The Candice Malcolm Show - Militarized censorship in Europe CELEBRATED by the media (ft. Barbara Kay)

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 0.91

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 0.93

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 0.99

00:05:49.580 denial law. It's, you cannot, you may not deny the Holocaust. I kind of get it in their case. 0.96

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 0.99

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, 0.83

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 0.77

00:07:56.380 that comes from refugees. We're worried about people coming that have totally different values. 1.00

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, 1.00

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 0.53

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 1.00

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, 0.97

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, 0.97

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 0.94

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 0.54

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 0.97

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. 0.83

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, 0.66

00:21:53.260 as well as many historians believe that the net impact of those laws censoring Nazi speech

00:22:02.220 was to amplify their message.

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. 0.95

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, 1.00

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 1.00

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 0.74

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.

00:39:01.160 There's that, it's like Smith.

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.

00:42:53.480 Yeah, no, I think you're right.

00:42:54.520 That's what I wanted him. Maybe that's what I wanted him to be saying.

00:42:57.560 I don't know.

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, 0.98

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 0.82

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 0.72

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 0.81

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

00:52:50.840 with all the news. Thank you. And God bless.

The Candice Malcolm Show - February 19, 2025

Militarized censorship in Europe CELEBRATED by the media (ft. Barbara Kay)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript