that, that there's shame in
00:24:40.700
being Canadian and we shouldn't celebrate Canada day. We should have our flags that have staff,
00:24:44.620
all this stuff. Um, and then now all of a sudden, uh, Donald Trump, you know, makes,
00:24:48.940
makes an offhand comment and proposes a trade tariff. And suddenly, uh, you know, you have people,
00:24:55.100
uh, policing products in supermarkets saying, don't buy American goods, buy the Canadian goods.
00:25:00.460
And, uh, suddenly everyone wants to fly the Maple Leaf again. So in, in that context,
00:25:04.780
we had Pierre Polyev give us a, a very strong speech on Saturday evening. He held his Canada
00:25:11.180
first rally. This was, uh, on the anniversary of the 60th anniversary of the Maple Leaf flag being
00:25:18.300
introduced in Canada. So he held the event in Ottawa, hundreds of thousands of people were watching
00:25:23.900
it live online. We had, I think upwards of 10,000 people in person, uh, watching this event. Um,
00:25:31.740
and I mean, you can just see the, the visuals of it, Barbara, before we get into the context of it,
00:25:37.500
it looked beautiful, right? This beautiful big flag, um, this kind of like youthful candidate
00:25:43.820
with his beautiful wife. They come out, you had Anna Polyev give an amazing introduction. She's an
00:25:49.260
inspiring person herself. And then she, she, she introduces her husband and I, I really appreciated
00:25:55.340
the way he started out the speech. He sort of made a self-deprecating joke saying, you know,
00:25:59.260
everybody always asks like, what is she doing with him? Um, which was, which was very like humble and
00:26:05.580
sweet. Um, and so, you know, just, just without even talking about the, um, the con the content,
00:26:12.540
um, just the way it looked, I think that it really kind of breathed a lot of energy into
00:26:17.660
the conservative side when it comes to Canadian patriotism. Conservatives were the one that maintained
00:26:23.820
our patriotism throughout the last 10 years while the liberals were telling us not to do it. Um,
00:26:28.540
and so it was kind of nice to see him maintain that. So I'll, I'll, I'll do like, what did you,
00:26:33.180
what was your overall takeaway from the, uh, the speech there?
00:26:36.140
I, I, I did love his speech and I, I actually posted it on X and said, I think it was the best
00:26:42.900
political speech I ever heard. And I, and I agree the visuals were great. I think that his, uh,
00:26:48.060
choice to kind of echo the America first, you know, Donald Trump's America first message with
00:26:54.760
Canada first was, uh, bold, but he did it with class and he did it, uh, you know, he sort of got
00:27:00.380
above the fray doing it. And I thought he did it very well. Um, I, I love the speech. I thought
00:27:06.040
the trajectory of the speech he took, he took us on a journey and that's what a good speech should
00:27:12.000
do. And, uh, he elicited many, many different reactions. He certainly in me and I'm, I've seen
00:27:17.520
a lot of speeches in my time and I'm generally sit, sitting back and listening. I like that. I don't
00:27:21.820
like that. But at this time I, I sort of got carried away, uh, not carried away, but I got carried
00:27:26.720
along by, um, his, his, uh, very, very well constructed, very well crafted, uh, a journey
00:27:35.760
of ideas, but, and emotions intertwined. And I thought he did a brilliant job and he started
00:27:41.580
off, um, with the personal as one should, uh, and I'm, by the way, I think all of it was
00:27:47.300
calculated. Not only, he was not only speaking to Canadians. Um, he was speaking to Donald Trump,
00:27:52.320
but he was also speaking to Mark Kearney. So he had, he had a triple message, um, and,
00:27:58.180
uh, it had to be effective on, on, on many different levels. So he began with the personal,
00:28:03.140
uh, he and his wife, his wife is an immigrant and came to this country and he is from very
00:28:08.120
ordinary, um, you know, kind of, uh, up from poverty background. Um, and the, the, the message
00:28:15.980
here was we're not elite. We're not, we don't come from privilege like Mark Kearney. Uh,
00:28:22.100
but we, uh, we know that we, we, we knew that Canada would keep its promise to us. Anna came
00:28:29.760
to, um, Canada because she believed in Canada's promise and Canada, he said, Canada kept its
00:28:36.500
promise to us. So we are products of a Canada that is a good place, a great country. Um, so
00:28:43.680
the whole thing is going to get back to how can we recapture the greatness of Canada? So
00:28:47.880
he set it up as, uh, that, and then, uh, he moves into, but, but presently we're under
00:28:53.780
threat. So now, now we're getting a little nervous. What is the threat? And he explains
00:28:57.500
the threat. Uh, we know what the threat is. Um, but we can do something about that. So,
00:29:03.080
you know, don't worry. Uh, we, we can deal with that threat. Yes. Uh, we have energy, we
00:29:08.880
have leverage. Don't be afraid. That's the next message. Then the next one is a statement
00:29:14.880
a statement to the American people. He does not mention Donald Trump by name through most
00:29:18.880
of his speech. He was above Trump, uh, and, and deals, uh, talks directly to the American
00:29:25.100
people. And he says, you Americans, we are both suffering. We are both going to suffer.
00:29:30.980
And he, uh, he says, you know, so that's, we're together on this. We're not, we should
00:29:36.940
not be enemies. We're together. We can fix this. Um, we're not asking for pity. And, um,
00:29:42.780
and, uh, then on to, uh, our shared history, who would you rather have as a neighbor? We
00:29:50.960
have great shared history, military, blah, blah, blah. Uh, now he gets into a warning. We
00:29:56.980
will never be the 51st state. And now, now he's starting to sort of come out like an, you
00:30:02.260
know, with the gloves on, uh, we will bear any burden. He still hasn't mentioned Donald
00:30:06.580
Trump. Now it's, um, we are going to be the road ahead. We are going to be the wealthiest
00:30:13.100
country. Uh, but now he's pivoting to Carney and Trudeau and, uh, and all our problems that
00:30:19.720
they created and how, now here's the list of problems, energy, homes, taxes, all those.
00:30:25.240
Now we pivot to the conservatives. We were right about everything. We, we were, we knew
00:30:31.200
what those problems were. We have a solution to fix them. So we were right. They were wrong.
00:30:35.840
And he's now including from now on, everything is Carney, Trudeau, Carney, Trudeau,
00:30:40.380
Carney, Trudeau. The media, they were wrong about us and they said this not true. Uh,
00:30:46.160
then it's on to be afraid of Mark Carney, not only afraid, you don't have to be just
00:30:50.520
afraid of Donald Trump. You have to be afraid of Mark Carney too. And here's why. Um, and
00:30:55.460
in a sense, you know, uh, Carney's, uh, uh, moving his headquarters to New York. So
00:31:00.940
actually, you know, Carney and Donald Trump, they have a certain amount of certain things
00:31:05.260
in common, but it's the first mention of Donald Trump's name. Uh, and then he has a
00:31:09.720
very strong, it's a bit scary, very strong paragraph. He says, Mark Carney is going to
00:31:14.620
plagiarize all our stuff. And he, he, he put his profit before our people. If he wins,
00:31:21.800
Canada loses. This is, I think a very strong statement, but don't be afraid. Now we move
00:31:27.940
into his bring it home economic plan and the detail and precision is really excellent because
00:31:33.620
Carney is not talking in precision in details or being precise at all. Sorry, I'm rambling
00:31:39.700
on and on, but, uh, now we get into, uh, you know, uh, trade barriers and the border security
00:31:48.460
and the, uh, fentanyl, uh, he can be tough. We're going to have harsher punishments, but he
00:31:54.660
has compassion because we're going to deal with treatment. Um, now it's defense, um, and
00:31:59.960
wasteful aid to, I mean, there's so many policy things that he's covering here. I think that's
00:32:04.960
remarkable in a speech like this, where he's not, he's really putting out a very full platform.
00:32:10.300
Now we're coming to the climax, patriotism, citizenship. Um, we're going to end cancel culture.
00:32:17.220
We're going to end the war on history. We are the greatest country in the world. We're going to
00:32:21.900
reinstate statues. You know, he's, I mean, the details are fantastic. We're going to bring back
00:32:29.360
our proud military traditions. We're going to promote a, now this I liked a lot. Oh, now we're
00:32:35.540
into inspiration. So it's, we're very climactic here. We're into inspiration for what's going to
00:32:40.380
be. Here's my tactics. We're going to promote common national identity. We're going to bridge
00:32:45.820
differences rather than create differences. Um, and he talks about our citizenship is precious.
00:32:53.480
I loved what he said when he said, we're going to have a new part of the citizenship oath. We're
00:32:59.000
going to have in-person citizenship. I mean, isn't it awful that we got to the point where we actually,
00:33:03.780
you know, it's like, Oh yeah, we'll just zoom it in here. Well, uh, yeah, yeah. Here's your,
00:33:07.400
we'll send your certificate by email. You know, really in-person citizenship oaths and added to the
00:33:14.140
oath will be the theme of gratitude, gratitude for being part of the greatest country in the world.
00:33:22.940
And you should know that, and you should express it in words. You have to say so. Um, and then he
00:33:28.400
says, you have to leave your hate behind, whatever your hate. And he names a whole bunch of names to
00:33:32.220
indicate all the different ethnic, you know, uh, sources of hatred in the world. And, and he says,
00:33:37.420
leave it behind. You are Canadian first. This is a fantastic message. Um, so, and then
00:33:44.120
now back to the summary, but it's a great summary because he adds a new thought to it. He, he reprises
00:33:51.880
much as what he said in the speech, but then he had something very new. And he says, um,
00:33:58.440
a warning, this is, it's not going to be easy to re-achieve the Canadian promise. It's not going to be easy,
00:34:04.760
but it's going to be hard, but what's going to help us in that journey? The past is going to teach us
00:34:14.680
how to be strong in bearing the burden of what, you know, to get back to our, our Canadian promise.
00:34:21.640
And then he mentions, was it, do you think it was easy for the indigenous people to live in minus
00:34:27.160
30 or 40 degree and build their igloos? And like, you know, uh, what about immigrants who built the
00:34:33.080
railway? What about the military and the world wars? And what about individuals like Terry Fox?
00:34:39.160
We are part of something bigger than ourselves. He said, this is beautiful because
00:34:45.160
who made Canada? And he's, he just lists everybody, including brave, courageous individuals
00:34:51.160
with a strong message of hope and everything else that you want to hear. I thought it was a brilliant
00:34:57.000
speech. I, I felt myself going with him. I thought I, I, he took me along and I, I was,
00:35:03.320
I was willing to suspend any kind of, you know, uh, like there was no point at which I said, wait a minute,
00:35:10.680
wait a minute. Hey, now you're, now you're getting corny or now you're getting, you know, this is your,
00:35:15.160
you're promising too much or any of that. So I, yes, I loved it as you can see.
00:35:20.440
Well, no, I love the, the story that you told about it and you really, uh, made some clear
00:35:26.360
points that I hadn't even really thought about. I think, I think you're right when it comes to,
00:35:31.240
this is an alternative to the nine years of liberals that we can all look forward to.
00:35:35.400
We can all get excited about, I have the blueprint, I have the plan and it's not something new. He didn't
00:35:40.520
just come up with it in the wake of the tariff threats from president Trump. These are the things
00:35:45.560
that he's been talking about and advocating for his entire career. And I do, I do agree that the
00:35:50.360
that those are the least necessary, the least that we can do. Those are the first steps towards
00:35:56.200
regaining our country, uh, taking back our country and restoring it. I think that it's also interesting
00:36:02.360
just to add a point that the legacy media will claim that Pierre Polyev doesn't have a plan,
00:36:07.560
that he doesn't have depth, that he just speaks in talking points and bumper stickers. And that's
00:36:11.960
sort of what the liberals, uh, have said as well, Mark Kearney. Uh, but here you have,
00:36:16.520
you know, Pierre Polyev get up on a Saturday night and speak in great detail for an hour and a half
00:36:22.280
about his plans and his, and his policies in really even telling us how he's going to pay for them,
00:36:28.760
right? Like, yes, I'm going to beef up our military. We're going to start patrolling the Arctic. We're
00:36:33.640
going to build in the North and I'm going to pay for it by defunding foreign aid and defunding UNRWA.
00:36:39.160
And, and, and here you go, here's how I'm going to pay for it. And then you can contrast that with
00:36:43.480
Mark Kearney, who everybody thinks is super smart and sophisticated. Um, but he hasn't given a plan
00:36:49.480
at all. And the few points that he's put out there often seem to contradict each other. Like his,
00:36:54.360
you know, will he get rid of the carbon tax? No, it's going to be changed to an industrial thing
00:36:59.480
that he says that won't trickle down to consumers. But then he has to admit that, yes, it is the consumers
00:37:04.520
that will pay more. Um, he, he has a very limited and confused, uh, policy right now.
00:37:10.280
I just want to go back to Pierre Polyev, um, because I, I agree with you. And I think that
00:37:15.400
some of the ideas like citizenship ceremonies in person, yes, obviously I love the idea of adding
00:37:20.200
gratitude. In some ways it felt a little bit like it was too little, too late though, Barbara,
00:37:24.840
I think that part of the problem with the Trudeau government is that they completely opened the
00:37:29.000
gate and anyone could become a citizen. And I've been critical of this since Trudeau came to office.
00:37:34.440
So in one of the first things he did when he became prime minister back in 2015 is he changed
00:37:39.240
the citizenship laws. He made it so that you can become a citizen basically fast-tracked after just
00:37:44.280
four years. And you don't even have to live in Canada full-time to become a citizen. So he's given
00:37:49.720
citizenship away, which has cheapened it for all of us. And I, I didn't, I didn't hear even,
00:37:55.400
so I sat down with Pierre Polyev last week and I asked him about his immigration plan.
00:37:59.240
He said it would look a lot more like the Harper government, but he didn't give me
00:38:02.600
specifics. And you know, one of the things I'm worried about is the, the, the, the changes that
00:38:08.760
have happened to our country, um, over the last nine years with people not really caring about Canada,
00:38:14.040
people being able to become citizens of our country without, you know, showing any kind of love
00:38:18.680
for Canada, any kind of respect for Canada. Um, there's one, there's one part in the speech and
00:38:24.200
I'm going to play it and I'll get you to react. This was making the rounds a lot,
00:38:28.440
sort of on the more like right wing, um, circles online, um, by kind of more Canadian nationalists,
00:38:34.440
um, who took issue with this one clip. So Sean, this is clip number eight. Um, Pierre Polyev says
00:38:39.880
that our nationalism is not based on bloodlines, birthplace, or backgrounds. Uh, let's play that clip.
00:38:45.480
Ours is a nationalism not based on bloodlines, birthplace, or background. Whether your name is
00:38:53.480
Martin or Mohammed, Polyev or Patel. Tremblay. Hi there, Mr. Patel. Good to see you.
00:39:08.840
Or like Tremblay. Tremblay or Tang, Singh, Smith or Steinberg. Whether you're from Tuktayaktuk or
00:39:16.040
Trois-Rivières, Okanagan or Oromocto, Calgary or Cavendish, we are all Canadians and Canadians first.
00:39:23.400
Oh, I, I think it was a little charming how we, how he said that and how he, he, he talked about,
00:39:29.960
you know, Mr. Patel. But my, my, my issue here is it's starting to sound a little bit like Trudeau's
00:39:35.880
post-national, everyone's a Canadian, Canadian's nothing, Canadian's a Canadian's Canadian.
