Video summary
Pierre Poilievre redefines the fundamental role of government as strictly limited to providing essential services like military defense and policing through legal force, arguing against state-run media and subsidies which he views as creating dependency rather than independence. He asserts that Canada's national identity must be rooted in freedom and unity under a "Canada First" approach, criticizing recent mass migration policies for eroding this shared sense of self by importing cultural divisions from countries of origin. To restore economic health and sovereignty, his strategy prioritizes domestic security and affordability over foreign aid, proposing the redirection of funds to build a strong military while unlocking resources through pipelines and LNG projects instead of relying on trade deals with smaller nations.
The core of Poilievre's platform addresses Canada's severe youth struggles, including unaffordable housing, high rents, food insecurity, and job shortages, which he attributes directly to excessive government spending, persistent deficits, and temporary foreign worker programs that displace local citizens. His economic plan involves reducing bureaucracy, eliminating capital gains taxes on reinvestment, cutting corporate subsidies for multinationals such as the Stellantis deal, and fostering a free enterprise environment designed to restore hope and encourage family formation. Regarding Indigenous reconciliation, he envisions an end state where communities achieve self-reliance through genuine business opportunities rather than bureaucratic programs or court rulings, aiming to create a society where hard work leads to home ownership and safe streets for all Canadians.
Beyond policy, Poilievre shares his personal journey with anxiety, explaining that focusing on controllable factors has liberated him from pointless worry while maintaining political hope by observing resilient individuals who fight daily hardships without giving up. He argues that the ongoing drug crisis is sustained by a profitable apparatus comprising federal transfers, pharmaceutical companies, and bureaucracy rather than being solved through effective abstinence-based treatment centers which have shown high success rates in places like Windsor. Poilievre condemns the irony of using drugs to treat addiction caused by industries like Purdue's OxyContin program and advocates for charging fentanyl dealers producing large quantities with murder charges due to their lethal actions, asserting that a tiny group of criminals drives crime rates and removing them would restore safety.
Ultimately, his vision is one where independent media serves as an essential tool for truth-seeking against government censorship, defending unfettered free speech while criticizing the current landscape for being dependent on state influence. By cutting corporate subsidies to multinationals and eliminating wasteful spending, he aims to unlock resources like oil and gas to fund a strong military and support domestic industries rather than relying on trade deals with smaller nations that do not benefit Canada sufficiently. His overarching goal is to restore hope in the Canadian system so that citizens can build great lives through hard work, ensuring safe communities and economic opportunity for families while addressing deep-seated issues like housing affordability and food security without compromising national sovereignty or cultural unity.
Read the full video transcript
This is a special episode of the
knowledge project featuring our guest
Pierre Poilievre, leader of the
Conservative Party in Canada. After my
last interview with Pierre, I heard from
thousands of you thanking me for
allowing political leaders to skip the
slogans and loaded questions and speak
with nuance and depth.
I reached out to both Mr. Poilievre and
Prime Minister Carney directly with the
same invite. No questions were provided
in advance and no editorial control was
given. It's time to listen and learn.
What do you think the role of government
in society should be? You have to start
by asking what is government. This is
generation screwed. I'm not surprised
that they feel detached and frustrated
with the system and the government that
screwed them over. Let's walk through
the rap sheet. My purpose is to provide
people with hope and that's not just a
touchy-feely word. It's actually a
political strategy for me because if
people can be convinced that there's
hope then they'll vote for it in
election. It's very exciting things we
can do like get rid of capital gains
tax. The media is dependent
on the government. Can something that is
dependent be independent? If you think
that the average reader, viewer, or
listener is incapable of determining
what is true and what is not, well then
how will a government official be able
to make that same determination?
Pierre, welcome back. Great to be back.
What do you think the role of government
in society should be? Well, you have to
start by asking what is government. And
the only thing that's unique about
government is that it has the legal
power to apply force. That's it.
There are plenty of other
decision-making bodies,
associations,
governance structures around society but
they're not governments because they
cannot apply force legally. So, you
start with the first principle that
government is the legal use of force.
So
the only thing that government should do
is the thing that people can't do for
themselves that that we as people need
to be forced to contribute to or be part
of without which it would not exist. So,
for example, a military, uh border
control, policing, some basic
infrastructure, and supplying
necessities to those who would otherwise
not be able to provide for themselves.
Those are all things that would not
happen
if the government was not requiring it
and therefore those are the things the
government should do. It should not do
things that people can do for
themselves. So, I think of the world of
business.
We don't need government subsidies to
prop up businesses uh because there are
sources of funding for businesses. It's
called credit and capital. We have very
developed capital markets and credit
markets where you can raise money. So,
there's no need for government to do
that. There's no need for government to
be the provider of um
uh of media um when people can you have
a this is a media outlet right now. Why
is it that you need the government to do
what what other people with people free
citizens can do for themselves? And the
answer is that you don't. So, um my view
is that government should only do what
the people can't do for themselves and
then leave the rest to free people uh to
decide how to live.
How do you define Canadian national
identity and how would a government
under your
leadership strengthen or reshape that?
I always ask myself what what is the
thing we all have in common? And in
Canada, it's never been ethnicity even
when Wilfrid Laurier was asked what
what is Canada's nationality
uh he couldn't define it as uh an ethnic
nationality, a religious nationality or
uh any other kind of bloodline because
by that time and this is 100 years ago,
we were all mixed up already. We had
Scots and Irish and First Peoples and
French and English. And so, he said
Canada is free and freedom is its
nationality. People come here for
freedom. They don't come here for the
weather. I mean, look out the window.
Um they come here because when you know,
the place they came from, they weren't
free to build a life, start a a family,
build you know, afford uh food and
housing. They weren't free to speak
their mind or practice their faith. So,
they said let's go to this place where
you can you're free to do all those
things.
And whether it was the pioneers of the
1800s who settled the West or
the the Catholics who settled Quebec
hundreds of years before that or it's
the
person who gets off the boat
in 2025 uh figuratively speaking, it's
almost always for that same freedom. And
uh so, we share that in common. But how
do you how do you preserve that freedom?
Everybody has to be Canada first. They
have to put this country first. And what
we've allowed to happen over the last
decade is that the government has said
that Canada has no national identity.
We're a post-modern, post-nationalist
state and there's nothing that binds us
together and as a result of that and
mass migration on levels that are not
absorbable people are increasingly
divided along for along demarcation
lines that were in their country of
origin rather than coming here and
leaving that all behind. Uh these
Protestants and Catholics tore each
other's eyeballs out for
centuries in Europe but they got along
in Canada because they said we're
Canadian here and I don't care if my
neighbor's a Protestant or a Catholic.
They're my neighbor and they're a fellow
Canadian and that is the we have to get
back to. We're all Canadian. We're all
here to enjoy freedom together and uh to
do that we have to be Canada first.
What's our role in the global world
then? If we're Canada first, what's our
responsibility to the rest of the world?
Well, the first responsibility is to put
our own country above all else. Else.
So, that means
we need to unlock our resources
um fund a strong military that preserves
our sovereignty without being overly
dependent on any other country for our
defense.
Those are the first things and we have
to ask what makes us safe what makes us
secure, what makes us an affordable
country. Those things must be the top of
the decision-making
matrix for a prime minister.
After that, we can ask how we can help.
And I believe that our general posture
should be to favor freedom and democracy
over tyranny and dictatorship because
it's generally in our interest to have
more democracy and freedom in the world
than than it is
to have less. So, that is that is how I
would prioritize it. So, it's sort of
like putting on your own mask first like
when you're on the airline when they
make the safety announcement, it's like
you have to put your own mask on first
cuz you can't take care of other people
if you are
can't take care of yourself. Well,
exactly and you know, I I've said it
very clearly, I will be cutting foreign
aid. I find it appalling that we had 2.2
million people lined up at food banks
that we got return of scurvy in Canada
or one in four kids are going to school
hungry and yet we're putting we're
giving money to the UN and other
international bodies supposedly for
foreign aid.
Uh and I think we should bring our money
home and and put our own country and its
national interest first and foremost.
I think everyone agrees we have an
immigration problem but not everybody
agrees on what that problem is or what
the solution looks like. Talk to me
about that.
>> The first thing is too much, too fast.
Uh you know, we we have been the
Liberals have been bringing in a
million people a year
growing our population to almost 3%
while our housing stock grows by 1%. Our
job market grows by about the same and
our availability of doctors and nurses
grows by about that one or 2%. So, when
your population is growing faster than
health care, housing, and jobs, then
eventually you're going to have
shortages.
It also makes it hard for people to
integrate. Uh we used to bring people in
very large numbers but in numbers that
you could integrate into Canadian life.
So, people would arrive here and they'd
be say they they'd be encouraged to sure
keep their
you know, their foods and their customs
and traditions but also they'd be told
about Canada.
Our war history, Terry Fox, our proud
past, uh all of the millions of people
we've saved by allowing them to come and
take refuge here and people were
genuinely proud.
But the woke liberal ideology imposed
over the last decade has been to say
that Canada is nothing but a a racist
country with nothing but shame and we
should denigrate the history, knock down
our statues. And so, people come here
into a vacuum and it's not hard to
figure out why they don't feel as much
of a commonality as they they did 10
years ago when they arrived and they
were proud. My wife came here
you know, roughly three decades ago. She
was extremely proud to be Canadian. Like
she loved Canada and she thought that
and her whole family thought this is the
best place in the world and they learned
that in school. They learned that this
was a great country and they they should
be very we should all feel privileged to
live here. And I think that is part of
the missing piece. We have to get back
to telling people Canada is amazing and
it's a privilege. So, when you come here
to our country, you're Canadian first
and you're proud of it.
Speaking of amazing, it's really easy to
get trapped in what's wrong with Canada.
But what do you think's going right and
how can we build on that?
Well, I think our people are are
fantastic. We have like I meet these I
meet the people across this country and
they're astonishingly brilliant. You
know, I go to factory floors and I I see
people, you know, programming a CNC
machine and I say, "My God, like the
brainpower that goes into the running
this kind of machinery, it just my it's
mind-blowing." Um you um you see how
hard people work. I actually think I
love right now
is our young people. I actually think
this is the hardest work the the youth
of today are the hardest-working
generation of youth since the Second
World War. Everywhere I go, I meet you
know, a waitress who's got like she's
working 60 hours a week and she's taking
university classes. It's like, "Wow,
that's work ethic." Now, it saddens me
that she has to work that long, but
on the flip side
what does it say about uh
the uh potential of this country when
you see a a generation of youth who are
willing to put in that much much
time and effort to get ahead. And if we
could un-
lock their potential with a government
that's worthy of them, then man, we
could be easily the most affordable and
richest country in the world. I was
reading an article the other day about
how youth are feeling checked out, too.
>> Yeah. Is that because there's no rung
like if you think of capitalism as a
ladder, that first rung seems to have
gone higher now.
And it's harder to get a job. It's you
know, you go to school, you get an
education, you come out and you're
applying with 700 other people for one
job. Right. And that's changed. Yes,
it's um this is generation screwed.
Uh and frankly, uh I I'm not surprised
that they feel detached and frustrated
with
the system and the government that
screwed them over. Let's walk through
the rap sheet of the government of the
last 10 years when it comes to youth.
They doubled housing costs, so young
people can't even come close to making a
down payment. Uh you know, it takes till
you're late in your late 30s to to
afford a down payment.
Then they have driven up the cost of
rent, so even just surviving in a rental
situation treading water is more and
more difficult. Food prices are up, so
young people have had to
downgrade their diet. And then as you
say, jobs are missing partly because the
we haven't unblocked our resources, and
partly because the government is
bringing in so many temporary foreign
workers
uh and international students who
through no fault of their own are
filling jobs. And of course the
some in the corporate elite love it
because they get to pay lower wages.
But it means that our young people can't
get those jobs. So even in places with
double-digit young youth unemployment
there are temporary foreign workers who
are making less than the in reality less
than the prevailing wage
and driving wages down and jobs out. So
uh the the young people today have had
it harder, as I say, than any generation
uh since the Second World War. And what
I'm trying to offer them is hope, jobs,
and homes. Those are the three things.
Hope is important. I'll come to hope
last, though. Jobs, we we you know what
to do. Stop bringing in temporary
foreign workers. Get rid of that program
altogether.
Unblock our resources so that our young
trades workers
can make, you know, 200 grand, 250 as
pipefitters, welders, industrial
carpenters, etc.
Cut taxes on on job creation. And then
homes, we need to unblock home building
by speeding up permits, getting taxes
off houses
of of home building and let people
afford to have a house
again and start a family.
But I'll close off with hope cuz I what
I worry about more than
just the
bad policies of the government is that
the liberals will convince young people
to permanently lower their expectations.
Just to say
"Yeah, it sucks. It'll never get better
no matter who's in power, but it could
be worse."
And I had I was on another podcast about
4 months ago and this lady asked me,
"Well
shouldn't we just accept that home that
homeownership is a thing of the past and
we're all going to be renters?"
And I said
"No, you shouldn't accept that. That's
ridiculous. Everybody should be able to
afford afford a home if they get a job
and work hard. Uh we should be the
cheapest place in the world to afford
afford a house. We have the most land to
build on.
And um I don't want the liberals to
gaslight people into thinking that
things cannot get better.
My purpose is to provide people with
hope, and that's not just a touchy-feely
word. It's actually a political strategy
for me.
Because if people can be convinced that
there's hope then they'll vote for it in
election. If they can be if they can be
convinced that things are hopeless and
they'll never get better then liberals
will win by default. So my strategy is
one of reinstilling hope. It seems like
the second, third-order consequences of
that, too, are are also impactful. So
when you can't find a job
you delay marriage. You delay having
kids.
Um
talk to me about that. Well, I met uh an
airline attendant who said that him and
his wife are
making the were in the process at that
moment of making the decision
to never have kids
because they can't afford it. And it was
a simple economic decision. He said like
we we can't afford a house
and we don't want to raise a kid in a
600 square foot apartment.
And even if we tried, we we're already
uh you know, up to our eyeballs in
grocery bills and rent and
other expenses. So adding a a child,
which is obviously thousands of dollars
of costs every year
I argue worth it, but but if you don't
have that money, then how do you do it?
And
uh so
him and his wife or wife to be, yeah.
How do they
Why is it they're having to give up on a
major life
decision because of numbers? It doesn't
make sense. We've always been able to
afford to have kids in Canada. How is it
that with all the advances in society
that that's not possible? It
And uh the good news is that we know how
to fix it. We we need to get back to to
sound money
to free enterprise
uh to open up the opportunity so that
young couple can actually
build a home, build a family, build a
life. One of the things I don't see
people talk about a lot when it comes to
having kids is sort of the third-order
if if that was the second-order
consequence. The third-order is
um you just tend to be more selfish
in a way in how you vote. And it's
really hard like we think about you
think about voting for your kids. You
think about you want Canada to prosper
long-term. That's a lot harder I would
imagine if you don't have kids.
I would talk about the inverse of that.
Um
and I understand some people don't don't
uh for them it's not the right decision
to have kids, but but they are an
incredible blessing. I I know it for me
it's been a great blessing to have kids
uh even though I was a very late
bloomer. I think I was 39 when we had
Valentina and in my 40s when we had
Cruz.
But it's it's been a great blessing.
It's taught me a lot of lessons.
And I even read a study
a while back about people who had been
laid off
and had been long-term unemployed.
And the happiness level of those with
kids was actually higher because
even though they didn't have a job they
had
they had children bringing them joy in
their lives. And uh we want kid people
to to have the option. I mean, I have
people decide not to have kids. I
totally respect that. It's going to be a
great decision for some people. But I
don't want them to be forced into the
decision
by economic decisions imposed by
government.
What do you see as the major factors
facing Canada's lagging economic
prospects? And what are sort of the
concrete steps aside from pipelines
um that we can take?
The problem is that we're spending too
much on government and not enough on
productive private sector jobs.
You know, um every time we add a new
government agency, department,
bureaucracy
that's a cost without a productive
outcome. And that sucks money out of the
private sector
into
government consumption.
And um so you think about these deficits
we're running.
$78 billion has to be borrowed from
somewhere. Everything comes from
something, nothing comes from nothing.
So if if they there's two ways you can
fund a deficit. You can borrow it or
print it. If you borrow it you're taking
capital out of the private sector
and putting it into the out of the
productive private sector and putting it
into the unproductive government
bureaucracy.
And if you print it, you cause
inflation. So it's lose-lose.
Uh when Israel reduced its deficit in
the 90s, it actually unlocked a lot of
capital
that then went into the tech sector and
made it to into the startup nation.
So I think by reducing the deficit, we
not only reduce inflation and the cost
of living
but also we reduce the drain on the
productive part of our economy.
Well, there's also I think some very
exciting things we can do like get rid
of capital gains tax when you reinvest
in Canada. The government's going to get
its pound of salt one day anyway.
Eventually, you'll fully cash out and
you'll want to enjoy everything you
built up through the series of
investments you made.
And then you'll pay your capital gains
tax. But in the mean if you want to keep
rolling it over, building factories,
mines, pipelines,
uh
IT infrastructure,
inventing new products, then why
wouldn't we encourage that? Yeah, I mean
uh what we we should be taxing people we
shouldn't
>> urge that. Yeah, I mean, what we we
should be taxing people we shouldn't be
taxing people for what they put into the
economy.
And that's I think it'll be economic
rocket fuel if we did that.
What should Canada's strategy be
concerning our relationship with the
United States? Not just in the next few
years, but say the next 50 years.
How should we position ourselves?
So, the first thing we have to
acknowledge is that American capitalism
is the most powerful economic force in
the history of the world and the
American military is the most powerful
defense force in the history of the
world and both of them are right next
door to us. We can't ignore that or
pretend that it's just going to vanish.
We have to think long-term about how we
use that proximity to our leverage.
And that means
unblocking
the production and transportation of our
resources to ourselves and to overseas
markets.
Whether we like it or not and I like it,
oil and gas is the single biggest net
export in this country, period. And
there's nothing that is even close.
And there's nothing that any government
strategy or subsidy program can ever do
to change that.
So,
we have to unblock pipelines and LNG
plants to our coasts.
You got one pipeline to Northwest
British
that the Liberals blocked and that I'm
pushing for that would move a million
barrels and 30 a day and 30 billion
dollars a year overseas. That would be
the single biggest boost to overseas
exports in the history of Canada. 30
billion dollars works out to what $1,400
per every family every year, one
pipeline.
And to put that into perspective,
you know, the trade agreement with
Indonesia is supposed to give us $400
million.
So, one pipeline will give you 75 times
more export overseas than a trade deal
with this with a relatively big country.
Um, then there's the LNG side. Like
we've got a 1,300 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas. We just have to get it to
coast, liquefy it, put it on ships, send
it over to Asia and Europe where it goes
for four times the price that it that we
pay for it here and you're talking like
tens of billions. Then you go to the
Americans and say, "Okay,
we've got options.
We have other markets now.
Deal with us fairly. Take off the
tariffs and let's trade.
And I think you'd have more leverage in
that
if you had done if we do unblock the
other
world markets that await us. Um, at the
same time, I think we can offer the
Americans a lot of
mutual benefit by we can supply more oil
to America.
That will reduce their gas price at the
pump. They have an affordability crisis,
too. We can sell we can we can be a
reliable supplier of critical minerals,
which we have,
as long as we get paid price for it and
we can ensure that our continent is
secure from Chinese, Russian, North
Korean and Iranian threat by doing our
part in the Arctic. And I think we put
that all into a single package combined
with more leverage. I think we can get
back to tariff-free access to the most
lucrative market in the world,
which will make us and them safer,
richer
and stronger.
How do you feel when people compare you
and your approach to Donald Trump and
what do you see as the key differences
between your approach and his? Well, I
think that's just a liberal tactic
because I I've been winning the debate
on inflation, carbon taxes,
affordability, crime, drugs, natural
resources.
So, they engage in
in that distraction. I find it ironic.
You know, here's Mark Carney, the guy
who moved his corporate headquarters to
the US, who has 90% of his assets in the
US,
um,
who
you know, he Carney dodges his taxes in
Canada by putting his putting them in
the Caribbean and then he has the
audacity to try and compare me to a
foreign leader. I find that very, uh,
ironic.
You know, by now I think people need to
know people should know where I stand
because I've consistent. I don't know if
there's a political leader
in modern memory in Canada that has been
so consistent in what he stands for.
And I would just encourage people to
judge me on what I've said for my entire
political career. It's been the same
free enterprise, low tax, sound money,
um, affordable,
safe country that I've been advocating
for and I'm happy to stand on my own
record.
I think you saw the Nokia deal that we
recently did. So, I I'm
going to give a bit of a preamble for
this question, but
we basically bribe foreign companies to
come into Canada by paying hundreds of
thousands of dollars from taxpayer money
per job.
And this puts Canadian companies at a
massive disadvantage. In a sense, it's
worse to actually be a Canadian company
in Canada than to be a company
headquartered elsewhere.
We are effectively taking our taxpayer
money and sending it elsewhere if you
think about it that way. And so, why are
we doing this?
And does that ever make sense?
>> No, it doesn't. Giving money taxpayer
money
to foreign multi-multinationals
never ends up producing the promised
jobs. They find a way to lawyer and
lobby the money into their pockets with
few conditions and as soon as they get
the cash, they dash.
And we've seen it with the Stellantis
deal where we were in for 15 billion
dollars and Stellantis is cutting jobs
in Canada. 15 billion dollars for one
company. That works out to almost a
thousand dollars for every Canadian
family in taxes for a company that has
since it got the subsidy reduced its
Canadian workforce
and increased its workforce in the
states and in going to the Oval Office
to announce a 13 billion dollar plan to
invest in the US.
So, my approach is guaranteed to benefit
our country
because what I propose is let's cut
taxes on investment
income and energy in Canada. So,
let's take my capital gains tax idea.
You get rid of capital gains tax on in
reinvestments in Canada. You only get
the money if you invest in Canada.
You cut taxes on
energy, for example. You only benefit
from that tax cut if your company is
using energy
in Canada. So, we're better off to
create
a free enterprise, low tax
environment
for business to compete
and to raise money
through private investment in the way
that I approach it than to take money
from workers and business all businesses
and give it to a favored few.
Do you think that optimizing for winning
a re-election,
um,
prevents our elected officials from
making extremely difficult choices that
might cause them
to not be re-elected, but are in the
best interest of Canada long-term?
Yes. I mean, I can speak from
experience. I was running for a in the
last election for an Ottawa seat and I
was very open about my plan to reduce
the size of the federal bureaucracy
and I paid the electoral price for that.
So, some people say I should have
done what Mark Carney did and just lie
and say that the, um,
bureaucracy can keep growing
when people are lined up at food banks
and can't afford homes,
um, because of the cost of government.
Uh, but if I had done that, then I would
be a liar.
I might have, uh, won my Ottawa seat,
but I would be a liar and so I'd rather
tell the truth, which is that in this
case the bureaucracy is too big and it's
one of the reasons why people can't
afford their lives
rather than to make up stories and, uh,
then betray people after the election.
Speaking of hard choices, recent court
decisions in BC including the Cowichan
ruling and the implementation of UNDRIP
have raised concerns among Canadians
about property rights, democratic
accountability and economic certainty.
Pair this with increasing frustration
that despite the federal government
spending over 240 billion on Indigenous
priority since 2014,
many Indigenous communities still face
poor outcomes. In your view, what's the
end state of reconciliation?
Well, I I think the end state is going
forward.
We have to, um,
create a country where everybody has
opportunity.
I think the end state is, um,
the Enoch reserve near Edmonton where
Chief Billy Morin
took 20% unemployment, brought it down
to 3%.
Um, took a huge debt deficit, turned it
into a balanced budget
and opened up his reserve to
business
so that his community became
self-reliant. Very proud that he's now a
member of our caucus or
it looks like Kitimat where Ellis Ross,
who's also one of my MPs now, was the
chief counselor of the Haisla and signed
a deal to bring the 40 billion dollar
LNG Canada project, the single biggest
project in Canadian history of any kind,
public or private.
This is going to be like
tens of billions of dollars of benefit
for all Canadians and his people will
now live in prosperity forever.
That is the end state of reconciliation.
Um,
it's not through court cases or
government bureaucracies in of
unleashing the power of enterprise
opportunity
uh and
allowing uh First Nations to be to use
their God-given talents uh
in uh building our economy with other
Canadians.
Has empathy been weaponized?
I would say complexity has been
weaponized.
Because
the whole bureaucratic apparatus in both
the First Nations to government
departments. Now, there's two. There
used to be one, now there's two.
And in all aspects of government,
the average person including Indigenous
Canadians would look at and say that
these programs aren't working. They're
making everybody except a small group in
Ottawa
poorer.
And they benefit only the people in
power.
And
the reason that that they get away with
it is cuz it's so damn com- complicated
how all these government programs in
Ottawa, they have good names and flashy
PR programs,
but no one in the real world has time to
figure out even what they do.
And so,
you know, people are we're dumping tens
of billions of dollars into
all kinds of programs that have nice
names, you know, like Build Canada
Homes,
which doesn't build any homes, or yet
another defense procurement agency which
can't figure out how to buy anything for
our military, but because the average
welder, small businessman is too busy
feeding his kids, building a business,
paying his taxes,
and he can't un- decipher it all, he
ends up paying for it and getting
nothing in return. And uh that is what
that's not just the case when it comes
to First Nations programming, it's the
case with all the programming.
Um and I don't blame the the the people
uh the grassroots people either in First
Nations or other communities, I blame
this
this um
bureaucratic and political industrial
complex
in Ottawa. What role does media play in
that? Well, it should be to hold the
government accountable.
Uh
you know, unfortunately, our media media
seems to think that their job is to hold
the people accountable to the government
rather than the government accountable
to the people. But you know, every day
there's a scandal that comes out in the
form you like read Blacklocks. They're
actually a real media outlet.
They expose governmental wrongdoing and
waste every day and it gets no coverage
in mainstream media.
Um and uh so, I think that's why people
are are looking for alternative media
that will get them the facts that
uh the government-funded and
corporate-controlled outlets don't
report.
I want to make sure I get this right, so
I'm going to read it here. The
government of Canada has provided over
3.4 billion in subsidies, tax breaks,
and grants to support the operations
of the Canadian media industry since
2017. This figure doesn't include the
amount spent on CBC or the amounts the
government spends on federal
advertising, subscriptions uh with
mainstream media company, and it does
not include the numerous laws that
they've used to protect the media from
competition.
With such enormous amounts flowing from
government, some Canadians are starting
to question the independence of
mainstream media organizations.
Can government subsidies to media
organizations coexist with the free and
open press?
Let's go back to
language.
Language is important.
You've just made the case that the media
is dependent
on the government.
Can something that is dependent be
independent?
After our last interview, to to go on
the media train here a little bit,
several former political staffers
reached out to me and told me that there
is an unspoken quid pro quo in this town
where backroom negotiations with
journalists secure favorable coverage
and avoid negative coverage in exchange
for exclusive interviews. What's your
reaction to that?
I guess it's possible. Um
media
have to negotiate to get information, I
suppose, but uh
I really don't I think the main problem
is that too much of it is controlled by
government and uh too much of it is
concentrated. And I think what we need
to have is more independent voices like
yours, so that Canadians have choice
and freedom. And um we've seen this
government has been trying to
concentrate more and more media power,
whether it's through C-11,
which allows the CRTC to manipulate
social media algorithms to favor certain
types of media,
whether it's the proposed um it was
C-68, which was uh designed to promote
uh
to to get rid of what what are called
online harms, uh ill-defined idea that
could include things that the government
considers to be
politically incorrect, or whether it's
the enormous subsidies that
there's no question media outlets have
to consider when they when they do their
jobs.
So, uh I think what we need is more
decentralization, more competition, more
freedom, more choice. And you know what,
that's the the idea of having a free and
independent media,
it's not perfect, but it's better than
all the alternatives.
Um if we can't tr- if we don't trust the
people to decipher
what is the truth, then then how can we
trust people who are in government to to
decide for them?
It seems like Western countries, not
just Canada, but they're cracking down
more and more and trying to regulate
what can and can't be said uh on
particular platforms. They're you know,
they it's disguised in the language of
disinformation, misinformation, and fake
news. What are the consequences of free
speech being curtailed? Let's go back to
first principles again.
If you think that the average reader,
viewer,
or listener
is incapable of determining what is true
and what is not,
well, then how will a government
official be able to make that same
determination?
If man is not capable of deciding for
himself what is true and what is not,
then how is he capable of deciding for
others?
You know, put differently, some say what
we need is a watchman
to come in and he's going to say, "Well,
this is true and this is not true, so
this can be broadcast and that can't
be."
Who watches the watchman?
What if he's a liar?
What if he spreads disinformation? If
you think that a media an independent
media outlet is going to spread
disinformation, what's to stop the same
disinformation agent from getting into
the government bureaucracy that decides
what's true and what's not?
There is no perfect answer to
disinformation,
but the single greatest antibody to bad
information
is good information.
To have an overabundance of information,
so that the truth clashes with the
falsehood, and in the long run,
human beings judge for themselves.
Now, you might say, "Well,
that's naive. How can you expect human
beings to be able to make that
discernment?" Well, that's exactly what
the censors are claiming they're going
to do. They're going to hire human
beings, presumably, to tell us what's
true and what's false. But if humans
can't do that, then how can they do how
can they do it for other people?
And the other answer is they can't. The
the the the least bad option is to allow
unbridled free speech, so that good
ideas clash with bad, true information
with false, and in the end, the right
side will win.
I always frame this to my kids as you
would never want to give power to your
friends that you wouldn't want your
enemies to have.
>> Exactly.
All right, let's step outside politics
for a minute and do some get-to-know-you
PR questions. Growing up,
your wife may have tipped me off on this
one, but growing up, who was your
favorite wrestler when you were a
teenager? And what did you love about
him? I loved Hulk Hogan at the time. I
Why?
Well, you know, he was just like such a
classic uh
hero.
You know, he was like a big lion heart
uh
and uh
he would overcome hardship, and he
fought against Andre the Giant in that
famous fight with that incredible body
slam.
And uh
you know, he was
he was outmatched in size, and he was
battered and bruised, but he fought on
and overcame and won. And I I loved that
that moment. It was like epic.
But I used to go to Stampede Wrestling
in Calgary, which was like the Hart
brothers. I don't know if you know the
Hart brothers. Well, they're all from
Calgary.
>> Bret, and what was the other guy's name?
Well, there's Bret, Owen, and then
Bruce. Bruce wasn't very well known. And
uh we go to we go to that, and when I
was a kid, I loved it. And my mother was
a substitute teacher, so was Bruce Hart.
He was the one of the lesser known, but
a great guy. So, she convinced him to
come to my birthday party. My dad
actually built a wrestling ring out of
PVC pipe, some
bed padding, like some bedding, a
camping uh beds, and he put some ropes
around it, and we had a ring in my front
yard, and Bruce Hart came and taught us
how to wrestle. And then my my buddy's
dad owned a funeral home.
And so, he showed up with the limousine
they carried
the remains in, removed the coffin. And
so, we could actually go to the Stampede
Wrestling in a limousine. And uh we sat
and watched the match, and it was uh
probably one of my my best ever
birthdays. Um so, I still thank my
parents for putting that on for me. I
was about 10 or 11 at the time.
Who's your favorite MMA fighter?
Right now, the guy I enjoy watching is
Ilia Topuria.
I think he's
I'm just saying in terms of the pure
enjoyment of watching him. I think the
guy is so fascinating. He's he's a
grappler. He comes in through He came in
through wrestling and jujitsu.
But he learned how to strike and he's a
really good puncher. Like it's you feel
like you're watching
a world-class boxer when he strikes. And
his head movement, his dodging, his his
knockout punches have been just
something to behold and
I think he's going to be kind of the big
name in MMA for the next the biggest
name for the next little while. I know
he's going through a few challenges
right now. But I think he's the funnest
guy to watch these days. What's your
favorite thing to do with Cruz these
days?
I would say building things. He loves to
build and assemble. So mostly Lego. He
put We put together
a little gingerbread house for Christmas
the other day.
And he likes to meticulously assemble
projects.
I would say the second thing is reading.
He We're
depending on the week, sometimes he
really loves books, sometimes not so
much, but I love reading with him.
So that's what I would say are the two
favorite things. Explain the let's go to
Home Depot song to me. Well, that's
there's this this
Spanish song my my wife listens to and
and
I couldn't obviously can't figure out
what they're saying and I So I just I
just insert English words all the time
and start singing them along and her and
her family always laugh at me. And so
one of the one of the songs sounded to
me like they're saying we're going to go
to Home Depot. We go to Home Depot. So
they're all listening to music enjoying
themselves and I walk in and start
singing like a a gringo and uh
brings lots of laughter to them.
You've been underestimated
over and over again in life.
Did that start early?
Yeah, I think so. I mean when I when I
was first elected, I was running against
Minister of National Defense and I was
24 years old. And he'd been elected I
think six times federally and and
municipally.
And no one thought I had a hope and I
won that and then um
most people thought I would never get
into cabinet. I did that and then I
don't think people expected that I would
win the leadership of the Conservative
Party with such a strong victory.
But I like being underestimated.
What's your guilty fast food pleasure?
You know, I don't have a lot of guilty
fast food pleasures anymore. I've become
much more disciplined in my diet.
So
I always had a weakness for ice cream,
but I'm I'm pretty hard pretty hardcore
disciplined now.
I'm mostly a carnivore diet now. What's
your workout regimen? Kettlebells.
Every day? No, I wouldn't say every day.
As as often as I can. The great thing
about kettlebells you can hit your you
can do a full body workout in 15-20
minutes.
And you're set. You don't need to work
out the next day. And I just do some
body weight usually in my hotel room. I
bring some bungee cords along just for
like some fine-tuning. It's nothing
impressive, but it if I'm on the road
for long periods of time and I don't
have my kettlebells around,
then I just use some bungee cords,
push-up squats, that kind of thing.
And I can usually I can bang out a
workout in 15 minutes.
You got to be efficient.
Tim Hortons or Starbucks?
I don't love either of them to be
honest. I like independent I I like
independent coffee shops that are
stronger. I like strong coffee. Really
strong. I don't like it watered down.
I like you know, a really punchy like
Turkish coffee or or espresso. I don't
like anything with too much water in it
or milk.
Boxing or MMA? I'd say MMA. But I love
both. Hockey or baseball? Hockey. Desert
or ocean? Desert.
Why? I find the desert incredibly
beautiful and peaceful. I like the dry
air. I've been to a lot of deserts. Like
my wife and I had our honeymoon in
Morocco.
And we went to the desert and slept
there.
And
I just find the desert to be incredibly
beautiful. I love the hot dry air.
Um
it's
it's very peaceful.
Um I I I love it. What's your least
favorite household chore?
Matching socks.
I hate when you pull a big pile of socks
on and you have to sit there and try to
match the it's the most frustrating
thing I
in household living. If your wife had to
describe you in one word, what word
would she use?
I think she would say determined. And
how would you say the kids would
describe you in one word? Ridiculous.
Cuz I love to I love to horse around
with them. I love to tease them. I love
to wrestle with them.
I love to uh
make funny faces and and
half the time it makes them laugh. And
the other half the time it makes them uh
want to give dad a little hit across the
face.
What's your favorite memory with your
family from the past year?
I can't think of one
particular moment.
But I would just say watching Valentina
make progress. She's really progressed.
She has obviously some some challenges.
But she's very communicative now. She's
not quite speaking yet.
And she she knows how to communicate
through her own form of sign language,
her own She understands words.
So she you you know that cuz she
responds to what you're saying.
And she actually can project into the
future so we can tell her what she's
going to be doing throughout the morning
and and as the morning progresses she
will walk through that day.
Um she was just at the shopping center
with Anna I think it was yesterday and
she picked out a little pair of dress
shoes. She was very proud when she got
back to our residence for uh
a Hanukkah party that she could put put
her her her fancy new dress shoes on and
she had a little bit of makeup and she
was pointing at her lips saying, you
know, to indicate she wanted makeup on.
And she's become very advanced and I
think she's much happier little girl.
She's calmer now. She's sleeping a lot
better.
So I I can't pinpoint like one instance.
I can just tell you that that
progression for us has been really
great.
Do you ever get stressed? Less and less,
you know, and it
the more stress I face, the less
stressed I become.
Because
you learn
that you not only in theory but in
practice that worrying has no point.
There's no purpose to it.
And
I focus on what I can control.
And that is the most liberating thing
you can do.
And whether it's the Serenity Prayer or
I saw this Hindu priest online
and he said he had a magic formula to
end all worry.
He said, you ask these yourself these
questions. Do you have a problem?
No?
Why worry?
Yes? Do you have a solution?
Yes? Then why worry?
You don't have a solution?
Well, then why worry? At the end of the
day,
no matter what the circumstances,
worrying won't make it better.
So I have found as I've grown I used to
be a lot more
used to have much more anticipatory
anxiety in my youth. Like what's going
to happen? We got to control events.
But now you realize there are certain
events out of your control and you focus
on the things that are in your control.
And it's an incredibly liberating
um feeling.
How do you maintain hope in politics?
I'll give you a bit of context to this.
I find the more I pay attention to
politics, the more it affects me Mhm. as
a person. It affects me positively and a
lot of optimism. And it affects me
negatively and sort of
I wouldn't say cynicism, but
despair almost. Like things aren't
getting better and how do we make things
better? And I feel for all the you know,
millions of people who are lined up at a
food bank and
I feel for our policies and the
consequences of those policies. How do
you maintain hope?
What other choice do we have?
But then to have hope.
Um
And you know, I meet so many people that
tell me that they see me as their hope.
And um
what what strikes me about them is they
don't give up. You know, like I meet
people who are
fighting every day just to get by, to
just to feed their kids.
I meet, you know, the middle-aged couple
that wants to have kids and they can't
afford a home. I meet the mother who
lost her kid to an overdose, but she's
still advocating
for
drug treatment to save other people's
sons and daughters.
And these people don't give up. So I
don't give up. That's what keeps me
going. That's what keeps me having hope.
Speaking of drug treatment, we give
drugs to people.
That doesn't seem to be working. Why do
we keep doing that?
That's a very good question. The answer
is that there's a whole apparatus that
profits off of keeping the drug crisis
going. Is that federal or provincial?
It's a combination. It's federal in the
sense that there are federal transfers
to local governments that give out these
drugs.
And there are federal exemptions to the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that
make it legal to consume otherwise
banned substances.
Um but there is a um an entire apparatus
that is profiting
off of the drug crisis. And they have
enormous political power. The the
pharmaceutical companies, the
bureaucracy, the consultants, the
agencies. And if the drug crisis were to
vanish, they would all stop profiting
from it. So, they keep it going. And I'm
sorry that people don't want to hear it,
but that is exactly why this problem has
gotten bigger and worse over time.
Governments, pharmaceutical companies,
and a whole group of parasitical
interest groups have created this crisis
and perpetuated it. You know, the irony
of this is this.
How do we get into this drug crisis?
Where did it start?
A bunch of corrupt pharmaceutical
companies like Purdue
came up with OxyContin,
claimed that it was harmless and
non-addictive,
pushed and bribed
the medical community to over-prescribe
it, particularly in hope communities
that were deprived of hope due to
economic conditions. They got
literally millions of people hooked on
it. They killed half a million Americans
and 50,000 Canadians.
And now we're told
that the solution
to pharmaceutical addictions, to
pharmaceutically prescribed drugs,
is to
give out more
pharmaceutically prescribed drugs,
profiting the same industry that caused
the crisis. This is insane.
We need to do exactly the opposite
with treatment and recovery. And there
are incredible treatment centers, and
almost all of them are based on getting
off drugs completely, not like trying to
give people more and different types of
drugs.
They get them off drugs
and they give them treatment,
counseling, physical exercise,
group therapy, job placement, housing. I
met with a group in Windsor. They have a
70% success rate on the first treatment
to get guys off drugs. And one of the
guys, young guys there, he actually got
out, started a home renovation company
that only hires graduates from the
treatment facility. So, he's got like
five employees, and they're all
recovered drug addicts.
And so, there are ways to do it. We can
do it. We can get people off drugs. So,
my message to people is you're addicted
to drugs, there is hope. And not only
that,
we need you.
We need you to get better so you can be
an inspiration. You can go onto the
street and grab the next guy, pull him
off the ground, bring him in for
treatment, and then he's going to go on
the street and pull in the next guy.
And we're going to create that virtuous
circle until we've saved every one of
our brothers and sisters.
Seems like we don't think of second,
third, fourth order consequences to
that.
And so, one of those is, you know, when
you go I was in emerge a few weeks ago.
And I'm surrounded by a lot of people
who are OD'd on drugs. So, we think
about wait times at hospitals, and we
think of the the leading domino to this
problem
in some cases is that we're giving
people
drugs for their addiction instead of
solving the addiction and then cutting
off supply.
Yes. And we should lock up fentanyl
dealers. It takes 2 mg of fentanyl to
stop your lungs.
So, I my view is anyone who's caught
marketing
or producing more than 40 mg, enough to
kill 20 people, should be given a murder
sentence. It should be considered murder
to give out
to to move those numbers because
if you if you spray bullets into a
crowd, you might not know who you're
killing.
You know, there's might even be a
miraculous chance that you don't kill
somebody, but you know you're probably
going to kill someone.
If you're spraying 40
mg of
of fentanyl around, you're going to kill
somebody. So, you should be charged with
murder and never come out of jail.
That's my view.
I'd like to return to locking people up.
Um Bad people.
Well, yes.
>> news is there's not a lot of them.
There's not a lot of them. There's
actually not a lot of criminals in
Canada. That we we we we could we get a
sense
>> Crime will go down. Crime It's a tiny
group of criminals that rampage through
our streets literally all day, every
day. You take them off the street, and
you automatically return to safety. And
we can do that. I want to end with an
optimistic question. What are you most
hopeful for
in the next year?
I'm hopeful that we that we're going to
get back to our the promise of the
country that
we restore the
the idea that anybody who works hard
gets a
gets to to have a great life, own a nice
house,
live on a safe, safe street. That's why
I'm in this. If I didn't think that was
possible, I wouldn't be doing it. But I
do have hope that we're going to restore
that country.
And
I'm going to fight every day to make
that happen.
Thank you, Pierre. And thank you for
taking the time today. Privilege. Thanks
for having me.
[Music]