Autogenerated Transcript (0:00 - 0:34) The majority of Canadians today believe that our country has gone completely off the rails, and especially under Justin Trudeau's government. Our debt has spiraled out of control, while societal Marxism has captured our governments and mainstream media. Medical assistance in dying, SOGI and the trans agenda, DEI hiring policies, and the woke infection of our universities are cheapening the value of human life and undermining the family as the foundation of our society. (0:35 - 3:09) Christianity is under attack, while churches burn and people of faith are accused of being homophobic and racist. Mainstream media is the mouthpiece of our corrupt government, while Trudeau and his allies pass bills to silence any dissent, primarily from independent media. Canada is not the country it once was. But that doesn't mean it can't be saved. Stockwell Day served as leader of the opposition in his position as the head of the Alliance Party from September 2000 to December 2001. Despite his short tenure in that position, Mr. Day has extensive experience in politics, having served as Alberta's Minister of Finance, Minister of Social Services, and Minister of Labour. And he has some very clear ideas on how we can save our country. Stockwell, it's a pleasure to have you on the show. Great to be with you. Thanks. And it was a real pleasure for me to bump into you at the Justice Centre dinner a couple of weeks ago. And I know that my viewers are going to be very, very interested in your views of what's going on in politics today and the absolute disaster that's happening. But before we get into that, I want to establish a baseline. You and I have a common acquaintance. Rob Andrews is one of the longest serving MPs in Canada. He was in the Conservative Party at the same time that you were in government as the leader of the official opposition. And a comment that Rob made to me a while back is even back then, he described Ottawa as a swamp. That was his exact word. What were your perceptions at the time back in around 2000, 2002 when you were in government? Sure. Great question. And it's a characterization that is fairly common, right? Political life and the places where politics happen being referred to as swamps. So yeah, you get swamped as a politician, first of all. Let's look at it that way. And the larger the political entity, the the swamp or the more swamping that goes on. So federal vis-a-vis political or vis-a-vis provincial. First of all, as an elected person, you're swamped by time. And I'm not in politics anymore, so I'm not just waving a flag saying, oh, how hard MPs work or MLAs, but it is a fact. (3:10 - 5:32) The workload is insane. Much of it is unfortunate and doesn't go anywhere, but you just plain swamped by time. So that's just a reality of it. And then you're swamped. If you want to use the analogy of swamp, yeah, there's alligators that are out there to get you or to get your party. There's alligators in the swamp. There's snakes and vipers in the swamp. And the bigger the swamp, the more people and agendas there are out to get you. In spite of that, if you want to continue the analogy, the metaphor, you visited swamps, the Everglades and other places, there's some pretty beautiful things that happen there. So yes, it's a swamp and you need to learn how to navigate it. Now, you said something interesting there to those of us who have never been in politics, have no direct experience of it. And you said, the first thing you said, you're swamped by time, that the workload is insane. But we, of course, as the people, we don't see that. We just see recordings from the House of Commons on CPAC. And what kind of time demands are there as an MP, and especially for yourself as leader of the opposition? Well, again, I'm not trying to make a case for overworked elected representatives, but that being said, it's an insane schedule. And I used to tell MPs when I was government house leader and members of the legislature, do not whine about the job. Don't cry because, first of all, no one's going to believe you and nobody's going to care. And I also tell them, if you've been elected the second time, the first time you get into politics, first time around, we can say we're ignorant. We just had no idea. But if you've run, if you're running for the second time, sorry, you don't have my sympathy is what I would say to my colleagues. You knew what's involved. So quit the whining. Just get up, get to work. It's all inside work and there's no heavy lifting. So there's some advantage there. But it is a reality. When you're in your constituency, the calls, I can tell you, for individual meetings from constituents and for official meetings, it literally could be 24-7. You have to actually regulate it. I would tell at home, I would tell my wife and I would tell my staff or my wife would tell me, here is the part of the day is family time. Here is going to be our holiday time. (5:33 - 7:31) Here is going to be school time with kids or sports. And after that, I would tell my staff on scheduling, just fill your boots, load it up, let's go. So you've got the constituency issues are the most time consuming. That alone could be 24-7 if you allowed it. And then when you are either in your legislature provincially or when you're in the House of Commons, from early morning until late at night, there are the invariable and inevitable, the committee meetings, there's the time in the actual House of Commons itself. It's just endless. And then there's people who want to meet with you, the various, it could be constituency groups, it could be industry groups. That also goes on indefinitely. So to tell you the truth, you never get everything done. You just don't. You have to prioritize and you have to meet the demands as they are, but it is overwhelming. So that's why I say number one, you're swamped by time and you have to learn to manage it or you and your family will drown. Yeah. And I can relate to journalism as much the same story. Now, these days, there's been a huge societal shift in the last 25 years in our country to the point now we've got people in parliament who openly gay, not a problem for most people, but we've also got MPs who are standing up in the House of Commons in support of the trans agenda. And nobody has a problem with this. Now, 25 years ago, and wait, I've kind of missed a part to that question. If you're openly Christian, as you are, sir, they'll do everything to silence you and your opinions. So what was it like 25 years ago? You're a former pastor, you made no secret of your Christian beliefs. In fact, they found the foundation of a lot of your platforms and your views. Did you suffer any kind of cancellation or criticism? And I don't mean from the media, because we know that. (7:31 - 8:03) I'm talking about other MPs. Mostly with members of parliament and or in a provincial legislature. Believe it or not, most get along fairly well, fairly collegially. And we might have certain thoughts about the other one from time to time. But yeah, that's not where it's worst. Let's take a step back philosophically. (8:04 - 11:01) There's two main streams of thought that I'll look at here. There's others, but I want to talk about, to answer your good question, something we refer to as cultural Marxism. Now, before people react and say, oh, there they go, they're spotting communists behind every rock. That's not the issue here. We go back to the writings of Karl Marx, and Karl Marx had some very key and very strong points. Number one, you have to get rid of the notion of the concept of God. That has to be gotten rid of. You do that one of two ways, through scorn, and then actually you can legislate it. You have to eliminate that as far as you possibly can. Number two, you have to get rid of, and you can do it by scorn or by other forms of elimination, the concept of family. Marx was very opposed