Poilievre Blames Government Spending and Bureaucracy for Canadian Housing Crisis
The Diary Of A CEO
Pierre Poilievre argues that state money creation outstripping housing supply and municipal permit delays are directly driving Canada's housing unaffordability and economic decline.
## Background
Published on YouTube by The Diary Of A CEO on April 2, 2026, this video features host Steven Bartlett interviewing Pierre Poilievre, the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and Leader of the Opposition. According to the show description, the interview explores Poilievre's views on housing affordability, government policy, Western resources, his personal backstory, and his vision for Canada's future.
## TL;DR
Pierre Poilievre outlines his vision for Canadian governance, critiquing current economic policies, central bank inflation, and housing supply shortages while advocating for free-market principles, lower spending, and meritocracy. He reflects on his personal origins, including his adoption and meeting his biological parents, alongside his political evolution inspired by classical liberal thinkers and Stoic philosophy. The discussion addresses complex policy topics such as immigration reform, AI's impact on workforce trends, nuclear power, and Arctic sovereignty. Poilievre concludes by reflecting on his personal life, detailing how raising a daughter on the autism spectrum shapes his perspective on disability reform and the role of government.
## Atmosphere & style
The conversation carries an earnest, reflective tone, balancing rigorous economic and political debate with deeply personal introspection. Steven Bartlett's probing questions create a transparent, unscripted atmosphere where Poilievre shifts fluidly between decisive policy critiques and tender moments about fatherhood and family history. The emotional arc transitions from serious systemic and global concerns into a grounded, candid examination of Stoicism, personal vulnerability, and quiet optimism for the future.
## Key takeaways
- [31:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1918s) Adam Smith's concepts of voluntary exchange and empathy explain how free markets align private enterprise with public welfare, raising global living standards.
- [36:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2174s) Pierre Poilievre argues that modern Western economies practice 'socialism for the rich' by using government intervention to redistribute wealth upward.
- [38:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2331s) Canada suffers from a severe housing crisis driven by municipal red tape, taxes, and slow permit approvals rather than a shortage of physical land or labor.
- [42:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2554s) Central bank monetary expansion outpacing real output growth has significantly devalued currency and inflated asset prices through the Cantillon effect.
- [44:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2656s) The decline in Canadian living standards and rising food costs stem from high tax burdens, anti-development policies, and regulatory mandates.
- [49:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2962s) Switzerland and Singapore are cited as premier economic models due to their fiscal discipline, minimal bureaucratic red tape, and low state expenditure.
- [53:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3225s) Rapid population growth without proportional expansion in housing, healthcare, and infrastructure depresses wages and strains essential public services.
- [57:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3466s) Automation and AI productivity gains must be allowed to lower the living costs for working families rather than being offset by state currency expansion.
- [01:12:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4327s) Bureaucratic credentialing delays prevent thousands of foreign-trained doctors and nurses from practicing in Canada, necessitating standardized competency testing.
- [01:18:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4725s) Canada must expand its military capabilities and enforce northern sovereignty in the Arctic under the principle of 'maîtres chez nous'.
- [01:25:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5101s) Political success and personal resilience rely on Stoic principles of focusing strictly on what one can control rather than external outcomes.
- [01:34:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5655s) Poilievre criticizes 'wokeism' and DEI administrative structures as illiberal frameworks that expand bureaucracy rather than addressing real systemic barriers.
- [01:43:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6190s) Government support for individuals with severe disabilities must be restructured so that financial and medical benefits are not revoked when individuals enter the workforce.
- [01:52:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6751s) The greatest global threat is the Western world abandoning classical liberal principles that treat government as a servant to its citizens.
The conversation opens with a discussion regarding Donald Trump’s controversial remarks suggesting that Canada should become the 51st state of the United States—an idea that Pierre Poilievre, Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Canada, dismisses as something that is "never going to happen." The dialogue pivots to the broader global landscape. Poilievre analyzes the shift in the balance of power since the post-war era. Following World War II, the United States rapidly expanded its wealth and power by unleashing the capitalist system, ultimately out-hustling and out-producing the Soviet Union until its collapse. However, an authoritarian power—China—quietly ascended, transitioning from a nation where 80% of its population lived on less than a dollar a day to becoming the second-largest economy in the world.
Concurrently, Poilievre argues, the American working class was severely impacted by relentless money printing that inflated the cost of living while enriching a small group of elites. This economic strain created a justified domestic pushback within the U.S., though Poilievre views the resulting isolationist foreign policy and aggressive trade measures as a major strategic mistake. He asserts that the U.S. is stronger working with traditional allies like Canada and the United Kingdom rather than pushing them away to "go it alone." Touring the United States, Poilievre has been reminding American leaders of Canada’s strategic value, pointing out that Canada possesses the fourth-largest supply of oil in the world. He shows the host a visual layout of global oil reserves, emphasizing that out of the top five oil-rich nations—Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Canada, and Iraq—Canada is by far the most reliable, stable, and friendly partner to the U.S.
* **Global Oil Reserves Rank:** 1. Venezuela, 2. Saudi Arabia, 3. Iran, 4. Canada, 5. Iraq (followed by the United States).
* **Strategic Leverage:** Canada sells its oil to the U.S. at an enormous price discount and could build an energy reserve of a couple hundred million barrels to guarantee U.S. energy security if critical shipping lanes like the Strait of Hormuz were closed.
* **Trade Goals:** Poilievre seeks to leverage Canada's status as a "resource superpower"—including its vast reserves of steel, aluminum, lumber, automobiles, and critical strategic minerals required for modern warfare—to secure fully tariff-free trade with the U.S.
[08:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=535s) The Threat of a Nuclear Iran and Global Defense Postures
The host shifts focus specifically to Iran, asking whether Donald Trump took the correct path by launching military strikes against the country. Poilievre responds firmly, detailing the hostility the Iranian regime has directed toward Canada, notably the downing of civilian flight PS752, which killed 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents without any justification or explanation. Furthermore, he condemns the regime for being the leading world sponsor of terrorism and for deploying agents into Canadian streets to harass local Jewish and Persian communities. Poilievre argues that Iran’s high-degree uranium enrichment is strictly for martial purposes rather than civilian power plants, making the initial U.S. airstrikes targeting nuclear development sites four or five months prior absolutely necessary for world peace.
Poilievre draws a sharp contrast between North Korea and Iran to highlight the severity of the threat. While North Korea is a communist totalitarian state primarily focused on regime survival and power, the regime in Tehran operates under a theocratic, fundamentalist dream. Because they believe in an afterlife where mass destruction of "infidels" is rewarded, they do not respond to traditional geopolitical deterrence in the way Pyongyang does. This makes a nuclear-armed Iran a far greater catastrophic risk to global stability. Consequently, Poilievre agrees with the stance of the Canadian government—led at the time by a Prime Minister Carney—in supporting the initial U.S. military strikes to degrade Iran's nuclear capabilities, though he distinguishes political support from committing Canadian ground troops, sailors, or air crew to a full-scale conflict.
* **Flight PS752 Casualties:** 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents killed by the Iranian military.
* **Domestic Issues Highlighted:** Poilievre notes that economic anger across the Western working class stems from over-taxing populations, punishing initiative, destroying wages, and rendering 20,000 immigrant doctors unable to practice medicine due to bureaucratic hurdles.
* **Geopolitical Objective:** The primary focus must remain on stopping the regime from acquiring long-range or regional ballistic nuclear missiles, while hoping the regime's resulting weakness allows the highly secular, pro-Western Persian population inside Iran to overthrow the government and reclaim their country.
[13:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=792s) Historical Precedents and the Quagmire Dilemma
When asked how this conflict will ultimately play out based on historical patterns, Poilievre looks back to the two distinct American military approaches in the Persian Gulf. During the first Persian Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush chose to penalize Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait, declared victory once the core objective was achieved, and moved on, preserving relative regional stability. In contrast, his son, George W. Bush, pursued full regime change years later, resulting in a prolonged, decades-long military enterprise. Poilievre notes that Donald Trump will have to choose which historical model to follow.
If placed in Trump's position, Poilievre explains that his strategy would be intensely focused on the core objective of eliminating a nuclear-armed Iran while strictly avoiding a permanent military quagmire. With critical sites like Fordow already bombed, any decision to halt or extend military operations must depend entirely on precise intelligence regarding Iran's remaining nuclear capacity. The host concludes the segment by observing that the current geopolitical situation presents a complex, lose-lose dynamic for the American president as he balances his ego against the risk of escalating the conflict further.
[015:59] Oil Markets, Commodity Currencies, and Canadian Economic Sovereignty
The conversation opens with a discussion on how global supply disruptions and geopolitical conflicts directly impact everyday expenses, particularly the price of gas at the pump. Pierre Poilievre notes that while global oil shocks create widespread economic strain, Canadians theoretically shouldn't be suffering at the pumps. Canada possesses vast oil reserves that historically served as a natural economic buffer. In past market cycles, a rise in the global price of oil automatically drove up the value of the Canadian dollar because foreign buyers had to purchase Canadian currency to buy energy assets. That stronger dollar boosted domestic purchasing power for internationally priced commodities, effectively insulating Canadians from global inflation.
Poilievre argues that this historical protection has broken down because Canada's resource sector has been systematically diminished as a share of the national economy. To restore that natural economic shield, he advocates unleashing domestic oil production by dismantling regulatory bureaucracy and removing what he terms "government gatekeepers." His plan includes eliminating industrial carbon taxes to bolster the Canadian dollar, lower living costs, and project geostrategic strength abroad.
- **Economic mechanism:** A rising oil price historically drove up the Canadian dollar, increasing domestic buying power for imported goods and food.
- **Resource policy goals:** Clear regulatory hurdles, eliminate industrial carbon taxes, and boost oil production to restore currency strength.
[017:19] Navigating U.S. Relations, Trade Review, and the "Unlock" Strategy
Turning to foreign relations, Bartlett highlights Poilievre’s high probability of becoming Canada's next Prime Minister and asks about his relationship with Donald Trump. Poilievre reveals that he has never met or spoken to Trump. He intentionally adheres to the convention that Canada has "one Prime Minister at a time," particularly while delicate trade negotiations—specifically the review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA)—are underway. Even while opposing the current administration on domestic matters, Poilievre stresses that he avoids undermining Canada's national posture at the bargaining table abroad.
When asked to clarify what he means by "unlocking" resources and "clearing the way," Poilievre explains that Canadian energy and mineral assets are inherently profitable for the private sector to extract, refine, and export. The barrier is not a lack of market demand or private capital, but rather excessive permitting delays and high taxes. He emphasizes that his model relies strictly on private investment without corporate subsidies or government handouts, paired with strategic alliances with partners like the UK, Australia, and New Zealand to build critical mineral reserves and diversify trade.
- **Relationship with Donald Trump:** None ("I've never met him. I've never spoken to him").
- **Diplomatic stance:** Avoids criticizing the Canadian prime minister during cross-border trade negotiations to keep the national front unified.
- **"Unlock" approach:** Cut bureaucratic permitting obstacles and lower tax burdens to attract non-subsidized private capital into resource infrastructure.
[019:46] The Ethics of Opposition Abroad and Media Strategy
Addressing his appearances on international media platforms like *The Joe Rogan Experience*, Poilievre touches on the boundary between domestic political debates and global outreach. While acknowledging that media broadcasts reach an international audience, he holds to the principle that an opposition leader should refrain from attacking their own government's foreign policy while standing on foreign soil, especially during active trade disputes. For Poilievre, national interest must take precedence over personal political points.
When asked what sets his leadership apart, Poilievre states his core mission: to make Canada "the most affordable, freest, and richest country in the world." He contrasts his worldview with the political establishment by pointing directly to his working-class upbringing and his belief in restoring the traditional "promise of Canada"—where hard work allows anyone, regardless of background, to own a home, build a business, or achieve their potential.
> "My mission is to make Canada the most affordable, freest, and richest country in the world."
[020:38] Adoption, Childhood Struggles, and the Promise of Canada
Poilievre opens up about his personal backstory, displaying a rare look into his early life. Born to a 16-year-old biological mother who had just lost her own mother to a heart attack, Poilievre was put up for adoption due to her lack of financial means. He was adopted by two schoolteachers, Marlene and Donald. Three years later, his biological mother gave birth to another boy, Patrick, who was adopted into the same family. Poilievre fondly recounts the childhood memory of walking into a room filled with rows of cribs to pick up his infant brother, joking that as a toddler he naively thought babies were bought at a store.
```
Biological Mother (age 16) ───► Adoption ───► Adopted by Marlene & Donald (Teachers)
│
├── Pierre Poilievre
└── Patrick (Half-brother, adopted 3 yrs later)
```
His family faced severe financial hardship during his early childhood. Around age three or four, skyrocketing interest rates wiped out his parents' modest savings, causing them to lose two small rental properties and their home. They were forced to borrow money from Poilievre's grandfather just to secure a down payment for a place to live. Growing up in working-class neighborhoods surrounded by tradespeople, oil workers, and police officers shaped his political perspective. He developed a deep respect for working-class Canadians, whom he feels are routinely ignored by government institutions.
- **Biological background:** Placed for adoption by a 16-year-old mother who faced sudden hardship after her mother died of a heart attack.
- **Family story:** Adopted alongside his biological half-brother Patrick by two schoolteachers.
- **Financial hardship:** Lost their family home and rental investments during the extreme high-interest-rate environment of the early 1980s.
[023:35] Reconnecting with Biological Parents and Lessons in Selfless Love
At age 21 or 22, Poilievre set out to meet his biological mother. Out of respect for the woman who raised him, he refused to take that step without first asking for his adoptive mother’s blessing. Marlene granted it without hesitation, telling him, "I won't always be here and I always want you to have a mother." Poilievre becomes visibly emotional describing this moment, calling it one of the most selfless acts of love he has ever witnessed, as it transcended maternal ego or personal identity.
During a road trip from Ottawa to Montreal, Poilievre and his biological mother got to know one another. He learned about her life and his biological grandfather, a man of Irish heritage, and gained a deep appreciation for her decision to place him for adoption. Rather than harboring resentment, he viewed her choice as a brave, selfless act aimed at giving him a better life. Later, Poilievre also reconnected with his biological father, who works at a concrete plant in British Columbia and raised a family of his own.
- **Reunion timeline:** Met his biological mother around age 21 or 22 on a road trip between Ottawa and Montreal.
- **Biological father:** Works at a concrete plant in British Columbia.
- **Adoptive mother's grace:** Marlene encouraged the reunion so her son would always have maternal support.
[026:31] Family Structure, Divorce, and Scars as Trophies
The discussion turns to Poilievre’s adolescence and family dynamics. When he was about 12 years old (in grade five), his adoptive parents divorced. He vividly recalls the traumatizing moment his father took him for a drive to a local corner store to break the news in the car. Despite the pain of the separation, Poilievre praises both parents for their devotion and love. His father, Donald, who was raised in a devout French Catholic household and had once considered entering the priesthood, later came out as gay. Poilievre speaks warmly of his father and his longtime partner, Ross, noting that these life complexities taught him empathy and non-judgment.
Poilievre shares a poignant lesson about authenticity drawn from his adoptive mother, Marlene. As an infant, Marlene was in a severe car accident that resulted in her fingers being burned off, leaving her hands heavily scarred. When a young Poilievre asked his father if the physical injury ever bothered him while they were dating, his father replied that it never mattered because Marlene was completely at peace with it and never tried to hide her hands. This memory shaped Poilievre's philosophy on life and politics: to live authentically without hiding one's flaws or past struggles.
- **Parents' divorce:** Occurred when Poilievre was 12 years old (grade 5).
- **Father's background:** Donald was raised French Catholic, once considered the priesthood, and later came out as gay; remains close with Poilievre alongside his partner Ross.
- **Life philosophy:** "Scars are the trophies of survival"—a lesson drawn from his adoptive mother's unselfconscious attitude toward her severe burn injuries.
> "Be yourself. Don't try to hide the scars. Scars are the trophies of survival."
[030:16] Influential Women and the Spark for Politics
Reflecting on the figures who forged his personality, Poilievre describes his adoptive mother Marlene as a "feisty," short, and forceful woman who taught him to be pugnacious and fight for what he believes in. He notes with a smile that their frequent childhood arguments likely honed his debating skills. He also credits his wife, Anaida, a Venezuelan refugee who arrived in Canada with virtually nothing, for bringing a practical, resourceful "MacGyver-like" mindset to their family life.
Poilievre’s interest in politics ignited during his mid-teens after a back injury ended his high school football pursuits. Looking for a new focus, he began accompanying his mother to local Conservative party volunteer meetings, where she often brought baked goods. Finding a sense of purpose and community in political organizing, he quickly threw himself into the movement—eventually landing an entry-level internship where he wore a cheap used suit and worked long hours, setting the trajectory for his career in public life.
- **Wife's background:** Anaida came to Canada as a refugee from Venezuela.
- **Entry into politics:** Shifted focus to politics in his mid-teens after a back injury halted his football playing; started by attending local Conservative meetings with his mother.
- **Early career:** Began as an unpaid or low-paid intern in a second-hand suit before working his way up through political organizing.
Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of this section of the transcript, capturing the arguments, concrete data, specific examples, and tone of the discussion.
---
[31:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1918s) Adam Smith and the Intersect of Self-Interest and Altruism
The conversation opens with host Steven Bartlett highlighting a foundational text Pierre Poilievre has studied: Adam Smith's *The Theory of Moral Sentiments*. Poilievre explains that this 1759 work must be paired with its more famous 1776 counterpart, *The Wealth of Nations*, which established Smith as the father of modern capitalism. Prior to Smith, economies operated largely under feudalism—a system where a small ruling class of lords, knights, and aristocrats controlled the land while serfs performed the manual labor and the lords claimed the rewards.
Poilievre outlines how free enterprise revolutionized human society through a simple premise: voluntary exchange. Individuals trade work for wages, products for payment, and investments for interest. Rather than being directed by the "iron fist of the king or the state," the economy is coordinated by the "invisible hand" operating through price signals. When prices rise, production automatically increases; when labor is needed, higher wages attract workers seamlessly. Poilievre notes that this voluntary trade creates mutual value: when buying a coffee, both the customer and the shopkeeper say "thank you" because both leave the transaction better off. While many critics misinterpret Smith as promoting pure selfishness—citing his famous quote that we receive our dinner not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or baker, but from their self-interest—Poilievre emphasizes that *The Theory of Moral Sentiments* provides the crucial second half of the equation.
```
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
```
Smith introduced the concept of "fellow feeling"—the innate human capacity for empathy. People feel good when others succeed and feel distress when others suffer, driving acts of charity, courtesy, and rescue. To illustrate this, Poilievre shares a personal story about his young son: after receiving a small toy, his son gave it to his sister—his very first gift. The boy was so overcome with joy that he ran around the foyer of their residence, laughing and screaming with delight, happier in giving the gift than his sister was in receiving it. For Poilievre, Smith gives the most plausible explanation of how human self-interest naturally intersects with virtue and altruism.
- **Economic Growth:** The transition from feudalism to free enterprise yielded a **200-fold increase** in economic growth and standard of living.
- **Adam Smith's Core Works:** *The Theory of Moral Sentiments* (1759) explores empathy and moral psychology; *The Wealth of Nations* (1776) establishes the mechanics of the free market.
- **The Core Premise of Free Markets:** Voluntary exchange puts all actors on an equal footing—even a massive multinational corporation must convince a 15-year-old child that a product is worth more than their hard-earned money before a transaction occurs.
---
[36:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2174s) Capitalism vs. Socialism: Dispersing Power and "Socialism for the Rich"
Addressing how this philosophy shapes his career, Poilievre critiques what he views as a fundamental contradiction in socialist ideology. Socialists often depict human beings in the private, voluntary market as inherently greedy and flawed, yet treat state actors as selfless "angels" who should dictate what citizens wear, drive, spend, and think. Poilievre argues that if a person cannot be trusted to make choices for themselves, they certainly cannot be trusted to make choices for millions of others, noting that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." His governing philosophy centers on dispersing power from the top down to a bottom-up system that maximizes individual agency.
Responding to Bartlett's counterpoint—that many struggling citizens feel capitalism has failed them through soaring food and fuel costs, stagnant working-class wages, and unaffordable housing—Poilievre counters that modern Western economies are not practicing free enterprise. Instead, what exists today is "socialism for the very rich," where governments actively intervene to redistribute wealth *upward* from the working class to the ultra-wealthy.
```
"What we have now is socialism for the very rich. We have governments that are actively redistributing wealth from the working class to the very, very wealthy."
```
---
[38:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2331s) The Canadian Housing Crisis: Bureaucracy and Land
Using a hands-on visual demonstration involving a penny on a surface, Poilievre and Bartlett demonstrate how little land human settlements actually occupy relative to total available land. Canada presents a stark paradox: it possesses **10 times as much land per person** as the second-closest G7 nation, yet it has the fewest homes per capita in the G7, rendering housing prohibitively expensive.
Poilievre argues that the primary driver of high housing costs is not land, labor, or lumber, but state-imposed bureaucracy. In Canada, buying a home often means more money goes to government fees, taxes, consultants, and lobbyists than to the actual carpenters, plumbers, and electricians building the house. The municipal and federal permit approval process in Canada is the second slowest in the OECD, taking up to seven years to approve a single subdivision. Development taxes, originally meant to cover basic infrastructure like roads and sewers, have ballooned into major government cash cows.
Comparing current delays to historical precedent, Poilievre notes that following World War II, governments issued building permits almost instantaneously to house returning veterans. Those homes remain structurally sound and standing today. While maintaining basic safety, fire, and environmental codes, Poilievre pledges to eliminate bureaucratic bottlenecks, fast-track approvals to create the fastest permitting system in the world, and make home construction tax-free.
- **Housing Gap:** Canada needs to build roughly **450,000 new homes per year** until 2035 to restore affordability, but is currently building only about **240,000 homes per year** (requiring homebuilding to roughly double).
- **Available Resources:** Canada currently has **100,000 unemployed construction workers** ready to work, alongside hundreds of billions of dollars in sidelined private investment.
- **Permit Delays:** Approving a residential subdivision currently takes up to **7 years** due to red tape.
---
[42:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2554s) Monetary Inflation and the Cantillon Effect
Poilievre turns to monetary policy to explain how government actions erode working-class purchasing power. Over the past decade, Canada's housing supply grew by **13%**, but the money supply was expanded by **100%** (doubling from $1.4 trillion to $2.8 trillion). Because the money supply grew **8 times faster** than the housing supply, home prices were inevitably bid up.
This expansion does not affect everyone equally due to the **Cantillon effect**. When governments print money to finance budget deficits, they do not distribute it evenly to the public. Instead, central banks inject liquidity into the banking system by purchasing government bonds at inflated prices. Financial institutions, bond traders, and wealthy individuals who touch this new money first spend and deploy it before prices adjust. By the time the expanded currency trickles down to working-class wage earners, prices have already spiked, effectively destroying their real purchasing power. Poilievre stresses that high prices are not a sign that goods have inherently become more valuable, but rather that the currency used to purchase them has been devalued to pay for expanding government deficits.
```
"It is not actually that these things cost more. It's that the money with which we buy them is worth less because we're creating so much of it... to fund deficits."
```
---
[44:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2656s) Declining Happiness, Food Inflation, and Stagnant GDP Per Capita
The conversation highlights Canada's steep drop in global well-being metrics. Once ranked as the **5th happiest country in the world** in 2015, Canada fell to 18th, and dropped further to **25th** in the most recent rankings. Poilievre attributes much of this decline to severe food price inflation—the highest in the G7—driven by compounding taxes and regulatory mandates.
Poilievre points to specific policies driving up consumer costs: an industrial carbon tax applied to farm machinery, fertilizer, and food processing; a new national fuel tax; and bans on single-use plastics, which force alternative packaging that causes fresh produce to spoil roughly **5 days faster**.
```
"Single-use plastic is now banned, which makes it so that food goes bad about five days quicker... It sounds very virtuous, but ultimately somebody pays for that."
```
Turning to broader macroeconomic health, Bartlett presents a chart showing Canada's GDP per capita plateauing in stark contrast to international peers like the United States. Poilievre defines GDP per capita as an individual's real productive output and income. Stagnant GDP per capita means real wages remain flat. He attributes Canada's economic stagnation to severe anti-development laws and bureaucracy locking up the nation's largest industry—oil and gas—alongside high taxes that penalize work and investment.
Poilievre draws parallels across other Western nations that have adopted similar regulatory approaches, citing Germany as a prime example: by shutting down its nuclear power plants and attempting to phase out fossil fuels, Germany triggered sky-high energy costs. While well-connected individuals enriched themselves on subsidies for wind and solar projects, industrial workers in rural German plants and mines lost their livelihoods and were left paying extortionate electricity bills. Poilievre concludes that his core mission is to reverse these trends by cutting taxes on work, energy, and construction to outpace monetary growth with real physical output.
[048:37] Government Intervention and the "Big Lie" of Socialism
Pierre Poilievre argues that Western governments have routinely intervened in markets under the guise of helping the public, only to achieve the exact opposite. Citing Germany's energy pivot as a prime case study, he points out that after shutting down its nuclear infrastructure, Germany was forced to revert to burning coal to meet energy demands, rendering the environmental policies completely counterproductive. Poilievre frames this as part of a broader "big lie" prevalent across Western democracies: the promise that expanding the state ensures everyone receives their fair share. In reality, he contends, growing the government simply concentrates wealth and power among well-connected elites while shifting the financial burden onto the working class.
To counter this trajectory, Poilievre outlines a political philosophy centered on shrinking the state to empower the individual. He advocates for a meritocracy driven by free enterprise, where reduced state intervention forces businesses to compete aggressively—driving wages up for workers and prices down for consumers.
- **Germany's Energy Reversal**: The shutdown of zero-emission nuclear power led directly to an increased reliance on coal.
- **The "Big Lie"**: Poilievre defines this as the false premise that larger government distributes wealth fairly, asserting it actually enriches politically connected elites at the expense of working-class taxpayers.
- **Core Political Mission**: Transitioning from a heavy-handed state to a lean government that fosters a meritocracy, higher wages, and market competition.
---
[049:22] Economic Growth Models: Switzerland and Singapore
Steven Bartlett brings up lagging GDP projections across major Western nations—noting sluggish forecasts for Canada (1.7% in 2025, 1.3% in 2026), the UK, and Germany (which managed just 0.2% growth in 2024)—and asks what countries like the United States are doing right. Poilievre pushes the comparison further, pointing to Switzerland and Singapore as gold standards of economic stewardship. Switzerland, he notes, maintains a low-spending government, exceptionally low inflation, and the strength of the Swiss franc, all driven by a lean state footprint.
```
+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Country | Key Economic Traits & Performance Mentioned |
+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Canada | Projected GDP growth of 1.7% (2025) and 1.3% (2026). |
| Germany | Stagnant 0.2% GDP growth in 2024; heavily regulated energy. |
| Switzerland | Strongest currency (Swiss Franc), low inflation, small state.|
| Singapore | Zero natural resources; GDP growth more than double US rate.|
+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
```
Poilievre highlights Singapore’s transformation from a resource-poor, mosquito-infested island importing its own drinking water into one of the world's wealthiest trading hubs. By establishing low taxes, minimal red tape, and an open environment for enterprise, founding father Lee Kuan Yew created an economic miracle. Bartlett notes that Singapore’s current growth—more than double that of the US—is being propelled further by its early embrace of the global AI boom.
When Bartlett asks about the inevitable trade-offs of this minimalist state approach, Poilievre acknowledges that the biggest hurdle is political ego: few politicians want a legacy based on simply staying out of the way. While affirming that government must maintain a fundamental social safety net—covering basic healthcare, primary education, and core infrastructure—he cautions that once state spending expands beyond these essentials, it yields diminishing and ultimately negative returns.
> "No politician wants to have written on their gravestone: 'He stayed out of the way, left people alone so that they could do great things without him.' Although I think we'd be better off if more of them did."
---
[053:45] Housing, Birth Rates, and Wage Suppression
The conversation shifts to the structural factors depressing Western economies, specifically the interplay between declining birth rates, housing affordability, and immigration policy. Poilievre argues that falling birth rates in Canada are fundamentally driven by economic oppression rather than cultural shifts. Young adults in their late 20s and 30s are delaying starting families simply because homeownership has become unattainable, creating a reality where fully employed 35-year-olds remain stuck in their parents' basements or cramped apartments.
```
[ Unattainable Housing & High Rent ]
│
▼
[ Delayed Independence & Life Milestones ]
│
▼
[ Depressed Birth Rates Across Young Adults ]
```
Addressing immigration, Poilievre criticizes multinational corporations and current government policy for using temporary foreign worker and international student programs to flood the labor market. He asserts that this strategy artificially suppresses wages, denies mobility rights to foreign workers, and strains housing capacity. Rather than importing low-cost labor to fill entry-level positions, Poilievre calls for capping immigration numbers to ensure infrastructure and housing growth keep pace with population expansion. He insists that companies struggling to find staff—such as in retail or hospitality—should raise wages to attract local job seekers, noting that Canada simultaneously suffers from high youth unemployment and tens of thousands of unemployed trade workers.
- **Demographic Bottleneck**: High housing costs force young adults to delay marriage and family creation.
- **Wage Suppression**: Poilievre argues corporate overuse of temporary worker programs undercuts local wage growth.
- **Unemployed Skilled Labor**: Points out that roughly 100,000 Canadian construction workers remain unemployed despite severe housing shortages.
- **Policy Proposal**: Cap immigration so that housing construction, healthcare infrastructure, and economic capacity consistently outpace population growth.
---
[057:46] The AI Disruption and the Future of Work
Bartlett pivots to the sudden rise of artificial intelligence, sharing recent data from Anthropic indicating a 14% uptick in youth unemployment tied to AI replacing entry-level white-collar roles. Drawing on his experience as an employer of hundreds worldwide, Bartlett describes how AI tools have transformed hiring dynamics. Entry-level graduates proficient in building AI "agents" effectively operate with the leverage of a multi-person team, making non-proficient applicants increasingly obsolete.
<FollowUp label="Want to explore Pierre Poilievre's economic plan for Canadian housing?" query="What is Pierre Poilievre's specific policy proposal to fix housing affordability in Canada?"/>
Poilievre questions whether AI represents a temporary disruption akin to past industrial shifts—such as the Luddites resisting agricultural automation or early fears surrounding the dot-com era—where technology ultimately boosted productivity and created higher-paying roles. Bartlett responds that while historical analogies are helpful, this transition is qualitatively different due to the speed of digital distribution and autonomous execution. Illustrating the point, Bartlett shares a personal anecdote where he instructed an AI agent named OpenClaw via voice command to assess his home online, select a matching charcoal outdoor umbrella, and complete the purchase autonomously through Amazon.
- **Anthropic Study**: Highlights a ~14% rise in youth unemployment connected to AI automation displacing junior white-collar tasks.
- **AI Leverage**: Demonstrates how a single technical worker utilizing autonomous agents can match the output of a multi-person department.
- **Speed of Adoption**: Unlike traditional machinery, software agents deploy instantly over global internet infrastructure, creating acute near-term job displacement.
[01:03:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3803s) AI, Human Purpose, and the Economy
The discussion pivots from technological anxiety to the deeper human implications of artificial intelligence. Host Steven Bartlett reflects on how many Western societies seem trapped in petty political squabbles and identity politics while missing the structural displacement ahead. Pierre Poilievre emphasizes that the fundamental human need is purpose and meaning. Citing John Adams—who famously wrote about studying warfare so his children could study commerce, and their children could study art—Poilievre argues that AI should ideally act as an enabler rather than a replacement. If automation supplies material abundance while freeing people to pursue what they love, it represents a net positive; if it simply strips away human utility and leaves millions without work, it becomes a grave societal threat.
Looking toward 2029, Bartlett points out that leading tech figures like OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Tesla's Elon Musk foresee radical shifts, ranging from Universal Basic Income and retinal-verification wealth distribution like Worldcoin to Musk’s prediction that human surgeons may soon be obsolete. Poilievre sets out his core governing principles for an AI-driven economy: public policy must protect human agency and ensure productivity gains directly benefit working-class families. Rather than allowing governments to print money and inflate away tech-driven deflation, the goal should be letting the cost of living fall so purchasing power goes further.
- **John Adams' Philosophy:** Framed around the evolution of generational effort from security (warfare) to economic growth (commerce) to human fulfillment (art).
- **Automation Benefits:** Minimum-wage workers benefiting from automated assistants or autonomous transport, removing daily drudgery.
- **Economic Principles:** Lowering the cost of living by passing technological savings to consumers instead of inflating them away through currency expansion.
- **Tech Industry Predictions:** OpenAI and Worldcoin addressing wealth distribution; Elon Musk predicting an "age of abundance" where human work becomes optional.
- **Historical Analogy:** Reference to Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman notoriously predicting that the internet would have no greater economic impact than the fax machine.
[01:09:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4145s) Immigration: The Canadian Experience vs. Global Politics
When asked whether political leaders across the West weaponize immigration as a divisive tactic to win elections, Poilievre offers a historical contrast between Canada and other Western nations. For nearly 200 years, Canada maintained what he describes as one of the world's most successful, uncontroversial immigration models, using a merit-based point system aimed at matching candidates to labor needs. This allowed rapid integration, intermarriage, and social harmony, noted by both Republicans and Democrats in the United States as a standard to study.
```
HISTORICAL MODEL 2021-2024 DISRUPTION
┌──────────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────┐
│ ~1% Annual Growth Rate │ │ Uncontrolled Volume Spike │
│ Merit-Based Points System │ │ Housing & Health Strain │
│ Matched to Labor Market │ │ Depressed Wages / High Rent │
└──────────────┬───────────────┘ └──────────────┬───────────────┘
│ │
▼ ▼
Broad Social Consensus Breakdown of Consensus
```
However, Poilievre argues that between 2021 and 2024, an unprecedented and inexplicable spike in immigration numbers severed the link between population growth and absorbency capacity. The influx outpaced housing construction, healthcare access, and job creation, benefiting only corporate employers seeking to suppress wages and corporate landlords pushing up rents. He maintains that restoring balance requires strict, common-sense rules so population growth never outstrips the physical availability of homes and paychecks.
- **Historical Model:** Roughly 1% annual population growth via immigration over two centuries built a broad consensus across Canadian society.
- **Recent Disruption:** Rapid, uncoordinated surges between 2021 and 2024 strained housing stock and healthcare infrastructure.
- **Economic Beneficiaries:** Poilievre argues the sudden surge primarily served corporate entities seeking cheaper labor and higher rental yields.
- **U.S. Contrast:** The Canadian context historically differed from long-standing southern border challenges faced by the United States.
[01:12:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4327s) Licensing Reform for Foreign Professionals
Turning to demographic challenges and economic integration, Poilievre stresses that high-skilled economic immigration remains vital, but bureaucracy severely hinders foreign-trained professionals from working in their trained fields. In Canada, tens of thousands of immigrant doctors and nurses are locked out of the medical system by gatekeepers and prolonged licensing processes that can take up to nine years.
To illustrate the absurdity of the current system, Poilievre shares an anecdote from his own eye surgery. A technician at the clinic routinely flies to the United Arab Emirates ten days a month to perform complex eye surgeries, yet upon returning home to Ottawa, Canadian regulations only allow him to work as an assistant technician. Poilievre proposes replacing these bureaucratic hurdles with a streamlined, merit-based testing regime that rapidly validates skills and allows qualified immigrants to contribute fully to high-demand professions.
- **Unused Talent Pool:** Approximately 20,000 foreign-trained doctors and 32,000 nurses in Canada are currently unable to practice due to licensing bottlenecks.
- **The UAE Example:** A technician in Ottawa performs eye surgeries internationally in the UAE but is legally barred from operating in Canada.
- **Policy Proposal:** Implementation of a standardized, merit-based competency test to bypass bureaucratic gatekeeping and speed up professional licensing.
[01:16:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4583s) Global Power Shifts, China, and Thucydides' Trap
Addressing the primary geopolitical threats facing the Western world, Poilievre examines the role of China on the global stage. He framing China as a brilliant, ancient civilization with immense potential to enrich world trade and stability. However, if the ruling regime in Beijing chooses a bellicose path—utilizing advanced technology for foreign interference, economic espionage, or military aggression against Taiwan—it poses the single greatest threat to global order.
```
THUCYDIDES' TRAP SCENARIO
Established Power Rising Challenger
┌───────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────┐
│ United States │ ◄── Conflict? ─┤ China │
└───────────────────┘ └───────────────────┘
│ │
└───────────────► Avoided By: ────────┘
• Collaborative Trade
• Shared Global Norms
• Strong Deterrence
```
Poilievre references political scientist Graham Allison’s work on *Thucydides' Trap*, which analyzes historical instances where a rising power threatens to displace an incumbent superpower. While the majority of these historical cases resulted in military conflict, Poilievre insists that war is not inevitable today. By demonstrating that peaceful economic cooperation and international standards serve Beijing’s long-term interests, the West can help avoid a catastrophic clash.
- **Thucydides' Trap:** Historical study examining 20 cases of power shifts between rising and established nations, most of which escalated into war.
- **Threat Vector:** Chinese state-backed foreign interference, tech espionage, and potential military action regarding Taiwan.
- **Influence Networks:** Proxy dynamics and diplomatic alignments spanning authoritarian regimes across Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba.
[01:18:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4725s) Canada’s Defense Strategy and Nuclear Policy
Addressing Canada's national defense stance, Pierre Poilievre clarifies that Canada does not possess nuclear weapons, having made a deliberate policy decision roughly four to five decades ago not to pursue a nuclear arsenal. Despite possessing abundant uranium reserves and advanced nuclear power capabilities, Canada chose to forego weaponization. Poilievre sees no current rationale to reverse this stance, remarking that Canada has no ambition to threaten other nations with nuclear capabilities. Host Steven Bartlett dryly observes that this stance "sounds quite Canadian," prompting Poilievre to counter that Canada remains a "warrior nation." He reminds the host that Canadians entered both World Wars two years prior to the United States, likening the country's collective temperament to a golden retriever: naturally friendly and eager to get along, but fierce and willing to fight back when provoked.
Poilievre emphasizes that Canada is actively undertaking a massive military buildup—a initiative driven by a broad national consensus that the country has neglected its territorial defense against hostile powers. Grounded in the Canadian adage "if you don't use it, you lose it," asserting sovereignty over vast, harsh geographies like the Arctic archipelago requires an operational military presence, even alongside native populations like the Inuit. Rather than continuing to rely unconditionally on American defense guarantees, Canada must become "masters in our own home" (*maîtres chez nous*). As the second-largest country by landmass with the longest oceanic coastline in the world—surpassing even Russia—defending its borders demands unprecedented financial investment and military expansion.
- Canada opted against developing nuclear weaponry in the 1970s and 1980s, focusing exclusively on civilian nuclear energy and uranium exports.
- Canada maintains the world's longest coastline, stretching over 202,080 kilometers across three oceans.
[01:21:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4903s) The Impact of U.S. Politics and Sovereignty Concerns
The momentum behind Canada's defense spending is driven in part by geopolitical rhetoric coming out of Washington. Rhetoric from former U.S. President Donald Trump—including suggestions that Canada should become an American state and threats of aggressive trade tariffs—served as a stark wake-up call for Canadian leadership. While such statements might be made jokingly, Poilievre notes that when the leader of the world's most powerful military makes such remarks, any responsible leader must step back and ask whether the country is genuinely prepared to defend itself. He firmly rejects any notion of Canada becoming the "51st state," asserting that while Americans remain Canada's closest allies and friends, Canada's sovereignty is non-negotiable.
Quoting President John F. Kennedy's iconic address to the Canadian Parliament, Poilievre highlights the enduring relationship between the two nations: "History has made us friends, economics has made us partners, geography has made us neighbors, and necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature have thus joined together, let no man put asunder." While the American public maintains a genuine affection for Canada, Poilievre asserts that true partnership requires Canada to independently safeguard its own borders and interests.
[01:23:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4981s) Reframing the Election Loss and Campaign Dynamics
Bartlett presents a poll graph illustrating Poilievre's strong lead in the months leading up to the Canadian general election, questioning what caused the sudden shift late in the campaign. Poilievre explains that Conservative support did not drop significantly; rather, opponent parties collapsed and consolidated behind the ruling Liberal Party, largely driven by public anxiety over Canada–U.S. relations, tariffs, and sovereignty concerns. Despite coming up short, the Conservatives secured their highest total vote count in history and achieved their largest share of the popular vote since 1988.
The shift in national conversation proved challenging for the campaign strategy. Poilievre intended to keep the public focused on pressing domestic struggles—including doubled housing costs, rising crime rates, and the broader cost-of-living crisis. However, external economic threats and dynamic statements from the U.S. president dominated headlines. In political campaigns, a sudden pivot toward external crises typically benefits the incumbent government while placing the challenger at a structural disadvantage.
- The Conservative Party achieved its highest national vote share since the 1988 federal election.
- The domestic campaign focused heavily on housing unaffordability, general inflation, and rising crime rates.
[01:25:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5101s) Emotional Toll, Personal Stories, and Stoicism
Reflecting on the emotional fallout of the campaign, Poilievre describes the experience as a rapid roller coaster where constant momentum forces one to suppress feelings until everything concludes. His primary sense of disappointment stemmed not from personal ambition, but from feeling he had let down voters who had placed their hopes in his platform. He shares poignant encounters from the campaign trail: young couples unable to afford homes to start families, mothers struggling with grocery bills, and police officers frustrated by revolving-door justice.
One story stands out in particular: a woman attending a campaign rally wanted to purchase a $15 party membership to vote in the leadership race. She only had $7 in cash, possessed no bank card or money in her car, and disclosed that she was living out of her vehicle. She insisted on spending her final $7 on a membership because she viewed Poilievre's campaign as her only remaining hope for economic relief. Holding those personal stories created a heavy sense of responsibility. Rather than dwelling on the loss, Poilievre adopted a strictly Stoic approach, focusing exclusively on factors within his direct control to safeguard his mental well-being and maintain productivity.
> "When you focus on what you can control, you are the actor rather than the acted upon. If you spend a lot of your time thinking about the things you cannot control, then you become a helpless victim."
[01:29:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5345s) Stoic Philosophy and Core Principles
Discussion turns to Marcus Aurelius's *Meditations*, a foundational text in Poilievre's worldview. He reads a passage emphasizing that one must wake up expecting to encounter meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, and dishonest people, yet refuse to let their behavior dictate one's internal state. By focusing strictly on one's own actions and character, a person becomes "the driver of the car" rather than a passive recipient of external circumstances. He quotes the closing lines of William Ernest Henley's poem *Invictus*—a poem famously recited by Nelson Mandela during his long imprisonment on Robben Island: "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul."
To examine how Poilievre's political principles have evolved over time, Bartlett produces an essay written by Poilievre at age 20 for a national competition titled "As Prime Minister, I Would...", which earned him a $10,000 prize. Poilievre reads the opening paragraphs of his youth essay, which argue that freedom—economic, personal, and political—is the primary engine of human prosperity. The essay posits that government's proper role is to remove hurdles rather than manage society, making the point that asking a single leader to direct the lives of millions of citizens is as absurd as asking a Prime Minister to run onto an Olympic track to assist world-class sprinters. Looking back over the decades, Poilievre notes that while his core conviction regarding human liberty remains identical, his overall temperament has matured significantly through marriage and fatherhood.
- At age 20, Pierre Poilievre won a $10,000 national essay contest sponsored by Magna International detailing his vision for governance.
- The essay emphasized minimal state intervention, individual economic liberty, and direct democratic accountability.
[01:33:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5626s) Personal Growth, Maturation, and Temperament
Pierre Poilievre reflects on how personal family dynamics alter one's political outlook and general mindset. Having a spouse and children forces an individual to place others' needs above their own and master the art of everyday compromise. In his own life, this dynamic has translated into a noticeable shift in temperament. Looking back at his late twenties and early thirties, Poilievre sees himself as having been far less cautious, whereas today he describes his approach as much more careful, deliberate, and thoughtful.
[01:34:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5655s) Ideological Shifts: Traditional Liberalism vs. "Wokeism"
Addressing the critique from political opponents who label him "Trump-lite," Poilievre questions the basis of the tag, attributing it largely to their shared opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and "wokeism." He maintains that opposing DEI is far from unique to Donald Trump, noting that people globally hold principled objections to it based on personal experiences. Poilievre frames the broader political shift through a historical lens, noting that traditional liberals historically championed liberty while conservatives focused on conserving it—both moving toward the same destination at different speeds.
In Poilievre's view, modern "wokeism" represents a fundamental departure from traditional liberalism. Classical liberalism advocated for a color-blind meritocracy based on individual equality regardless of race, gender, or sexuality. Conversely, he argues that wokeism accentuates identity differences, divides citizens into competing identity groups, and uses those divisions to justify expanding state control. He reaffirms his core belief in judging individuals purely on their personal merits and character.
* "Liberals used to believe in liberty and conservatives believed in conserving it... wokeism is a deeply illiberal ideology."
* "What I believe in is treating people as individuals and letting them live their own lives, judging them exclusively on their own merits."
[01:36:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5763s) Tackling Systemic Discrimination and Promoting True Meritocracy
Host Steven Bartlett pushes back on the concept of a purely color-blind society, sharing his perspective as a Black man who emigrated from Botswana to the UK. While Bartlett admits cringing at tokenism or special treatment, he highlights startup funding data that demonstrates clear systemic disadvantages for Black and female entrepreneurs. When Bartlett asks how a leader can counteract real structural barriers without targeted interventions, Poilievre asserts that the solution remains strict equality of opportunity and an uncompromised meritocracy. Bartlett counters with an anecdote about his white father teaching him that prejudice is an innate human trait, citing resume audit studies where identical applications with stereotypically minority names receive drastically lower response rates.
In response to these systemic hurdles, Poilievre argues that government interventions and regulations are often the primary source of artificial barriers. He points to several concrete examples:
* **Anti-housing policies:** High costs and regulatory delays hit newcomers and disadvantaged populations hardest because they lack legacy property assets.
* **Occupational licensing:** Rigid credentialing rules prevent qualified foreign-trained professionals and immigrants from practicing their trades.
* **Soft-on-crime policies:** Framed as progressive justice reform, these policies frequently end up abandoning law-abiding residents in lower-income minority neighborhoods to rising crime.
Poilievre maintains that the effective remedy for systemic disadvantage is removing government-imposed obstacles, enforcing strict non-discrimination, and fostering a free-market economy with free speech.
[01:41:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6097s) The Mortgage Discrimination Debate and the Role of DEI
Bartlett highlights a specific financial disparity, noting data indicating that Black mortgage applicants in the West are up to 200% more likely to be denied home loans than white applicants with identical financial profiles. Poilievre responds bluntly that lenders making decisions on factors other than financial risk are simply "stupid bankers" who are hurting their own bottom line by turning away good business.
When Bartlett suggests that DEI frameworks are intended to act as corrective guardrails against exactly those kinds of biased decisions, Poilievre counters that DEI has been widely implemented for decades yet has failed to eliminate those disparities. He contends that rather than curing poor decision-making, excessive ideological frameworks often generate new administrative problems without fixing the underlying issues.
[01:43:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6190s) Fatherhood, Autism, and Valentina’s Impact
The conversation shifts to Poilievre's family life, specifically a photograph of his seven-year-old daughter, Valentina, sitting on his shoulders. Poilievre shares that Valentina is on the autism spectrum and is non-verbal. He describes her vibrant personality—how she is incredibly acrobatic, loves climbing and bouncing, and expresses affection without filter. He notes that unlike older children who learn artificial social behavior, Valentina possesses an authentic "superpower" where everything she does is 100% genuine. He also credits her younger brother, Cruz, for his fierce devotion to her, sharing that Cruz views it as his personal mission to protect his sister.
* **Valentina's Traits:** Non-verbal, on the autism spectrum, highly affectionate, energetic, and completely authentic.
* **Cruz's Role:** Attends the same classroom at school to watch over her, declaring: "My job is to protect Valentina from bad guys."
* **Long-Term Planning:** The family focuses on securing a financial foundation for Valentina's future while fostering an enduring bond between the siblings.
[01:46:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6360s) Disability Policy and the True Meaning of Compassion
When asked how raising a non-verbal child with autism has shaped his politics, Poilievre explains that it has deepened his commitment to protecting vulnerable people who cannot fully provide for themselves. While he advocates for limited government in economy and daily life, he emphasizes that supporting individuals with disabilities is one of the most legitimate and essential roles of government.
He criticizes state programs that view disabled individuals merely as passive recipients of care rather than active contributors to society. His goal is to reform benefit systems so that receiving medical support or cash assistance does not penalize individuals when they secure employment. Poilievre shares how his family's experience has expanded their empathy, describing how his wife, Anaida, frequently notices neurodivergent children in public crowds and approaches them with warmth and understanding.
* **Role of Government:** Providing a safety net for people with genuine disabilities while removing clawbacks that penalize them for working.
* **Unlocking Potential:** Ensuring society recognizes the inherent value and potential contribution of every individual, regardless of ability.
* **Advice for Parents of Autistic Children:** Focus strictly on actionable steps within your control—securing speech therapy, setting up sensory play spaces (like trampolines or bounce castles), and celebrating their unique joy.
[01:49:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6559s) Living with Autism and Embracing Valentina's World
Pierre Poilievre reflects warmly on his daughter Valentina, describing her as a thrilling, fearless "daredevil" who loves to jump, run, and climb onto his back and shoulders. He offers a heartwarming, firsthand perspective on raising a child with autism, noting that sensory experiences work differently for her. While tapping on an object might bring her immense joy, minor daily irritants that most people ignore can feel overwhelming. He emphasizes that if she has a meltdown, it is not because she is a "bad kid," but because she is experiencing a intense sensory overload that neurotypical people cannot fully comprehend.
Despite the extra effort required to parent a child with these conditions, Poilievre insists that it is immensely rewarding and worth every moment. He shares lighthearted anecdotes showing how beloved and affectionate Valentina is, both at school—where she is very popular and even has a little boy with a crush on her—and in public. During a trip to a fall fair, she randomly walked up to an elderly woman she had never met and sat right in her lap. As Poilievre puts it, once she decides she likes someone, "you're in."
- Valentina's sensory landscape means minor daily irritants can trigger intense, painful meltdowns rather than behavioral misbehavior.
- At school, classmates treat her with warmth, affection, and care.
- Her open, affectionate nature leads her to spontaneously bond with strangers, such as sitting on an unknown elderly lady's lap at a fall fair.
---
[01:51:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6671s) Optimism for Canada's Future
When asked for a closing message to global listeners across the United States, the UK, Canada, and Australia, Poilievre shares a deeply optimistic vision for Canada's future. He argues that Canada holds the world's greatest potential due to its vast natural resources, fresh water reserves, second-largest landmass, and a highly educated, diverse population. He asserts that "the future belongs to Canada" and that the country can become the envy of the world if it makes the right policy choices. With a touch of humor, he adds that while he does not want to sound overly egotistical, it would certainly help if he were prime minister.
Host Steven Bartlett expresses his deep affection for Canada, sharing that visiting Toronto felt immediately like home because Britons and Canadians share so much cultural ground—including sharing a king. Poilievre warmly invites Bartlett to return and do a live show tour in Canada, predicting that he would draw massive, enthusiastic crowds across the country.
- Canada holds the world's second-largest landmass and abundant fresh water and natural resources.
- Canada possesses one of the most diverse and highly educated populations globally.
- Both host and guest note the deep historical and cultural ties between the UK and Canada.
---
[01:52:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6751s) The Final Question: Personal, National, and Global Fears
Following the show's closing tradition where the previous guest leaves a question for the next without knowing their identity, Bartlett asks Poilievre: "What are you most afraid of and how do you deal with that fear?" Poilievre pauses before revealing that on a personal level, his single biggest fear as a parent is something tragic happening to his children, recalling his recent attendance at a solemn funeral for mass shooting victims in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia.
Moving to a national level, Poilievre warns against Canada's current trajectory of self-inflicted stagnation. His greatest fear for the nation is that Canada becomes like a "frog in boiling water"—gradually losing its economic promise, stifling its own potential, and letting opportunity slip away without citizens fully realizing the decline until it is too late. However, he maintains that this trajectory can still be reversed with bold changes in policy direction.
On a global scale, Poilievre identifies his core fear as the Western world drifting away from its foundational principles. He argues that Western democracies must remain rooted in the ideals of the Magna Carta—where the government acts as a servant and the people remain the masters. He calls for free democracies to thrive internally while standing united internationally to preserve free civilization.
- Personal fear: Harm coming to his children, highlighted by his experience attending a memorial service for mass shooting victims in Tumbler Ridge, BC.
- National fear: Canada falling victim to the "boiling frog" syndrome through slow economic decline and blocked opportunities.
- Global fear: The Western world abandoning classical liberal principles originating from the Magna Carta, where government is the servant and citizens are the masters.
---
[01:55:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6905s) Closing Reflections on Political Transparency
Steven Bartlett closes the interview by praising Poilievre's candid and direct demeanor. Bartlett admits that he generally dislikes interviewing politicians because they tend to be "slippery" and evade direct answers, which undermines the audience's trust. He commends Poilievre for answering every question openly and authentically without attempting to dodge uncomfortable topics.
Poilievre responds that modern society functions as a "glass box" rather than a "black box," making genuine transparency essential. He notes that his campaign team placed no topics off-limits, requested no pre-approved questions, and asked for no editorial control over the final cut—a level of open media engagement he hopes more political leaders will adopt in the future.
- Poilievre's team placed zero restrictions, topic bans, or edit demands on the interview.
- Poilievre highlights the shift from a "black box" political landscape to a transparent "glass box" environment in modern digital media.
## Notable quotes
> [31:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1918s) It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. — Pierre Poilievre
> [36:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2174s) What we have now is socialism for the very rich. We have governments that are actively redistributing wealth from the working class to the very, very wealthy. — Pierre Poilievre
> [42:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2554s) It is not actually that these things cost more. It's that the money with which we buy them is worth less because we're creating so much of it... to fund deficits. — Pierre Poilievre
> [44:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2656s) Single-use plastic is now banned, which makes it so that food goes bad about five days quicker... It sounds very virtuous, but ultimately somebody pays for that. — Pierre Poilievre
> [53:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3225s) No politician wants to have written on their gravestone: 'He stayed out of the way, left people alone so that they could do great things without him.' Although I think we'd be better off if more of them did. — Pierre Poilievre
> [01:58:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=7125s) if you don't use it, you lose it — Pierre Poilievre
> [01:58:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=7125s) maîtres chez nous — Pierre Poilievre
> [02:01:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=7303s) History has made us friends, economics has made us partners, geography has made us neighbors, and necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature have thus joined together, let no man put asunder. — John F. Kennedy
> [02:05:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=7501s) When you focus on what you can control, you are the actor rather than the acted upon. If you spend a lot of your time thinking about the things you cannot control, then you become a helpless victim. — Pierre Poilievre
> [02:09:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=7745s) I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul. — William Ernest Henley
> [01:44:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6255s) Liberals used to believe in liberty and conservatives believed in conserving it... wokeism is a deeply illiberal ideology. — Pierre Poilievre
> [01:44:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6255s) What I believe in is treating people as individuals and letting them live their own lives, judging them exclusively on their own merits. — Pierre Poilievre
> [01:43:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6190s) My job is to protect Valentina from bad guys. — Cruz Poilievre
> [01:51:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6671s) the future belongs to Canada — Pierre Poilievre
> [01:55:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6905s) glass box — Pierre Poilievre
## Mentioned
Adam Smith, Pierre Poilievre, Steven Bartlett, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, The Wealth of Nations, OECD, G7, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, Anthropic, OpenClaw, John Adams, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, OpenAI, Tesla, Worldcoin, Paul Krugman, Graham Allison, Thucydides, Donald Trump, John F. Kennedy, Marcus Aurelius, William Ernest Henley, Nelson Mandela, Magna International, Valentina Poilievre, Cruz Poilievre, Anaida Poilievre, Conservative Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, Canada, United States, UK, Australia, Toronto, Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Magna Carta
波利耶夫尔指责政府开支与官僚作风导致加拿大住房危机
Pierre Poilievre认为，国家印钞速度超出住房供应增速以及市政审批延误，是直接导致加拿大住房负担能力恶化和经济衰退的原因。
Pierre Poilievre阐述了他对加拿大治理的构想，在批评当前经济政策、央行引发的通胀和住房供应短缺的同时，倡导自由市场原则、削减开支与唯才是用。他回顾了自己的成长经历，包括被收养以及与亲生父母相认的过程，并分享了在古典自由主义学者和斯多葛哲学启发下的政治思想演变。此次讨论还涉及了移民改革、人工智能对劳动力趋势的影响、核能以及北极主权等复杂的政策议题。最后，Poilievre谈及个人生活，详述了抚养患有自闭症的女儿如何塑造了他对残障福利改革以及政府角色的看法。
皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）指出，现代西方经济体实际上在推行“劫贫济富的社会主义”，政府过多干预不仅未带来公平，反而将财富向上转移给既得利益精英。 (36:14)
加拿大深陷住房危机，根源在于市政审批繁文缛节与高昂税费导致项目耗时冗长，而非缺乏实际土地或建筑工人。 (38:51)
过去十年间加拿大货币供应量翻倍，增速是住房供应增长的8倍，央行货币扩张通过坎蒂隆效应（Cantillon effect）推高资产价格并严重削弱工薪阶层的实际购买力。 (42:34)
波利耶夫尔推崇瑞士与新加坡的经济模式，主张精简官僚体制、削减繁琐监管并厉行财政纪律，以重振经济活力与国家生产力。 (49:22)
Reading summary
Canadian Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre argues that Western economic and social decline stems from expanding bureaucratic intervention, currency devaluation, and isolationist foreign policy, rather than free-market failure. He advocates for reducing government gatekeeping, restoring resource development, and refocusing public policy on personal liberty and meritocracy.
Bureaucracy and Currency Devaluation in Canada (38:51)
Poilievre attributes Canada's affordability crisis directly to excessive state intervention rather than systemic market defects. In housing, he points out that despite Canada holding ten times more land per person than the next closest G7 peer, permit approvals rank as the second slowest in the OECD—taking up to seven years per subdivision. At the same time, over the past decade, Canada's money supply doubled from $1.4 trillion to $2.8 trillion while housing grew by just 13%, causing severe monetary inflation. Citing the Cantillon effect, he contends that newly printed money enriches financial institutions and elites first, devaluing working-class purchasing power by the time it circulates into wages.
Restoring Resource Wealth and Labor Balance
To counter economic stagnation and declining happiness metrics, Poilievre proposes unlocking Canada's natural resources and reforming labor policy. Historically, high oil prices strengthened the Canadian dollar and insulated domestic consumers, but Poilievre argues this buffer broke down because regulatory barriers and industrial carbon taxes suppressed the sector. Additionally, he critiques immigration policies between 2021 and 2024 for flooding the labor market through temporary foreign worker and student visa programs, which he argues depressed wages and overwhelmed infrastructure. Instead of subsidizing cheap corporate labor, he urges capping population growth to physical capacity and implementing standardized competency testing to fast-track licensing for roughly 20,000 foreign-trained doctors and 32,000 nurses barred by red tape.
Geopolitics, National Sovereignty, and Deterrence (0:00)
Addressing global security, Poilievre warns against growing U.S. isolationism and trade protectionism, insisting that Washington is stronger cooperating with allies like Canada and the UK. He firmly dismisses rhetoric suggesting Canada become the 51st U.S. state, pointing instead to a broad domestic consensus requiring Canada to rebuild its military and establish an active presence in the Arctic to defend its sovereignty. On global threats, Poilievre backs decisive action against Iran's nuclear development due to the regime's fundamentalist worldview, and identifies China as a primary geopolitical rival, arguing that strong deterrence alongside shared economic norms can prevent conflict under Thucydides' Trap.
Meritocracy, Personal Philosophy, and Social Policy
Poilievre defends a classical liberal worldview centered on individual merit rather than modern diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) frameworks, which he argues divide citizens and expand state control without resolving systemic disparities. Drawing on his working-class upbringing and adoption, as well as raising a non-verbal daughter with autism, he distinguishes between unnecessary market interventions and essential government responsibilities. He contends that supporting vulnerable individuals with genuine disabilities is a legitimate state duty, advocating for benefit reforms that eliminate clawbacks penalizing disabled individuals when they secure employment.
Poilievre expresses optimism that Canada can reverse its stagnation through sound policy choices, though he warns that Western democracies risk becoming like a 'frog in boiling water' if they continue abandoning individual liberty, fiscal discipline, and strategic international alliances.
## Background
该内容由知名访谈播客《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人史蒂文·巴特利特 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 4 月 2 日发布在 YouTube 平台。页面简介指出，本期嘉宾为加拿大官方反对党保守党领袖皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre），对话围绕特朗普与关税政策、加拿大住房危机与生活成本暴涨、西方资源战略、他的个人成长身世及抚养自闭症女儿等核心议题展开。
## TL;DR
波利耶夫尔在对谈中就全球地缘格局与加拿大国内困局进行了全面剖析，严词驳斥了特朗普所谓“让加拿大成为美国第51个州”的狂言，并主张以加拿大丰富的石油与关键矿产构筑北美安全屏障、换取关税豁免。在内政经济方面，他批判繁琐的官僚审批与货币滥发引发了住房荒与通胀，提出应通过放松开发管制、废除碳税、释放数万名移民医护潜能以及严设移民上限来重振“加拿大承诺”。此外，他深情回顾了自己作为未成年母亲之子被教师家庭收养的坎坷成长经历，探讨了斯多葛哲学对直面大选逆境的启示，并分享了养育患有无言语自闭症女儿如何淬炼出更深层的政治同理心与务实担当。
## Atmosphere & style
整场访谈兼具敏锐尖锐的宏观论辩与极其温情动人的私人剖白。对话节奏张弛有度，既有围绕全球能源博弈、修昔底德陷阱与反思 DEI 政策时的针锋相对与思辨锋芒，也有触及养母伤疤、家庭破裂及特殊女儿日常时难掩的眼眶泛泪与真挚感性。现场完全摆脱了传统政客回避敏感话题的圆滑套路，呈现出一种透明坦荡、充满反思且力量感十足的深层交流质感。
## Bulletin
- [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=0s) 加拿大保守党领袖皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔坚决驳斥特朗普关于加拿大成为美国“第51个州”的言论，指出加拿大作为全球第四大石油储量国和关键矿产大国，应以战略资源为筹码换取北美自由贸易豁免与战略安全互惠。
- [42:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2550s) 加拿大住房危机根源在于政府繁文缛节与超发货币的坎蒂隆效应：过去十年加拿大货币供应量翻倍激增100%，而同期住房存量仅微增13%，新房审批审批流程冗长导致大量建筑工人与资本闲置。
- [01:08:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4139s) 针对当前失衡的移民政策，波利耶夫尔主张设定硬性承载上限，使人口增速不超越医疗与住房建设步伐，并提议打破官僚壁垒，通过能力测试迅速释放被拒于门外的2万名移民医生与3.2万名护士的生产力。
- [01:46:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6360s) 面对自闭症女儿的养育经历重塑了波利耶夫尔的政治哲学，他在坚守小政府路线的同时，强调政府必须切实保障弱势群体，消除福利体系的“悬崖效应”，赋能残障人士进入职场并实现自我价值。
## Key takeaways
- [02:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=168s) 孤立主义是美国的重大战略失误，美加深度结盟与自由贸易才是抗衡地缘动荡、保障北美能源与国防安全的核心底牌。
- [04:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=282s) 加拿大坐拥全球第四大原油储量与关键矿产，能够构建数亿桶原油战略储备，以不可替代的资源优势换取钢、铝、木材及汽车的零关税待遇。
- [09:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=567s) 伊朗受末世宗教狂热驱使，其研发军用核武对全球秩序构成的毁灭性威胁远超追求自身政权存续的朝鲜，必须坚决阻止其拥核。
- [12:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=747s) 反对派遣加拿大地面部队介入伊朗，美国应吸取老布什的有限威慑经验，阻断德黑兰核能力后由伊朗人民自行实现政权更迭。
- [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1153s) 恪守“在国门之外不抨击本国执政者”的外交准则，强调对外贸易与国运谈判面前国家整体利益必须高于党派得失。
- [20:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1238s) 平凡蓝领工薪家庭出身与早年家庭资产被高通胀吞噬的经历，塑造了波利耶夫尔恢复“勤劳即可阶层跃升”之加拿大承诺的执政愿景。
- [32:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1925s) 亚当·斯密的自由市场不仅是自愿交换与价格机制的结合，更是《道德情操论》中同理心与通过利他获得幸福的高尚美德的统一。
- [36:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2174s) 现代膨胀的政府官僚体系并非真正的自由资本主义，而是演变为“劫贫济富”并向特权阶层倾斜资源的假性资本主义。
- [42:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2550s) 货币供应增速达住房供应增速八倍触发坎蒂隆效应，最先接触发钞资金的金融特权层获利，广大工薪阶层的实际购买力遭到稀释。
- [48:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2912s) 欧洲能源转型的失误导致德国返贫烧煤，印证了盲目干预只会摧毁制造业并推高工薪阶层账单，小政府与自由竞争才是繁荣基石。
- [53:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3225s) 年轻人因高房价被迫寄宿在父母地下室、无力安家立业，是导致加拿大及西方本土生育率暴跌的最直接经济枷锁。
- [01:00:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3619s) AI革命依托互联网呈现出史无前例的极速颠覆力，技术红利必须转化为降低大众生活成本的工具，而非剥夺人类工作意义的替代品。
- [01:16:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4585s) 西方文明面临的最大地缘变数取决于中国的战略抉择，大国博弈若无法基于规则与合作，将滑向灾难性的修昔底德陷阱。
- [01:18:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4736s) 加拿大国防虽奉行温和友善的“金毛寻回犬”性格，但在北极主权与主权威慑上必须强化军事硬实力，确保自家屋里自己做主。
- [01:27:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5235s) 大选民调逆转源于特朗普关税言论转移了民生焦点，但波利耶夫尔践行斯多葛主义控制二分法，拒绝找借口并坦然接受选举结果。
- [01:34:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5655s) 现代觉醒文化与DEI按生理特征切割群体并扩大公权力干预，背离了传统自由主义追求个人能力与品行的“色盲”任人唯贤准则。
- [01:46:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6360s) 抚养无言语自闭症女儿的经历深化了同理心，主张改革福利机制中的“悬崖效应”，保障残障弱势群体在有尊严的工作中实现价值。
- [01:53:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6804s) 对国家未来的最大忧虑在于加拿大陷入“温水煮青蛙”式的自我潜力扼杀，西方文明亟需坚守自《大宪章》以来的自由与主权在民传统。
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=0s) 开篇导视：孤立主义的错误与国内经济的重压
节目开场剪辑了一组针锋相对的对话焦点。针对唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）在胜选后声称“加拿大应该成为美国的第51个州”这一争议性言论，加拿大官方反对党领袖皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）斩钉截铁地予以驳斥：“这绝不可能发生（That's never going to happen）”。面对主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）关于美国正走向单打独斗孤立主义路线的观察，波利耶夫尔直言这是一个极其重大的战略失误。他指出，只要美国以友相待，加拿大拥有美国所需的一切战略资源。桌上摆放的各国石油储量样本试管直观地显示，加拿大位列全球第四，不仅储量庞大，而且是前几大产油国中唯一真正可靠的盟友。
波利耶夫尔同时对伊朗核威胁以及国内民生困局发表了尖锐看法。他支持针对伊朗采取必要的初始打击行动，直指伊朗是全球头号恐怖主义资助者，其浓缩铀研发核武的潜在危险甚至远甚于朝鲜。而在加拿大国内，经济政策正在沉重打击工薪阶层：沉重的税负惩罚了人们的积极性，两万名拥有行医资质的移民医生被排斥在医疗系统之外，年轻人因薪资缩水和生活成本飞涨而不敢组建家庭。当史蒂文拿出一份触及波利耶夫尔成长身世的私人材料时，波利耶夫尔难掩内心情绪的波动，坦承自己已有很久不曾触碰这段记忆。随后，史蒂文在进入正题前向观众发出诚挚呼吁，希望常客听众点击订阅以支持团队持续带来高质量的深度对话。
---
### [02:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=168s) 战后秩序瓦解与“第三次世界大战”阴云
史蒂文正式开启对谈，直接抛出当下全球舆论最关切的危机感：世界各地传统联盟分崩离析，公众甚至夜不能寐地担忧第三次世界大战是否已迫在眉睫。波利耶夫尔将当前的全球动荡置于二战后历史演变的长周期中审视。他分析道，战后美国通过释放资本主义体制的生产力迎来财富与实力的爆发式增长，凭借纯粹的拼搏、生产与经济扩张，最终不战而屈人之兵地拖垮并瓦解了苏联帝国。
然而，在苏联解体后，新的专制力量悄然崛起。中国从过去“80%人口日均生活费不足1美元”的极度贫困状态，迅猛跃升为全球第二大经济体。与此同时，西方内部尤其是美国工薪阶层遭遇了严重的经济困境——无节制的超发货币引发严峻的通胀危机，在大幅推高普通民众生活成本的同时，却将天量财富集中到了极少数精英阶层的手中。这种被剥夺感引发了广泛的社会反弹。波利耶夫尔认为工薪阶层的愤怒完全在理，但将这种情绪转化为针对加拿大等盟友征收高额关税的做法则是彻底的误判。美国若想保持强大，理应团结更多盟友并深化贸易合作，而不是把真正的盟友推向对立面。
- **中国经济跃升数据**：波利耶夫尔指出中国在数十年间从 80% 人口每天生活费不足 1 美元转变为全球第二大经济体。
- **西方内生矛盾根源**：持续性的纸币超发（money printing）引发恶性生活成本危机，导致财富单向流向少数精英，激化了工薪阶层的强烈反弹。
- **波利耶夫尔的访美初衷**：在全美展开游说，向美国政界与民间提醒美加英等传统盟友合作的历史价值与不可替代性。
---
### [04:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=282s) 试管里的石油博弈：“第51个州”与不可替代的盟友
针对特朗普在达沃斯及近期频频发表的单边主义言论——包括对格陵兰岛的企图以及兼并加拿大成为“第51个州”的轻浮说法，史蒂文提出疑问：在过去三十年的记忆中，美国始终是稳固的盟友中枢，为何如今却显得如此咄咄逼人且充满孤立倾向？波利耶夫尔强调，放弃冷战时期奠定胜局的传统西方联盟是美国的重大战略败笔。当年面对拥有核武装且向欧洲持续扩张的苏联，美国正是依靠坚定的北约（NATO）联盟框架与自身无与伦比的经济生产力赢得了和平。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 全球主要石油储量国家对比与战略风险
accDescr: 对比全球主要石油储量国家的政治稳定性及与美国的地缘摩擦风险，凸显加拿大的独特性。
subgraph HighRisk["高地缘政治风险 / 冲突国家"]
direction TB
V["委内瑞拉 (储量第1)"]
SA["沙特阿拉伯 (储量第2)"]
IR["伊朗 (储量第3)"]
IQ["伊拉克 (储量第5)"]
end
subgraph StrategicPartner["可靠的北美盟友"]
direction TB
CA["加拿大 (储量第4)"]
US["美国 (储量第6)"]
end
CA ===|"供应稳定、低价折扣、地理毗邻"| US
HighRisk -.->|"摩擦断供、海峡封锁风险"| US
```
波利耶夫尔直接指向桌面展示的一组装有各国原油样本的试管，现场梳理起全球前六大石油储量国：第一是委内瑞拉，第二是沙特阿拉伯，第三是伊朗，第四是加拿大，紧随其后的是伊拉克与美国本土。他反问史蒂文：在这前五大产油国中，美国到底能指望谁？是政局剧变的委内瑞拉、立场微妙的沙特，还是陷入敌对与战火的伊朗和伊拉克？答案显而易见只有加拿大。加拿大原油与美国炼油厂的适配度极高，而且长期以巨大的价格折扣向美国输送。波利耶夫尔甚至提出构想：加拿大完全有能力为北美建立数亿桶规模的即采即用战略原油储备；一旦霍尔木兹海峡发生封锁危机，北邻加拿大的原油库存能够立即填补缺口。这不仅是加拿大经济腾飞的“火箭燃料”，更是美国国家安全的核心屏障。
---
### [07:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=423s) 资源超级大国：以能源与关键矿产换取关税豁免
史蒂文看着桌上的原油试管感叹，排名前列的委内瑞拉、伊朗、伊拉克无一例外均与美国处于激烈对抗或军事介入状态，甚至加拿大近期也承受着来自白宫异常强硬的经贸压力，追问这背后的根本原因是否全因石油而起。波利耶夫尔坦言，加拿大人其实完全无法理解美方对加拿大的敌意从何而来——自19世纪初、甚至早在加拿大联邦成立之前，加拿大就始终是美国最值得信赖的友好伙伴。
波利耶夫尔主张加拿大必须清醒地认识到自身的底牌，将丰富的自然资源转化为强有力的谈判筹码，与美国现任及未来的执政团队达成互惠协议。加拿大是当之无愧的“资源超级大国（resource superpower）”，不仅拥有取之不尽的油气，更掌握着打赢现代战争所必不可缺的关键战略矿产。他明确给出了自己的谈判对价方案：
| 加拿大诉求（美方免关税准入） | 加拿大提供的战略交换 |
|:--- |:--- |
| **钢铁（Steel）** 零关税自由贸易 | 扩大对美原油产能，提供更有竞争力的价格保障 |
| **铝材（Aluminum）** 零关税自由贸易 | 构建数亿桶现货原油储备，对冲中东海峡封锁风险 |
| **木材（Lumber）** 零关税自由贸易 | 提供国防与高端制造业不可替代的关键战略矿产支持 |
| **汽车制造业（Automobiles）** 零关税自由贸易 | 打造一体化且高度安全的北美本土能源与工业供应链 |
波利耶夫尔强调，只要美国与加拿大保持开放自由的双边贸易，美国就根本无需将国家命运受制于中东或南美那些动荡敌对的政权。
---
### [08:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=535s) 伊朗威胁与PS752航班惨案
对话随即转向排在试管第三位的伊朗。史蒂文询问波利耶夫尔如何评价特朗普针对伊朗目标的轰炸行动，以及这场军事对抗究竟会如何收场、能否有一个和平结局。
波利耶夫尔并未回避问题，而是首先回顾了伊朗政权对加拿大造成的沉痛伤害。他指出，伊朗政府长期以来对加拿大展现出极端敌意与直接危害。2020年，伊朗军方在德黑兰附近发射导弹击落了乌克兰国际航空PS752号民航客机，残忍夺走了机上55名加拿大公民和30名加拿大永久居民的生命。时至今日，遇难者家属与加拿大政府仍未从伊朗当局那里得到任何合理的解释与正义交代。这桩惨剧在加拿大民众心中留下了难以抹平的创伤，也彻底暴露了该政权的危险本质。
### [09:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=567s) 伊朗核危机与地缘意识形态威胁
皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）严厉谴责了伊朗政权在国际社会与加拿大国内的敌对行动。他指出，伊朗不仅是全球首要的恐怖主义资助国，还将特工渗透至加拿大本土社区，公然骚扰境内的犹太人和波斯人社群。在核问题上，波利耶夫尔态度极其坚决，直言伊朗政府绝不能被允许拥有核武器。他驳斥了伊朗提炼浓缩铀仅用于核电站的辩解，认为其高丰度的浓缩水平唯一目的就是制造军用核武。一旦伊朗成功掌握核弹并配备远程导弹，不仅邻国会面临灭顶之灾，远方国家也将遭受毁灭性打击。因此，他认为加拿大政府以及盟友采取一切必要行动阻止伊朗拥核，是维护世界和平的必然之举，数月前针对伊朗核研发设施的空袭完全具备正当性。
波利耶夫尔进一步深入分析了伊朗政权与朝鲜在本质上的根本差异。虽然朝鲜也拥有核武器，但平壤的共产主义极权政权归根结底属于世俗理性政权，其最高目标是追求“自身生存与权力维系”，因而对传统威慑机制依然敏感。相反，德黑兰政权受神权原教旨主义狂热驱使，执迷于一种“天界彼岸”的宗教叙事，坚信消灭所谓的“异教徒”能在死后世界获得奖赏。这种末世意识形态导致其对常规威慑产生免疫，因而其拥有核武的危险系数远超朝鲜。即便伊朗最高领袖的儿子被推举上位、德黑兰展现出全面反击与打击欧洲本土的射程能力，西方也不能误以为其激进行动纯属反击所致；如果不加以遏制，灾难只会更早降临。
面对这种动荡的国际局势，波利耶夫尔强调加拿大的王牌就是其丰饶的能源与自然资源。他将资源开发提升到国家“超级力量”的战略高度，提出必须排除一切体制阻碍，将加拿大能源输送至深水港（tidewater），并建立战略资源储备。这不仅能让加拿大在动荡的地缘格局中展示自身经济肌肉，更能有效降低全球对伊朗、沙特阿拉伯或委内瑞拉等威权政权的能源依赖。
- 伊朗在加拿大本土派遣特工骚扰犹太人与波斯人社区，严重威胁社会安全。
- 提炼高丰度浓缩铀毫无民用电站的必要性，完全指向军工核武制造。
- 伊朗神权政权受宗教末世信仰驱动，无法用对待朝鲜（求生保权）的常规威慑手段加以约束。
---
### [12:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=747s) 加拿大在美伊冲突中的定位与战略选择
针对主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出的“如果特朗普要求加拿大参战，你若执政会作何回应”这一假设，波利耶夫尔阐明了他在军事与盟友支持上的边界。他提及加拿大现任总理卡尼（Prime Minister Carney）表态支持对伊朗核设施实施打击，他在此点上与卡尼保持一致，但严正指出：“政治声援与派遣加拿大陆海空军人直接参战是两码事。”他明确反对派遣加拿大地面部队开进伊朗，并直言加拿大目前的军备能力也无力支撑此类大规模冲突。加拿大能够提供怎样的具体支持，必须严格取决于美方的具体请求与自身实际条件的评估。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 加拿大对伊朗冲突的外交与资源战略路径
accDescr: 展示加拿大在盟友支援、军事介入限制以及国内能源利用上的分流选择。
subgraph 外部战略响应
A["美方请求盟军介入"] --> B{"战略决策分界"}
B -->|"外交与行动声援"| C["支持摧毁核设施目标"]
B -->|"军事实兵行动"| D["拒绝派遣地面部队介入长期泥潭"]
end
subgraph 内部资源反制
E["全球能源市场震荡"] --> F["释放加拿大油气资源"]
F --> G["取消工业碳税与繁文缛节"]
G --> H["增强加元购买力 & 构筑战略储备"]
end
```
回顾历史规律，波利耶夫尔以两次海湾战争的布什父子作为对照，分析特朗普面前的抉择路线。老布什（George H.W. Bush）在第一次海湾战争中重创萨达姆·侯赛因后，及时宣布胜利并撤军，为中东保留了相对稳定的格局；而其子小布什（George W. Bush）则执意推动彻底的政权更迭，结果陷入耗时耗力的漫长泥淖。波利耶夫尔建议特朗普以老布什为典范，明确核心目标仅限于“彻底阻断德黑兰获取中远程核武与弹道导弹”，随后应果断撤出，避免重蹈陷入无底深渊的覆辙。至于伊朗的前途，应由伊朗民众自行决定。他赞扬加拿大境内有许多世俗、亲西方的杰出波斯移民，并表示根据广泛了解，伊朗本土人民早已对现存神权统治怨声载道，政权已毫无合法性支持，唯有依靠人民内部起义夺回国家，才能最终赢来长治久安与民主。
- 明确界定支持盟友行动不等同于派兵：坚决反对派遣地面作战部队进入伊朗。
- 历史战略镜鉴：老布什的“有限惩戒后撤离”模式远优于小布什的“强行政权更迭泥潭”模式。
- 终极解决方案：定点清除核威胁，将推翻政权的权力交还给没有民意基础的伊朗本国人民。
---
### [15:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=917s) 资源解绑、加元汇率与对美务实外交
在讨论油价高涨对平民生活的影响时，波利耶夫尔引用著名经济学家托马斯·索维尔（Thomas Sowell）的经典名言指出了政策本质：“人生中没有完美的解决方案，只有权衡取舍（There are no solutions, just trade-offs）。”对于加油站飙升的油价，他难掩无奈与愤慨，直言坐拥庞大石油储量的加拿大原本根本无需承受这种物价飞涨之苦。在历史上的常规经济周期中，国际油价暴涨往往会推动加元同比例升值，因为外国买家必须先兑换加元才能购入石油；强劲的加元赋予了加拿大公民更强大的购买力，能有效平抑以国际美元计价的能源与食品成本。然而，由于近年来加拿大政府在环保管制等方面的束缚，导致该国能源支柱产业在经济中所占的比重大不如前，致使这一天然的“经济绝缘层”彻底失效。
为了彻底扭转这种困境，波利耶夫尔阐述了他在国内与外交两套并行不悖的施政计划：
1. **清理“政府守门人”（Government Gatekeepers）**：彻底清除行政审批与监管官僚主义的层层设限，废除备受争议的工业碳税，全力释放私营部门在采矿、提炼、储存和运输各个环节的高额盈利能力与产能。
2. **重铸货币购买力与地缘优势**：借助油气大宗出口拉动加元汇率，减轻普通百姓的通胀压力，同时提升在全球地缘政治中的话语权。
3. **坚持“一次只有一个总理”的外交准则**：尽管在内政问题上与现任总理政见完全相左，但在涉及与特朗普审查贸易协定的国际谈判中，波利耶夫尔拒绝暗中接触美方团队或私下结盟，坚决捍卫加拿大的统一谈判桌姿态。
4. **着眼“能控制的事物”**：不把国家未来绑架在某位特定美国总统的喜怒无常上，而是积极构筑涵盖盟国所需关键矿产的战略储备，并大力推动与英国、新西兰、澳大利亚等传统盟友的贸易多元化，使国家经济走向自给自足。
- 理论依据：践行托马斯·索维尔的权衡理论，拒绝空想主义的政策设计。
- 经济传导机制：通过大幅释放石油产能拉动加元升值，从根本上压低国际输入型通胀（食品与燃油价格）。
- 对美与对外谈判策略：坚守“一个政府对外”底线，不因党派分歧分化国家利益，转而深耕英联邦盟友（CANZUK）与自主资源储备。
### [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1153s) 国家利益高于党派政治：在国外的发声原则
谈及释放经济潜力时，皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）强调必须坚决扫除障碍，让不需要政府补贴、拒绝商业施舍的纯民间私人资本去盘活国家的资源。针对当前与美国的贸易谈判，主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）指出，皮埃尔此前曾明确表示不会在涉外谈判中对马克·卡尼（Mark Carney）等人横加阻挠。皮埃尔对此给出了清晰的政治底线：作为官方反对党领袖，他在下议院的本职工作固然是在内政甚至国际事务上制衡执政党，但绝不能以损害国家整体利益为代价。
史蒂文随即追问，皮埃尔曾作客拥有全球顶级影响力的《乔·罗根体验》（The Joe Rogan Experience）播客，而在那样的世界级舞台上，皮埃尔却坚持“不在境外批评本国执政者”的信条，这在当今很多国家的政客中极为罕见。皮埃尔回应道，即便如今的全球化媒介让声音无远弗届，恪守这一原则依然至关重要。如果是在和平无事的日常时期，或者身处一个毫无争端的国家，批评本国政策或许无伤大雅；但在跨境贸易谈判迫在眉睫、关乎国运的未来几个月里，任何内部拆台都可能给外部对手递刀子。“我必须把国家利益置于个人得失之上（I have to put my country above myself）”，皮埃尔笃定地表示，为加拿大争取最有利的结果是他不可动摇的底线。
### [20:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1238s) 谦逊的工人阶层出身与“加拿大承诺”
面对“你凭什么比现任领导人更适合执掌国家”的尖锐提问，皮埃尔给出了自己的核心施政愿景：让加拿大重新成为全世界最负担得起、最自由且最富裕的国家。他直言，这种抱负深深扎根于他成长的一点一滴。他来自最平凡卑微的工薪家庭，养父母都是普通的学校教师，邻里街坊全是电工、石油工人、卡车司机和警察。皮埃尔指着演播室屏幕上展示的旧家庭合影，深情回忆起自己独特的家庭身世——他和弟弟帕特里克（Patrick）其实是同母异父的兄弟，两人源于同一位年轻的亲生母亲，生父各不相同，却奇迹般地先后被同一个家庭收养。
当年，养父母在收养皮埃尔三年后接到电话，得知皮埃尔那位当年仅16岁便生下他的生母，在三年后又生下了一个男孩，询问他们是否愿意接纳这个同母异父的弟弟。夫妻二人毫不犹豫地答应了。皮埃尔依然清晰记得自己跟着父母去福利机构接弟弟的情景：走进宽敞的房间，眼前是一排排安睡的婴儿床，工作人员指着其中一个孩子说“那就是他”。年幼的皮埃尔当时甚至天真地以为，婴儿就像杂货店里的商品一样，想要的时候就可以直接去“领一个”。
然而好景不长，在皮埃尔三四岁时，恶性通胀引发的极高利率重创了整个家庭。母亲省吃俭用攒下的两套小型出租屋以及自住的房子一夜之间全部被银行收回。一家人几乎倾家荡产，不得不找外祖父借钱才凑足了首付勉强买下安身之所，父亲长年开着一辆破旧不堪的奥兹莫比尔（Oldsmobile）。在这群辛勤劳作却屡遭重创的蓝领邻居身上，皮埃尔目睹了劳动者的韧性与尊严，更痛感他们总是被高高在上的政府官僚盘剥与忽视。这构成了他政治生命的核心引擎——恢复“加拿大的承诺”（The Promise of Canada）：无论你是教师领养的孤儿，还是来自博茨瓦纳的赤贫移民，只要付出诚实努力，就理应买得起房、开得起公司、做出一番轰轰烈烈的事业，而不是被固化的体制压榨在生存边缘。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔的核心价值观形成路径
accDescr: 展示从童年收养背景、底层经济危机到最终提炼出“加拿大承诺”政治愿景的发展逻辑链。
subgraph Background["底层家庭与收养背景"]
A["16岁未成年母亲所生<br/>被两位普通教师收养"]
B["3年后收养同母异父弟弟<br/>生活在蓝领工薪社区"]
end
subgraph Adversity["早年经济冲击"]
C["遭遇极高利率风暴<br/>家庭房产与积蓄尽失"]
D["目睹底层劳动者<br/>被政府决策排斥与剥削"]
end
subgraph Vision["政治核心理念"]
E["重塑『加拿大承诺』"]
F["打造最宜居、最自由、最富裕的国家<br/>通过勤劳工作实现阶层流动"]
end
A --> B
B --> C
C --> D
D --> E
E --> F
```
### [23:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1416s) 养母的宽广胸怀与寻找生母的旅程
在谈到与亲生母亲相认的经历时，皮埃尔透露那发生在自己21或22岁前后。促成这次相见的前提，是他对养母玛琳（Marlene）毫无保留的尊重。年轻时的皮埃尔明确向自己立下规矩：如果没有养母的由衷许可，他绝不会去见生母一面。在他心中，是养母日复一日扛起抚育重担，包容他青春期的叛逆莽撞，无数次冒着严寒接送他去参加冰球训练，甚至掏空银行账户换取全家的一日三餐。“我绝不希望她感到自己被边缘化、被遗忘，甚至是被取代，”皮埃尔回忆道。当他小心翼翼征求养母意见时，玛琳的回答让他刻骨铭心：“去吧，我当然支持，因为我不可能永远陪在你身边，我希望这世上永远有人能做你的母亲。”讲到此处，皮埃尔眼中泪光闪烁，几度动容，赞叹这种超越母性占有欲和自私本能的爱是他见过最崇高、最仁慈的情操。
获得养母的祝福后，皮埃尔与生母一同驾车，从渥太华一路开往蒙特利尔。在这场漫长的公路旅行中，两人敞开心扉，生母详尽询问了皮埃尔的成长轨迹，皮埃尔也得以还原自己血缘家族的拼图。他得知自己的外祖父是一位令人尊敬的爱尔兰人，更彻底理解了当年生母作出送养决定的无奈与伟大。16岁的女孩刚遭遇母亲因突发心脏病离世的灭顶之灾，毫无经济来源，在无依无靠的绝境下，为了能让孩子拥有更宽广的未来，她痛苦地选择了放手。皮埃尔坦言，自己内心从未有过半点怨恨，那是一份年轻母亲最纯粹、最无私的自我牺牲。
- **母爱的对比与升华**：养母用一生的操劳定义了养育之恩，同时用放手的包容体现了神圣的母爱；生母则在极度匮乏与丧亲的绝境中做出了利他选择。
- **情感触动**：皮埃尔在录制现场坦言，自己很久没有被触及这段深埋心底的私密记忆，养父母与生母的人格力量正是他在险恶残酷的政坛中坚守初心的力量源泉。
### [26:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1561s) 亲生父亲、家庭变故与父亲的出柜
在解开心结之后，皮埃尔也通过探寻找到了自己的亲生父亲。这位生父长年在不列颠哥伦比亚省（British Columbia）的一家混凝土加工厂靠体力打拼，后来重组家庭并抚养了其他几个孩子，是一位尽职尽责的好父亲。对于负责抚养他的养父唐纳德（Donald），皮埃尔同样充满感恩。唐纳德不仅是一名循循善诱的优秀教师，更是皮埃尔如今雄辩口才和文字功底的启蒙之师。
然而，在皮埃尔大约12岁（五年级前后）时，家庭迎来了重大震荡——养父母决定离婚。史蒂文感同身受地回忆起自己童年父母宣布离婚时的崩塌感，皮埃尔对此深表赞同，直言那种童年阴影是终生难忘的。当年，父亲唐纳德为了单独向他坦白，开车带着年幼的皮埃尔来到当地的街角便利店门口。停好车后，父亲在狭窄的车厢里将这个残酷的消息告诉了他。尽管父母最终分道扬镳，但皮埃尔从未指责过他们，因为即便在婚姻破裂后，两人依然倾尽所有来关爱两个养子。
这段婚姻解体背后，还隐藏着养父唐纳德艰难的自我救赎。唐纳德出身于一个极为虔诚的法裔天主教家庭（这正是皮埃尔拥有法国姓氏的原因），青年时代甚至一度动念献身教会、成为天主教神父。他在年轻时确实真挚地爱过玛琳，但他最终意识到自己是一位同性恋者。在极其保守的宗教信仰与真实的自我认知之间，唐纳德承受了常人难以想象的精神煎熬。后来唐纳德勇敢地公开出柜，并找到了终身伴侣罗斯（Ross）。如今，皮埃尔全家与父亲及其伴侣罗斯关系极为亲密融洽。当史蒂文询问这些非同寻常的家庭激变如何塑造了他的人生观与爱情观时，皮埃尔直言，假若自己的成长岁月是一帆风顺的“白栅栏中产童话”，人生一眼望得到头、按部就班，他就绝不可能拥有今天这般坚韧的意志与包容的心智。
### [28:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1709s) 母亲手上的伤痕与生命教诲：做真实的自己
皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）在与主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）探讨个人成长时谈到，正如巴特利特从博茨瓦纳辗转前往英国的艰难童年锻造了坚韧意志一样，苦难往往能赋予人一种“超能力”，让人学会不以貌取人，懂得全然接纳并爱一个人。这种品格很大程度上来自他的养父母，尤其是莎士比亚戏剧中那句名言——“忠于真实的自我”（To thine own self be true）。他的母亲玛琳（Marlene）在襁褓时期遭遇了一场惨烈的车祸，手指被严重烧伤致残，手上留下了触目惊心的疤痕。
波利耶夫尔回忆，自己青春期时曾好奇地问养父：“当年你开始追求母亲时，介意过她手上的伤残吗？”父亲平静地回答：“一点也不，因为她自己完全不在意，从不试图遮掩。认识不久后，我甚至彻底忘记了那些疤痕的存在。”这番话给少年时期的波利耶夫尔带来了极大的心灵震撼，让他领悟到“不要遮掩伤疤，伤疤是幸存者的勋章”（Scars are the trophies of survival）。父亲同样也是一个坦坦荡荡、从不为自身本色道歉的人，这种豁达与坚毅深深根植在波利耶夫尔的血液中。
提及母亲玛琳，波利耶夫尔充满敬意与温情。他形容母亲身材娇小但性格极其坚韧强悍（feisty），从小便教导他为了所求与所需必须顽强抗争。两人童年时的频繁争辩，甚至磨砺出了他日后在政坛上犀利的辩论技巧。他感叹自己一生深受身旁坚强女性的深刻影响——除了母亲，他的妻子阿奈达（Anaida）曾是来自委内瑞拉一无所有的难民，凭借着惊人的毅力和“百战天龙（MacGyver）式的应变能力”，无论面对多么艰巨的现实阻碍都能化险为夷。
---
### [31:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1862s) 告别绿茵场与初入政坛：从二手西装实习生起步
波利耶夫尔早在青少年时期就展现出对公共事务的浓厚兴趣。他最初热衷于打冰球，随后转入美式橄榄球校队，却不幸在一次比赛中严重伤及背部，不得不彻底告别运动员生涯。百无聊赖的他在家中百般烦闷，当时母亲玛琳常去参加当地保守党的基层会议，有时只是带些烘焙点心或是做些志愿工作。波利耶夫尔便主动提出：“带我一起去吧，我在家简直无聊透顶了。”
这一去便彻底打开了他的新世界。在政治活动的奔走与探讨中，他第一次清晰地找到了人生的意义与使命感。自此，他全身心地投入其中，早早争取到了一份几乎没有报酬的实习生工作。他穿上一套略显宽大的二手旧西装，以满腔热血投身政治实践，正式踏上了漫长的从政之路。
---
### [32:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1925s) 亚当·斯密与自由市场：从《国富论》到《道德情操论》的同理心
在青年时期的思想求索中，亚当·斯密（Adam Smith）的著述对波利耶夫尔产生了颠覆性的影响。他强调，多数人只知晓斯密于1776年出版的《国富论》（*The Wealth of Nations*），将其尊为资本主义之父，却往往忽略了自由市场的革命性本质。在斯密之前，人类社会长期受制于各种形式的封建制——少数领主、贵族垄断土地，广大农奴终日劳作，成果却被上层残酷掠夺；而斯密揭示的自由企业制度，其核心极其纯粹：以自愿交换为基石，通过工资换劳动、付款换产品、利息换投资，用市场“看不见的手”取代了君王与国家专政的“铁腕”。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Adam Smith Dual Philosophical System
accDescr: Diagram illustrating the two complementary pillars of Adam Smith's economic and moral philosophy.
subgraph MoralFoundation["《道德情操论》：道德基础与同理心"]
A["同理共情 (Fellow Feeling)"] --> B["利他行为与美德"]
B --> C["从他人的幸福中获得自身满足"]
end
subgraph MarketMechanism["《国富论》：自由交换与市场运作"]
D["自愿交换 (Voluntary Exchange)"] --> E["价格信号自我调节"]
E --> F["双赢合作与财富爆发性增长"]
end
C <-->|"互为表里·自利与美德交融"| F
```
自由市场最精妙之处在于“价格信号”的自发协调：物价上涨，生产者便迅速扩大供给；人手短缺，雇主便提高薪资吸引劳动力。在自愿交换中，双方地位绝对平等——即使是跨国巨头想把商品卖给一名15岁少年，也必须先证明该商品带来的价值超越少年付出的代价；走进咖啡馆买咖啡时，店员与顾客互道感谢，正是因为双方都换取了对自己更有价值的事物。正是这种机制，使得自由企业时代的经济增长达到了封建时代的200倍之巨。
波利耶夫尔进一步指出，世人常引用《国富论》中“我们得到晚餐并非源于屠户、酿酒师或面包师的恩惠，而是源于他们对自身利益的关切”来指责斯密只讲利己，但其实斯密更早撰写的《道德情操论》（*The Theory of Moral Sentiments*）阐述了另一半真理：
- **同情共感（Fellow Feeling）**：人类天生拥有感知同类喜怒哀乐的能力，他人的苦难会令我们难过，他人的福祉能使我们由衷快乐，这是慈善捐助与陌生人间守望相助的心理根源。
- **自利与美德的统一**：正如波利耶夫尔观察自己的幼子第一次把自己心爱的玩具送给妹妹时，孩子在门厅里开心地大喊狂奔、兴奋不已——通过让他人过得更好而实现自身的幸福，正是人性中最高尚的部分。
---
### [36:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2174s) 权力的集中与假性资本主义：“劫贫济富”的现代社会主义
针对社会主义倡导者的论调，波利耶夫尔指出了其思想深层存在的巨大逻辑悖论：社会主义者在看待私人自愿经济时，往往将人性斥为贪婪、恶劣且自私；然而一旦转向政府部门，他们却瞬间将公职人员描绘成无私的“天使”，认为只要让政府全权掌控资源，这些天使就能代替全社会决定吃穿用度、思想观念甚至驾驶什么汽车。波利耶夫尔反驳道：“如果一个人连为自己做决定的能力都没有，他何德何能去替他人做主？”
波利耶夫尔坚信“绝对的权力导致绝对的腐败”，人性最阴暗的恶念往往在权力高度集中时爆发。因此，他的执政哲学是**权力下放**与**自下而上**（bottom-up），赋予公民最大限度的自由度与选择权，政府的职责仅限于处理公民个体无法自行解决的公共事务。
当主持人提问，当下许多西方普通民众正在承受食品价格暴涨、加油站油价飞升、工薪阶层买不起房等沉重生存压力，这是否证明资本主义已经失灵、需要社会主义介入时，波利耶夫尔直指核心真相：
- **现状并非真正的自由资本主义**：当今社会正在运行的本质上是“为极少数富豪服务的社会主义”（Socialism for the very rich）。
- **劫贫济富的隐形机制**：政府通过滥用干预手段与庞杂繁重的官僚监管（例如对房屋营建层层设限），不仅摧毁了自由供给，更在强行将社会财富从广大工薪阶层自下而上地抽调并输送给权贵阶层，这才是导致当今贫富差距创下历史新高的真正根源。
### [38:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2316s) 土地富足却房荒严重：政府官僚主义如何推高房价
皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）用一个直观的演示剖析了加拿大乃至整个西方世界的住房危机。主持人拿出一枚硬币放在代表加拿大全部可建房土地的面积图上，指出人类实际居住的土地在庞大的国土面积中只占极小的一部分。波利耶夫尔指出，加拿大的人均土地拥有量是第二名G7国家的十倍之多，但其人均住房拥有量却在整个G7中垫底。他直言，建造新房的最大成本早已不再是传统的土地、人工或木材（"land, labor, or lumber"），而是政府带来的沉重负担——层层税费、繁文缛节、说客和顾问费用。在加拿大，购房者支付的房款中，流向写字楼里政府官僚口袋的钱，竟然超过了真正流汗建房的木匠、电工和管道工的所得。
这种现象的根源在于官僚机构如同自然界中为了生存与繁殖而不断膨胀的有机体。加拿大的建筑许可审批速度在经合组织（OECD）国家中排名倒数第二。地方政府起初征收开发税只是为了支付新建住宅的管道和道路配套，但如今这项税费已沦为地方政府的“摇钱树”，再加上对新房征收的各项销售税，所有这些成本最终全额转嫁给了买家。二战结束后，为了安置返乡老兵，政府几乎是即时下发建筑许可，当年拔地而起的房屋历经数十年依然稳固；而如今批准一个住宅小区规划竟然需要长达七年时间。波利耶夫尔强调，他并不主张废除建筑规范与环保、防火标准，但冗长拖沓的审批绝不等于保障安全。
- 加拿大每人拥有的土地资源是仅次于它的G7国家的10倍，人均住房数量却在G7国家中最少。
- 数据显示，加拿大每年需要新建大约45万套住房并持续到2035年，才能恢复住房的可负担性；而目前实际年建造量仅约24万套，需要将建房速度翻倍。
- 加拿大目前有10万名处于失业状态的建筑工人，同时有数千亿资金蓄势待发，但严重受制于缓慢的审批制度。
### [42:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2550s) 坎蒂隆效应与货币通胀：财富如何被隐蔽地从工薪阶层抽走
波利耶夫尔进一步将住房难题延伸至国家层面的货币政策，揭示了政府如何通过货币膨胀实现“劫贫济富”。过去十年间，加拿大的住房总量仅仅增长了13%，然而货币供应量却暴增了100%——货币供应增速是住房供应增速的整整八倍。这种超额发钞并没有让全民平均受惠，而是触发了著名的“坎蒂隆效应”（Cantillon Effect）：当政府为了填补赤字而印钞时，资金并非从飞机上随机空投到普通社区，而是通过以虚高价格购买政府债券注入银行系统。最先接触到这笔新增资金的是金融机构和超级富豪，他们能在通胀发生前以极低成本借贷并配置资产；等到新增资金几经周转流向普通工薪阶层时，货币早已大幅贬值，工人的实际购买力遭到毁灭性侵蚀。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 坎蒂隆效应传导路径
accDescr: 展示政府赤字货币化如何造成财富从普通工薪阶层向金融阶层转移
subgraph Gov["政府与货币源头"]
A["政府财政赤字膨胀"] --> B["央行大额超发货币"]
end
subgraph Finance["金融与特权层（最先获益）"]
B --> C["高价回购政府债券"]
C --> D["大银行与金融巨头"]
D --> E["以低成本获取贷款\n迅速低价买入优质资产"]
end
subgraph Public["工薪大众（承受代价）"]
E --> F["物价与资产价格全面暴涨"]
F --> G["资金最终渗透至大众终端"]
G --> H["货币购买力遭严重稀释\n实际薪资与储蓄大幅缩水"]
end
```
这种长达数十年的通胀机器正是西方工薪阶层愤怒情绪的根源。生活成本飙升并不是商品本身变得多么珍贵，而是用来购买它们的货币变得一文不值。与此同时，民众的幸福感急剧下挫。加拿大在全球幸福感排行榜上，从2015年的第5名一路跌落至第25名，仅在最近一年内就从第18名滑落了7个位次。食品价格通胀同样处于G7最高水平，这背后是农用设备与化肥的工业碳税、新增燃油税，甚至是导致食品保质期缩短约五天的一次性塑料禁令等隐形管制成本。
- 加拿大货币供应量在十年内从1.4万亿加元翻倍激增至2.8万亿加元，而同期住房总量仅增长了13%。
- 加拿大全球幸福指数从2015年的全球第5位跌落至当前的第25位（最近一年从第18位跌至第25位）。
- 导致食品通胀恶化的政策包括对农业设备、肥料和食品加工征收的工业碳税，新增的燃料税，以及导致生鲜食品变质加速约5天的一次性塑料禁令。
### [46:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2784s) 停滞的人均GDP与欧洲能源政策的前车之鉴
主持人展示了一张对比加拿大、美国与OECD国家的人均GDP走势图，显示加拿大的人均GDP已陷入长达十年的严重停滞。波利耶夫尔解释，人均GDP本质上代表了人均实际收入，如果人均产出无法增长，民众的实际工资就会彻底停滞。加拿大过去十年之所以止步不前，核心原因在于政府压制了本国最具优势的支柱产业——石油与天然气被束缚在严苛的反开发法规与繁杂的官僚体系之下，加之对工薪和投资征收惩罚性的重税，全社会的创造力与生产动力被扼杀殆尽。
波利耶夫尔指出，这种以崇高道德为名、行自我毁灭之实的政策在欧洲各国同样上演。最典型的反面教材就是德国：德国政府关闭了本国的核电站，并不切实际地试图将石油和天然气产业彻底驱逐出境。这一政策的直接后果就是能源成本飙升，同时造成了另一场社会不公：少数拥有资本、能够套取风能和太阳能巨额补贴的寡头与政客变得极度富有，而乡村地区依靠矿场、制造业和传统工业维持生计的普通产业工人，却不得不承受飙升的账单与企业倒闭的灾难性后果。波利耶夫尔表示，扭转局面的唯一出路是建立全球最快、最支持开发的许可制度，减免生产税负，让实体财富（食品、能源、住房）的产出速度超越货币的增长速度。
- 人均GDP反映社会实质生产力与收入水平；加拿大过去十年来人均产出停滞，导致全民实际工资无法提升。
- 加拿大最大的产业支柱石油天然气行业受到激进的反发展法律与庞大官僚体系的严重阻碍。
- 德国关停核电并驱逐传统能源的案例表明，盲目推进能源补贴政策导致能源成本高涨，使享受可再生能源补贴的少数精英赚得盆满钵满，却牺牲了普通工人和工厂的生存环境。
### [48:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2912s) 政府干预的代价与西方世界的“弥天大谎”
皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）深入剖析了德国能源转型的教训。德国政府的激进政策最终让本国工人失去了工作，不得不承担昂贵的电价；更为讽刺的是，由于能源短缺，德国人如今被迫重新烧煤，整个政策对改善环境毫无贡献。他指出，这正是政府干预彻底坑害工人阶级的典型例证，而且这种现象正在整个西方世界蔓延。
在波利耶夫尔看来，现代政治存在一个“弥天大谎”：宣称政府规模越大，就越能实现公平分配。而事实恰恰相反——当政府膨胀时，巨额资金和资源只会流向那些拥有最大政治权力的人，而这帮人无一例外全是富豪；为这笔账单买单的，则是广大的工薪阶层。波利耶夫尔强调，自己从政的核心使命就是彻底扭转这一路线：建设一个“小政府，大国民”的社会，推行奖赏勤奋的精英功绩制（Meritocracy），并建立真正的自由企业制度，迫使企业为了争夺劳动力而提供更高工资、为了争取消费者而降低商品价格。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Big Government Failure Loop
accDescr: Diagram showing how government expansion takes from workers and gives to the politically connected, contrasted with free enterprise.
subgraph Failure ["膨胀政府的恶性循环"]
A["政府盲目干预与扩张"] --> B["政治特权者与富豪分肥"]
B --> C["工人阶层承担高税负与通胀"]
C --> D["民生凋敝与逆向倒退<br/>(如德国返贫烧煤)"]
end
subgraph Solution ["自由企业与小政府路线"]
E["小政府放权与减税"] --> F["自由企业竞争"]
F --> G["提高劳动者薪资"]
F --> H["降低消费者价格"]
end
```
### [49:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2962s) GDP 增长困境：瑞士与新加坡的自由市场范本
主持人列举了各国的 GDP 预测数据：美国的经济增长相对强劲，但加拿大与英国显得相当疲软（加拿大 2025 年 GDP 增长预估仅为 1.7%，2026 年为 1.3%），而德国在 2024 年的增长率仅有 0.2%，远落后于其他主要经济体。面对美国相对突出的增长，波利耶夫尔指出，除了美国，全球还有更值得学习的标杆，比如瑞士和新加坡。
瑞士拥有极强的货币和全球最低的通胀，瑞士法郎的坚挺度超越了欧元和美元，其成功秘诀正是自由企业与小政府——政府支出在整体经济中的占比远低于西方其他国家。而新加坡更是将这一模式发挥到极致：它原本只是一个沼泽密布、蚊虫滋生的岛屿，没有任何自然资源，连饮用水都必须依赖进口。但在建国总理李光耀的带领下，新加坡凭借自由企业、极低税率、极易创办企业的商业环境，以及对辛勤工作的丰厚回报，跃升为全球除海湾石油国之外最富裕的国家之一，成为辐射全亚洲的贸易枢纽。
- **加拿大经济增速放缓**：GDP 增长预估在 2025 年仅为 1.7%，2026 年下滑至 1.3%。
- **欧洲经济停滞对比**：德国 2024 年 GDP 增长仅为 0.2%，深陷低迷。
- **新加坡的发展奇迹**：在没有任何自然资源的恶劣初始条件下，依靠企业家精神和枢纽经济，近期搭乘全球 AI 浪潮，GDP 增速达到美国的两倍以上，人均财富远超美、加、英等国。
### [52:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3143s) 经济哲学的权衡与政府的核心职责边界
主持人追问，任何经济哲学都存在取舍与代价（trade-offs），那么波利耶夫尔的自由市场策略代价是什么。波利耶夫尔坦言，这种哲学的最大挑战在于政治领导层必须具备足够的谦逊——掌权者必须愿意交出权力，将自由归还给人民。他幽默地调侃道：“没有任何政客愿意在自己的墓碑上刻着：‘他从未插手，对人民放任不扰，以便他们无需依靠他就能成就伟业’。”尽管大家都知道如果政客们能做到这一点，世界会美好得多。
波利耶夫尔澄清，自己并非完全排斥政府的存在。政府必须筑牢基本的社会安全网，为弱势群体提供无法自力更生的托底保障，确保每个人都能享有医疗服务，并负责基础教育、道路与基础设施的建设。然而问题在于，一旦政府超越了这些核心职责，职能便会像癌细胞一样在各个非核心领域“转移”（metastasize），此后投入的每一块钱带来的回报都会越来越低，最终沦为负回报——政府花得越多，对社会的破坏就越大。他直言，西方世界目前已经越过了这条拐点。
### [53:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3225s) 出生率暴跌的根源：高房价让年轻人无处安家
针对人口结构与经济增长的讨论，主持人提出，包括加拿大在内的西方国家出生率普遍严重下滑，结婚和新生儿人数锐减，政府似乎不得不通过大规模引入移民来填补劳动力缺口并支撑经济。波利耶夫尔对此针锋相对地反驳，指出必须首先探究出生率下降的经济根源：住房危机的恶化。
波利耶夫尔描绘了当下的社会现实：年轻人如果买不起、租不起体面的房子，就根本没有空间去组建家庭、抚育后代。加拿大目前普遍存在 35 岁的年轻人依然被迫寄宿在父母地下室的惨状。“你怎么去约会？你怎么带约会对象回家？”他笑着指出其中的现实尴尬。这些年轻人受过良好教育、有一份正规工作，却因微薄薪水完全跟不上飙升的房租和房价，只能挤在狭小的公寓里。正是这种残酷的经济枷锁，生生扼杀了大量原本渴望在二三十岁结婚生子的年轻人的生育愿望。
### [55:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3302s) 移民滥用压低工资与青年失业困境
谈及移民政策与跨国公司的利益捆绑，波利耶夫尔毫不避讳地指出，大量跨国企业正在系统性滥用移民机制以压低劳动力成本。在加拿大，政府大幅扩张了国际留学生计划（International Student Program）和临时外国工人计划（Temporary Foreign Worker Program）。这些项目引入的人口缺乏平等的劳动力流动权和跳槽自由，企业借此支付人为压低的超低薪资。这种做法不仅拉低了本土薪资水平、挤占了本地工人的岗位，更使得住房成本彻底失控。
波利耶夫尔的主张非常明确：必须为移民总量设定硬性上限，确保经济增长、医疗承载力和住房建设速度在任何时候都快于人口增长。当主持人质疑限制移民是否会导致企业无人可用时，波利耶夫尔坚决否定，指出加拿大国内当前存在大量失业人口。跨国巨头之所以宣称“招不到人”，仅仅是因为他们不想支付合理的薪资，试图通过从贫困国家引入低门槛劳工来投机取巧。
- **建筑劳动力闲置**：加拿大目前有 100,000 名失业的建筑工人，他们原本正是建造急需住宅的核心力量。
- **青年失业率创纪录**：高中毕业的年轻人找不到工作，青年失业率创下 30 年来的新高。
- **市场竞争促成多赢**：针对星巴克等企业宣称“没人愿意干低端工作”的说辞，波利耶夫尔反驳道：“如果你给不出合适的工资，你自然招不到合适的工人。”面对提薪是否会转嫁成本导致一杯咖啡涨价的疑问，他指出，企业的使命是通过创新提升运营效率，而自由市场的魔力正是在于通过充分竞争，让劳动者赚得更多，让消费者花得更少，倒逼中间的企业家精细化运营。
### [57:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3462s) AI 时代的就业极化与白领职场的剧变
话题转向雇主如何在控制成本的同时追求极致效率。史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）指出，当前许多企业提高效率的最关键手段就是人工智能（AI）。讽刺的是，全球顶尖 AI 机构之一的 Anthropic 在两周前刚发布了一份报告，展示了基于当前工具使用情况的就业冲击图景。报告显示，青年失业率已上升了约 14%，首当其冲遭遇重创的正是白领行业中的初级（entry-level）岗位。
史蒂文以自身管理全球数百名员工的切身体会证实了这一趋势。他坦言，如今招聘应届毕业生的逻辑已经发生彻底转变：如果年轻毕业生不精通 AI，他们在许多岗位上就几乎丧失了吸引力；反之，若候选人深度掌握 AI 技术并懂得如何构建“AI Agent（智能体）”，其带来的产能就像是“一个人自带了一支 50 人的工作团队”。他举了自己团队里一位名叫 Cass 的 20 多岁年轻员工为例：Cass 搭建了一整套为自己工作的 Agent 矩阵，雇佣 Cass 一人就等于雇佣了他及其背后的 Agent 自动化军团。
这种技术杠杆正在撕裂职场的传统人才结构。职场正在急剧向两极分化：一极是具备极深领域专长的人，比如史蒂文团队中在财务领域深耕 50 年的首席财务官（CFO），如今只需由这位资深专家配合 Cass 搭建的 Agent 即可运转，而在五年前这往往需要配备一支庞大的支持团队；另一极则是极具技术能力、能驾驭和编排智能体的人。处在中间的大多数普通白领、基层员工，随着自动驾驶和机器人的快速落地，正面临被全面替代的空前危机。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: AI 时代职场价值极化图
accDescr: 展示 AI 技术对两端高价值人群的赋能以及对传统中间岗位的冲击
subgraph HighDemand ["高需求群体：杠杆倍增"]
A["深厚领域专家<br/>（如深耕50年的CFO）"]
B["AI 构建与应用专家<br/>（如搭建 Agent 矩阵的员工）"]
end
subgraph Displaced ["高替代风险群体：面临冲击"]
C["传统白领初级岗位 / 毕业生"]
D["缺乏AI技能的常规执行人员"]
end
B -->|"赋能 / 搭建 Agent"| A
A & B -->|"取代传统中间层"| E["高度精炼的超级单兵团队"]
C & D -.->|"岗位被压缩 / 边缘化"| F["严峻的就业再分流挑战"]
```
- Anthropic 报告数据显示，白领初级岗位首当其冲被 AI 替代，青年失业率增长约 14%。
- 具备 Agent 搭建能力的年轻人，单人产能可匹敌数十人的传统工作组。
- 传统职场金字塔被击碎：企业逐渐转向“顶尖领域专家 + AI 工具专家”的精简协同模式。
---
### [01:00:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3619s) 工业革命的重演，还是史无前例的技术剧变？
皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）随即提出了一个历史审视视角：人类历史上每一次技术浪潮都曾引发灭顶之灾般的恐慌。工业革命时期，机器替代了人类的肌肉力量，卢德分子（Luddites）砸毁机器试图保住生计，但最终人们凭借机器大幅提高了生产力，获得了更高报酬的工作，再也不用顶着烈日在骡子屁股后面推犁，而是坐在了拖拉机驾驶座上；互联网（Dot-com）兴起时，人们再次惊呼计算机将剥夺工作，而事实却是计算机让所有人变得更有成效。皮埃尔发问：这一次的 AI 革命，真的与以往的技术革命有本质不同吗？
史蒂文坚定地给出了肯定回答。他认为核心差别在于“颠覆的速度”（speed of disruption）。工业革命技术的物理普及需要几十年，而如今的技术完全依托于具备全球即时分发能力的互联网。他以类似 OpenClaw 这样能全面接管电脑操作的智能体为例：只要在手机 WhatsApp 上发一条指令，它就能自主分析录制中的播客、抓取受众重播率最高的片段、自动剪辑、加字幕并同步分发至推特或 Slack。
史蒂文还分享了一件亲身经历的日常趣事：他在洛杉矶遭遇热浪袭击，想要一张户外遮阳伞，便随口向 AI 发出语音指令。该工具竟自动调用 Google Maps 街景全方位勘察他家户外的院子与餐桌，自主判断出一款特定尺寸的炭灰色（charcoal）遮阳伞最契合整体环境，随后自动登录其亚马逊账号下单并完成支付，整个流程人类完全没有插手。史蒂文直言，很多人每天的工作本质上就是在电脑前操作，而如今 AI 已经可以完全复刻电脑上的任何人类行为。结合埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）展示的“筷子夹火箭”以及全自动驾驶等现实突破，人形机器人的到来只会加速这一进程。史蒂文警示，当前许多西方政客依旧深陷在种族议题和将移民当万能靶子的政治煽动中，却忽视了真正将席卷就业市场的并非“外来移民”，而是代码构成的 AI 智能体。
- 速度差距：传统物理机械扩散耗时数十年，基于互联网分发的 AI 具备全球瞬间渗透力。
- 计算机全权接管：AI Agent 已经具备环境观察（如调用地图）、方案决策（搭配尺寸款式）、跨平台自主交易（登录电商结算）的全自主闭环能力。
- 政治盲区：许多主流政客仍在用移民话题转移矛盾，无视了 AI 智能体对本土就业造成的实质性替代风险。
---
### [01:03:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3826s) 技术的终极目的与 2029 年的治理挑战
面对史蒂文的警示，皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔阐述了自己的哲学立场。他认为人类最根本的需求是追求“生命的意义与目标”（meaning and purpose in life）。公共政策的核心使命，是引导这场技术浪潮成为人类力量的放大器，而非人类意义的剥夺者。他援引了美国国父约翰·亚当斯（John Adams）的名言：“我的父亲研究军事，是为了让我有安全去研究商业；我研究商业，是为了让我的孩子们有繁荣去从事艺术与科学。”
皮埃尔指出，如果 AI 能够解决大部分物质需求，解放人类去全身心投入各自热爱且赋予人生意义的事务中，这将是文明的巨大跃进；但如果它仅仅是粗暴地剥离人类的社会效用，让成千上万的人陷入彻底失去工作、丧失社会价值的虚无状态，那将对文明构成极端威胁。因此，施政的底层目标必须是确保技术“作为人类的赋能者，而非替代品”。
史蒂文随即把问题拉回现实政治：如果皮埃尔在 2029 年大选中胜选掌权，面对科技领袖们所描绘的未来，加拿大政府到底该如何应对这场就业地震？他列举了硅谷大佬们的各种激进方案：
- 山姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）一方面推动 ChatGPT 的迭代，另一方面联合创立了 Worldcoin，通过扫描虹膜验证真人身份，试图为未来分配全民基本收入（UBI）搭建通道；
- 埃隆·马斯克则预言人类将进入“丰裕时代”（age of abundance），届时工作将变成纯粹的个人选修项，甚至公开劝诫年轻人“千万不要去学做外科医生，因为几年内没有任何人类医生的手术水平能胜过 AI”。
史蒂文直面皮埃尔：如果这些顶尖专家的预言正在变成现实，未来的国家领导人是否已经制定了具体的制度预案，来抵御这种前所未见的颠覆？
### [01:06:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3973s) 应对人工智能浪潮：自主权、工作意义与降低生活成本
在探讨人工智能（AI）所描绘的未来图景时，史蒂文·巴特利特指出，硅谷叙事往往用于募资，但若这些预测成真，未来将彻底偏离历史常轨。皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）表示，尽管无法精准预测未来，但他有一套应对技术变革的底层原则：**技术必须赋权个体，而非剥夺人类的意义与价值**。他乐见最低工资工人未来能拥有专属的 AI 个人助理或自动驾驶车辆，从而从堵车通勤、打扫卫生等繁重单调的苦差事中解脱出来，将时间留给真正令人兴奋且带来快乐的事物。然而，技术绝不能剥夺人们通过工作来奉献社会、获取人生目标感的权利。
波利耶夫尔进一步提出经济层面的核心主张：当技术大幅压低生产成本时，节约下来的红利必须直接惠及普通工薪阶层，转化为实打实的生活成本下降。政府绝不能借机滥印钞票推高通胀，把技术进步带来的价格红利彻底稀释。当史蒂文担忧埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）等巨头可能成为万亿美元富豪、技术替代就业可能迫使政府出面进行纠偏性干预时，波利耶夫尔保持审慎态度。他举出诺贝尔经济学奖得主保罗·克鲁格曼（Paul Krugman）当年“尴尬预测互联网的影响不会超过传真机”的著名反例，强调没人是能预言一切的诺查丹玛斯（Nostradamus），制定政策的核心必须牢牢锚定在“增强个体的能动性（Agency）与自主掌控权”之上。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 技术发展与经济红利分配逻辑
accDescr: 展示人工智能降低生产成本后，波利耶夫尔主张的价值留存路径与应避免的政府印钞通胀陷阱。
subgraph Tech["AI 与技术突破"]
A["生产力提升 / 成本大幅下降"]
end
subgraph IdealPath["波利耶夫尔倡导的政策路径"]
B["将红利直接回馈普通大众"] --> C["降低生活成本 / 增强货币购买力"]
C --> D["保障个体自主权与劳动意义"]
end
subgraph NegativePath["应坚决避免的政策陷阱"]
E["政府超发货币滥印钞票"] --> F["通货膨胀吞噬技术红利"]
F --> G["生活成本高企 / 工薪阶层受损"]
end
A --> IdealPath
A -.-> NegativePath
```
---
### [01:08:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4139s) 加拿大移民制度的失衡与常识性纠偏
对话切入西方世界政治舆论的焦点——移民议题。史蒂文提问，无论在英国还是特朗普治下的美国，移民话题是否已沦为政客煽动对立、操弄族裔矛盾以赢取选票的“选举武器”。波利耶夫尔以加拿大的百年经验作出回应，指出加拿大拥有长达约两百年的极度成功的移民传统，过往这一体系受两党乃至国际社会的一致赞誉，甚至曾是美国民主党与共和党共同学习的典范。加拿大依靠积分制（Point System）精确评估移民与本土劳动力市场的匹配度，达成了顺畅的文化融入与社会和谐——他的妻子本身就是来自委内瑞拉的难民，这类故事在加拿大屡见不鲜。
然而，波利耶夫尔直言，在 2021 至 2024 年间，加拿大遭遇了“突如其来且无法解释的移民配额激增”，彻底击穿了社会承载力：
- **承载极限失衡**：人口流入规模大幅超越了住房建造速度、医疗系统负荷以及就业岗位的实际吸纳能力。
- **利益流向扭曲**：这种非常规激增打破了两百年来宝贵的社会共识，并未使普通人受益，反而成了“坐收暴利的大房东与试图压低工资的雇主”的单方面盛宴，导致租金暴涨、薪资被动摊薄。
- **重构常识体系**：波利耶夫尔主张恢复依法依规、兼具同理心与常识（Common Sense）的有序管理体系。人口增长速度绝不能凌驾于房屋存量与就业增长之上，确保新移民能够合法入境、体面安居并融入社会生活。
---
### [01:11:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4314s) 打破体制壁垒：释放专业技术移民的生产力潜能
面对低生育率与 GDP 增长依赖移民的现实问题，波利耶夫尔强调，加拿大一直欢迎高技能经济移民，但当前体制最荒谬之处在于官方层层设限的“守门人”（Gatekeepers），将大量怀揣专长的专业人才拒之门外。庞大的官僚考核系统要求外国专业人士耗费八到九年才能完成资质认证，造成严峻的人才浪费：
- **医疗人才闲置**：目前加拿大有约 **20,000 名移民医生** 和 **32,000 名移民护士**，因无法通过官僚化的执业资格审批而无法从事医疗工作。
- **跨国行医怪象**：波利耶夫尔分享了自身的亲历见闻——当他去接受眼科手术时，诊所的一位眼科技术员实际上每个月要飞往阿联酋（UAE）实施十天眼部手术，随后返回渥太华与家人团聚，但在加拿大却只能屈居技术员岗位。“阿联酋的技术比加拿大更先进，而阿联酋人的眼球与加拿大人的眼球没有任何不同。”
为了彻底扭转高学历移民在加拿大开出租车或从事体力活的困境，波利耶夫尔提议建立基于能力评估的标准考试（Merit-based Test），让真正合格的专业技术人员能够迅速进入高薪对口行业，填补医疗与关键产业空缺，进而实质性提振国家经济。
---
### [01:13:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4412s) 中场赞助：内容创作者工具与机能补剂
节目随后插入了两段商业赞助：
- **Stan Store 与 AI 助手 Stanley**：史蒂文谈到多数人未能建立个人品牌是因为创作过程耗时且伴随心理内耗（如害怕评价、自我怀疑）。他作为投资者的 Stan 平台推出了名为 Stanley 的 AI 工具，可根据创作者以往的内容风格与表现优异的历史帖子，提供选题灵感并自动生成内容，协助用户跨越内容创作门槛。
- **外源酮补剂 Ketone-IQ**：史蒂文介绍了他入股并使用的能量补剂 Ketone-IQ（来自 H.V.M.N. / ketone.com）。他提到团队中有 35% 至 40% 的成员将其视为提高注意力、精力和日常工作效率的“颠覆性产品”（Game changer），并向听众提供专属折扣优惠。
### [01:15:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4526s) 播客周边产品：对话卡片与习惯手帐的组合
节目插播了产品推荐：Ketone-IQ 现已在全美 Target 门店上架，消费者进店即可免费体验第一支样品。随后，主持人 Steven Bartlett 宣布应大量听众和企业的强烈要求，节目组终于将两款核心产品——“对话卡片”（Conversation Cards）与“1% 日记”（1% Diary）打包发售。
Steven 解释道，每位做客《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）的嘉宾离开前都会在日记本中留下一个私密问题，留给下一位坐在这个位置上的访客解答，而这些未公开的问题此前仅收录于对话卡片之中。如今这套卡片已成为情侣、职场团队、跨国大企业以及家庭成员建立深层联结的工具；配合致力于用微小习惯重构生活的“1% 日记”，二者的捆绑装能更好地帮助企业与个人驱动组织联结和行为习惯的蜕变。
---
### [01:16:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4585s) 西方世界的终极威胁：修昔底德陷阱与大国博弈
当被问及西方世界与生活方式面临的最大威胁究竟是伊朗、俄罗斯还是中国时，皮埃尔·波利耶夫（Pierre Poilievre）指出，这完全取决于中国自身做出何种选择。他直言，中国拥有璀璨卓越的文明，完全有能力为世界和谐做出不可估量的贡献。如果北京方面决定将其巨大成功投向自由贸易与国际协作，世界便无须担忧；但若其采取“极具侵略性与好战倾向”（bellicose）的路线——利用科技进行间谍活动、干涉他国内政（如在加拿大境内所做的那样），甚至武力进犯台湾，那么北京当局就将演变为全球与加拿大面临的最大威胁。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 修昔底德陷阱与大国博弈
accDescr: 展现守成大国与崛起大国之间的选择路径以及潜在后果
subgraph Choice["北京的战略抉择"]
A["融入国际秩序<br/>自由贸易与多边合作"]
B["强硬对抗扩张<br/>海外干预、谍报与台海冲突"]
end
subgraph Outcome["全球地缘走向"]
C["避免冲突<br/>全球繁荣与共存"]
D["修昔底德陷阱<br/>西方与全球面临的最大生存威胁"]
end
A --> C
B --> D
```
针对两极格局下的历史规律，波利耶夫提到了格雷厄姆·艾利森（Graham Allison）教授关于“修昔底德陷阱”（Thucydides's Trap）的研究：在历史记载的十多次守成霸主与崛起强权的交锋中，大多数最终都走向了惨烈战争。但他强调战争并非注定，只要让北京明白与国际社会并肩合作、自由贸易、成为伙伴而非公敌才最符合自身利益，冲突就完全可以避免。谈及美中是否已通过代理人战争进入实质对抗，波利耶夫分析称，委内瑞拉、伊朗、古巴这些处于北京势力范围的国家，正是美国寻求施加变革的焦点，“我们在晚间新闻上看到的冲突背后，始终流动着真正的大国利益博弈”。
---
### [01:18:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4736s) 核武决策与北极主权：“金毛寻回犬”式的国家防卫
谈到核武器议题时，波利耶夫明确确认加拿大并没有核武器。这是加拿大在四五十年前深思熟虑后做出的抉择——尽管加拿大坐拥丰富的铀矿储备和顶尖的核能技术，但国家始终认为没有发展战略核武的必要，也不存在借助核武去威吓任何人的意图。当主持人笑着调侃这听起来“非常加拿大”时，波利耶夫严肃地反驳称，加拿大骨子里是个“尚武之国”（warrior nation）：在两次世界大战中，加拿大奔赴战场的时间都比美国早了整整两年。
他用一个生动的比喻来形容加拿大的国民性格：加拿大就像一只“温顺亲人的金毛寻回犬”（Golden Retriever）——平时友善合群、渴望和平相处，但一旦受到实质挑衅，必定会凶猛反击。目前加拿大各界已形成强烈共识，必须大幅重振国防力量，因为历史上那种任由敌对势力在边境试探的局面不可再持续。特别是针对广袤而极寒的北极群岛，虽然有坚韧的原住民因纽特人世居于此，但当地无法承载密集的人口与重工业体系。
- 加拿大在北极主权上奉行俗语：“如果你不去使用它，你就会失去它”（If you don't use it, you lose it）。唯有建立坚实的军事存在，才能捍卫极地领土。
- 魁北克有句名言叫“自家屋里自己做主”（maîtres chez nous）。波利耶夫强调，加拿大紧邻世界有史以来最强大的军事霸权，早在19世纪初建国之前双方就保持着长期睦邻友好；但如今现实表明，加拿大不能仅仅躺在美国的保护伞下，必须拥有自主掌控命运与保护国土的实力。
- 作为全球面积第二大、拥有超越俄罗斯的全球最长海岸线的国家，实现自主防御需要史无前例的巨额军费开支与军事扩充。
---
### [01:21:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4902s) 特朗普“第51州”狂言与大选民调逆转内幕
面对主持人提出“扩军是否因特朗普而起”的疑问，波利耶夫坦承确实有部分关联。唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）曾在公开场合半开玩笑地声称要让加拿大成为美国的“第51个州”，尽管波利耶夫斩钉截铁地表示“这绝无可能”，但当全球最强大军队的领导人哪怕以玩笑口吻谈论吞并你的国家时，任何负责任的领导人都必须冷汗直冒地审视自身的国防准备：“加拿大人对此反应极其激烈，我们永远不可能成为美国的第51个州。”
波利耶夫引用了美国前总统约翰·F·肯尼迪（John F. Kennedy）的名言：“历史使我们成为朋友，经济使我们成为伙伴，地理使我们成为邻居，而必要性使我们成为盟友；天然结合在一起的彼此，任何人不得将其拆散。”他深信广大美国民众热爱且尊重加拿大这个邻国，并且深知加拿大是一个完全独立的主权国家。
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 大选后期民调焦点偏离与选情变化
accDescr: 说明保守党民生叙事如何被外部关税与主权危机打乱，导致其他政党选票向自由党集中
subgraph InternalFocus["保守党原定民生议题"]
H["住房成本翻倍"]
C["犯罪率攀升"]
I["恶性通货膨胀"]
end
subgraph Disruption["特朗普外部冲击"]
T["关税威胁施压"]
S["吞并为第51州言论"]
end
subgraph ElectionDynamic["选战终局走势"]
L["其他政党票仓坍塌<br/>战略性归流执政自由党"]
P["保守党基本盘保持极高得票<br/>创下1988年以来的最高得票率"]
end
InternalFocus -.->|议题被彻底冲散| Disruption
Disruption --> L
L -.->|阻击了波利耶夫的领先势头| P
```
随后，主持人拿出一张刺眼的民调走势图，显示波利耶夫领导的保守党在选前冲刺阶段一直遥遥领先，却在最后关头遭遇逆转。波利耶夫神色坦然地复盘了选情：保守党自身的支持率在冲刺期并未显著下滑，反而斩获了保守党历史上最多的绝对选票总数，并创下了自1988年以来的最高得票份额。
然而，大选胜负的关键变数在于特朗普抛出的关税大棒以及“吞并言论”，这引发了剧烈的地缘危机感，导致其他反对派阵营的选民发生恐慌性战略投票，选票迅速崩塌并高度聚拢至马克·卡尼（Mark Carney）所代表的自由党阵营。波利耶夫原本极力想把选战焦点锁定在普通民众的水深火热之中——翻倍的住房成本、失控的通胀以及攀升的犯罪率，但这些切身的生活议题在顷刻间被美加贸易战恐慌与主权焦虑彻底淹没。这股突如其来的外部冲击，戏剧性地改变了整个选战的最终走向。
### [01:24:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5089s) 选举失利与承载的民众重托
对话紧接着选举话题展开。皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）分析道，选战期间公众讨论的焦点被转移开来，不再聚焦于执政党的内政实绩，而是转向了外部地缘政治因素；在政治规律中，这种焦点的外移总是对现任执政者有利，却对挑战者构成重创。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及面对这种结果在情感上有何感受。波利耶夫尔坦言，整个过程就像坐过山车，局势瞬息万变，在当下甚至根本没有时间去体会任何情绪，只能争分夺秒地连轴转，所有的真实感受都被推迟到了尘埃落定之后。
波利耶夫尔回顾了自2022年走出疫情、开启党领竞选以来的心路历程。当时有无数遭受苦难的民众将希望寄托在他身上，常常向他倾诉感到彻底失去了对生活的掌控感：
- 许多年轻人向他呼吁：“你必须赢，因为我想组建家庭，但在目前的经济状况下我根本无法成家。”
- 焦虑的母亲们哭诉家里已经买不起食物；
- 一线警察则无奈地表示：“我本周已经逮捕了同一个嫌犯四次，但他每次都被保释放出来。”民众反复强调，支持他不是为了政客个人的荣耀，而是为了拯救他们支离破碎的日常生活。
其中最令他动容的是一位出席集会的女性。在加拿大竞选党领期间，选民需支付15加元注册党籍才能获得投票权。该女士向工作人员询问能否借她8加元，因为她全身仅剩7加元。工作人员建议她去楼下的ATM机取款，她坦承自己没有银行卡；工作人员又问能否回车里或家里拿钱（党纪严格禁止他人代缴会费），她平静地回答：“我没有家，我就睡在车里，这7块钱是我拥有的全部财产。我把它拿出来买党员资格，只为了能投波利耶夫尔一票，因为他是我唯一的希望，这是我仅剩的机会。”波利耶夫尔感慨，他极度渴望能为这些人带来改变，因此当未能赢得大选时，他内心深感痛苦，觉得辜负了他们的重托。
---
### [01:27:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5235s) 绝不找借口：特朗普言论与“控制二分法”
面对大选之夜及次日未能如愿的巨大失落，波利耶夫尔表示自己并没有沉溺在悲伤中太久。他的人生准则就是迅速将注意力收拢到自己能够掌控的事情上，他认为这是维护心理健康与提升个人产出的最强武器，绝不能将时间浪费在自怨自艾上。
巴特利特随即抛出一个敏感假设：如果唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）没有发表关于“吞并加拿大”的争议性言论、没有挑起关税摩擦，波利耶夫尔如今是否已经入主总理府？巴特利特追问这种蝴蝶效应与多米诺骨牌是否改变了历史轨迹。波利耶夫尔断然拒绝进行此类推测。他指出，在政治上找借口毫无益处，将败选归咎于“如果某人没做某事我就赢了”是极不负责任的。他坚信选民已经投出了选票并做出了裁决，他必须坦然承担并接受结果；如果这个假设不存在，现实中也必然会出现另一个变数，因此执着于假设毫无意义。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 应对政治波动的思维模型
accDescr: 展示斯多葛主义控制二分法在应对大选结果与外部冲击时的逻辑分流
subgraph External["外部不可控因素 (Externals)"]
A["特朗普关税与言论"]
B["外部地缘与舆论转移"]
C["其他不可预知的变数"]
end
subgraph Internal["自身可控领域 (Internals)"]
D["专注于行动与输出"]
E["承担选举结果 (Own the result)"]
F["保持内心平静与主导权"]
end
External -.->|沉溺其中导致| G["沦为被动的受害者"]
Internal -->|斯多葛践行| H["成为人生的掌舵者 (Actor)"]
```
---
### [01:29:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5345s) 斯多葛主义与《不可征服》（Invictus）的力量
谈及应对低谷与混乱的心态，巴特利特提到马可·奥勒留（Marcus Aurelius）的《沉思录》（Meditations），这本书在很大程度上塑造了波利耶夫尔的世界观。波利耶夫尔对该书赞不绝口，认为其行文极具现代可读性。他现场援引了其中的经典开篇段落：清晨醒来时要告诫自己，今天所遇之人必有爱管闲事的、忘恩负义的、傲慢的、不诚实的、嫉妒的和乖戾的，他们之所以如此，是因为分不清善与恶；然而读懂该书的深意便会明白，我们应当对此有心理预期，但绝不要受其支配，因为那些都是身外之物。
波利耶夫尔强调，聚焦于自身可控的事物，能赋予内心无与伦比的安宁：
- 一旦专注于可控之事，人就会成为生活的掌控者，成为“主动的行动者”（actor）而非“被动的承受者”（acted upon）；
- 反之，如果把时间全耗在无法掌控的外界环境上，便会沦为一个无能为力的受害者。
他提到了自己最喜爱的诗作——威廉·欧内斯特·亨利（William Ernest Henley）的《不可征服》（Invictus）。纳尔逊·曼德拉（Nelson Mandela）在南非罗本岛漫长的牢狱岁月中，正是靠在狱中不断背诵这首诗来提醒自己：即便肉身受困，他依然能掌控自己的灵魂。波利耶夫尔轻声念出该诗那震撼人心的结句：“我是我命运的主宰，我是我灵魂的船长”（"I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul."）。
---
### [01:30:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5456s) 重读二十岁获奖论文：关于自由与政府权界的思考
巴特利特指出斯多葛学派强调思维的灵活性与终身学习，但纵观波利耶夫尔过去十年的从政生涯，其核心原则却表现出高度的一致性。为了印证这一点，巴特利特当场拿出一份特别的文件以及一张放大版道具支票——这是波利耶夫尔在20岁时参加论文竞赛赢得10,000加元大奖的文章，题为如果由他来领导加拿大，他会怎么做。
应巴特利特的要求，波利耶夫尔逐句朗读了当年获奖论文的开篇三段：
> “尽管我们加拿大人很少意识到这一点，但我们生活水平最重要的守护者是自由——通过辛勤劳动赚取生计并与挚爱之人分享成果的自由；通过承担风险和坚强职业道德来建立个人财富的自由；思想和言论的自由；做出个人选择的自由；以及公民以民主方式治理自身事务的集体自由。政府的职责，是不断寻找方法，消除自身对这些自由的阻碍。
>
> 人类被赋予了创造力、智慧和巧思。一个社会提高其生活水平的最佳途径，就是允许公民将这些品质应用到应对日常生活的挑战中去。要求一位总理凭借一己之力去提升全球最聪明的3000万人口的生活水平，其荒谬程度就好比要求他亲自踏上奥运短跑赛道，去‘帮助’一整排世界级运动员冲过终点线。政府对比赛的干预越多，选手遇到的障碍就越多。
>
> 因此，作为总理，我为了提高生活水平‘会做什么’，远不如我‘不会做什么’来得重要。作为总理，我将尽可能把我的社会、政治和经济控制权交还给公民，让人民去开创属于自己的繁荣，并尽可能直接地管理他们自己的事务。”
读毕，巴特利特询问在经历了过去十年的全国选战走访、深入体察民间疾苦之后，他的思想究竟发生了怎样的演变。波利耶夫尔总结道，他的基本政治哲学未变，但“性情变得更加成熟了”。
### [01:33:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5617s) 父亲身份带来的心智蜕变：从激进到审慎
皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）回顾了过去十年个人生活对自己政治风格的重塑。十年前，他还没有结婚，也没有孩子；而为人父的经历彻底迫使他培养出巨大的耐心。他坦言，孩子永远不会完全听从指令，而且他们的需求必须凌驾于父母自身的需求之上。与配偶共同应对家庭生活的种种不易，意味着每一天都在不断妥协，而这种在家庭中磨砺出的妥协精神与包容心，必然会渗透到政治处理方式当中。
相比于二十多岁和三十岁出头时的锋芒毕露与激进，皮埃尔认为自己在性情上发生了深刻转变。如今的他变得更加沉稳、谨慎和深思熟虑。这种心理与性格的成熟，使他在面对国家层面的复杂问题时，不再仅仅依靠年轻时的冲劲，而是更加关注政策的长远影响以及人与人之间的协作平衡。
---
### [01:34:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5655s) 被贴上“低配版特朗普”标签：对觉醒文化与DEI的批判
访谈主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）指出，反对党经常给皮埃尔贴上“低配版特朗普”（Trump Lite）的政治标签，主要原因在于两人都是保守派，且都公开猛烈抨击“觉醒文化”（Wokeism）以及多元、平等与包容政策（DEI）。皮埃尔对此反驳称，反对 DEI 并非特朗普独有的立场，全球有成千上万的人基于切身体验和独立思考在批判这一意识形态。
皮埃尔深入剖析了传统自由主义与当今觉醒主义的本质冲突。在过去，自由主义者崇尚自由，保守派则致力于保护自由；人们常说“自由派是油门，保守派是刹车”，但双方前进的大方向一致。然而，现代的觉醒文化本质上是一种“极度反自由的意识形态（deeply illiberal ideology）”：
- **传统自由主义**：坚守“色盲”（color-blind）准则，追求绝对的人格平等，不因性别、性取向或种族而区别对待，强调以个人品行与能力来评判一个人。
- **觉醒文化（DEI）**：完全背道而驰，不断放大族群差异与分歧，强行按照种族、性别等本应无关紧要的生理特征将人群切割成对立阵营，并在制造撕裂后进一步扩大政府与国家机器对公民个人生活的严密控制。
皮埃尔强调，回归以个人能力为衡量标准的真正任人唯贤（Meritocracy），曾经是左右翼两派的共同底线，直到这股具有毒性的意识形态渗透进来，撕裂了原本和谐的社会信任。
---
### [01:36:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5763s) 系统性劣势与色盲理想：史蒂文与皮埃尔关于DEI的激辩
作为一名出生于博茨瓦纳、婴儿期随家人迁往英国的黑人男性，主持人史蒂文·巴特利特提出了尖锐的现实质疑。史蒂文坦承，正是得益于英国当时的社会保障体系，自己才得以生存并改变命运。当他18岁大学退学创业时，融资数据残酷地表明黑人或女性创业者面临极其明显的“系统性劣势”。史蒂文表示，一方面他非常反感别人因为他的肤色而给予特殊优待，这种“区别对待”会让人产生自己处于弱势的负面自我实现心理；但另一方面，现实中客观存在的制度性歧视，确实阻碍了处于不利地位的群体向上流动。
皮埃尔回应强调，唯一正确的终极答案是“严格且纯粹的平等待遇”——不分种族、性别、族裔或宗教，彻底建立一个对所有人公平开放的赛道，让每个人凭借自身才能去争取成果。然而史蒂文随即反驳：“但现实中人类并不是色盲。”史蒂文分享了童年时坐在汽车后座的生动往事：他的白人父亲曾坦率地告诉他“人皆有偏见”。当时年幼的史蒂文甚至震惊地怀疑父亲是否也是种族主义者，但长大后他理解了父亲的真意——偏见源自人类为了规避危险演化出的生存本能，在社会中普遍存在。史蒂文追问：既然偏见客观且普遍存在，机构难道不应该采取主动补偿措施来抹平这些不公吗？
皮埃尔指出，机构固然必须具备自我审查意识，严厉杜绝歧视、确保晋升与招聘全凭能力，但解决之道绝不是筑起更多的身份藩篱。把人按照肤色划分并给予特权或限制，非但没有消除隔阂，反而在群体间构筑了更高的围墙。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 传统任人唯贤路线与觉醒文化路线的对比
accDescr: 对比传统自由主义与现代觉醒文化在处理种族和机会平等时的不同路径与后果
subgraph MeritocracyPath["传统自由主义 / 任人唯贤路线"]
A["个人主义与色盲原则"] --> B["破除人为与体制壁垒"]
B --> C["完全依据个人能力与才华评估"]
C --> D["实现真正的起点公平与个人自由"]
end
subgraph WokeismPath["觉醒文化 / DEI 路线"]
E["按种族、性别等特征划分群体"] --> F["强调历史身份与受害者叙事"]
F --> G["国家公权力干预与资源配额划分"]
G --> H["加剧社会阶层撕裂与逆向不公"]
end
```
---
### [01:39:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5978s) 偏见的根源与政府干预的意外后果：住房、执照与犯罪政策
当史蒂文援引简历实验（使用典型白人姓名与黑人姓名投递相同简历，回复率存在显著鸿沟）进一步追问隐性偏见时，皮埃尔退回到其坚守的“第一性原理”进行剖析：在现实中，造成边缘弱势群体深陷困境的最大元凶，恰恰是打着各种旗号的**政府管制政策**：
- **反建房规划限制**：政府推高了住房开发成本与门槛，使房价飞涨。新移民和贫困背景家庭最买不起房，因而成为住房可负担性危机的最大受害者。
- **过度的行业准入许可**：繁复苛刻的职业资质认证体系，把大量具备完全合格专业技能的外国移民医生、工程师硬生生挡在就业门槛之外，剥夺了他们向上流动的机会。
- **对犯罪手软的司法政策**：许多所谓的“宽容司法”口号声称是为了避免少数族裔出现过高定罪率，然而其恶果却是纵容了各色犯罪分子，导致守法的少数族裔社区首当其冲，沦为治安恶化的最大受害者。
在访谈尾声，史蒂文抛出西方金融体系的数据：黑人申请住房抵押贷款时，即使具备与白人申请人完全相同的财务信用背景，被拒贷的概率仍高出最高达 200%。皮埃尔直率地回应表示，自己此前虽未见过这一确切数据，但如果银行仅凭肤色拒贷，只能证明这些银行家极其“愚蠢”——因为他们亲手将优质业务与利润推向门外。
面对史蒂文半开玩笑提出的“DEI 正是为了纠正这种愚蠢的偏见”，皮埃尔辛辣地总结道：“我不认为 DEI 能够治愈愚蠢；在很多情况下，它只会带来更多的愚蠢。”皮埃尔重申，只有解除过度的行政绳索，建立健全的自由企业经济、保护言论自由并恪守真正的法治，才是赋予所有族裔公平竞争和逆天改命的根本途径。
### [01:42:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6165s) DEI 政策的反思与话题转向
针对主持人提出 DEI（多元、平等与包容）是否应作为纠正体制内在偏见、防止机构决策失误的校正机制，博励治（Pierre Poilievre）给出了审慎的回应。他指出，DEI 政策在西方体制内推行已有数十年之久，但现实统计数据却清晰表明现状并未改善。如果事实证明它并未达到预设目标，人们就必须正视这项政策或许不仅未能解决问题，反而在实际运作中产生了意料之外的负面效应。随着这一政治议题告一段落，主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺势拿出一张照片，将对话引向了博励治鲜为人知的家庭生活。
### [01:43:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6196s) 认识女儿瓦伦蒂娜：无言语自闭症与纯粹的天性
照片中是博励治七岁的女儿瓦伦蒂娜（Valentina），她正开心地骑在父亲的肩膀上。博励治向斯蒂芬介绍，瓦伦蒂娜是一名自闭症谱系儿童，而且是“无言语者”（non-verbal）。她与其他同龄孩子最显著的差异在于缺乏言语交流能力。尽管全家正倾尽全力帮助她进行语言训练并取得了一些可喜的进展，但言语沟通对她而言依然是极大的障碍。抛开语言维度的挑战，瓦伦蒂娜展现出了惊人的身体活力与热情：她生性活泼好动，热爱攀爬、荡秋千、弹跳与蹦跳，同时又极其富有深情。
博励治动情地将女儿的状态形容为一种独特的“超能力”——无论做什么事情，瓦伦蒂娜总是百分之百全情投入，且永远展现出百分之百的真实。在博励治看来，许多心智健全的孩子随着年龄增长，往往会逐渐学会伪装、耍手腕或演戏以获取想要的东西，但瓦伦蒂娜的生活字典里绝无心机与虚饰；她高兴或难过都会毫无保留地直接表露。值得庆幸的是，她还有一个无比疼爱她的弟弟克鲁兹（Cruz），给予了她世界上最无微不至的呵护。
### [01:44:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6272s) 未来的长远保障与弟弟的守护使命
斯蒂芬道出了许多特殊需要儿童家长的深层焦虑：父母终究无法永远陪伴在侧，一旦离开人世，失去语言自理能力的孩子该如何在世间立足？博励治坦承这正是他深思熟虑的核心问题，并分享了家庭的双重应对策略。一方面，夫妻俩必须为女儿提前积累一笔充足的储备金（nest egg），以确保即便她终生无法自食其力赚取收入，在父母离世后依然拥有享受高品质生活的经济资源；另一方面，他们致力于在瓦伦蒂娜与弟弟克鲁兹之间建立起不可割舍的长久羁绊。
尽管瓦伦蒂娜年龄更长，但两个孩子目前在学校同处一个班级。年幼的克鲁兹在潜移默化中早已扛起了守护姐姐的责任，他最常挂在嘴边的一句话就是：“我的工作就是保护瓦伦蒂娜免受坏人欺负”（"My job is to protect Valentina from bad guys"）。在校园里，弟弟俨然化身为父亲的耳目，全力守护着家中的“小公主”。博励治笑着感叹，克鲁兹骨子里展现出的护姐本能令人无比欣慰，也让他坚信在漫长的未来岁月里，弟弟一定会成为姐姐最坚实的依靠。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 瓦伦蒂娜的长远成长保障体系
accDescr: 展示博励治为保障患有无言语自闭症女儿未来生活所规划的经济与家庭支持网络。
subgraph SupportSystem ["未来保障支撑体系"]
A["长远资产规划<br>(储备基金 Nest Egg)"] --> C["确保终身生活尊严与照料资源"]
B["手足深厚纽带<br>(弟弟克鲁兹 Cruz)"] --> D["校园同班守望：防范霸凌与危险"]
B --> E["成年后终身陪伴与家庭照料"]
end
```
### [01:46:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6360s) 特殊父爱如何重塑政治理念：同理心与赋能残障群体
抚养自闭症女儿的独特经历深刻重塑了博励治的从政哲学。博励治虽然一贯主张小政府与限制公权力，但他明确表示，政府在救助那些真正无力照料自己的人群（尤其是残障人士）时具有绝对的正当性与不可或缺的角色。他痛陈过去的政府福利体系存在致命盲区——官僚系统往往习惯性地把残障人士当作纯粹需要被动看护的社会包袱，却从未正视他们作为独立个体的内在价值，更没有想方设法挖掘他们的贡献潜能。
博励治强调，政策应当激发残障人士的内在价值。虽然尚不能确知女儿未来具体能从事什么工作，但他坚信女儿终有一天能够踏入职场。基于这一信念，他极力主张推行能够赋予残障群体劳动机会的政策。例如，彻底改革福利机制中的“悬崖效应”，确保残障人士在走上轻度兼职岗位时，不会因为赚取微薄收入而立刻被剥夺现金支持或基本药物补贴。此外，抚养特殊女儿使他的同理心获得了质的升华。他的妻子安娜（Anaida）在公共场合往往一眼就能敏锐觉察出行为异样的自闭症儿童，并主动上前拥抱关爱。博励治深感，唯有家庭中有至亲经历过这种苦难，政治家才能真正感同身受地体察弱势群体的艰辛。
### [01:48:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6496s) 确诊的心路历程与给特殊家庭的建议：拥抱独特的感官世界
面对斯蒂芬提到大量听众同为自闭症患儿父母的心声，博励治详细回顾了初次确诊时的心理过程。早在瓦伦蒂娜还是婴儿时，妻子就敏锐地察觉到了异样——孩子几乎不与父母进行眼神对视，且完全缺乏正常婴儿该有的双向回应交流。因此，当医疗专科人员怀着沉重心情宣布自闭症诊断结果、甚至刻意停顿以为夫妻俩会当场崩溃痛哭时，博励治夫妻俩反而异常平静地回答：“我们早就料到了，现在让我们开始着手解决问题吧。”
针对家有自闭症儿童的父母，博励治提出了切实而诚恳的心态建议：
- **专注于自身可控之事**：切勿陷入情绪泥潭，迅速采取行动，尽早聘请专业言语治疗师介入。
- **营造包容的家庭环境**：根据孩子的特殊偏好在家中添置游乐设施，例如瓦伦蒂娜酷爱的室内充气城堡、小型蹦床以及成堆的积木玩具。
- **理解特殊的感官世界**：自闭症儿童的神经系统运转机制与常人截然不同，在某处轻轻敲击可能带给他们极大的愉悦感知，而常人毫不在意的微小杂音或触感却可能让他们痛不欲生。孩子情绪失控（meltdown）绝非品行不良，而是正承受着常人难以想象的感官风暴。
博励治欣慰地分享，瓦伦蒂娜是个不知恐惧的“小冒险家”（daredevil），极度喜欢骑在父亲肩膀上疯狂奔跑，走到哪里都能给周围的人带去笑容。她在学校不仅深受同学喜爱，甚至在去秋季市集时，会毫不见外地直接坐到素昧平生的陌生老太太膝盖上撒娇。只要被她认定为喜欢的人，她就会毫无保留地敞开心扉。
### [01:51:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6671s) 结语展望：对加拿大未来的乐观期许
访谈进入尾声，面对覆盖全球（美国、加拿大、英国、澳大利亚等）的庞大听众群体，斯蒂芬请博励治留下最后的寄语。博励治给出了坚定乐观的回答。他坚信加拿大的未来极其光明，世界理应重新将目光投向这片土地：加拿大坐拥全球最丰厚的自然资源、全球排名前列且极为珍贵充沛的淡水资源、世界第二大国土面积，以及极其多元化且受高等教育的高素质人口。
博励治风趣地指出，只要选择正确的政策路线，加拿大必将重新崛起并成为令全世界艳羡的国度；他同时半开玩笑地补充道：“如果能由我来出任总理，显然会对实现这一宏图大有助益。”斯蒂芬随后由衷表达了对加拿大的深厚喜爱，并分享了自己初次踏足多伦多时油然而生的归属感，两人在对英加两国深厚历史文化渊源的赞叹与笑声中结束了对话。
### [01:52:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6729s) 传统提问：你最害怕什么？
两人首先在轻松的氛围中聊到了加拿大之行。皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）热情邀请主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）前往加拿大，称他在那里一定会受到热烈欢迎。史蒂文回应称，自己只要受邀就会过去，此前也曾去加拿大度假一两次，并计划未来带着《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）在加拿大举办巡回活动与听众见面。波利耶夫尔笃定地表示，到时候现场一定会汇聚庞大的人群。
随后，史蒂文引入了节目的收尾传统：由上一位嘉宾在不知道下一位是谁的情况下留下一个问题。留给波利耶夫尔的问题直指内心：“你最害怕什么，你又是如何应对这种恐惧的？”
波利耶夫尔清了清嗓子，坦言自己其实并没有太多个人层面的恐惧。但谈到家庭时，他承认作为父母最大的恐惧就是孩子遭遇不测。他提到在新闻中总能听到可怕的悲剧，自己最近还不幸参加了卑诗省坦布勒岭（Tumbler Ridge）大规模枪击事件受害者的葬礼。他感慨道，每个为人父母者都会时刻忧心自己的孩子出事，这无疑是他内心最深切的恐惧。
### [01:53:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6804s) 对加拿大与西方世界的未来之忧
当史蒂文将问题扩展到国家层面，询问波利耶夫尔对整个加拿大最大的担忧是什么时，波利耶夫尔指出，他最害怕的是加拿大继续亲手封死自己的发展潜力，在衰退中让机遇逐渐流失，最终让人民彻底失去这片土地曾给予他以及历代先辈的承诺与希望。
他用温水煮青蛙的比喻来形容加拿大的现状：水温在一点点上升，变得越来越热，而青蛙却浑然不知。史蒂文随即追问这是否就是加拿大目前正在行进的轨迹，波利耶夫尔给出了肯定的回答，但他强调，只要国家在发展方向上做出坚决的大转向，这一颓势就完全能够被扭转。
谈及整个西方世界，波利耶夫尔表示，他最大的恐惧在于西方社会背离其立足的基石与基本原则。他希望西方文明能够坚守自《大宪章》（Magna Carta）以来孕育的核心价值观：自由，政府作为公仆而非主宰，人民才是真正的主人；同时，自由民主国家不仅要在国内取得成功，更要在国际舞台上精诚合作，以共同捍卫这一文明成果。
- **个人层面的恐惧**：孩子的人身安全遭遇意外，身为父母对潜在危险的本能焦虑。
- **国家层面的恐惧**：加拿大陷入“温水煮青蛙”式的缓慢衰退，自我扼杀潜力，丧失给予下一代繁荣未来的承诺。
- **文明层面的恐惧**：西方国家抛弃《大宪章》以来的自由与主权在民原则，民主体制在国内外部受挫。
### [01:54:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6881s) 政治家与透明度：对坦率对话的致谢与结语
在对话临近尾声时，史蒂文真诚地感谢波利耶夫尔抽出时间做客节目并毫无保留地回答每一个问题。史蒂文坦言，自己平素非常不喜欢采访政客，因为他们大多极其“滑头”（slippery），总是在回避问题、拐弯抹角，这违背了《CEO日记》创办的初衷——无论真相有多么刺耳或令人不安，观众都渴望听到真话。
史蒂文特别赞赏波利耶夫尔在整场对话中的坦诚与尽己所能的作答。他指出，很多政客以为回避与包装才是正确之道，但在如今这个透明如“玻璃盒子”（glass box）而非密不透风的“黑盒子”（black box）的时代，坦荡面对公众才是正途。波利耶夫尔的团队在采访前没有任何预设限制，没有划定任何禁忌话题，也没有要求审核或剪辑成片，史蒂文希望未来能有更多政治人物展现出这样的开放姿态。
访谈在史蒂文向观众推荐根据算法个性化匹配的下一期视频中正式画上句号。
## Notable quotes
> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=0s) That's never going to happen — 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔
> [15:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=917s) There are no solutions, just trade-offs — 托马斯·索维尔（波利耶夫尔引述）
> [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1153s) I have to put my country above myself — 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔
> [23:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1416s) 去吧，我当然支持，因为我不可能永远陪在你身边，我希望这世上永远有人能做你的母亲。 — 玛琳（波利耶夫尔养母）
> [28:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=1709s) Scars are the trophies of survival — 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔
> [36:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=2174s) 如果一个人连为自己做决定的能力都没有，他何德何能去替他人做主？ — 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔
> [01:03:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=3826s) 我的父亲研究军事，是为了让我有安全去研究商业；我研究商业，是为了让我的孩子们有繁荣去从事艺术与科学。 — 约翰·亚当斯（波利耶夫尔引述）
> [01:21:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=4902s) 历史使我们成为朋友，经济使我们成为伙伴，地理使我们成为邻居，而必要性使我们成为盟友；天然结合在一起的彼此，任何人不得将其拆散。 — 约翰·F·肯尼迪（波利耶夫尔引述）
> [01:24:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5089s) 我没有家，我就睡在车里，这7块钱是我拥有的全部财产。我把它拿出来买党员资格，只为了能投波利耶夫尔一票，因为他是我唯一的希望，这是我仅剩的机会。 — 女性支持者
> [01:29:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5345s) I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul. — 威廉·欧内斯特·亨利（波利耶夫尔引述）
> [01:30:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5456s) 作为总理，我为了提高生活水平‘会做什么’，远不如我‘不会做什么’来得重要。 — 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（20岁获奖论文）
> [01:39:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=5978s) 我不认为 DEI 能够治愈愚蠢；在很多情况下，它只会带来更多的愚蠢。 — 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔
> [01:44:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0&t=6272s) My job is to protect Valentina from bad guys — 克鲁兹（Cruz Poilievre）
## Mentioned
皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔 (Pierre Poilievre), 史蒂文·巴特利特 (Steven Bartlett), 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 马克·卡尼 (Mark Carney), 托马斯·索维尔 (Thomas Sowell), 亚当·斯密 (Adam Smith), 国富论 (The Wealth of Nations), 道德情操论 (The Theory of Moral Sentiments), 马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius), 沉思录 (Meditations), 不可征服 (Invictus), 威廉·欧内斯特·亨利 (William Ernest Henley), 纳尔逊·曼德拉 (Nelson Mandela), 约翰·亚当斯 (John Adams), 约翰·F·肯尼迪 (John F. Kennedy), 李光耀, 埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk), 山姆·奥特曼 (Sam Altman), 保罗·克鲁格曼 (Paul Krugman), 格雷厄姆·艾利森 (Graham Allison), 乌克兰国际航空PS752号班机, Stan Store, Ketone-IQ, Target, 1% Diary, Anthropic, Worldcoin, ChatGPT, 大宪章 (Magna Carta), The Joe Rogan Experience
## Video description
The Man Who Could Lead Canada By 2029: Pierre Poilievre On Trump, Tariffs & Why You Still Can't Afford A Home
Pierre Poilievre is the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and Leader of the Opposition. First elected to Parliament at 25, he has spent over 2 decades in Canadian politics - winning the Conservative leadership in 2022 with a record 68% first-ballot victory. If the polls hold, he could be Canada's next Prime Minister.
He explains:
◼️ Why you still can't afford a home, and the 1 policy change that would fix it overnight
◼️How governments are quietly destroying your savings and his plan to reverse it before it's too late
◼️Why the West is selling its resources cheap and who's really profiting from it
◼️ Why self-sacrifice, not self-interest, is the shocking key to building a better society
◼️ The lesson his mother's scars taught him about never hiding who you are
00:00 Intro
02:48 Is World War III Closer Than We Think? What The Power Shift Reveals
04:42 Why Is The U.S. Pulling Back From Allies
07:03 What’s Really Driving Tensions Between Canada And The U.S.?
08:55 U.S. Vs. Iran: How This Conflict Could Escalate Fast
12:27 If Trump Asked For Help - Would The Answer Change Everything?
13:12 How Does This All End? The Most Likely Global сценарий
15:17 What Would You Actually Do In Trump’s Position?
17:19 Behind The Scenes: What Is Pierre’s Real Relationship With Trump?
18:48 How Canada’s Economy Could Be Fixed Faster Than You Think
19:46 What Happens Next Might Surprise You
20:38 From Adoption To Power: How Pierre’s Story Shaped His Politics
23:35 Meeting His Biological Parents: The Moment That Changed Everything
31:02 Why He Chose Politics
36:14 Is The System Rigged? Socialism Vs. Capitalism Explained
38:51 Why You Can’t Afford A Home
46:24 Why Canada Is Falling Behind
49:22 What This G7 Country Gets Right (And Why It Matters)
53:45 The Silent Crisis: Birth Rates, Immigration, And Jobs Colliding
57:46 AI And Jobs: What Happens To The Next Generation?
01:04:55 If Elected In 2029 - Here’s How Pierre Says He’d Change Everything
01:08:59 Is Immigration Being Used To Win Elections?
01:13:38 Ads
01:16:25 The Biggest Threat To The Western World
01:18:56 Canada And Nuclear Weapons: What’s The Real Policy?
01:19:55 China, The Arctic, And The Threat Few Are Talking About
01:23:01 Why Conservatives Lost
01:25:01 After The Loss: What He Learned When It Was Over
01:27:51 Did Trump Change The Election Outcome? Here’s The Truth
01:29:05 How Stoicism Cuts Through Political Chaos
01:30:56 Reading His 20-Year-Old Self -Have His Beliefs Changed?
01:34:14 DEI And “Woke” Politics
01:43:11 Fatherhood And Politics: How His Daughter Changed Everything
01:46:00 Raising A Child With Autism - What It Teaches You About Leadership
01:50:23 The Final Moments You Didn’t Expect
Enjoyed the episode? Share this link and earn points for every referral - redeem them for exclusive prizes: https://doac-perks.com
You can follow Pierre, here:
Instagram - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/8FIkCAa
X - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/4L4gTnR
YouTube - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/uscsft
The Diary Of A CEO:
◼ Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/
◼ Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook
◼ The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt
◼ The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb
◼ Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt
◼ Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb
Sponsors:
"Stan - Visit https://coach.stan.store/?ref=stevenbartlett&utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=episode3
Wispr - Get 14 days of Wispr Flow for free at https://wisprflow.ai/steven
Ketone - https://ketone.com/STEVEN for 30% off your subscription order"
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxaESJIGO0)
Source quotes
[0:00] 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔: That's never going to happen
[15:17] 托马斯·索维尔（波利耶夫尔引述）: There are no solutions, just trade-offs
[19:13] 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔: I have to put my country above myself
[23:36] 玛琳（波利耶夫尔养母）: 去吧，我当然支持，因为我不可能永远陪在你身边，我希望这世上永远有人能做你的母亲。
[28:29] 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔: Scars are the trophies of survival
[36:14] 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔: 如果一个人连为自己做决定的能力都没有，他何德何能去替他人做主？
[63:46] 约翰·亚当斯（波利耶夫尔引述）: 我的父亲研究军事，是为了让我有安全去研究商业；我研究商业，是为了让我的孩子们有繁荣去从事艺术与科学。
[81:42] 约翰·F·肯尼迪（波利耶夫尔引述）: 历史使我们成为朋友，经济使我们成为伙伴，地理使我们成为邻居，而必要性使我们成为盟友；天然结合在一起的彼此，任何人不得将其拆散。
[84:49] 女性支持者: 我没有家，我就睡在车里，这7块钱是我拥有的全部财产。我把它拿出来买党员资格，只为了能投波利耶夫尔一票，因为他是我唯一的希望，这是我仅剩的机会。
[89:05] 威廉·欧内斯特·亨利（波利耶夫尔引述）: I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul.
[90:56] 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（20岁获奖论文）: 作为总理，我为了提高生活水平‘会做什么’，远不如我‘不会做什么’来得重要。
[99:38] 皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔: 我不认为 DEI 能够治愈愚蠢；在很多情况下，它只会带来更多的愚蠢。
[104:32] 克鲁兹（Cruz Poilievre）: My job is to protect Valentina from bad guys
Source quotes
[31:58] Pierre Poilievre: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
[36:14] Pierre Poilievre: What we have now is socialism for the very rich. We have governments that are actively redistributing wealth from the working class to the very, very wealthy.
[42:34] Pierre Poilievre: It is not actually that these things cost more. It's that the money with which we buy them is worth less because we're creating so much of it... to fund deficits.
[44:16] Pierre Poilievre: Single-use plastic is now banned, which makes it so that food goes bad about five days quicker... It sounds very virtuous, but ultimately somebody pays for that.
[53:45] Pierre Poilievre: No politician wants to have written on their gravestone: 'He stayed out of the way, left people alone so that they could do great things without him.' Although I think we'd be better off if more of them did.
[118:45] Pierre Poilievre: if you don't use it, you lose it
[118:45] Pierre Poilievre: maîtres chez nous
[121:43] John F. Kennedy: History has made us friends, economics has made us partners, geography has made us neighbors, and necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature have thus joined together, let no man put asunder.
[125:01] Pierre Poilievre: When you focus on what you can control, you are the actor rather than the acted upon. If you spend a lot of your time thinking about the things you cannot control, then you become a helpless victim.
[129:05] William Ernest Henley: I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.
[104:15] Pierre Poilievre: Liberals used to believe in liberty and conservatives believed in conserving it... wokeism is a deeply illiberal ideology.
[104:15] Pierre Poilievre: What I believe in is treating people as individuals and letting them live their own lives, judging them exclusively on their own merits.
[103:10] Cruz Poilievre: My job is to protect Valentina from bad guys.
[111:11] Pierre Poilievre: the future belongs to Canada
[115:05] Pierre Poilievre: glass box
Original transcript
[0:00] Trump threw the election and then
[0:01] thereafter said that
[0:02] >> Canada should honestly become our 51st
[0:04] state [laughter]
[0:07] >> which is never going to happen.
[0:09] >> Pierre Polyv, leader of his majesty's
[0:11] loyal opposition. There's a significant
[0:13] probability that you could be Canada's
[0:14] next leader and your team said I can ask
[0:17] you whatever I want.
[0:18] >> Okay.
[0:19] >> So it appears that the United States
[0:21] have made the decision to kind of go it
[0:22] alone in the world
[0:23] >> and that is a very big strategic
[0:25] mistake. In Canada's case, we have
[0:27] everything the United States needs if
[0:29] they treat us like a friend. So, for
[0:30] example, we have the fourth biggest
[0:32] supply of oil. And if you look at the
[0:34] leading five, which of these countries
[0:36] do you think the United States can most
[0:38] rely on?
[0:39] >> And I'm looking at the third vial there
[0:40] in the row, Iran.
[0:41] >> Mhm.
[0:42] >> Has Trump taken the right course of
[0:43] action?
[0:44] >> The Iranian government has been
[0:45] extremely hostile and very dangerous to
[0:47] Canada. [music] They are the leading
[0:48] world sponsor of terrorism. And there's
[0:50] no doubt in my mind that the only
[0:52] [music] reason that they are enriching
[0:54] uranium is for the purpose of developing
[0:56] a weapon. [music] And there's a far
[0:57] greater risk to them having a nuclear
[0:59] weapon than even North Korea. So the
[1:01] initial actions were definitely
[1:03] necessary.
[1:04] >> But how do you think this plays out? And
[1:05] if Trump had called you and asked for
[1:06] your support, would you have given it?
[1:08] >> Well, let let's put it this way.
[1:11] >> What is the thing that you're most
[1:12] concerned about?
[1:13] >> We're overt taxing our population. We're
[1:14] punishing initiative. We have 20,000
[1:17] immigrant doctors who can't work in
[1:18] medicine. Wages have been destroyed.
[1:20] Young people can't start a family in
[1:22] this economy. And that is why the
[1:24] working class across the Western [music]
[1:26] world is so angry. The good news is we
[1:28] can reverse all of that.
[1:29] >> And the other thing that I actually was
[1:30] really keen to talk about is this.
[1:32] >> Wow.
[1:35] >> I can see the emotion in your face.
[1:36] >> Yeah.
[1:37] >> It's still there.
[1:39] >> Yeah. I hadn't thought about that in a
[1:40] while.
[1:50] This is super interesting to me. My team
[1:51] gave me this report to show me how many
[1:53] of you that watch this show subscribe.
[1:54] And some of you have told us according
[1:56] to this that you are unsubscribed from
[1:58] the channel randomly. So favor to ask
[2:00] all of you. Please could you check right
[2:01] now if you've hit the subscribe button
[2:03] if you are a regular viewer of the show
[2:04] and you like what we do here. We're
[2:06] approaching quite a significant landmark
[2:07] on this show in terms of a subscriber
[2:09] number. So, if there was one simple free
[2:11] thing that you could do to help us, my
[2:13] team, everyone here, to keep this show
[2:15] free, to keep it improving year over
[2:17] year and week over week, it is just to
[2:19] hit that subscribe button and to double
[2:20] check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll
[2:22] ever ask of you, do we have a deal? If
[2:24] you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do.
[2:25] I'll make sure every single week, every
[2:28] single month, we fight harder and harder
[2:29] and harder and harder to bring you the
[2:30] guests and conversations that you want
[2:32] to hear. I've stayed true to that
[2:33] promise since the very beginning of the
[2:34] Dio, and I will not let you down. Please
[2:38] help us. Really appreciate it. Let's get
[2:39] on with the show.
[2:42] [music]
[2:48] Pierre Polyv, leader of his majesty's
[2:52] loyal opposition. There is so much I
[2:54] want to talk to you about. I think you
[2:55] have a truly fascinating formative
[2:58] childhood. One of which I've I've really
[3:01] seldom seen on this show, especially
[3:03] when the person rises so high in their
[3:06] political ambitions. But I think the
[3:09] most appropriate thing to start with
[3:10] because [clears throat] it's just front
[3:11] of mind for me at the moment is what the
[3:13] hell is going on in the world?
[3:15] [laughter]
[3:17] And I mean that's genuinely I'm I'm up
[3:19] all night trying to figure out if we're
[3:20] on the verge of World War II. What's
[3:23] going on with all these alliances we
[3:24] used to have? What is going on in the
[3:26] world?
[3:26] >> The history of starts really in the
[3:29] post-war period with a massive increase
[3:31] in the power and the wealth of the
[3:33] United States. They unleashed the
[3:35] capitalist system. They effectively
[3:37] buried the Soviet Union just by out
[3:39] hustling, out producing and out
[3:42] outgrowing until the Soviet Union
[3:44] collapsed. And then a new authoritarian
[3:47] power snuck up on the United States.
[3:50] China went from having 80% of its
[3:52] population living on one less than a
[3:54] dollar a day to being the second biggest
[3:56] economy in the world. At the same time,
[3:58] uh, the American working class has been
[4:01] thoroughly screwed over by relentless
[4:04] money printing that has inflated their
[4:06] cost of living while also inflating the
[4:08] wealth of of a small group of elites.
[4:11] And I think this resulted in a major
[4:12] push back. Now, some of that was
[4:14] justified. That push back is justified,
[4:16] but I also think some of it is very much
[4:18] unjustified. Tariffing countries like
[4:20] Canada makes no sense. uh if you're the
[4:23] United States, you should want more
[4:24] friends, more trade with those friends.
[4:27] And that's one of the reasons why I've
[4:28] been touring the United States to make
[4:30] the case for Canada and to remind our
[4:33] American friends that they are stronger
[4:35] working with countries like Canada and
[4:37] the United Kingdom than they are pushing
[4:40] those natural allies away.
[4:42] >> It appears that the United States have
[4:44] made the decision to kind of go it alone
[4:46] in the world. I mean, I was at Davos and
[4:48] I saw what Trump said. I saw a variety
[4:52] of things in the leadup to there talking
[4:53] about taking Greenland, turning Canada
[4:55] into one of the United States 51st
[4:57] states. Is that what he said? 51st
[5:00] state.
[5:00] >> That's never going to happen.
[5:02] >> It seems to be very adversarial. And
[5:04] through my childhood and through my
[5:05] adulthood, over the last 30 years, the
[5:08] US has always been the strong ally, not
[5:10] an individualistic isolated force in the
[5:12] world. What's what's going on here?
[5:15] >> I think that is a very big strategic
[5:17] mistake. Uh I think America would be
[5:19] better off working with the the
[5:21] traditional Western alliance that helped
[5:22] win the Cold War. Uh we had a very big
[5:25] menace as a nuclear armed Soviet Union
[5:27] that was expansionary. Its empire was
[5:30] pushing eastward into Europe and the
[5:33] response of the United States was to
[5:36] build a strong NATO alliance and then to
[5:38] unleash its economy to just outproduce
[5:40] the Soviets and bring them to their
[5:42] knees. In Canada's case, we have
[5:44] everything the United States needs uh if
[5:46] they treat us like a friend. We have the
[5:49] fourth biggest supply of oil.
[5:51] >> You can see it here.
[5:52] >> That's right. We could uh maybe pull
[5:54] that over here. This is the oil reserves
[5:57] by country. As you can see, Canada is
[5:59] number four. And after us is Iraq and
[6:03] then the United States. But if you look
[6:05] at the leading five, which of these
[6:08] countries do you think the United States
[6:11] can most rely on? Is it Venezuela, Saudi
[6:14] Arabia, Iran, or Iraq? No, it's Canada.
[6:18] It works very well with American
[6:20] refineries and we sell it to the United
[6:23] States at enormous price discount.
[6:25] Furthermore, we could build up an
[6:27] enormous reserve of this oil so that if,
[6:29] god forbid, the straight of Hormuse were
[6:32] to be closed, just a random example,
[6:35] you're from the American America's
[6:37] friends in neighboring Canada would have
[6:40] a couple hundred millions barrels that
[6:43] are already produced and ready for use
[6:45] uh if uh if it's needed. So this is
[6:48] really uh kind of rocket fuel for the
[6:51] Canadian economy, but it's strategically
[6:53] important for our American friends. We
[6:56] could cooperate better on this if we got
[6:58] a friendly posture and a fully
[7:00] tariff-free trade ar arrangement with
[7:02] the US. What's interesting when I look
[7:04] at these uh vials of oil that we have on
[7:06] the table and I see that Venezuela's
[7:08] number one, Saudi Arabia is number two,
[7:09] Iran, Canada, Iraq, and then the US is a
[7:12] lot of these countries that have a lot
[7:14] of oil are in conflict with the United
[7:16] States right now.
[7:17] >> That's right.
[7:18] >> And it now as I look at this, it seems
[7:20] like I understand why. So, Venezuela, I
[7:22] mean, Trump just flew in and took the
[7:24] leader of Venezuela and his wife out of
[7:26] bed and sees the country. Iran, US are
[7:28] at war with Iran now. Um, Iraq, I mean,
[7:31] that's a a story already. And Canada has
[7:34] been the other one where it's been
[7:35] incredibly adversarial over the last
[7:36] couple of months. Is this just all about
[7:38] oil?
[7:39] >> Frankly, we don't really understand what
[7:40] the dispute with Canada is about because
[7:42] we've been a very good and friendly
[7:44] partner to the United States ever since
[7:46] the early 1800s before we even formed as
[7:49] a confederation. What I would say to
[7:52] Americans though is you shouldn't have
[7:55] to worry about all of these countries.
[7:57] If you're working collaboratively with
[7:59] Canada and you're trading freely with a
[8:02] a separate country to the north, then
[8:05] you will not be bound by what happens in
[8:08] these other less stable and arguably
[8:11] more hostile countries. What I believe
[8:13] we as Canadians need to do is use our
[8:15] natural resources as leverage to get
[8:19] what we want from this administration
[8:21] and future ones. What we want is
[8:24] tariff-free trade for our steel,
[8:27] aluminum, lumber, and automobiles.
[8:31] And in exchange for that, we can produce
[8:33] more oil and sell more of it at better
[8:36] prices to the United States of America.
[8:38] [snorts] Oil is only one part of it.
[8:40] There's also the strategic minerals that
[8:43] are necessary for, god forbid, modern
[8:46] warfare, and we have those as well. We
[8:48] are a resource superpower, and I want to
[8:51] leverage that to get what we want from
[8:53] the US and from other nations.
[8:56] >> I'm looking at the third vial there in
[8:57] the row, Iran.
[8:58] >> Mhm.
[8:59] >> Has Trump taken the right course of
[9:01] action in bombing Iran in the way that
[9:03] he has? And the other question that's I
[9:05] think on everyone's mind is like, how do
[9:07] you get out of this? Is is this going to
[9:10] end? Well,
[9:11] >> the Iranian government has been
[9:12] extremely hostile and very dangerous to
[9:14] Canada. They killed 55 Canadian citizens
[9:17] and 30 permanent residents by shooting a
[9:20] civilian aircraft out of the sky, PS752,
[9:24] uh for reasons we still do not
[9:26] understand and with no explanation
[9:27] whatsoever. They have unleashed agents
[9:30] into our communities and streets to
[9:32] harass the Jewish and Persian
[9:34] communities of Canada. and uh they are
[9:36] the leading world sponsor of terrorism.
[9:39] It it is absolutely unacceptable for the
[9:41] Iranian government to ever acquire
[9:43] nuclear weapons. And there's no doubt in
[9:45] my mind that the only reason that they
[9:47] are enriching uranium is for marshall
[9:50] purposes. There's no need to enrich it
[9:52] to the degree they have in order just to
[9:54] have nuclear power plants. I have no
[9:56] doubt that they were doing it for u the
[10:00] purpose of developing a weapon and if
[10:02] that were to happen uh it could be
[10:04] catastrophic for neighboring countries
[10:07] but also for far away lands if given the
[10:10] ability to develop uh long range
[10:12] missiles. So uh we my view and the view
[10:15] of the Canadian government is that the
[10:18] Iranian government cannot be allowed to
[10:20] develop nuclear weapons and any action
[10:21] to stop them from doing that is
[10:23] necessary for world peace. Was this
[10:25] action necessary to stop that in your
[10:27] view?
[10:27] >> I think that the initial actions were
[10:29] definitely necessary, particularly the
[10:32] bombings four or five months ago to
[10:34] target the nuclear development sites.
[10:37] But I think any actions to degrade their
[10:39] nuclear capabilities, prevent them from
[10:41] ever achieving them is favorable. And I
[10:43] hope that it will weaken the regime
[10:45] enough for the people to overtake it and
[10:48] claim control of their country.
[10:50] >> It doesn't look like that's the case. I
[10:52] think they've appointed the son of the
[10:53] Ayatollah to lead the country now and
[10:55] they seem to be firing at everybody in
[10:57] the region. There was some reports that
[10:59] they might have ballistic missiles that
[11:00] could reach Europe as well. Yes. And and
[11:02] this is what we have to stop. I mean the
[11:05] idea that they are they are carrying out
[11:06] this aggression simply because they've
[11:08] been attacked is false. They would have
[11:11] eventually carried it out. The question
[11:12] is when and with what means. And if we
[11:15] had just sort of slept and waited, we
[11:18] would have ended up with a catastrophe.
[11:20] This is different than North Korea.
[11:21] North Korea was allowed to get nuclear
[11:23] weapons, but they don't have the same
[11:24] celestial fundamentalist ideology there.
[11:27] Ultimately, the regime in North Korea is
[11:30] interested in its own survival and its
[11:34] power.
[11:35] >> The regime in Thran has a theocratic
[11:39] dream. They believe that there's an an
[11:41] afterlife in which they could be
[11:42] rewarded for carrying out mass
[11:45] destruction on what they call the
[11:48] infidels. They don't respond to
[11:50] deterrence the same way that Pyongyang
[11:52] in North Korea would. There's a far
[11:54] greater risk to them having a nuclear
[11:57] weapon than than even having that in in
[11:59] a communist totalitarian state like
[12:01] North Korea. But for Canada in this
[12:05] environment, our superpower is again our
[12:07] resources. And that's why it has been
[12:09] one of my major obsessions to unblock
[12:11] our resources, get them to tide water,
[12:14] accumulate them in a strategic reserve
[12:17] that would allow us to really flex our
[12:19] energy muscles in environments like this
[12:22] and also reduce dependence on regime
[12:24] like Iran, like Saudi Arabia, like
[12:26] Venezuela.
[12:27] >> If Trump had called you and asked for
[12:28] your support, had you been leading the
[12:32] government of Canada, would you have
[12:34] given the support? This is the big
[12:36] conversation at the moment in the UK
[12:37] because K Starmmer was reluctant to send
[12:39] troops originally and it seems to have
[12:41] irked Trump in an interesting way.
[12:43] >> So our prime minister did support the
[12:46] attack and I agreed with Prime Minister
[12:49] Carney on that point. That is distinct
[12:51] from contributing Canadian soldiers or
[12:54] sailors and air crew. I'm not proposing
[12:56] that we send ground troops to Iran and
[13:00] we are not in a position right now to
[13:02] supply a lot of the demands that this
[13:04] conflict would require. It depends on
[13:07] what they ask for um before we get an
[13:09] answer from Canada on what what it is
[13:11] that we can provide.
[13:12] >> You're someone that knows a lot about
[13:13] history. You seem to know a lot about a
[13:15] lot, frankly. Um [laughter]
[13:17] and I I don't know a lot about a lot. So
[13:21] when you think through how this could
[13:23] go, it doesn't appear that the Iranians
[13:26] are going to roll over very easily. The
[13:30] the Iranian leadership are going to roll
[13:31] over very easily. Trump doesn't appear
[13:33] to be a man that likes taking hits to
[13:35] his ego. So it doesn't appear that he's
[13:37] just going to pull out and let you know
[13:39] things unravel. Uh and then the third
[13:41] option one would say is that they double
[13:43] down even further and send troops to the
[13:44] region. What how do you think this plays
[13:46] out based on everything that you know
[13:47] about both history about Trump and from
[13:50] your pattern recognition?
[13:51] >> Well, it could go a variety of ways.
[13:53] Remember the first Persian Gulf War,
[13:55] George Herbert Walker Bush decided that
[13:58] he had downgraded and penalized Saddam
[14:01] Hussein enough for the invasion of
[14:03] Kuwait.
[14:04] >> He declared victory and he moved on and
[14:08] ultimately that left a lot of stability
[14:10] in the region. his son then went and and
[14:12] and pursued a full uh out-and-out regime
[14:15] change and that was a much longer
[14:16] enterprise. Uh the the president will
[14:20] have to decide which of those two Bushes
[14:22] he uses as a model. But I think that the
[14:26] important thing is to know what the
[14:27] objective is for me. The objective has
[14:29] to be to make sure that the Iranian
[14:30] government never gets the capacity to
[14:32] send long range nuclear missiles to
[14:36] countries uh or even short and medium
[14:38] range to Israel for that matter. Beyond
[14:41] that, I think it's up to the Iranian
[14:43] people to take advantage of the weakness
[14:46] of the regime and rise up and reclaim
[14:48] their country. I I I don't think this
[14:51] regime has popular support. Uh I know a
[14:54] lot of Iranians, we're blessed to have a
[14:55] lot of very secular, pro-western
[14:58] Persians who live in Canada, are proudly
[15:00] Canadian, and they will tell you that
[15:03] there's almost no support for the regime
[15:05] among the people of of Iran. Mhm.
[15:07] >> They need to find a way to overturn the
[15:10] regime. Uh, and that would that would
[15:12] give a a lot of comfort and peace to the
[15:14] rest of the world, but it would also
[15:15] give democracy to a deserving people.
[15:17] >> What would you do if you were Trump?
[15:20] >> Oh, that's a good question. Um,
[15:22] [laughter]
[15:23] >> and no offense to
[15:27] >> like I said, I would focus on the core
[15:28] objective of making sure that there's
[15:31] not a nuclear armed Iran without getting
[15:33] involved in a permanent quagmire. So
[15:36] everything's been bombed now. Fordo has
[15:37] been bombed. So is this the time to pull
[15:39] out then?
[15:40] >> I think it all depends on the
[15:41] intelligence they have about the nuclear
[15:43] capacity. That that is the the hinge
[15:46] point. We cannot allow a nuclearpowered
[15:49] um Iranian military. That is what they
[15:52] they need to determine.
[15:53] >> For me at the moment it looks a little
[15:54] bit like it's a little bit lose-lose for
[15:56] Trump in an interesting way. And I think
[15:59] this is also reflecting the fact that
[16:00] nobody really has a perfect answer for
[16:02] what to do next because it's all just
[16:04] trade-offs. That's right.
[16:06] >> That's right. I mean, that's what the
[16:08] the great uh Thomas Soul said. There's
[16:10] no solutions, just trade-offs in life.
[16:12] >> And it's hitting the the price of um gas
[16:14] at the pumps in a big way.
[16:16] >> Yes.
[16:17] >> A way that concerns you or
[16:19] >> Well, it's funny you [snorts] should ask
[16:21] because it shouldn't have to concern
[16:23] Canadians. Our enormous supply of oil
[16:26] should actually insulate us from it.
[16:29] Normally what what used to happen in
[16:30] Canada is when the global price of oil
[16:33] rose, our dollar would rise with it
[16:35] because people would be buying more of
[16:37] our oil, which meant they had to first
[16:38] buy our dollar. A more powerful Canadian
[16:41] dollar meant that we had more buying
[16:43] power for internationally priced
[16:45] commodities like oil and food. So, we
[16:48] used to be protected from international
[16:51] oil price increases in a way that we're
[16:53] not anymore because our sector is no
[16:55] longer as strong and as big as it was as
[16:58] a share of our economy. And so, uh, what
[17:01] I want to do is unleash oil production
[17:04] in Canada, clear, uh, the regulatory
[17:08] bureaucracy, the government gatekeepers,
[17:10] get rid of industrial carbon taxes, and
[17:13] have a stronger dollar that makes life
[17:15] more affordable and much more
[17:17] geostrategic power in the world.
[17:19] >> There's a quite significant probability
[17:21] that you could be Canada's next leader.
[17:24] And for you to achieve all those things
[17:25] you've just described, you'll need to
[17:26] have, you know, productive relationship
[17:28] with the United States. Trump if all
[17:30] follows the law won't be able to be
[17:32] elected. So it'll probably be a
[17:33] different leader by the time that you
[17:35] were in power. Although I know that you
[17:37] know there could be a vote of no
[17:38] confidence which mean that you could get
[17:39] into power earlier.
[17:41] >> Your relationship with Trump good, bad,
[17:44] indifferent.
[17:44] >> I've never met him.
[17:46] >> I've never spoken to him. No, I don't
[17:48] have. No. Um I made the decision that uh
[17:51] we have one prime minister at a time and
[17:53] because we are negotiating a trade deal
[17:56] or it's more like a review of an
[17:57] existing deal uh I don't want our side
[18:00] as Canadians to be divided even though I
[18:02] obviously disagree with my prime
[18:04] minister on a whole range of policy
[18:05] issues. I don't want to uh undermine in
[18:09] any way the the Canadian side of the
[18:11] bargaining table. I would only do that
[18:13] kind of conversation with a teamwork uh
[18:15] with the current government. But what
[18:17] I've said is that our approach visa be
[18:19] Trump should be to focus on what we can
[18:21] control. So why not focus on what what
[18:24] we can do at home? Um unlock our
[18:26] resources, build up a strategic reserve
[18:29] of of minerals that are important to our
[18:33] American friends, but also to our other
[18:35] allies. Clear the way to export more
[18:38] goods to overseas markets. uh build
[18:40] alliances with the United Kingdom, New
[18:43] Zealand, Australia uh to diversify and
[18:46] become more self-sufficient.
[18:48] >> You keep using this word unlock.
[18:50] >> Yes.
[18:50] >> And clear the way.
[18:51] >> Yes.
[18:52] >> What are you referring to when you say
[18:53] clear the way and unlock?
[18:55] >> Removing bureau bureaucratic obstacles.
[18:57] Um the the resources we have are
[19:00] massively profitable for the private
[19:03] sector to mine, refine, store, and ship
[19:08] as long as they can get the permits and
[19:10] the low enough taxes to do it. So we
[19:13] need to remove those obstacles so that
[19:15] it now becomes uh possible for private
[19:18] investment, not subsidized by
[19:20] government, no handouts for business,
[19:23] but private investment to unlock and
[19:25] unblock those resources. You're just
[19:27] saying there you don't want to get in
[19:28] the way of Mark Carney.
[19:30] >> Well, I I don't want to get in the way
[19:32] of of negotiations with a foreign
[19:34] country. I obviously my job is to to be
[19:38] his opposition in the House of Commons
[19:40] on domestic issues and even on
[19:42] international issues, but not to do so
[19:44] in a way that undermines the national
[19:45] interest.
[19:46] >> A lot of countries aren't like that. It
[19:48] was interesting because you're on Joe
[19:49] Rogan's show. It's got a global
[19:50] audience.
[19:50] >> Yes.
[19:51] >> So, you know, if you talk about him
[19:52] there, you're talking about him all over
[19:54] the world. And you said you wouldn't
[19:55] criticize the leader of the opposition
[19:58] unless you were in Canada. But you know
[20:00] that you know you're reaching everybody
[20:02] everywhere all the time.
[20:03] >> That's true.
[20:04] >> No, that's true. That's true. But uh I I
[20:06] just think it's it's a good principle to
[20:08] follow particularly during a negotiation
[20:11] that's happening across the border in
[20:13] that country. like you know I think it
[20:15] would be a little different if we were
[20:17] in normal times and there was no trade
[20:18] dispute or if we were in a country with
[20:20] which we have no particular contention
[20:22] that for me to say something critical
[20:24] about the government's policy back home
[20:26] would not have any repercussions for the
[20:28] nation but particularly over the next
[20:30] several months while these talks are are
[20:32] hopefully going to go on uh I want to
[20:34] get the best outcome for Canada and I
[20:36] have to put my country above myself.
[20:38] >> Why are you better than the current
[20:41] leader of the Canadian government? Well,
[20:44] what what what is it you offer that is
[20:45] better than what he has to offer?
[20:47] >> My mission is to make Canada the most
[20:51] affordable
[20:52] uh freest and richest country in the
[20:55] world. My upbringing, I grew up in very
[20:58] humble beginnings. I grew up surrounded
[21:00] by working-class people. Yeah, these are
[21:02] my folks. Yeah, that's an old one.
[21:04] >> Got a photo of you there and your your
[21:06] parents and your is it your stepbrother?
[21:08] Your half brother?
[21:09] >> Half brother. Yes. So, uh it's my dad
[21:11] and my my mother. or they were school
[21:13] teachers. Uh my brother is my half
[21:15] brother because we came from the same
[21:16] biological mother but a different
[21:19] biological fathers adopted into the same
[21:21] family. Kind of a complicated story.
[21:23] >> Your biological mother adopted you at 16
[21:25] years old.
[21:26] >> Put us up for adoption at 16 years old.
[21:28] She was 16 and then um then about 3
[21:31] years later she had another little boy
[21:33] and he Patrick was then uh adopted by
[21:36] the same parents.
[21:37] >> And they were two teachers that adopted
[21:38] you and Patrick.
[21:39] >> Yes, that's right. Yeah. I still
[21:40] remember when we went to pick him up. It
[21:42] was uh so we we went to this um we got a
[21:44] phone call and he said, "There's a
[21:46] little boy who happens to be half
[21:47] brothers with your with with Pierre.
[21:49] Would you like to to adopt him, too?"
[21:51] And he said, "Absolutely." So, we went
[21:53] over to this building and we walk into
[21:55] this room and there were all these rows
[21:57] of babies
[21:59] >> and uh you know, we walked past them and
[22:01] then we said, they said, "That's him
[22:03] right there." And that was when I met my
[22:04] brother. You know, we picked him up.
[22:06] That's why I thought that's where babies
[22:07] came from. There was a store. you know,
[22:09] we go to a store and get your your
[22:10] groceries. There's a store where you can
[22:11] go and get a baby. That's what I thought
[22:13] cuz that was my first experience with
[22:15] it. And um we brought him home and and
[22:17] we grew up in working-class
[22:18] neighborhoods. When I was about 3,
[22:20] fourish, uh we lost everything. We got
[22:23] smashed by high interest rates. My
[22:26] mother had had saved up enough to buy
[22:28] two little rental properties. We lost
[22:30] those and our home and had to borrow
[22:33] from our grandfather to get a down
[22:35] payment so we'd have a place to live. My
[22:37] dad was driving this old mobile that was
[22:39] falling apart and our neighbors were,
[22:41] you know, workingass folks. They were
[22:43] just, you know, electricians, uh, oil
[22:45] workers, police officers. So, that's
[22:48] those are the people I grew up with. And
[22:50] I always grew up admiring those those
[22:52] people, uh, admiring what they were able
[22:54] to do and believing that they were
[22:57] generally taken advantage of by
[22:59] government, never listened to, and
[23:01] definitely and kept on the outside of
[23:03] decision-m.
[23:04] And my mission has been to bring back
[23:07] what I call the promise of Canada that
[23:10] uh anyone can achieve anything. It
[23:12] doesn't matter if you start off as an
[23:13] adopted kid uh raised by school teachers
[23:16] uh or you know an immigrant from
[23:17] Batswana who uh grows up really poor. If
[23:21] you you work at it, you should be able
[23:23] to buy a house uh launch a business,
[23:26] become a you know a famous global
[23:28] podcaster uh or maybe cure a disease.
[23:31] And that was what Canada was all about.
[23:33] And that is what I'm trying to
[23:34] reinstate.
[23:36] >> What age do you get to meet your
[23:37] biological mother for the first time?
[23:39] >> 21 22. My adopted mother was very
[23:44] gracious because I said I won't meet my
[23:47] biological mother without the permission
[23:50] of my adopted mother. She did all the
[23:52] work of raising me. all the hardships,
[23:53] all of my she put up with all of my
[23:56] rambunctiousness and teenage years and
[23:58] uh drove me to hockey practice and you
[24:01] know emptied her bank account to pay for
[24:03] our food and stuff. So I did not want
[24:05] her to feel like she was going to be
[24:07] left behind or forgotten about or
[24:09] replaced. And I asked her, you know,
[24:11] would you be okay if I met her? And she
[24:14] said, "Yes, of course, cuz I won't
[24:15] always be here and I always want you to
[24:16] have a mother." And I thought that was
[24:18] um a really incredible thing to do
[24:21] because it's so big part such a big part
[24:24] of um a mother's identity is that they
[24:27] are the mother of that child. But to
[24:30] have a love that's so much deeper than
[24:33] that personal identity or interest is
[24:36] something I'll always remember. It's one
[24:37] of the most gracious things I've ever
[24:38] seen.
[24:39] >> I can see the emotion in your face as
[24:40] you say it.
[24:41] >> Yeah.
[24:42] >> It's still there.
[24:43] >> Yeah. I hadn't thought about that in a
[24:45] while.
[24:50] What beautiful people.
[24:51] >> Yes, we're very blessed. And uh
[24:54] um and it's and it's it's it's people
[24:56] like these that inspire me that uh keep
[24:59] me going in in uh in this crazy world of
[25:02] politics.
[25:03] >> So you get to meet your biological
[25:05] mother at 21, 22.
[25:06] >> Yeah, around that.
[25:07] >> Yeah.
[25:08] >> What does one say? What are the
[25:09] questions one needs to ask if any?
[25:15] I'm trying to remember. We went on we
[25:16] went on a bit of a road trip from uh
[25:18] Ottawa to Montreal and we just got to
[25:21] know each other. Uh she had a lot of uh
[25:24] questions about how my life had been and
[25:27] uh I had a lot of questions about our
[25:29] our biological family, about her father
[25:31] who was a really great man. I would go
[25:33] on to meet a great Irishman
[25:36] and um the circumstances that led to my
[25:40] my conception and and birth. And I
[25:43] really came to understand her decision
[25:45] to put me up for adoption. And I've
[25:47] never been resentful for it at all. She
[25:48] she was 16. She just lost her mother to
[25:51] a heart attack. She um didn't have a lot
[25:55] of means. And she just made a selfless
[25:56] decision that we would have more
[25:58] opportunity if we were raised by someone
[25:59] else.
[26:00] >> Did you ever learn anything about your
[26:02] biological father?
[26:03] >> Yes. Yeah. He he works at at a um a
[26:09] concrete plant in British Columbia. And
[26:11] so I went and met him. He's a great
[26:13] father with children that that he
[26:14] subsequently had and raised and and so
[26:17] he he's a very good man as well. And my
[26:19] my adoptive father is a a teacher and uh
[26:22] he gave me a lot of uh wonderful lessons
[26:25] and I think is responsible for my way
[26:27] with words.
[26:29] >> Marlene and Donald.
[26:30] >> That's right.
[26:31] >> So Marlene's your adopted mother.
[26:33] Donald's your adopted father. They
[26:34] divorce when you're 12 years old.
[26:36] >> Yes. It would be around that time. I was
[26:38] in grade five.
[26:39] very difficult time for parents to
[26:41] divorce. Very difficult time. I remember
[26:43] that that period of life very very
[26:45] clearly because I remember one day my
[26:47] parents coming to me and telling me that
[26:48] they didn't love each other anymore that
[26:49] they were going to get a divorce. They
[26:50] didn't.
[26:51] >> Okay.
[26:51] >> But I remember bit which you know I
[26:53] think did enough damage for [laughter]
[26:55] but it was around that age and I I
[26:57] remember where I was stood in the house.
[26:59] I remember what I was wearing when they
[27:00] said that to me cuz it's
[27:01] earthshattering.
[27:03] >> It is actually.
[27:04] >> I just can't I can't unforget it. It was
[27:05] it was traumatizing. Well, we were my
[27:08] dad told me and he wanted to tell me
[27:10] alone. So, he we we got into uh the car.
[27:13] He said he wanted to take me for a drive
[27:15] and we drove to the local corner store
[27:17] and we parked in the car and he told me
[27:19] that there. But it is very traumatizing
[27:21] and um but at the same time like they
[27:25] were very very good parents. So, I I I
[27:28] don't judge them for how they ended up
[27:30] uh apart. Uh we were very blessed. Uh,
[27:33] you know, they gave me a great start in
[27:35] life. Even though they weren't together,
[27:37] they they loved us very much and they
[27:38] gave us all all they could.
[27:40] >> And Donald would would eventually come
[27:42] out as gay.
[27:42] >> That's right.
[27:43] >> One would assume that he was dealing
[27:44] with the conflict of feelings.
[27:47] >> Yes.
[27:48] >> For much of the time,
[27:49] >> he had been raised in a very devotly
[27:51] French Catholic household and that's why
[27:52] we have a French name. And before he got
[27:55] married, he'd even consider going into
[27:56] the priesthood and he so he was a very
[27:58] devoutly Catholic person. He genuinely
[28:00] loved my mother, but obviously he wasn't
[28:03] programmed uh that way. You know, he has
[28:05] a wonderful partner and we're friends
[28:07] with uh very close with him and his
[28:09] partner Ross right now.
[28:11] >> Do you see how that's changed you as a
[28:13] man um as you've grown up, whether it's
[28:15] your sort of your perspective on what
[28:17] love and romance is or anything else? I
[28:20] think that if everything just been, you
[28:21] know, white picket fences and, you know,
[28:24] hu, you know, totally predictable and as
[28:27] then then I wouldn't be the kind of
[28:29] person I am today. I think it's also,
[28:32] you know, it's it's like you I would you
[28:34] have been as successful as you are if
[28:36] you had had a very easy childhood? I
[28:38] doubt it. I bet all the the hardships
[28:40] that you had and the the twists and
[28:43] turns that took you from Batswana to the
[28:44] United Kingdom and and then onward
[28:47] probably gave you some superpower. And
[28:49] so uh this I think it gave me the chance
[28:52] to understand that you have you don't
[28:53] judge people. You you love them for who
[28:56] they are. My parents also taught me an
[28:59] important lesson that uh Shakespeare
[29:01] says to thine own self be true. Um my
[29:04] mother had when she was a a small baby,
[29:08] she was in a car accident and her
[29:10] fingers were burned off and she had
[29:11] horrible scars um horrible burns on her
[29:14] hand at the time. And as I got to my
[29:18] adolescence, I said to my dad, um did it
[29:21] ever bother you when you started dating
[29:22] her that she she had this injury?
[29:26] And he said, "No, because it didn't
[29:28] bother her. She was totally at peace and
[29:31] she never hid it." It wasn't long after
[29:33] we met that I forgot it was even there.
[29:36] And the message that I took from that is
[29:39] be yourself. Don't try to hide the
[29:42] scars. Scars are the trophies of
[29:44] survival.
[29:46] So those are some of the the lessons
[29:48] that my mother and father taught me. And
[29:49] my dad was the same about who he was. He
[29:52] just lived his life unapologetically and
[29:55] openly and he never apologized for who
[29:57] he was. And that has stayed with me.
[30:00] When you speak of Marlene, you you speak
[30:01] up with her with a great fondness and
[30:03] expression in your face that you know I
[30:04] sit I've sat here six 700 times. So you
[30:06] get to see who matters most to people in
[30:09] their lives just by looking at their
[30:10] face.
[30:12] And she's she's clearly on the podium.
[30:16] >> Yeah. She's a very feisty little lady,
[30:18] very short and very uh very forceful.
[30:22] She she taught me a lot about being, you
[30:24] know, pugnacious and fighting for what
[30:26] you want and what you need in life. and
[30:29] um [laughter] and we argued a lot when I
[30:32] was a kid and I think that maybe forged
[30:34] some of my current uh political uh
[30:37] argumentation as well. My wife is a has
[30:39] a big part of it as well. She's a very
[30:41] strong feisty intelligent lady with an
[30:44] incredible upbringing as well. She's a a
[30:46] refugee from Venezuela and came with
[30:49] really nothing. And so she has this sort
[30:51] of maggyver like skill set to to get
[30:54] anything done no matter how difficult
[30:57] the logistics. So I've been very very uh
[30:59] blessed with strong women around me.
[31:02] >> At a very young age, it appears that you
[31:04] took a a liking to politics. I mean you
[31:08] I mean you mentioned hockey first and
[31:10] Marlene taking you to hockey. I've got a
[31:12] found a couple of photos of you playing
[31:13] hockey which I found to be quite
[31:14] interesting but um
[31:15] >> yes
[31:16] >> but politics when did politics come into
[31:19] your your psyche?
[31:20] >> I would have been uh kind of in my mid-
[31:22] teens. Well, I I got into football, hurt
[31:25] my back in football, so I couldn't stay
[31:28] on the team. My mother had always gone
[31:30] to these sort of local conservative
[31:32] meetings. Um sometimes just bringing
[31:34] baked goods or uh attending a volunteer
[31:37] meeting. And I said, "Well, why don't
[31:38] you bring me to one of those cuz I'm
[31:40] bored out of my skull." And she did.
[31:42] This gives me meaning. This gives me
[31:44] purpose. I want to go and pursue this.
[31:46] So, I started getting more and more
[31:48] involved. I got an internship uh making
[31:50] almost no money and uh and dressing up
[31:53] in a used suit and really threw myself
[31:56] fully into this mission.
[31:58] >> One of the books that I um I realized
[32:00] you'd read at that time from some
[32:01] research is this book Adam Smith the
[32:03] theory of moral sentiments.
[32:05] >> Yes. So this is this really this book
[32:09] has to be accompanied by its more famous
[32:12] sister book which is the wealth of
[32:14] nations which that's the book that most
[32:16] people know Adam Smith for. think of him
[32:18] as kind of the father of capitalism
[32:20] because in 1776
[32:22] he wrote this book which described what
[32:25] we now call the free market system. And
[32:28] this was a really revolutionary idea
[32:30] because up until then we basically had
[32:32] various forms of feudalism.
[32:34] >> What's that?
[32:34] >> Where a small group of lords and knights
[32:37] and aristocrats control all the land and
[32:41] the the the great masses do all the
[32:43] work. And so you called them surfs. They
[32:46] would uh do all the heavy labor and then
[32:48] the lords of the manor would would take
[32:50] all of the benefit. Along came the
[32:53] system of free enterprise that Adam
[32:55] Smith describes which is basically it
[32:58] has a very simple premise voluntary
[33:00] exchange of work for wages, product for
[33:03] payment and investment for interest. And
[33:06] that the economy rather than being
[33:08] guided by the iron fist of the king or
[33:11] the state is guided by the invisible
[33:13] hand of the free market. And this had
[33:16] been it had been thought that this was
[33:17] crazy. How could the economy just sort
[33:19] of run itself? And the answer is through
[33:21] price signals. If the price of something
[33:23] goes up, people just automatically start
[33:25] making more of it. And if you need more
[33:27] workers to make that thing, well, you
[33:28] raise the wages and all of a sudden,
[33:30] what do you know? The workers arrive.
[33:32] And this system is absolutely ingenious.
[33:35] Like, it's why when you go into a coffee
[33:37] shop and you buy your coffee, you say
[33:39] thank you. They don't say you're
[33:40] welcome. They say thank you because they
[33:43] have something worth more to them than
[33:44] they had before, the money, and you have
[33:46] something worth more to you than you had
[33:48] before. And this voluntary exchange puts
[33:50] everyone on equal scale. Even if you're
[33:52] a massive corporation, you want to sell
[33:54] something to a 15-year-old kid, you have
[33:56] to convince them that's worth more than
[33:57] the cost. So, everybody has to be better
[34:00] off in the exchange for it to occur. And
[34:02] that was how free enterprise formed. And
[34:05] it has led to a spectacular increase in
[34:08] the quality of living and the economic
[34:10] growth 200fold increase in economic
[34:12] growth in the in the free enterprise era
[34:14] versus the feudal era. So a lot of
[34:17] people thought Adam Smith is only
[34:19] interested in a in a system where people
[34:21] are out serving themselves their
[34:24] self-interest. That's what they took
[34:26] from the statement in the wealth of
[34:27] nations that it is not from the b
[34:29] benevolence of the brewer, the baker or
[34:32] the butcher that we get our meal but
[34:35] from his own self-interest.
[34:37] But that was only half the story. The
[34:39] other half was in this book called the
[34:41] theory of moral sentiments in which he
[34:44] explains how self-interest overlaps with
[34:49] virtue. So what he said is that we have
[34:53] something called fellow feeling which is
[34:56] to say we feel for the other person and
[35:00] we feel good when someone else does
[35:02] good. It's why we explain that you know
[35:05] people donate to charity or they leave
[35:07] the door open for a stranger or they
[35:09] might help an injured person uh on the
[35:12] street because they feel bad when they
[35:14] see someone else their fellow suffering
[35:16] and they feel good when they see him
[35:18] succeeding. And that's why it's called
[35:20] sentiments because you feel these
[35:21] things. I saw this in my own son. He um
[35:24] for the first time he got a little toy
[35:26] and he gave it to his sister. It was the
[35:28] first gift he'd ever given his life. And
[35:30] he was so happy. Like he literally ran
[35:33] in a big circle around our the foyer of
[35:35] our of our residence and just laughing
[35:37] and screaming. It just made him so
[35:39] happy. Happier than she was to even
[35:41] receive it. And this is the best of
[35:43] human nature that his interest, his
[35:45] happiness was served by seeing his his
[35:48] sister better off. And this is really
[35:51] laid out in some detail in the theory of
[35:53] moral sentiments. And it for me it's
[35:55] like it like brings together all of
[35:58] human nature in one place. Now he's not
[36:01] naive. He does accept that there are
[36:03] bad, you know, dark angels in our
[36:04] nature, but he gives the only plausible
[36:07] explanation that I have seen about how
[36:09] you intersect self-interest with
[36:13] altruism.
[36:14] >> And how did that change your perspective
[36:16] and therefore you know your policies and
[36:18] your career? I have found that
[36:23] those who push a socialist ideology have
[36:26] a gross contradiction
[36:29] in their view of human nature. They say
[36:33] that human beings are wretched,
[36:35] self-interested, greedy when they're in
[36:38] the private voluntary economy, but
[36:41] they're angels when they're in the
[36:42] governmental economy. And therefore they
[36:44] argue that the government should just
[36:45] control everything because then we have
[36:47] all these angels that will decide for
[36:50] us, decide what we get to where how our
[36:52] money is spent, what we're supposed to
[36:53] believe in the modern day what kind of
[36:56] vehicles we drive, what we should think.
[36:59] Um but that is a a huge contradiction.
[37:02] If a if a man if man is not capable of
[37:04] deciding for himself, surely he's not
[37:06] capable of deciding for others. And I
[37:08] think the worst the worst vices in human
[37:11] nature come out when there is too much
[37:13] power and concentrated in their hands.
[37:16] Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So
[37:19] my ideology is that we should disperse
[37:22] power that it should be a bottom-up
[37:24] system with as much freedom and agency
[37:26] as humanly possible that people should
[37:28] be free to choose for themselves and
[37:31] that the go the purpose of the
[37:32] government is to do only those things
[37:34] people cannot do for themselves. I guess
[37:36] if there's, you know, socialists
[37:38] listening now, they might think, well,
[37:40] we tried this sort of capitalistic
[37:41] approach to the economy and it's
[37:44] resulted in us being able to buy less uh
[37:47] food and vegetables for our money. It's
[37:49] mean the price has gone up at the pumps.
[37:51] People are struggling. It seems that
[37:53] inequality has widened and the the
[37:55] working class seem to be struggling more
[37:57] now than ever before. They can't buy
[37:58] homes anymore like my my parents or my
[38:01] grandparents could could have. So
[38:03] clearly we need socialism they would
[38:05] argue because the current system has not
[38:07] worked.
[38:08] >> Well, what we have now is socialism for
[38:11] the very rich. We have governments that
[38:13] are actively redistributing wealth from
[38:15] the working class to the very very
[38:18] wealthy. And that is why we see record
[38:22] inequality. Government is actively
[38:24] intervening in the economy to forcefully
[38:26] redistribute wealth up the chain.
[38:30] >> Up the chain.
[38:30] >> Absolutely. And there are countless
[38:32] examples of it. When they block home
[38:34] building with heavy regulations, they
[38:36] limit the supply of homes. Those who
[38:37] have mansions therefore are wit richer
[38:39] because their houses are worth more. But
[38:42] young people, newcomers, working-class
[38:43] people can't actually get a home. Uh
[38:46] that is a one example of state
[38:48] intervention. Well, we could do maybe do
[38:50] an illustration here.
[38:51] >> Okay. So, this is um this is the total
[38:53] amount of land in Canada.
[38:55] >> Yes.
[38:55] >> Where homes could be built. And actually
[38:57] this is quite reflective I think of the
[38:59] much of the western world even the UK
[39:02] >> and this is a penny.
[39:03] >> Yes.
[39:03] >> Do you you understand this
[39:04] demonstration?
[39:05] >> Yes. I think what you're trying to say
[39:06] is that this is about how much land we
[39:08] live on.
[39:08] >> Yes.
[39:09] >> Yes.
[39:09] >> So um Canada is a great example of this
[39:13] because we have 10 times as much land
[39:16] per person as the second closest G7
[39:18] country. And yet we have the fewest
[39:22] homes per capita to live in. And why is
[39:25] that? It's because that the vast
[39:27] majority of the cost that goes into
[39:28] building a new home is not land, labor,
[39:33] or lumber. It's government. It's
[39:36] government taxes, fees, charges, uh,
[39:39] bureaucracy,
[39:40] lobbyists, consultants. So if you think
[39:43] of this home here,
[39:46] this home here in Canada, when you buy
[39:50] this house, more of the money for your
[39:51] purchase would go to bureaucrats in
[39:53] office buildings than to the carpenters,
[39:56] electricians, and plumbers who actually
[39:58] build the home.
[39:59] >> Why? How?
[40:00] >> Because the bureaucracy has grown like
[40:02] um any organism in nature which seeks to
[40:05] to survive and multiply. They uh give us
[40:08] the second slowest building permits of
[40:10] any country in the OECD. They charge
[40:13] enormous development taxes which started
[40:16] out just to pay for plumbing and and
[40:19] roads for the the related housing but
[40:22] now have grown into just a huge cash cow
[40:25] for local governments because sales
[40:26] taxes still apply on most new homes. And
[40:29] all of that gets consp.
[40:36] In fact, we [music] uh we are the most
[40:37] expensive in the G7 even though we
[40:40] should be it should be dirt cheap to own
[40:42] a home in Canada because we have the
[40:43] most dirt to build on. Uh and my goal is
[40:47] to remove all of that bureaucracy speed
[40:50] have the fastest permits in the world
[40:52] and and make it tax-free to build homes
[40:55] so that everyone can afford one. I was
[40:57] reading some stat that said, again, I
[40:59] might butcher this a little bit, but it
[41:00] said that Canada needs to build between
[41:03] four roughly 450,000 new homes every
[41:06] single year until 2035.
[41:09] >> Yes.
[41:09] >> Just to restore affordability.
[41:11] >> That's right. And we're building about
[41:14] 240,000 per year. So, we need to roughly
[41:18] double our home building to do that. The
[41:21] good news is we have 100,000 Well, it's
[41:23] not good news. We have 100,000
[41:25] unemployed construction workers who'd be
[41:26] happy to pick up a hammer and start
[41:29] building. We have hundreds of billions
[41:31] of dollars of investment that's ready to
[41:33] do it. We have an abundance of land.
[41:35] What we need are fast permits and low
[41:36] taxes so that we can unlock that
[41:38] building.
[41:39] >> What is the case for slow permits?
[41:41] >> There isn't one.
[41:43] >> There isn't one.
[41:43] >> Zero. There is no benefit to having slow
[41:46] permits. They do not protect the
[41:48] environment. They do not uh protect
[41:50] public safety. We used to build houses
[41:54] um a lot faster and they didn't fall
[41:56] down. After the Second World War,
[41:58] permits were almost instantaneous. We
[42:00] had a massive buildup of homes so that
[42:02] our returning veterans could have a
[42:03] place to live. In many neighborhoods of
[42:05] Canada, those homes are still standing.
[42:07] They have not collapsed. There's no I'm
[42:10] not saying we get rid of building codes.
[42:12] They should all have to follow standards
[42:15] of environmental responsibility and be
[42:17] fire resistant and and safe. But it
[42:20] doesn't it shouldn't take seven years to
[42:21] approve a subdivision to do that. We we
[42:23] know how the the developers know how to
[42:26] build according to the rules. They just
[42:28] need quick permits and freed up land to
[42:30] do it.
[42:30] >> You'd think now with AI you'd be able to
[42:32] approve these permits within minutes.
[42:34] >> Look, with all the technology, housing
[42:36] should be so much cheaper than it than
[42:38] it was before. Uh in fact, everything
[42:41] should be so much cheaper. But this is
[42:43] another area where government is re
[42:45] redistributing wealth from the working
[42:47] class to the super rich. It's the
[42:50] monetary inflation where we're creating
[42:53] cash at a far faster rate than we're
[42:56] creating the stuff that cash buys. We've
[42:58] in Canada increased the number of homes
[43:01] over the last 10 years by 13%. But we've
[43:04] increased the money supply by 100%. In
[43:07] other words, there is now eight the the
[43:10] growth in the money supply is eight
[43:11] times faster than the growth in the
[43:13] growth in the housing supply,
[43:14] >> which means for the average person that
[43:17] it bids up the price. Now, you might
[43:19] say, well, if everybody's equally
[43:20] getting their share of that money, then
[43:24] who cares? But they're not. There's
[43:26] something called the Catalon effect,
[43:28] which is that the first people to touch
[43:30] the money in a uh monetary expansion are
[43:33] those who are already wealthy and
[43:35] already connected to the financial
[43:37] system. So when government creates cash
[43:39] to fund its deficits, it doesn't just
[43:41] dump the the bills out of an airplane
[43:42] into a suburban neighborhood. It injects
[43:45] it into the banking system by buying
[43:47] government bonds at inflated prices. And
[43:49] those who trade in those bonds are the
[43:51] first to get the cash. Those connected
[43:52] to the to the financial system are the
[43:54] first to borrow it. they get to deploy
[43:56] it before it loses its value. By the
[43:58] time it trickles down to the
[43:59] workingclass people, it's lost its value
[44:02] and their wages have been destroyed. And
[44:05] this has been happening on and off
[44:06] throughout all of human history. But
[44:09] it's been particularly bad in the last
[44:10] 55 years. And that is why I think the
[44:13] working class across the Western world
[44:15] is so angry.
[44:16] >> Canada have consistently dropped down
[44:18] the sort of happiness league table.
[44:20] >> Well, actually from 2015 we've gone from
[44:23] fifth to 25th. the 18th. We went from
[44:26] 18th to 25th just in the last year.
[44:28] >> So you were the fifth happiest country
[44:30] in the world and now you're 25th.
[44:31] >> That's right. And part of it is food. We
[44:34] have the worst food price inflation in
[44:36] the G7 today. It's due to a lot of
[44:39] hidden taxes that are baked into food
[44:41] production. Uh we have an industrial
[44:43] carbon tax that it charges on farm
[44:45] equipment, fertilizer, and uh food
[44:48] producers. We have a new fuel tax that's
[44:51] just come in. single-use plastic is now
[44:54] banned, which makes it that so that food
[44:56] goes bad about five days quicker. So, it
[44:59] sounds kind of very virtuous. We're not
[45:00] going to use plastic anymore, but it
[45:02] ultimately means food uh goes bad and
[45:04] and somebody pays for that. So, uh we we
[45:08] need I want to get rid of all of those
[45:09] taxes and fees and unnecessary
[45:12] regulations that do nothing for our
[45:14] health and safety so that we can have
[45:16] more affordable food. But um more
[45:19] broadly, we have to get rid of the the
[45:21] monetary inflation that I described. As
[45:24] I said, we've doubled our money supply
[45:26] in Canada from 1.4 trillion to 2.8
[45:30] trillion in 10 years. So, it is not
[45:32] actually that these things cost more.
[45:34] It's that the money with which we buy
[45:36] them is worth less
[45:38] >> because
[45:39] >> because we're creating so much of it.
[45:41] And it's
[45:41] >> and why why are you doing that?
[45:43] >> To fund deficits
[45:44] >> to pay for debts.
[45:45] >> That's right. And that's why all
[45:47] government, it's not just Canada, by the
[45:48] way, it's across the Western world,
[45:50] they're creating cash to fund deficits.
[45:52] >> And the deficits come from having a big
[45:54] government.
[45:55] >> Yes.
[45:56] >> Government that's too big.
[45:57] >> That's right.
[45:57] >> That's too involved.
[45:58] >> That's right. And the result is that
[46:01] we're we're creating cash faster than we
[46:03] grow food, build homes, or produce
[46:06] energy. And my mission, Stephen, is to
[46:09] flip that. I want us to create more of
[46:12] what kash buys by unblocking food
[46:15] production, energy production and home
[46:17] building so that we add those things
[46:19] faster than we add what um we add the
[46:23] cash to the system.
[46:24] >> Why I mean I saw this graph here this
[46:27] chart which is GDP per capita with
[46:29] international counterparts. So on there
[46:31] it has Canada, United States, OECD and
[46:34] it shows it's quite stark. It shows that
[46:36] Canada has basically plateaued in terms
[46:37] of GDP per capita. What does for the
[46:39] average person what is GDP per capita?
[46:42] What does that actually mean?
[46:43] >> It's your income really. It's the it it
[46:46] ultimately the GDP gross domestic
[46:49] product is the the value of all the
[46:51] things that you produce. If you're
[46:54] producing more per person over time,
[46:58] people will see their wages rise, their
[47:00] real wages rise. If you don't produce
[47:02] more per person, then your wages are
[47:04] flat. And so that is what we've
[47:07] effectively had in Canada over the last
[47:10] 10 years.