00:39:40.200
If you say that our nationalism is not based on bloodlines, birthplace, or background,
00:39:45.240
I mean, it has to be based on one of those three, right? I mean, what, what, what is Canadian if it
00:39:49.480
has nothing to do with like who your family and who your parents were, where you're born,
00:39:54.120
your background? I like to, to me, there needs to be more to that. You have to say,
00:39:58.440
in order to be Canadian, you know, you can come from these other places, but you have to commit
00:40:03.160
to Canada. You have to believe in Canada. You have to, and I just think there could have been a lot
00:40:08.680
more that he had added to that bit. What do you think? He could have, he could have, he could have
00:40:12.120
doubled down on it. I, I drew from what he said, um, that, uh, bloodlines should not be important on
00:40:20.920
that. You can become Canadian. Uh, I think partly he was saying that with, with, with like his wife
00:40:27.960
is an immigrant. I mean, she's from Venezuela. That doesn't mean she's not Canadian. She became Canadian
00:40:32.920
because she joined the common culture. And I think maybe he should have, all right, he could have,
00:40:39.320
could have emphasized that we have a common culture. It was built by, you know, people from
00:40:45.720
all over people who built the railways and people, you know, indigenous people. Like, I mean, he said it,
00:40:51.240
but he said it in a kind of roundabout way is that we became who we were by all these different energies
00:41:00.520
and forces. He could have said, uh, uh, we, we began as, uh, uh, a common culture based on
00:41:12.680
British values. I mean, we're, you know, a heritage values, British and French because of,
00:41:19.400
but I think by now, all these years later, um, that I don't know if that would have gone over very
00:41:27.720
well, even with heritage Canadians, I don't think any heritage Canadian has a problem with somebody
00:41:33.480
from Venezuela or from India or from China or anywhere who becomes very Canadian. And I know
00:41:42.680
lots of people from other places. They love Canada. If you love Canada and you love the reason that you,
00:41:49.240
if you came to Canada to have freedom and an opportunity and for the Canadian promise,
00:41:55.480
then you've already acknowledged if you don't have, it doesn't have to be in words. You have
00:41:59.160
acknowledged that Canada has what you're not getting where you came from. Um, whether that,
00:42:06.600
that maybe that should be more explicit, but then it might sound a little bit patronizing or
00:42:11.800
mean-spirited to, you know, say it, say it, you know, but yeah, I mean, I think he said we,
00:42:19.400
to me, it seemed like we have a common culture and we will be stronger for all the people that come
00:42:24.680
from different places. If they leave whatever was bugging them about other people behind,
00:42:32.680
leave your hatred behind and bring your best self to Canada and, um, internalize our common culture
00:42:42.040
that, that gave us the Canadian promise and that fulfilled it for me and my wife. Like
00:42:46.840
maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that was my takeaway from it.
00:42:54.520
That's what I wanted him. Maybe that's what I wanted him to be saying.
00:42:58.520
Well, I think if you show the clip that I just did completely out of context, you could see,
00:43:02.760
hey, well, wait a minute. Like what, what does it mean to be Canadian? If anyone can be Canadian,
00:43:06.440
anyone can come here, it doesn't matter like anything about you. Uh, but I think,
00:43:09.640
you know, together with the other points that you raised about how he wants people to do citizenship
00:43:16.440
ceremonies and he wants to bring in gratitude and he tells you that if you come from a war-torn
00:43:20.920
place, don't bring your tribal hatreds to Canada, like leave that all away. I think that all that
00:43:25.640
tied together does tell that kind of positive, um, patriotism that we do have shared values. We're not
00:43:31.880
a multicultural, um, utopia where Mark Carney says this a lot that, that the Americans are a melting
00:43:38.840
pot and that Canada is a mosaic. Um, that's an old, but that's an old, that's a very old paradigm.
00:43:44.840
Right. No, I'm saying like that. I used to hear that maybe 20 years ago and, and I never liked it,
00:43:49.640
right? Because the idea is that with a melting pot, every culture comes together and it changes the
00:43:55.480
flavor, right? So it's not just like, you're, you know, you have to become British or in, in the,
00:44:00.840
in the U S you have to become American and then, and then everything else gets melted away. It's
00:44:04.680
like every culture that comes changes America a little bit. And we're all together in this
00:44:08.920
stew. I like that metaphor better than a mosaic where you can just cut out somebody and each piece
00:44:15.880
is completely separate and removed from every other piece. I mean, Mark Carney says that. And I don't
00:44:21.160
think, I think he, he has a positive, like, you know, 20 years ago, people used to say it,
00:44:25.720
but, but to me it's, it's very negative. It's like, we live in these silos. You don't have to
00:44:29.960
interact with anybody. You can actually hate the person in the, in the, in the picture next door
00:44:34.840
to you. It doesn't matter. You don't have anything in common. You just happen to be side by side,
00:44:39.000
which I think is the sort of like liberal idea of Canada. Um, that, that, you know, Canada,
00:44:43.800
I think, um, Jan Martel once said Canada is the world's greatest hotel. Um, this idea that like,
00:44:49.640
you can just come and stay and go and it doesn't mean anything. And like, you know, a hotel doesn't
00:44:53.720
have any warmth. It's not a home. It's just a place you come and go. And it's the old good
00:44:59.080
intentions thing. It's the old good intentions thing is that, uh, you know, we, we, we can remain
00:45:04.760
who we were and at the same time be totally Canadian. It, it, it was the beginning of
00:45:10.520
multiculturalism. And I, I had the same reaction as you when I, when I would hear that mosaic,
00:45:15.800
mosaic. Well, that's kind of like chopped up little tiles. Like I would see a bathroom wall,
00:45:19.640
you know, and, uh, I liked the melting pot thing because I think that's the only way you're going
00:45:26.040
to get true patriotism is when, when, when people say, uh, American culture, they kind of know what
00:45:33.960
they mean. They may not love the culture, but they kind of know, uh, that those waves of immigration,
00:45:40.360
you know, and the Italians and the Irish and the Jews and the, this and the, that they had tough
00:45:45.800
beginnings. They were, they were very rough. It was a rough process. Uh, so many hundreds of
00:45:51.880
thousands of people coming, uh, but they said, no, you're going to become American. You know,
00:45:56.520
they, they were very adamant about it and people did by the second, third generation. Um, everybody
00:46:02.040
became very happy to say they were proud Americans. Uh, so this, this mosaic idea is no, the most important
00:46:10.200
thing about you is your, the identity you, you were before you came here. So don't lose that. So
00:46:17.000
we'll just, we'll just, you know, we'll fit you in. We'll cock it. The cocking will be like between us
00:46:23.720
all and that'll be the bridge, but no, it doesn't work. And what we thought it would work. I think a lot
00:46:28.600
of people thought multiculturalism would work. It didn't work. And, and it, it didn't work in a very
00:46:34.280
dramatic fashion in Europe, uh, uh, and, and the UK and, uh, in other places. Um, it's, it's very bad.
00:46:45.000
So, uh, Okay. Well, I'm going to ask you one, one last question and, uh, it might lead to a broader
00:46:54.040
conversation. So if it does, we might have to save it for the next time you join the show. But I think
00:46:58.440
that with Trump, President Trump's tariff threats, this, this whole newfound patriotism, uh, love of
00:47:05.000
country on the political left and in the center, um, you know, it, it, it kind of raises old questions.
00:47:11.960
Um, when, when, when you think of, of what, what it is to be Canadian, what do we love about Canada?
00:47:17.000
You know, Justin Trudeau defined Canada twice on us television, uh, earlier this year as a Canadian
00:47:22.680
is defined as just not an American. Um, you, you wrote on X and this was, uh, I think one of your
00:47:28.440
uh, you know, typically very, uh, thought provoking controversial takes. Um, you wrote that if
00:47:33.960
Quebec officially left Confederation and became a nation, Canada would cease to exist as a nation.
00:47:39.320
Montreal is a port city, a big advantage. Quebec has natural resources, strong sense of its own
00:47:43.400
identity. It would survive and could easily flourish under certain circumstances. Be careful what you
00:47:48.280
wish for. Um, so I, I, I think you're saying that, that Canada, the Canadian identity, you know,
00:47:54.840
the, the French are the ones that have the identity more so than us English Canadians.
00:47:58.600
And maybe we can learn a bit about them. Um, you, you wrote that before all of the tariff,
00:48:03.160
uh, threats from the 51st state thing. So, uh, what, what, what, uh, what's your current thinking
00:48:07.240
on this? Well, my current thinking is that there's going to be a big pause in the whole rush for,
00:48:11.800
you know, I, I don't think this will be very good for the, uh, Parti Québécois. Uh, at the time that I
00:48:16.760
wrote that they were in, they were quite ascendant in the polls and, uh, Premier Legault was like behind the
00:48:22.760
eight ball, but, uh, I think that the tariff thing may change it. But what I meant by that was,
00:48:28.440
you know, I've lived in Montreal for like 60, over 60 years and I've had my ups and downs with Quebec.
00:48:34.920
And I, you know, I go, I've gone back and forth on a lot of things, but I can say this,
00:48:40.280
they, because they speak French and because a lot of their influences that they're, they're
00:48:46.600
journalists and their intellectuals, uh, they don't take their marching orders from North
00:48:52.280
America's, you know, uh, uh, whatever's going on here and multiculturalism and all of that.