to that, saw it as patriarchal and suffocating, and you have to get rid of that notion. So anything to do with family must be diminished or ridiculed. And then the right to own one's own home, and that was really the roots of his opposition to property rights. Because of a family as an individual unit, if you can have your own home, there's a degree of independence there, and there's a degree of freedom of thought there from other thoughts out in the community or in culture. So you've got to get rid of that. And then really the fourth one, you have to realign the whole economic approach. You have to get rid of choice when it comes to how you want to have a living, what enterprises you want to pursue. And his most important point is, in his writings, these things are evil, that I just mentioned. They have to actually be gotten rid of by force, and hence his very strong conclusion that society as we know it must be violently overthrown. So now you move into the guys who started to adopt those policies. You look at Lenin, you look at Stalin, and they took that last one. If anybody adheres to concepts of God, concepts of family, concepts of freedom, home ownership, freedom of enterprise, they actually were, as we know, physically eliminated. You only had to go, as the communists did then, and as they still do, you only had to go into a town, you only had to shoot a few people in the head, or as Stalin famously said, you only have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. You do that, and everybody else will fall into line. So that has changed, thankfully, at least in many areas from the murdering concept into what we call cultural Marxism. So culturally, you will still be, and you see this now, it has overtaken our universities and media largely, the concept of God should be ridiculed, should actually probably be eliminated because it's harmful. The concept of family should probably be ridiculed and probably gotten rid of. (11:01 - 11:47) The concept of home ownership, of individual pursuits when it comes to economic freedom, that should be gotten rid of. And then the most important point, which Marx pointed out, you have to eliminate people who want to advocate for those causes. So that's the prime difference then between that and say Adam Smith, who their works were published not exactly at the same time, but whose underpinnings were exactly the opposite. He believed there was a God that people were responsible to. He believed in the strength and the power of families as units where you could raise people to be independent thinkers and to be in a safe environment. He believed the ability to choose in terms of how you are pursuing your livelihood and to own your own home and property. (11:48 - 13:38) But primarily, he also believed that you should have the right to express yourself. And in a democratic society, you express yourself, everybody has input, you take a vote, win or lose, you move on to the next issue. And this is the prime difference between, I call myself Smithsonian, in terms of allowing that debate. Cultural Marxist, you go into university classrooms, and any university kids will tell you this, your view must be actually eliminated and you should not be, in fact, you must not be allowed to have an opposing view. And that is what permeates media today, that is what permeates many small L liberal governments and large L. You can't allow the opposing view. So now you bring that up to the issues you've just mentioned. You mentioned the transgender issue. One thing that media does not allow, will not allow, and academe will not allow, anything other than what is being proposed on the so-called transgender issue should not be allowed and people should be cancelled if they have an opposing view. So that's why I'll close out this thought. That's why I, for instance, support what the Premier of Alberta has proposed on the transgender issue. I think it's ultimately wise. She has said that under a certain age, there will be no surgery granted to minors, no genital disfiguration, no genital operation, stop the double mastectomies that are happening with very young girls, stop the puberty blockers for minors. They've been proven scientifically to be very dangerous. Disallow competition in sports. If you were born as a male, you should not be able to compete against girls. (13:39 - 16:28) So she brought those in and then leaving it and respecting the choice of adults. Adults want to go through those various changes. That's going to be their choice, but not on kids. So that view, when it came out, and it still is, again, what kicks in? Cultural Marxism kicks in. You see in the media, they hate that view. They say it shouldn't be permitted. You see it in academe. And so those are the competing forces that we're up against. The cultural Marxists, which pervade most of the cultural heights of society today, and at the end of the day, they do not want freedom of discussion on this. And then there's, let's say, the true believers in democracy and freedom, of which I am in that camp. Right. And as an Albertan, I can say that Daniel Smith has gotten an awful lot of support for these moves that she's making to protect her children. And so I'd have to ask, why is it that federal politics... I mean, my sense would be if anybody suggested such a thing in federal politics today, they'd be shouted down on the floor. There'd be no traction for that at all. So if we've got, clearly, this example in Albert of the people being behind this kind of idea of protecting our kids, and yeah, let's make sure that they're adults before they get to make these sorts of decisions, why federal politics would not just not even listen to such a thing? They'd vilify if you came up with such a suggestion. Yeah, good point. And that's because, as we said at the start, the swamp is just so much bigger and there's so many... The forces against you are so magnified. And the weapon that is used, remember the final weapon that Marx wanted to use, Karl Marx, was just kill a person. But here, we have a different way of doing it, and that's kill them off in terms of how they're perceived. And so you will be called... You start to use other weapons other than just shooting a person. Call them phobic. Call them hateful. Call them racist. And what politicians know, once you hurl a term like that at somebody, mainstream media will pick it up and just run with it without question. And so elected people realize, wow, if I raise this, I'm going to be called phobic? I'm going to be called racist? And you know what? It's not just among elected people. I talk to parents daily across the country who are terrified of speaking up, let's say, on the type of policies that Daniel Smith has advocated for. They're terrified. They won't even speak up because they themselves in their neighborhoods and their schools, they don't want to be called phobic. They don't want to be called racist or hateful. But when Angus Reid did the polling across the country specifically on Daniel Smith's proposals, very specific on that, it was almost 80% support. (16:29 - 17:20) Yes. Phenomenal public support. But this is the problem. At the federal level, with that magnifying glasses there, every accusation gets thrown out there and media will not challenge the accusation. They will simply allow the term to stick, whether it's racist or phobic or hateful. And that's why it just, many people, not all, thankfully, many members of parliament will not raise it. But I'm thankful to hear Pierre Paulieff, because he recognizes this is largely a provincial issue, so he hasn't gone into the detail that Daniel Smith has, but he has not been afraid to say he believes in family rights, the rights of parents to raise their kids a certain way and protect their kids. So there's some reflection of that at the federal level. But largely, yeah, people are just terrified. (17:21 - 26:20) So specifically, Stockwell, within the context of federal politics, we've had quite a number of things happen since Trudeau's election especially. We've had the legalization and proliferation of MADE. We've got SOGI, we've got DEI, we've got the trans agenda. How much of all of that do you think is societal Marxism taking hold in our country? How much of it is lobby groups, because you already made reference to a lot of your meetings are that kind of thing when you're an MP. And how much of it is the politicians themselves? How much of this can we lay at the doorstep of society as opposed to what everybody loves to do and blame Trudeau for it? Yeah, that's an important analysis that needs to be done because sometimes we'll just point to one factor, but it's a combination. First of all, a, quote, lobby group. If they are coming with a policy that they want that happens to align, let's say, to the left of the spectrum, they are going to have a large and welcoming audience. They're going to have it among the bureaucrats, and I say that not in a disparaging way. They're going to have it among everybody who's been to, most people who've been to a university who's been forced not to be allowed to have freedom of debate on those issues. So lobby groups are speaking right into the audience that's already pre-built for them. And I believe in lobbying. I think lobbying is a part of the democratic process. You should be able to, either individually or as a group, bring forward concerns. When you bring forward a concern that, let's say, has a culturally leftist thought pattern to it, it's going to be received very favorably. So lobbying is very important. If it's a group coming forward that's non-aligning itself with the culturally Marxist worldview, they're going to have a tougher time. They still need to come forward. Because I'll tell you, here's what happens. A lot of people don't realize this. In a caucus situation, be it provincial or federal, the leader on an issue, and the issue will come up, and the leader or the person who's chairing the caucus, and I've done both, I've been the leader of a caucus and I've also chaired caucuses, will say to his or her elected representatives, what are you hearing on this one? Whatever the issue is. And if the MOAs or MPPs or the MPs have not been hearing from it, constituents, there's just a shrug around the table. It might be a huge issue. But constituents will often say, what's the use? Why should I call my member of parliament? Why should I call my MLA? No, you need to. Because it's those moments behind closed doors where MPs can say, you know what, I'm hearing about this. I think it's an issue. I think we need to deal with it. But if you are not raising your group, then you are simply being displaced by the groups who are raising their voices. And they are out there, and they are loud. Now, Stockwell, before your service in federal government, you were in Alberta Politics, where you served as the minister of finance, the minister of labor, minister of social services, which means you have direct experience with these offices and the responsibilities that come with them. What's your view of how this is being handled now in Ottawa versus how the jobs should be done? You know, there's some stark differences there. First of all, provincial politics, if you want to get something done politically, go into provincial politics. You have so much more impact. The federal level and the number of provinces that have to be and territories that have to look at the number of groups, it's still very important. But if you want to get some things done that really can make impacts on people's lives, then provincial politics is where it's at. And the other part is you have to work with the bureaucracy. Now, bureaucracy gets a bad name, and bureaucrats get a bad name, but it's been my experience, not 100%, but largely, that people who work as public servants, if they're properly understanding their role, and I think most do, they will—you bring forward a policy. Let's go back to, okay, Department of Labor and as Minister of Labor. I brought in a policy which would allow for public servants—these are unionized public servants—to bring forward ideas, not just suggestion boxes, but ideas on how to save money and be more efficient. And if their idea, which would be approved by their manager and was put in place for six months, if that saved real dollars, they would actually get a percentage, a fiscal reward, and their department would get a percentage of that saving. So that's a radical concept going into a union mindset. But when it was presented with the way that it had to be genuine, had to be a real cost saving, and whatever service was being delivered had to be improved, and their suggestion couldn't be to come forward and just say, well, I want to save money, okay, fire Bob. No, that was not going to be the—now, there may be a time when you have to look at outsourcing, but in this particular case, it was genuine, tried and true ideas that were tested, saved money, and the public servants themselves who were responsible for that trial and success would actually reap some of the rewards, so would their department. It was hugely successful and never been done before in the way that we did it. And I remember at the annual general meeting of the Department of Labor, standing up there and giving checks, handing out checks to public servants whose idea, number one, improved service and saved money. Sadly, the leadership in unions hated it. They despised it. It goes against their thinking. But the rank and file largely liked it. So there was a case where when I presented that idea, the so-called—the bureaucrats, they took it away, they analyzed, they came back, and they gave the pros and cons, and that's what as a minister I want. Tell me what you think is wrong with this idea. Tell me what you think is right. At the end of the day, a decision was made. I said, thanks for all the input, and also for those of you who don't think it's going to work, now we're going ahead with it. And they said, all right, that's our job is to implement. They implemented it very well. So that's a sign of a public service that works well. But the more power you give to anybody, be it a bureaucrat or a politician, the more unfettered power you get, the less inclined they're going to be to want to take a collaborative approach. They're just going to want to enforce their way. That's why this whole issue of power, it's more equitably distributed among the players, if we can use that, at the provincial level than it is at the federal level. So that's it. The province, you can get more things done. Federal, it's just more difficult. Now, you were also Minister of Social Services, and that's very relevant to your comments about social marxism, the attack upon the family, your comments that you made that many parents are afraid to speak out, even though they're afraid for their children, they're afraid for what's happening societally. How do we fix that? How do we get back to this point where Canadians will speak up and say, look, no, you're endangering my kids with these policies, and we want to see them change? Well, there has to be a change of mentality, first of all, among media and among those who are using these labels as weapons. So there has to come to an agreement that every time or any time your particular view is challenged, doesn't mean the person challenging you is racist or a bigot or hateful. And you've got to restore, raise the level of civility to the point that you're just simply not being called racist. And there has to be a, like I tell people when I speak to university classes, I say, you know, democracy, of course, and I'm a fierce Democrat, but really when it comes down to it, at the end of the day, we've agreed to set aside our swords and our shields and our flamethrowers and our arrows and spears. We've agreed to set those aside and not kill off the opposition as Karl Marx would want to do, but we just switch up the weapons. We now use other weapons to kill off the opposition. And because we know that media will reward us. If I attack someone as being racist or a bigot or phobic, media will reward me by sticking that label to the person. So media has a share of responsibility here. When an MP comes forward in an interview and says, so-and-so is racist, media don't just, should not just, the journalists not just, you know, nod in a benign kind of way and let it go. They should challenge them. They should push them on it. So that's a starting point. You've got to raise that level of civility and media more than any others fan the fires of incivility. They don't like to hear that, but they do fan those fires by not pushing back and making sure that what's being said is being done in a balanced way. (26:21 - 27:40) So you, yes, and you've made this comment that the media is the problem that you get this accusation leveled at you and the media picks it up and runs with it. Peter Poliev has sworn to defund the CBC. And of course, it's not just the CBC, all mainstream media in Canada is getting hundreds of millions of dollars from our federal government. Do you think that defunding them is at least part of the answer? There needs to be a change, for sure. I think just fundamentally, it's wrong to fund, give taxpayer money to fund one certain media source or a few sources against another, especially if because you kind of like the direction of one media organization, you don't like the direction of another. So look at the CBC. And let me just say, I worked for a number of years with CBC. They paid me as a commentator, political commentator, once a week, and worked for years. They never once said, you can't say this or you can't say that. And I was known to represent a small C conservative view. So on a personal basis, I got along well, I stayed clearly, here's what I'm going to be saying, and that was it. But from a market point of view, or from the view of power to fund one organization and not fund another media organization, you are literally buying the press, you are buying the media. (27:42 - 28:27) I think there's ripe opportunity to look at the CBC and look at a different funding model. It could be defunding. And what Pierre Polyeb says about that, yeah, if that's the only way to do it, then they should be defunded. But reconstruct in the process, reconstruct their own model so they could go to the marketplace and actually raise funds in the marketplace, give them a restructured investment model. And then Canadians who purport some love CBC and they want to support it, then they can buy shares. Let CBC go to the marketplace and raise some of their own funding. That's a model that could work. But funding one or a few organizations subsidizing over another is simply wrong. The consequences are terrible and shouldn't happen. (28:28 - 29:42) In parallel to that question, Stockwell, our government right now, our federal government is trying very hard to silence independent media, C11, C18, various other bills that have either been passed or they're trying to pass. What's your thoughts on that? Shouldn't happen. Again, it goes back to cultural Marxism. Remember, Karl Marx said, kill off the opposition. Thankfully, we don't do that, but we do have other ways of eliminating them. And one way of eliminating them, as we said, is to reward some financially and then just shut down the others. And I just, I have to chuckle, but it's not funny when I see a government, a liberal government minister, Andy Peter, very strong in this too, saying, you know what? We are going to silence uninformed views. We are going to silence views that might be propaganda. I want to say, and to all your viewers, I'm sure they know this, a huge percentage of everything you hear out of every political party is propaganda. Now, it might be propaganda based on truth. And of course, every party would say that. But who gets to decide? I'll tell you who gets to decide, the one with the power. (29:42 - 31:44) And the one who's getting criticized is often the one with the power. And when you give them the power to silence the critics, that would be the independent journalists. We're in for a very tough time. It's written very well by George Orwell in 1984. That's a very frightening time to get into, and you cannot allow that to happen. I interview often with independent, small independent media who are significantly left-wing. And then I see what they write and how sometimes they post my remarks well, and others they don't. They'll twist my words. I get mad. I get upset. I might demand a retraction that's usually futile. I never suggest they should be outlawed. I never suggest, because they're leftists and they're not telling the truth, we should shut them down. People are smarter than most politicians want to get credit for. You're able to check facts. And even the thing of fact-checking, as we've seen on some of the debates in the U.S., who are the fact-checkers? That becomes a key problem. So unless you are really, as a journalist, inciting someone to kill somebody else, unless you are—we have clear rules already, more than we even need on incitement. You've got all the levers of power you need to stop what might be seen as wicked or evil or types of reporting that just doesn't cut it. There are ways already to do that. The bill that's before the House of Commons, liberals want the Online Harms Act is—I'm sorry if I get accused of hyperbole here—is so frightening in terms of any citizen, unnamed, anonymous, can bring forward a claim to anything, anybody, anytime post on the internet. That person will then be investigated at their own expense and any number of things, any number of sanctions could come into place. (31:45 - 31:58) This Online Harms Act is straight out of 1984. It would really be reason enough to vote against the liberal NDP coalition, even if you were a liberal NDP supporter. It's terrifying stuff. (31:58 - 32:14) People should read it. And one of the clauses of that act says that you can even bring this complaint forward anonymously, which seems to me to violate our right to face our accuser. Yeah, and that's why I mentioned that it's the anonymity that is the terrible part of it. (32:15 - 33:06) So you know what? I'm telling people, if the liberal NDP coalition is insane enough to pass that, I'm encouraging Canadians right across the country from coast to coast, just go online, look at every reporter you can—hopefully it'll be the liberal ones, which are the majority—and just start filing the complaints, legitimately, by the thousands, and bury that ridiculous legislation that's coming forward. It's not just Aurelian. Colonel Marks would have loved it. He would have been able to put people away without having to shoot them in the head. So really, Canadians, from whatever political strength you are, if that legislation passes, you will find lots in the media that you don't like, just anonymously file a complaint, and let's bury that thing in millions of complaints. An excellent suggestion. (33:06 - 33:51) Stockwell, I'd like to return to the economy. You made some statements earlier about changes you made when you were the Alberta Minister of Finance to make the government more fiscally responsible. I'm certain that the vast majority of Canadians today are just appalled by the budgets that have been coming out under Christa Freeland, a woman who has absolutely no qualifications to be Minister of Finance. We've got Trudeau's government, which has more than doubled our country's debt during his tenure as Prime Minister. Where do you see that leading us? Well, Canadians need to realize that, first of all, we used to say, and people still say, money doesn't grow on trees. And then I thought one time after we presented with a ridiculous request for giant funds, I said, actually, money does grow on trees if it's made of paper. (33:51 - 35:34) It actually does. So some people actually think it has no limit. But every time, people need to recognize this, when a government is in debt, when they are running a deficit, every dollar of spending increases the deficit. So every dollar of deficit spending reduces your family's purchasing power and increases the political power of the government that's proposing it. You need to understand that when governments, and they all do this, come to buy your votes with a massive subsidy of some kind, they want to give you something free, it's very tempting. But realize, overall, your purchasing power is going to be reduced. And this is what liberal politicians and so-called Keynesian economists don't recognize or refuse to admit. You're going deeper in debt, digging the hole as you get deeper and deeper, continues to reduce your purchasing power. A university student famously asked John Maynard Keynes, who was a major proponent of deficit financing, he said quite rightly, in the long run though, as this debt keeps getting refinanced, doesn't this whole system finally collapse in the long run? And Keynes, who was honest, but his response was so brutal and evil, he said, in the long run, we'll all be dead. So he was being honest, but you know what? My grandkids won't be dead. They're going to be stuck with that. And Canadians have to develop, and it's difficult to do, the ability, the muscle power to push back on those huge promises that are being given with increased funding while you're running a debt. (35:35 - 35:48) And so what I'm talking about, you're raising your spending while you're increasing your debt. You're losing your purchasing power. And really, the only way to do that is to throw out the parties that embrace that kind of a policy. (35:49 - 36:25) And we're getting to that very important question. But first, I want to ask, what are your views on the carbon tax? I don't think it's effectual. It hasn't worked. And again, it reduces everybody's purchasing power. And people say, yeah, but we get this check in the mail. The government sends us, there was off the carbon tax, and here's a check. Don't get fooled by that. It's deficit spending. It's reducing your spending power. So number one, it doesn't work. Number two, it belies the fact that there is no real openness of discussion on the best ways to address concerns about the environment. We're all concerned about the environment. (36:25 - 37:47) But when you bring up concerns, what happens? The cultural Marxists come flying at you, and you become a denier. That's the other big term. And people are afraid to speak up on it. So again, the carbon tax belies the fact that we're not getting fair and legitimate discussion on environment and environmental issues themselves. Here we have China. On the blueprints right now, on their planning to build blueprints right now, there's over 2,000 coal-fired plants being built in China because of their huge energy demand. We could help with that by supplying them with refined Canadian natural gas, the best in the world. And the cultural environmentalists, they go crazy. They say, no, you're just trying to kill off the environment. All fossil fuels have to stop. No. If a fossil fuel will reduce the amount of emission that's being used by another fuel, then bring it in. We've got this colonial environmental attitude towards Africa, where we tell African people, we here in the West, we've got all the benefits of wonderful, refined natural gas. And we've got air conditioning, and we've got heat, and we've got unlimited food, and we've got water. But you know what? We're not going to let you Africans have that. (37:47 - 44:19) We're not going to let you, we're not going to sell you our natural gas, for instance. You're going to subside on wind power and solar, and you could just keep on starving. That's actually what the West is saying to countries like Africa. It's horrific, and it's wrong. And these things need to change. So carbon tax is just an indicator of the fact that when you bring up another suggestion, another proposal, for instance, how often do you think your viewers, or viewers in general, hear about the costs, the environmental costs of the wind industry, the manufacturer of those windmills, not just the manufacturer, the bird kill that is involved, and the 25-year shelf life? You know what it takes in terms of environmental cost to get rid of, to recycle one of those units, or solar power, some of the most precious metals in the world that are having to be mined because of that. So there are times when there might be some value in those. But the present approach that we're taking, I'll close up a thought on this, one of my many visits into India, and that was on trade issues, and sometimes it was on security issues, taking the train hundreds and hundreds of miles on a very hot day, and looking at the side of the tracks and seeing innumerable, the numbers of women who are, it looked like baking something. It looked like they were making patties of some kind, mile after mile after mile, baking cow patties, cow pies in the sun by the tracks to take home, to heat their homes, or to use for cooking fuel. So the health effect of that on their kids, the effects on the environment, and we want to enhance things by saying, go with our natural gas. Consider some fossil refined alternatives. And no, you're shouted down as being a denier. So until we can deal with the culturally marxist effect in the media and in politics of stopping these labels and attacking people when they're coming out with other ideas, we're going to continue to suffer and continue to head in the wrong direction. Pierre Polyev has promised to ax the tax if he's elected as prime minister. He recently released an ad which suggests, at least he's also opposed to this cultural marxism we've been talking about, to Soji, to Maid, to the trans agenda. Do you think Pierre Polyev is the right person to lead our country at this point in time? And as a second part of that question, what would be your advice to him if he does end up as our next prime minister? Well, I do give him advice from time to time. Sometimes he takes it and sometimes he doesn't. That's entirely up to him. But he's a good example of somebody, he listens and then he makes a decision. And he doesn't eliminate the person who's bringing the advice. I have the added advantage of, if people don't like Pierre, I guess there's a few out there who don't, you can blame me. I'm the guy who brought him to Ottawa. He first worked for me in Ottawa. And I could see really right from the start, here is a hardworking guy. Here's a guy who's very diligent about what he does and who cares. And I'll always remember the cold winter night when he came to me in my office and said, you know, I'm thinking of running for a nomination for a conservative. And I said, well, good for you. You're well known in Calgary and you probably do well. And he said, no, I'm thinking of running right here in Ottawa. And I kind of said, I took a little moment and kind of said quietly, okay, you know, Lord forgive me. And I said, good idea, thinking he doesn't have a chance. But even I underestimated hard work, which I'm in favor of. Through hard work and proving himself, he got himself elected. And he keeps getting elected in a hostile environment because his constituents know that he gets back to them and he's concerned about them. So he's built a reputation for that. And he's built a reputation for listening. Sometimes he takes the advice, sometimes he doesn't. But he doesn't shoot the person who brings the advice and he won't be coming out with policies to stifle other points of view. And he will come out with policies that allow families to thrive. And that's recognizing that ongoing deficit spending kills the purchasing power of families. He's aware of that and he actually will reverse that. So whether it's Pierre or perhaps down the road at somebody else who becomes prime minister under a conservative government, and I'm going to use a small C there. Do you think there's any way we can dig ourselves out of this pit that we've been dug into by the liberal policies? And that's a very broad spectrum question, Stockwell. That's finance, that's cultural Marxism, that's the whole enchilada. Can we even get out of this at this point in time? Well, on the financial side, that's a fair question because some people say, we'll never dig ourselves out. So let's just be like John Maynard Keynes and let's just say it's all going to collapse. Let's just fund it in a way that we can enjoy it before it collapses. No, there is a way to get out. And we did it in Alberta under Premier Ralph Klein. He made an outrageous projection to get us elected the first time. He said, within four years, we're going to reduce government spending, the size of government by 20%, which then was regarded as impossible. And even nowadays on a municipal election, you're happy when a mayor and councillor says, you know what, we're only going to increase your taxes 8% or 9%. We all go, oh, shoot, it's only 8% or 9% increase. That's irresponsible thinking. It can be done, but it takes discipline and you actually have to legislate it. And so we brought into legislation, which then got modeled a few years later in a number of provinces like Ontario and others that required a certain amount. If you, first of all, if you did have a surplus, a certain amount has to go to paying down the debt and you've got to bring in, you have to bring in legislation that says within a certain time, you will bring your deficit to zero. It can be done. The other way you break, well, how do you get more revenues? By people working harder, by people being allowed to enjoy the hard, the results of their hard labor. How do you do that? Actually, it sounds counterintuitive either by reducing taxes. So when we're reducing taxes, the liberals say, no, no, you got to raise taxes. No, raising taxes kills off incentive. People will work less hard. (44:19 - 44:43) They'll be less willing to innovate. They'll be less willing to be entrepreneurial. They'll be less willing to invest. And we proved that in Alberta. You reduce taxes, you will cause people to be more productive, and you will bring in people from other provinces and around the world who love that kind of atmosphere. And you will actually then have more money for the programs that people need the most. (44:44 - 45:59) Stockwell, my own personal opinion, I seldom render my personal opinions in interviews, but I'm going to this time, is that one of the ways we can get out of this is one of the platforms that you were advocating when you were leader of the opposition, and that is greater provincial autonomy. But how do we achieve that? You do it on an issue by issue basis. And this might sound funny to some of the viewers and listeners, but I say we use Quebec as a model. Quebec has been a wonderful example of a province that stands up using the constitution, using our Canadian constitution, which clearly defines areas of provincial rights, areas of federal rights, and then there are areas where the responsibilities are shared. And Quebec, as we know, vigorously stands up for provincial rights. Most provinces don't stand up quite as strongly because the federal government buys them off or pays them off with certain programs. And I think right now, Premier Smith and actually some of the former premiers in Alberta have done this. You have to stand up and fight hard and let the federal governments know whatever the area is. If it's provincial jurisdiction, no, you got to butt out. (45:59 - 47:09) And as we would say in Alberta, you don't just move off the porch, you move right off the property. So allow provinces to do what they can do. And Canada should be a wonderful laboratory where you've got 10 provinces, three territories, let them practice different ways of taxation, for instance, and look at the results. When we were practicing our particular approach to taxation and to getting rid of debt and deficit, at the same time, Ontario, which was an NDP government at the time run by Bob Ray, was on a very different fiscal path. That province was bankrupting itself. Matter of fact, their debt was so horrific, it was literally affecting the borrowing rates that all Canadians were paying. We took a very different approach in Alberta. We brought down taxes, we got rid of debt and deficit, and we legislated those things. So then other provinces can sit and take a look and say, well, do we want to collapse financially like Ontario under the NDP? Or do we want to have more freedom to raise our families and pursue our own hopes and dreams and allow those things to happen? So provinces need to fight hard to put in the programs and not be punished. (47:09 - 47:57) We've got a program in Canada called the Equalization Program. And part of that, what's looked at, and it gets very confusing, I can tell you right now, viewers and listeners, don't glaze over yet when you hear that word, because it's brought out unfairly. They will say, well, we look at the ability of a province to raise tax, but they don't include in the evaluation, how is the money being managed in that province? So under Ontario, under the NDP, you had money being managed terribly. And so their ability to raise taxes, because they had to keep raising taxes, got diminished. And so then they apply the formula and say, well, look, we've only got a little bit, we have no tax room left. Why don't you? Because of a lot of mismanagement. (47:57 - 49:32) But you take a province like Alberta, which managed much more tightly and did not even succumb to the siren song of bringing in a provincial sales tax. But because of fiscal discipline, people would say, oh, it's the oil and gas industry. Oh, no, this happened in good times and bad times. And so you've got to reward good fiscal management. I remember when I left as Minister of Finance to run federally, I said to the Premier at the time, because we predicated a balanced and surplus budget in Alberta, we predicated that on oil at $19 a barrel, because so much of the rest of the economy was now thriving. I remember saying to Ralph Klein, I said, Premier, if oil ever hits $24 a barrel, we'll be in clover. And look at it, it goes over $100. But why would we be able to come through those very tough times, especially when the federal government was trying to kill off Alberta to something called the National Energy Program? We maintained fiscal discipline. And we, in fact, had to bring it back. So these things are possible, but only if provinces fiercely stand up for their provincial rights in these regards. Stockwell, with our remaining time, I'd like to get some more of your comments on social Marxism. But before I ask you the first question about that, I think we have to establish something for our viewers. When you were leader of the opposition, the media was fond of accusing you of being homophobic. Are you? Can you define the term for me, first of all? Okay, let's define the term in the way that the media used it. You don't like gay people. (49:33 - 50:57) If that's their definition, I am not homophobic, never have been, not announced. That stems from those unfair comments being hurled and people therefore being terrified. Way back, there was a debate, as you'll remember, many Canadians will, on the definition of marriage. That was the debate. And the debate was whether to change the definition of marriage. I was on the side of about 50% of Canadians, including liberals, including Jean Chrétien, or Google, look at it, Continental. I was on the same side as Barack Obama of the day. He was opposed to changing the definition of marriage. We were completely in favor of maintaining the definition of common law so that two people, regardless of their gender, could have all the rights accorded to them that a so-called marriage, as defined in the day, would have. We were also fully in accord with civil unions. And actually, many gay groups were bringing that forward. One of my policy advisors, a gay person, was very much against changing, as were a lot of people in the gay community, opposing the definition of the government getting in and defining it. They were saying to me, don't change the definition of marriage. We want to live the way we want to live. We don't want government telling us what to do. (50:57 - 53:26) Give us the same rights. And that would even include taxation benefits, et cetera, under common law and civil union. So that was the debate. And we had the debate. And you know what? In almost every province at the federal level, the debate was narrowly lost. And I mean a shade over 50% in most jurisdictions. And guess what? Those of us on the side who, quote, lost the debate, we said, well, the debate's over. What's next on the agenda? And on we moved. And then years later, people who want to categorize and people who want to bring out these hateful terms, they go back and they look at everybody who voted, which is about 50% of elected people at the time, who voted to maintain the definition of marriage, but allow for full freedom of rights for common law and civil unions. And they said, look, they're haters. They're phobic. They're racist. And that was really part of the beginning of using that as a weapon. Nobody was using it as a weapon at the time. We were just having a very vagrant, respectful, I might add, debate. And it's very unfortunate. But those unfortunate labels live on today wrongly. Here's an interesting irony. A lot of people aren't aware, but when the Canadian Alliance, when we ran our second leadership campaign, and I was campaigning again to be leader, we're still the only federal party in Canada who allowed a full LGBTQ, matter of fact, transgender candidate to run as a leadership contender. And that person presented their qualifications to run because you have to meet certain qualifications. And I said to the others, I see no reason why this person can't run. They've taken a different view of how they want to see themselves in a certain context. And we let that person run. Actually, they eventually ran out of money, but they were in a couple of the debates. What people don't realize is you could have a respectful disagreement with somebody, even an intense disagreement, and still love them, still respect them, and not demand that they be thrown in jail or tossed out of office or kicked out of a company. I was asked just a few years ago to be part of a group of 50 people from around the world to meet with the Dalai Lama in Northern India, where he and his government were in exile. He wanted to gather a group of people together to give him advice on how to handle China. (53:28 - 53:46) And we met with him for three days. It was no media because he wanted people to freely express themselves. And we came up with some pretty good ideas. We largely warned him. And we said, Your Holiness, time's running out. China is increasing their involvement to Tibet. (53:46 - 53:53) It's a sad situation. Anyway, we gave him the advice that we could. But in the discussion, I can remember on the final day, and I was sitting up on the stage with him. (53:54 - 55:10) And we were talking, and many of his monks were there and people from around the world. And I said, here's a situation where the Dalai Lama and I disagree on the most fundamental thing you disagree on, and that is the very nature of God. And I said, I believe Jesus Christ is Lord of the universe and the Dalai Lama does not believe that. And guess what? We link arms together and we work on problems that affect people, and we don't disparage each other. We can openly talk about our differences and no hate involved. Media just can't conceive that that type of thing can happen. But it happens every day in workplaces and neighborhoods all around the country and all over the world. And media just need to give their heads a shake and drop the epithets, drop the insults, and stop promoting those and realize these discussions can happen between people. We have many discussions in the gay community. Actually, I'm on record. One or two newspapers were brave enough to report some of the leaders of the movement in the gay community to change the definition of marriage when they were asked by reporters about what it was like and say, dealing with me. See, actually, he's very respectful of us. (55:10 - 55:30) We have a different point of view, but he treats us very well. Media hates repeating that, but that was the fact in all my dealings I had and continue to have with people in communities that differ from their worldview than I do. Since the legalization of MAID in 2015, Canada has become the number one country in the world for killing our own citizens. (55:31 - 55:58) And many Canadians are very concerned about the track two plans to legalize killing people who are not terminally ill. What are your concerns about these MAID laws in Canada and the direction it's heading us societally? You made an important observation about around the world. Canadians think that we as Canadians are just this benign, smiling, lovely group of people who say we're sorry every chance we get. (56:00 - 57:12) It's not like that. Canada, on many of these issues, is the most fervent, I'll call it pusher, of these agenda items around the world. We are the most progressive proponents of these type of issues anywhere in the world. We even base some of our funding, even to places like Africa, where they definitely need it for reasons I've already stated. Some of our funding, taxpayer dollars, are based on whether another country is going to succumb to our particular narrow views on issues like this. And it's something that Canadians should be aware of. So we warned early on with some call to assist in suicide legislation that first, as with much progressive legislation, it goes to a very tiny, minute group. But we said, it's going to expand. And we were laughed at. I was personally ridiculed when I said, the day is going to come when you're going to see politicians bring in laws on this so-called assist in suicide stuff, where young people, just because they're suffering mentally, are going to be able to have access on it. And it's there now. It's in the legislation. (57:13 - 1:01:23) It's also happening in other countries. And people can go wild and say it isn't, but it is. In some Scandinavian countries, we've had cases where distraught, very emotionally upset people, you know, 18 years old, 19 years old, there's reported cases of some younger, are actually allowed to commit suicide because they're so emotionally distraught. And my heart goes out because we all go through emotional grief of different kinds. And those are not happy circumstances. But offering this type of legislation, I can tell you, in the disabled community, whether you want to call it disabled, handicapped, people with special needs, the concern there in that community is so strong. And the media gives it very little coverage, where I know friends of mine who are quadriplegic who say, you know what? People are coming for us now. They're saying because we can't live a full life or a life full of pain, free of pain, we should be eliminated. They're very concerned. So these things, again, need to be openly addressed. Stop accusing people who are concerned about it being spread. Stop accusing them of being hateful and wanting people to suffer. And let's look at really helping people in their worst times of anguish and pain, how that pain can be relieved and how can we be there to love and support them. Do you think these made laws and the societal shift that's going with them are