00:48:59.720
I think they were a little bit immunized from that. Um, they, they feel like a nation. They
00:49:05.800
say they are a nation. I think in, in all the respects that matter, they are a nation diluted
00:49:11.160
because they've so many of them, you know, the church has been absent for a long time for most of
00:49:16.680
their lives. But still, um, they don't need threats of terrorists or anything else. They
00:49:21.880
feel threatened all the time because of the language and, you know, they feel like they're
00:49:26.920
an island in a sea of, so they've had that for a long time. When people said that they were racist
00:49:33.800
because of the bill 21, you know, with the Niqab law and not wearing a hijab in classes and all that,
00:49:38.840
uh, they were wrong. They were protecting their culture and, uh, they, that's still very important
00:49:46.040
to them. Um, and they, they would retain, and I think if they did separate, they have so many natural
00:49:52.520
blessings, um, that they would, they would remain a cult, they would remain a nation, but the rest of
00:49:58.360
Canada would be like, now what, what do we do? What do we do? We have this gigantic hole in the middle of
00:50:03.160
our country. Um, I think that would be a tragedy for the rest of Canada, far greater than it would
00:50:09.000
be for Quebec. I think Quebec would actually get their act together and, I mean, they'd have to
00:50:13.240
overcome a lot of things like they've got all, you know, I won't even start to go into it, all the
00:50:19.240
compromises that have to be made. But the fact is, um, people think that they would flop, but no, they,
00:50:25.800
I don't think they would. I don't think they would. I think they have a inner moral, I think they have
00:50:30.120
an inner sense of who they are much more than than many Canadians. Well, I don't necessarily
00:50:36.200
agree with you, Barbara. I think that particularly from an economic standpoint, it's hard to imagine
00:50:40.760
how they could function, uh, as the government. I think it's to the contrary, if Alberta were to
00:50:45.160
separate from Canada, the rest of the country would go bankrupt, um, because basically Alberta's
00:50:50.520
resources, uh, prop up socialism in the rest of the country and allow, you know, the, the proliferation of
00:50:56.600
government spending, um, throughout the economy, economy as the same, same goes with the American
00:51:02.280
security apparatus. Like if we, if we, if we actually had to secure our own borders and, and, and, uh,
00:51:07.560
we, we lost the sort of nuclear umbrella provided by the Americans. I don't think that Canada could
00:51:12.680
have such a generous, um, welfare state and that's so much of a part of, of the identity. So I, I think
00:51:19.960
economically, wouldn't you say that, that Quebec, they have untapped, uh, natural resources, minerals,
00:51:26.600
rare earths, like all kinds of incredible stuff still in the ground and the electricity they supply
00:51:32.040
the Northern States with, I mean, incredible hydro, uh, which means that they could say no to oil and,
00:51:40.040
you know, a lot of stuff that, that other provinces can't. Um, I, I, I mean, I think it has
00:51:45.800
incredible wealth and it's a port city, port cities always thrive. I, but, but there'd have to be a
00:51:50.520
will to actually develop the natural resources, which, I mean, there's been quotes from Quebec
00:51:54.360
premiers going back, uh, saying that like, why would we develop our natural resources? We don't need
00:51:58.600
to. Um, and if they were going to be, if they were going to be a separate country, they would,
00:52:03.000
that would be, I guess we need to now. They would need to. Yeah. And, and, well, maybe that would,
00:52:08.840
maybe that would cause them to, to, to, to sort of look at the fiscal picture a little differently,
00:52:13.880
because I think without all the transfer payments, um, Quebec would never have a balance.
00:52:17.960
But you're a super interesting thought experiment. And I think that you're right when it comes to
00:52:21.800
understanding their identity and protecting their culture, Quebec is ahead of the rest of Canada.
00:52:26.040
We can, we can learn, um, a lot, uh, us English Canadians from our, our French Canadian counterparts.
00:52:31.160
So Barbara, we'll leave it there. We'll have to have you back again to further, uh, the discussion
00:52:34.760
and the conversation, um, again, but it's always a pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you so much
00:52:39.080
for joining us. Thank you for having me, Candace. Always a pleasure for me to be here.
00:52:44.040
All right. So we will leave it at that today. I'm your host, Candace Malcolm. This is the
00:52:47.720
Candace Malcolm show. Thank you so much for tuning in. We'll be back again tomorrow