an attack upon the value of human life? Well, it comes out that way. And some of the proponents don't value life, not all, but some of the proponents don't value life the way they should. And that winds up to be the, let's say, progressive goal. Life becomes left valued. I'm not saying every proponent made legislation. Let's face it. I know people and friends and loved ones who, when their mother or father or grandparent is suffering, they just, they're torn up by the suffering. And it's not that they're devaluing life, but sometimes they're not fully recognizing, number one, what's the full range of comfort being made available to people in their last days or hours? And what are the ramifications of more and more people expanding the boundaries of that? Situation with my parents, with my mother and with my father, they made, they chose to have made available to them all of the means possible to alleviate their pain. They also made a choice not to put any of their kids in a position to say yes or no in terms of ending life. Now, this gets complicated because you can have situations where a person is actually clinically brain dead, their lungs are only being operated by lung machines, and there are times when difficult decisions have to be made. And I've, I'll be honest with you, I've told my kids, if I get to the place where I'm brain dead, some of them might laughingly say, well, you're there now. I don't mean that to insult, that's directed towards me, but it could be the case, car accident or disease or whatever, where I'm brain dead and I'm getting endovenous and my lungs are only operating because of a lung machine, and I've made it very clear to my kids and to my wife, do not hook me up to those machines. Now, if I get in an accident, don't take me off the machines right away and make sure I'm clinically dead. But I don't want to put my kids in that position, and so I don't want them, I don't want them to take those extraordinary lengths. People make various decisions to their loved ones. Are they intentionally devaluing life? No, I don't believe they are. I think they're obviously concerned about their loved one, but they should really look out the alternatives, and I think this is where government, I hear cases in some governments that don't put anywhere near the amount of resources into palliative care that they should, and that's where we really need to, so the final hours or days can actually be as pain-free as possible. (1:01:24 - 1:02:14) I had a dear relative, I'm not saying other people should do this, but definitely, it was an end-of-life situation, and there was pain involved, there was cancer involved, and he just said, just stop feeding me, don't force feed me. And I still want the pain relievers, but don't force feed me. And he peacefully slipped away. I'm not saying that applies to every situation, and I know there's journalists and others out there already just pulling their barbs at that, but there are other ways, and I think government should really step up to the plate on palliative care and on helping families with providing the resources to have others come in and help with that very difficult task at the end of life. Now, you were talking about our children and our grandchildren, and I would say they're very much under attack in our country right now. We've got SOGI, we've got the trans agenda. (1:02:14 - 1:05:27) I've spoken personally to teenagers who, due to the false climate alarmist narrative, are convinced they're not going to live to see 30. We've got MADE Track 2, which wants to legalize MADE for mature minors. And of course, there's no legal definition of what constitutes a mature minor. That SOGI, that trans agenda is attacking their gender identity, which in my opinion, as an armchair psychologist, is the foundation of our identity as people. And so, if they attack that foundation, they attack our identity in its entirety. What are your concerns for our children in this country under this social Marxism? Part of my concern is they won't be exposed to all of the scientific material on this. First of all, their parents should have the right to talk to them about these things, and people in schools should quit, these therapists, some of them in the schools, quit terrifying parents by telling them that if you at all want to ask your child to wait, at least until they're adult, before their genitals are changed or their breasts removed, you should ask them to wait. But therapists are saying if you do that, you are increasing their risk of suicide. I've had parents tell me they're terrified to ask their child to wait to get to some time because their child's going to commit suicide. And that's simply not correct scientifically and according to every study. You actually are at a higher risk of suicidal ideation if you pursue, as a young person, you pursue these transgender methods, be it chemical or surgical. And so, we've got to deal with that and let people know that the parental right is going to be protected and let people be exposed to both sides of the issue. There are so many people, you can go on YouTube right now, and you can go under transgender regret or transition regret, and you can see the gigantic and growing numbers of people who transition and are very regretful of that. They feel their lives have been destroyed. They'll never have children in some cases. And by the way, men will never have children. So, exposing them to that type, to all sides of the discussion is very important. Right now, there's no exposure to that. All you're told is you're phobic of some kind and you're hateful unless you allow your child just to pursue whatever impulse they have at a particular age. I've talked to kids or people who are adults now who tell me that as kids, if their parents had let them at the age of eight or six or even 11 pursue what the similar confusion they're having within their own bodies, that they would be regretfully transitioned and they're so happy that they didn't. So, let people see those type of experiences being talked about and let people see all of the statistics on this and the incredible harmful effects of going down that road. (1:05:27 - 1:06:10) Let all the information be out there without accusing either side of being hateful. It's very easy to blame our governments for our problems, but ultimately, it comes down to the people. We elected them. We stood by passively when they passed legislation that we don't approve of. What would be your final thoughts for our viewers on how they can make a difference in this country? Individuals need to realize that they do have quite a bit of power in terms of determining their own destiny on these and other questions. And the need to vote and the need to speak up, I'm sorry, it can be uncomfortable, but it's critical. (1:06:10 - 1:07:10) Some people say, well, who do you vote for? Because all the politicians are all messed up. Well, I've never met a perfect politician yet. I've never met a perfect person. So, you need to look at the issues, the principles that that person and their party is expounding upon and proposing, and then make a decision. Which party aligns most closely to the things that matter most to me? That's how you make the decision. You're not voting for perfection. You're voting for principle that is most closely aligned in the principles to your point of view. And then the next thing, I'm sorry, but you just have to speak up. If it's an issue that is really bothering you, you're going to have to speak up. Please keep in mind that silence is compliance. And as we know, all that has to happen for, as they say, evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing or for good people to say nothing. So, speak up, believe you have power because you do, and act on it. (1:07:11 - 1:07:16) Stockwell, thank you so much for your thoughts and for your time today. Thanks for yours. Appreciate the time.