[47:11] >> Why? [snorts]
[47:14] >> Because we we are not unlocking our
[47:18] resources. Our biggest industry is oil
[47:20] and gas and it's locked behind uh very
[47:23] aggressive anti-development laws and
[47:26] bureaucracies because we're we're
[47:28] blocking home building and because we're
[47:29] overt taxing our population. We're
[47:31] punishing initiative with high taxes.
[47:34] The good news is that we can reverse all
[47:35] of these things. If we we have the most
[47:38] prodevelopment, and the fastest permits
[47:40] in the world, if we cut taxes on work,
[47:42] investment, home building, and energy,
[47:44] then we can massively increase our
[47:47] output of the things that we need to
[47:49] have a good life and the wages that
[47:51] people earn to buy it.
[47:53] >> This seems to be a familiar story across
[47:55] some Western nations.
[47:56] >> It is.
[47:57] >> What are those Western nations and what
[47:58] is the thing that they've all got in
[48:00] wrong in common?
[48:02] Well, I think that it's probably true in
[48:03] the UK and the European Union as well.
[48:07] Well, let's take Germany. They shut down
[48:09] their nuclear sector and they tried to
[48:11] effectively drive oil and gas out of
[48:13] their country. The end result was
[48:15] extremely high energy costs. And this
[48:18] was another intervention that took from
[48:19] workingclass people and gave to the very
[48:21] rich. Those who were able to get the
[48:23] subsidies for windmills and solar panels
[48:25] got fabulously wealthy, all very
[48:27] powerful people. But the workers in the
[48:30] in the plants and the mines of rural
[48:32] Germany ended up losing their jobs and
[48:35] paying higher prices for electricity.
[48:37] All of which, by the way, has been
[48:39] reversed because now the Germans are
[48:40] back to burning coal. So it did
[48:42] absolutely nothing for the environment.
[48:44] Uh this is another example of government
[48:46] intervention totally screwing over the
[48:48] working class, a phenomenon across the
[48:50] western world. And this is the big lie.
[48:53] The big lie is that when government gets
[48:55] big, it gives people their fair share.
[48:57] What it does in fact is it gives the
[48:58] money and the resources to those who
[49:00] have the most political power. Those
[49:02] people are all rich and it pays for it
[49:04] by taking from the working class. So my
[49:06] mission in politics is to reverse that
[49:08] entire approach. Have a small government
[49:10] with big people, a meritocracy that
[49:13] rewards work and a free enterprise
[49:15] system that requires businesses compete
[49:18] for workers with higher wages and
[49:20] consumers with lower prices.
[49:22] >> I'm looking here at the GDP forecasts
[49:24] for various countries around the world.
[49:26] In the United States, uh, GDP forecast
[49:28] looks like it's, um, it's been pretty,
[49:30] you know, pretty strong relative to
[49:32] others. Canada looks like it's going
[49:33] down. 2025 estimates 1.7%,
[49:37] 26 estimates 1.3. The United Kingdom as
[49:40] well seems to have been lagging. Um,
[49:43] both the United States and Canada. And
[49:45] Germany, as you said, in 2024, their GDP
[49:47] growth was only 0.2, two, which is
[49:50] hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and
[49:51] hundreds of percentages lower than the
[49:53] United States, Canada, or even the UK.
[49:56] But clearly there is a problem with GDP
[49:57] growth here
[49:58] >> um for Canada, for the United Sta, for
[50:01] the United Kingdom relative to a country
[50:03] like the United States. It looks like
[50:04] the United States are doing something
[50:06] right.
[50:06] >> If you look at GDP growth is the main
[50:08] measure.
[50:09] >> Look, um there are some policies that we
[50:13] can learn from. Um it's not just the
[50:15] United States though. Look at uh look at
[50:18] Switzerland for example. Uh the Swiss
[50:20] are among the wealthiest in the world.
[50:22] They have the best money, the lowest
[50:23] inflation. They have almost no inflation
[50:25] in Switzerland by the way. They have
[50:27] very strong money. The the Swiss Frank
[50:30] is the best currency in the world,
[50:32] better than the euro or the American
[50:33] dollar. What do they have? Free
[50:35] enterprise, small government. the share
[50:37] of of the economy consumed by government
[50:39] spending is significantly lower than
[50:41] anywhere else in the western world um
[50:44] outside of uh outside of Asia and so
[50:47] they do very well. How is it that the
[50:48] Singaporeans have become one of the
[50:50] wealthiest nations on earth? They have
[50:52] no resources, literally nothing. They
[50:55] have to import their water for God's
[50:57] sakes. They they took an a swampy uh
[51:00] mosquitoinfested island and three
[51:03] peoples who were struggling to survive
[51:06] in their homelands and they came
[51:07] together and created the wealthiest
[51:09] country in the world outside of the Gulf
[51:11] States. Why? They have free enterprise.
[51:13] They have low taxes. It's easy to start
[51:15] a business. You're rewarded for your
[51:17] hard work. This is the kind of thing we
[51:18] could be doing.
[51:19] >> So looking at the numbers of Singapore,
[51:20] Singapore operates in a league of its
[51:22] own, outperforming both the UK, Canada,
[51:24] and the USA in terms of growth. um and
[51:27] per capita wealth as a hub economy. It
[51:30] is currently riding the wave of the
[51:31] global AI boom because they've enabled
[51:33] entrepreneurship and it is more than GD
[51:36] from a GDP perspective last year more
[51:39] than double the United States GDP
[51:40] growth. Um and I mean it's it's left uh
[51:44] Canada and the United Kingdom and even
[51:45] Switzerland in its tracks in that
[51:47] regard. Interesting.
[51:48] >> It's a spectacular achievement. And I
[51:50] mean uh Lee Kuanlu who founded the
[51:52] country and created this miracle uh
[51:55] should be studied by every leader in the
[51:57] world. Um because I don't think there's
[51:59] anyone who's been able to generate such
[52:00] a a a massive uh increase in the quality
[52:04] of life and to do it with literally no
[52:06] resources whatsoever except for
[52:09] geography that and they managed to
[52:10] exploit their geography as you said to
[52:13] be kind of like modern-day Nabotans.
[52:15] They're a trading hub uh for for all of
[52:17] Asia. Every sort of economic policy or
[52:21] philosophy does have a trade-off.
[52:23] >> I mean, it's one thing you learn as a
[52:24] podcaster. There's just always
[52:25] trade-offs. And if you're not clear on
[52:27] what the trade-offs are, then they might
[52:28] surprise you,
[52:29] >> right?
[52:29] >> I mean, that, you know, you can talk
[52:31] about socialism or you can talk about
[52:32] capitalism, whatever. All of them have
[52:34] trade-offs. What are the trade-offs of
[52:36] your economic
[52:38] strategy and philosophy?
[52:40] >> Well, the the leadership has to have
[52:42] humility because it has to let go of
[52:44] power and and and turn it back to the
[52:46] people. And um that is a very hard thing
[52:48] for politicians to do. Um I mean uh no
[52:51] politician wants to have written on
[52:53] their gravestone. Um he stayed out of
[52:55] the way, left people alone so that they
[52:57] could do great things without him.
[52:59] [laughter]
[53:00] Although I think we'd be better off if
[53:02] more of them did. But I should also say
[53:04] that like there is a role for
[53:05] government. I'm not suggesting that
[53:07] there isn't. There there should be a
[53:08] basic social safety net that provides
[53:11] the things that people who are less
[53:13] advantaged would not be able to have for
[53:15] themselves to make sure that everyone
[53:16] has health care even if uh they can't
[53:18] afford to pay for it. That there's basic
[53:20] schooling and roads and infrastructure.
[53:23] But what happens is that once you get
[53:25] beyond providing those basics and
[53:27] government starts to to metastasize into
[53:29] well well uh all kinds of other things
[53:31] that are not its core responsibility
[53:34] each dollar spent has less and less
[53:36] return and then it turns into a negative
[53:38] return where the more they spend the
[53:40] more damage they do and I think we're
[53:42] beyond that point on the curve
[53:44] >> because I'm thinking about how
[53:45] immigration ties into all of this and to
[53:47] GDP growth. I think in Canada from the
[53:49] research I was doing there has been a
[53:51] decline in birth rates. Yes.
[53:53] >> So there's significantly less people
[53:55] getting married. There's significantly
[53:57] less people being born. So how does one
[53:59] run their economy when you're not having
[54:01] new children being born without bringing
[54:04] in lots of immigrants to to help support
[54:06] that economy?
[54:09] >> Well, first of all, I think we have to
[54:10] ask ourselves why has the birth rate
[54:12] gone down? And I I would argue that it's
[54:14] economic re reasons. Uh if you cannot
[54:16] afford a home, then you have no place to
[54:20] raise children. Um, you know, we have
[54:22] this phenomenon of in Canada of
[54:24] 35-year-olds still living in their
[54:25] parents' basements. And h how do you
[54:28] even get a date? I mean, how do you
[54:30] bring a date home? [laughter]
[54:32] You know, it's it's a challenge if if
[54:36] you're 35. And these are great high
[54:38] achieving people who've got jobs, but
[54:41] they just can't afford a place to live
[54:43] or they're stuck in a a small apartment
[54:47] because that's all their paycheck will
[54:49] buy them in the way of rent. And so I
[54:52] think for those economic constraints, we
[54:54] we have a lot of young people who
[54:56] otherwise would love to have children in
[54:58] their late 20s, early 30s who simply
[55:00] have nowhere to raise them.
[55:02] >> Am I right in thinking that a lot of
[55:03] these western economies have allowed a
[55:05] lot of people into their countries to
[55:07] make up for
[55:09] the the willingness or desire or the
[55:11] availability of people to do the sort of
[55:13] low wage jobs? Is this is what is this
[55:16] what's happened globally? Because it's
[55:17] what people tell me in the UK. Yes, I
[55:19] think I frankly I think that a lot of
[55:20] multinational corporations have abused
[55:22] the immigration system in order to drive
[55:25] down wages. Um in Canada, for example,
[55:28] the government massively expanded um the
[55:31] international student and temporary
[55:32] foreign worker programs and that allowed
[55:36] corporations to pay artificially low
[55:38] wages to people who do not have the same
[55:42] mobility rights and opportunities. and
[55:45] that drove down wages, displaced people
[55:47] from their jobs and ultimately ballooned
[55:50] housing costs. And so my position is
[55:52] that we need to to cap numbers um and
[55:55] ensure that the the economy, healthcare
[55:58] and housing grows faster than the
[56:00] population at all times.
[56:01] >> If you cap numbers, does that mean that
[56:02] these corporations, these entrepreneurs,
[56:04] these companies don't have enough people
[56:07] to fill the roles in their companies and
[56:08] therefore have to move somewhere else?
[56:09] What what does it mean? No, we have
[56:11] unemployment. We have people without
[56:12] jobs. But they just some multinationals
[56:15] don't want to pay full wages. So they
[56:17] think, well, I just undercut the wage by
[56:20] bringing someone in from a very poor
[56:21] country who's willing to work for a lot
[56:23] less and who has fewer rights because
[56:25] they can't leave the job to go to
[56:26] another employer. So it's uh kind of
[56:29] like easy street. And so my view is that
[56:32] when you've got unemployed people and
[56:34] you're trying to fill your workplace,
[56:35] pay higher wages. Give uh give people a
[56:38] better return on their work. You've got
[56:40] unemployment. Are those people trained
[56:42] and skilled and willing to do the jobs
[56:45] that Canada needs them to do?
[56:47] >> Yes, absolutely. I mean, we have 100,000
[56:48] unemployed construction workers. They
[56:50] could be building the homes that we need
[56:52] built. Uh we have um young people coming
[56:54] out of um out of high school without a
[56:57] job. We have a 30-year highs in
[57:00] unemployment among youth. They should be
[57:03] getting those jobs. And you know,
[57:04] Starbucks says, "Well, they don't want
[57:06] to take them." Well, maybe you're not
[57:07] paying enough. If you're not paying the
[57:09] right wage, then you're not going to get
[57:10] the right worker. But pay an equivalent
[57:12] wage and you'll attract a worker who
[57:14] will who will do the job.
[57:15] >> Again, I'm trying to play devil's
[57:16] advocate here. So, you know, Starbucks
[57:18] increase wages. Yes. Which means that
[57:20] Starbucks then will increase the cost of
[57:22] a cup of coffee presumably.
[57:24] >> Well, unless they can find more
[57:25] efficient ways to run their systems. You
[57:28] know, more competition in the system
[57:30] will allow the worker to gain more and
[57:31] the consumer to pay less. and the
[57:34] entrepreneur in the middle has to find
[57:35] ways to to save and operate more
[57:37] efficiently. That's the magic of the
[57:39] market is that everybody has a a a
[57:42] vested interest in driving the most
[57:44] value for the lowest cost.
[57:46] >> One of the interesting ways lots of
[57:47] employers are finding ways to drive
[57:48] efficiencies is this new technology
[57:50] called AI,
[57:51] >> right?
[57:51] >> And again, maybe somewhat ironically
[57:53] here, Anthropic, who one of the world's
[57:55] leading AI companies, released a report
[57:57] two weeks ago. I'll throw the graph up
[57:59] on the screen, but it shows where job
[58:00] disruption will take place based on how
[58:02] people are currently using their tools.
[58:04] And one of the things they noticed is
[58:06] that there's been a
[58:08] increase by I think roughly 14% in youth
[58:11] unemployment because entry- levelvel
[58:12] jobs are the ones often in white collar
[58:15] industries that are being taken out
[58:16] first,
[58:16] >> right?
[58:17] >> And you hear these things and you go,
[58:18] oh, you know, that's some stats and
[58:19] whatever and it's, you know, not
[58:21] necessarily tanked the economy yet. But
[58:23] as an employer of hundreds and hundreds
[58:24] of people all over the world now, I have
[58:26] started to notice that the case for
[58:30] hiring certain groups of people is
[58:33] becoming much more tricky now because of
[58:36] these tools. And doesn't make me sound
[58:38] great saying that. It's not that we're
[58:39] not hiring hundreds of people, but
[58:40] there's this certain set when I look at
[58:42] specifically entry level grads. if they
[58:45] aren't really AI proficient, they are a
[58:48] lot less appealing in some roles than
[58:51] people young grads that that are
[58:52] extremely AI proficient. The problem is
[58:54] not many of them are. And that just in a
[58:57] company like mine, if you're AI
[58:59] proficient, really irrespective of age,
[59:00] and you know how to build this thing
[59:01] called AI agents, it's kind of like you
[59:04] come with 50 team members of your own.
[59:06] >> Wow.
[59:07] >> That's what it's like. So, I've got a
[59:08] kid called Cass here. You know, he's a
[59:10] young guy in his 20 his 20ies. He's
[59:13] built a team of agents that now work for
[59:15] him. So hiring Cass means I get Cass and
[59:19] his team of agents because he's
[59:20] proficient in that technology. Most of
[59:22] the workforce hasn't been trained
[59:24] because of the education system to know
[59:25] a thing about this. So it's becoming
[59:27] increasingly difficult to to hire entry-
[59:29] level people but actually all the way up
[59:31] the board unless you have deep expertise
[59:33] in a domain which would mean that I can
[59:36] get Cass to make you the agents. So like
[59:39] on my CFO, you know, for example, you
[59:41] know, 50 50 years working in finance,
[59:45] etc. deep expertise. I just need her and
[59:48] then she can build out a team of AI
[59:49] agents to work with her. Back in the
[59:51] day, if you'd got 5 years ago, I would
[59:53] have needed her and her to have a
[59:55] massive team of people, right?
[59:56] >> I say all this to say that there's a
[59:58] certain group in society, people that
[60:00] have deep domain expertise and people
[60:01] that are technical that I think are in
[60:04] higher demand than ever before. and
[60:06] everybody else um as AI continues to
[60:08] replace them through things like
[60:09] autonomous driving and um robotics is
[60:11] around the corner um is I I think there
[60:14] needs to be a real conversation about
[60:16] what happens to these people.
[60:17] >> Can I ask you a question?
[60:19] >> So
[60:20] throughout history we've had these
[60:22] scares where new technological
[60:24] developments
[60:26] have threatened to replace and in
[60:28] reality have replaced certain human
[60:30] labor. So you had like the during the
[60:32] industrial revolution machines were
[60:35] replacing muscular power and then you
[60:36] had the lites who came and tried to
[60:38] smash those machines to protect their
[60:39] jobs. In the end they just got different
[60:41] jobs with higher pay because they could
[60:43] do more with these machines and they
[60:45] didn't have to walk behind a you know a
[60:47] mule's ass pushing a pushing a plow in
[60:50] the hot sun all day. They had a tractor
[60:52] that would pull the plow um and so on
[60:54] and so forth. But and then in the in the
[60:57] dotcom era, we were told again that
[60:59] people are going to lose their jobs to
[61:00] computers.
[61:02] In fact, they were made more productive
[61:03] by computers. Do you think this time is
[61:06] fundamentally different than those prior
[61:09] technological revolutions?
[61:10] >> I would say first thing is nobody knows.
[61:14] The second thing I'd say is yes. Okay.
[61:16] >> And the reason I'd say yes is just the
[61:17] speed of disruption. So unlike the in
[61:20] the industrial revolution where you know
[61:21] it takes some time for the new
[61:23] technologies to become adopted because
[61:24] of the nature of their of what those
[61:26] technologies were this technology is
[61:28] built on the internet which has global
[61:30] distribution. So open claw is a good
[61:32] example of a technology that is very to
[61:35] to simplify it for the audience. It can
[61:37] do anything on my computer.
[61:40] So if I put a computer here on this
[61:42] table I can text openclaw on WhatsApp
[61:44] and tell it to go on this podcast right
[61:47] now. Look at the part of the
[61:48] conversation that was most replayed by
[61:50] the audience. Clip it. Add subtitles to
[61:52] it. Tweet it or send it to my Slack
[61:54] channel. I can get it to I'll tell tell
[61:56] you something I did the other day. I was
[61:58] in my house in Los Angeles and it was
[62:00] very very hot cuz there's a heat wave at
[62:01] the moment. So I said to it, can you can
[62:03] you go on take a look at my house online
[62:06] um buy me a umbrella that I can put
[62:09] because I like to work outside. I
[62:10] actually voiced it this and what it did
[62:12] is it went on Google Maps. It looked all
[62:13] around my house from all around the
[62:15] outside because it knew where I lived
[62:16] for some bizarre reason. It knew that I
[62:18] charcoal umbrella at a certain size
[62:21] would suit that table out there. It went
[62:23] on Amazon, found the charcoal umbrella,
[62:25] it ordered it, arrives at my house,
[62:27] >> and it transacted like you
[62:28] >> transacted because it had my my login
[62:30] details to transact on this particular
[62:31] website. So, but it's just, you know,
[62:34] the framing is it can do anything that
[62:35] you would you would do on a computer. um
[62:37] a lot of people work on computers and
[62:40] the speed of adoption that we're seeing
[62:41] is is staggering. So my my concern is
[62:43] actually the sort of near-term
[62:45] displacement before we figure out the
[62:47] types of jobs that um the types of new
[62:50] jobs and then with robotics on the way,
[62:52] you know, you hear someone like Elon
[62:53] Musk saying that there'll be more
[62:56] humanoid robots than humans, you know,
[62:59] and people say, well, you know, he's
[63:00] saying that because he's a he's got a
[63:02] vested interest, right? However, what
[63:04] I'd say is his timelines have sometimes
[63:06] not been right. But when he said he was
[63:08] going to make those spaceships land on
[63:10] chopsticks, the spaceships eventually
[63:13] >> Oh, he's a brilliant mind. Don't
[63:14] underestimate him.
[63:15] >> And my car out there drives itself
[63:17] [laughter] without without intervention.
[63:19] So,
[63:20] >> I don't know. It's a really interesting
[63:21] time. I can both see why this techn is
[63:23] going to change the world for the better
[63:25] and I believe it will. But then I'm just
[63:27] really concerned about certain economies
[63:28] and countries that aren't taking it
[63:30] seriously because they're so distracted
[63:32] by other things. Like a lot of them race
[63:34] baiting. A lot of them are like
[63:35] immigration seems to be the winning
[63:36] lever. Like just say the brown people
[63:38] are the problem. But I'm like maybe the
[63:40] alien is something else. Maybe the alien
[63:42] is are these agents that are actually
[63:44] going to take our jobs. I believe the
[63:46] basic human need is is meaning to have
[63:50] the a purpose in life. And often the
[63:53] question we have to ask is how can we
[63:56] guide
[63:57] this uh revolution in technology so that
[64:01] it empowers people to do things that
[64:04] continue to give them meaning. I think
[64:05] it was John Adams who said something to
[64:07] the effect of my father studied
[64:11] warfare so that I would have the
[64:13] security to study commerce. I study
[64:15] commerce so that my children will have
[64:17] the prosperity to study arts. If these
[64:21] new systems give us the ability to focus
[64:25] on the things that we love doing that
[64:27] give us meaning in our lives and that
[64:28] could be a different thing for each
[64:30] person
[64:31] while at the same time supplying with us
[64:33] with a lot of our material needs. It
[64:35] could be very positive. If it simply
[64:38] strips away our own utility and leaves
[64:40] lots of people without the ability to
[64:42] work at all, then it could be very very
[64:43] dangerous to to our our our lives. So,
[64:47] uh I think that we have the public
[64:49] policy objective is to to to ensure that
[64:51] it becomes an enabler of humanity, not a
[64:54] replacement for it.
[64:56] >> So, you could come into power in is it
[64:57] 2029 if there's no uh overthrowing of
[65:01] the the current leader? [snorts]
[65:03] >> 2029 is going to be an interesting time.
[65:05] uh if these sort of forecasts that we're
[65:07] getting from some of the world's leading
[65:08] experts in artificial intelligence and
[65:10] robotics come true, have you thought
[65:12] much yet about how you would counteract
[65:15] that? What you would do to make sure
[65:17] that there isn't huge job job disruption
[65:19] because you know a lot of a lot of
[65:21] people like Sam Alman have suggested
[65:23] through their actions that they might
[65:25] support things like universal basic
[65:27] income. In fact, Sam Alman's Sam Alman
[65:29] being the founder and um co-founder of
[65:31] OpenAI, which makes Chat GBT. I think
[65:34] his other startup is called WorldCoin,
[65:36] which uses your retina scan to to
[65:39] validate that you're a real human being
[65:41] so that you they can distribute money to
[65:44] people because in a world of AI, we're
[65:46] going to need to find a way to
[65:47] distribute wealth. And if you listen to
[65:49] Elon, he says, "We're going to live in
[65:50] the age of abundance where working is
[65:51] going to be optional." He says, "Now, if
[65:53] you're a surgeon and you're training to
[65:55] be a surgeon," he says, "Absolutely
[65:56] don't. Because in a couple of couple of
[65:58] years time there's going to be no human
[66:00] that's better than any AI surgeon.
[66:03] >> Wow. So if these things are true like
[66:05] surely you should be making plans
[66:08] and you know when a lot of smart you
[66:10] know I know they have an incentive
[66:11] they're raising money and they want they
[66:13] have a certain narrative which helps
[66:14] them raise money but if they are right
[66:18] the future looks very different from the
[66:20] past.
[66:21] >> That's true.
[66:22] >> Do you have a plan?
[66:24] I I have principles that I would apply
[66:26] as these technologies present
[66:28] themselves. And the principle for me is
[66:31] how do we make sure that the AI
[66:34] enables and empowers people to make more
[66:37] decisions for themselves and have more
[66:39] freedom and a and um to pursue their own
[66:42] meaning
[66:44] rather than replacing and rendering them
[66:47] um giving them a sense of of lost
[66:50] meaning and purpose. And so, do I think
[66:54] it's great that every minimum wage
[66:56] worker might have a personal assistant
[66:58] and a chauffeur vehicle? I do. Because
[67:00] that that would make more of their life
[67:02] uh uh they could spend on the the things
[67:05] that thrill them and make them happy and
[67:07] less of their life would be spent on the
[67:09] drudgery of having to drive in a traffic
[67:11] jam or uh or, you know, sweep their
[67:13] floor. Um but uh at the same time we
[67:17] have to make sure that that people have
[67:19] the ability to work and contribute and
[67:22] and give themselves a sense of meaning
[67:23] in their lives. So the other thing I
[67:26] would say is that as these technologies
[67:28] bring down costs, those savings should
[67:31] be passed on to people. They should not
[67:33] be inflated away. The government should
[67:35] not use this as an opportunity to just
[67:36] print more cash to reflate the cost of
[67:38] living. We should actually seek as our
[67:40] goal to lower the cost of living, make
[67:43] life more affordable, make our dollars
[67:45] go further, which is which hasn't
[67:47] happened in in generations. And so if
[67:50] technology is going to allow us to
[67:51] produce more for less, then let's make
[67:53] sure that the workingclass people
[67:54] actually enjoy that benefit rather than
[67:58] having it inflated away. It is quite
[67:59] concerning that you know if wealth does
[68:01] acrew to these big companies and you
[68:03] know people like Elon who incredible
[68:05] entrepreneur
[68:06] >> is going to become the world's first
[68:08] trillionaire right
[68:09] >> I don't think he'll be the last the way
[68:11] things are going with with artificial
[68:12] intelligence that and then if there is
[68:15] job disruption
[68:17] I do think there's going to potentially
[68:18] need to be some government intervention
[68:22] corrective government intervention do
[68:23] you not I don't know
[68:25] >> nobody knows exactly what's going to
[68:26] happen I mean it was you know um Paul
[68:29] Krugman, the Nobel Prizewinning uh
[68:32] economist who embarrassingly predicted
[68:35] that the internet would have no more
[68:36] impact on our lives than the fax
[68:38] machine.
[68:39] >> And and [clears throat] he's a Nobel
[68:40] Prize uh economist, I think, from
[68:41] Princeton or Yale or something. So
[68:44] nobody's Nostradamus on these things,
[68:46] but we have to have guiding principles
[68:49] and and mine are the rules around
[68:51] technology should always be geared
[68:52] towards giving people more agency, more
[68:55] meaning, and more control over their
[68:56] lives and not less.
[68:59] >> It's funny cuz I don't hear it reflected
[69:01] enough in political discourse. I hear us
[69:03] focusing on other things. And one of
[69:05] those things is immigration. across the
[69:08] western world, the subject of
[69:09] immigration seems to be a bit of a
[69:11] winning formula for political leaders.
[69:13] If I think about the UK, what Trump said
[69:16] about, you know, being invaded by
[69:18] rapists and murderers from the the
[69:20] southern border, do you feel that it's a
[69:22] it's a sort of a weaponized, divisive
[69:24] tool for people to get elected,
[69:26] complaining about the brown people or or
[69:29] foreigners? I
[69:30] >> I'll just give you the Canadian
[69:31] experience. So for roughly 200 years, we
[69:34] had the most successful immigration
[69:36] system in the world by far. In fact,
[69:38] other countries, both Republicans and
[69:40] Democrats in the United States used to
[69:42] say, "We need to study the Canadian
[69:43] system because it has been so
[69:44] successful." We had a point system that
[69:46] that measured whether someone would be a
[69:48] good fit for our labor market, whether
[69:50] they would would integrate well into our
[69:51] our system. And overwhelmingly, people
[69:54] integrated, intermarried, uh, you know,
[69:57] my wife is a is a refugee from
[69:59] Venezuela. That is not an uncommon story
[70:01] in Canada. What we encountered was a
[70:04] very sudden and inexplicable increase in
[70:06] the numbers uh in the period from 2021
[70:09] to 2024
[70:11] that was strictly out of line with our
[70:14] our ability to absorb people into
[70:17] housing, healthcare, and jobs. And this
[70:19] upset the the social piece on
[70:21] immigration that we had had for two
[70:23] centuries leading up to it. And um now
[70:27] everyone across the political spectrum
[70:30] agrees that it went too far too fast.
[70:33] And the approach that we're taking is
[70:36] that uh that we have to make it a lawful
[70:38] system. It has to follow the rules. You
[70:41] people have to come in legally in
[70:43] numbers that we can absorb and
[70:45] ultimately integrate into jobs, society,
[70:49] and uh our way of life. population
[70:51] cannot grow faster than the housing
[70:53] stock or you'll run out of places to
[70:55] live. It can't grow faster than the
[70:57] number of jobs or you'll run out of
[70:59] paychecks for people. And so we need a a
[71:02] controlled orderly system that's both
[71:05] compassionate and common sense.
[71:06] >> It's such a divisive subject. You've
[71:08] seen what's happened here in the United
[71:09] States with ICE,
[71:10] >> right? Yeah. It it's a it's a different
[71:13] situation in the US. Um we the
[71:17] immigration problem in the US goes back
[71:19] many many years. uh many many years of
[71:21] chaos at their the southern border. We
[71:23] didn't have that in Canada. Like that
[71:25] was unheard of. We we had roughly 1% of
[71:29] population immigrating to Canada for 200
[71:33] years. It was uncontroversial in Canada
[71:36] up until this very strange, inexplicable
[71:40] spike that really only helped very
[71:43] wealthy landlords and employers that
[71:47] wanted to drive wages down and rents up.
[71:49] they were the only beneficiaries of the
[71:52] extreme increase in numbers.
[71:54] >> If you don't get the replacement rate
[71:56] back up to a level where you're having
[71:58] enough kids in Canada,
[71:59] >> does it track that eventually you would
[72:01] have to rely on more immigration
[72:04] to solve for the sort of GDP issues?
[72:07] >> Look, economic immigration of
[72:09] high-skilled um people to our country is
[72:12] is has always been successful and uh
[72:16] nobody resents that. Uh, one of the
[72:19] things that we have to do though is when
[72:20] people get to Canada, they have to be
[72:22] able to fulfill their potential. In
[72:23] Canada today, we have these gatekeepers
[72:26] that block immigrant professionals from
[72:28] even working in their field. So, for
[72:30] example, we have 20,000 immigrant
[72:33] doctors and 32,000 immigrant nurses who
[72:35] can't work in medicine because they
[72:37] can't get a license to practice. There's
[72:39] this incredibly bureaucratic system they
[72:41] have to go through that takes eight or
[72:43] nine years to prove that they actually
[72:44] have the qualifications.
[72:46] I have it's so crazy that when I went in
[72:48] for my eye surgery, there's a technician
[72:50] there who literally flies to the UAE to
[72:54] do eye surgeries 10 days a month and
[72:57] then comes back to his family in Ottawa
[72:59] where we only let him work as as a
[73:01] technician. And so UAE is a more
[73:05] technologically advanced country than
[73:06] Canada. And eyeballs are the same in the
[73:09] UAE as they are in Canada. immigrants in
[73:12] Canada have historically been more
[73:14] educated than our Canadian-born
[73:16] population just in terms of their
[73:18] credentials, but have not been able to
[73:20] fulfill their work because our licensing
[73:23] system shuts them out. So, I want to fix
[73:25] that with a merit-based test that gets
[73:27] them into the high-paying jobs that will
[73:29] actually strengthen our economy.
[73:32] Much of the reason most people haven't
[73:34] posted content or built their personal
[73:35] brand is because it's hard and it's
[73:38] timeconuming and we're all very very
[73:39] busy and if you've never posted
[73:41] something before there's so many factors
[73:44] in your psychology that stop you wanting
[73:46] to post what people will think of you am
[73:48] I doing this right is the thing I'm
[73:50] saying absolutely stupid all of these
[73:53] result in paralysis which means you
[73:54] don't post and your feed goes bare I'm
[73:57] an investor in a company called Stanto
[74:00] which you've probably heard me talk
[74:01] about and what they've been building is
[74:02] this new tool called Stanley that uses
[74:04] AI, looks at your feed, looks at your
[74:06] tone of voice, looks at your history,
[74:07] looks at your best performing posts, and
[74:09] tells you what you should post, makes
[74:11] those posts for you. You can also just
[74:13] use it for inspiration. And sometimes
[74:15] what we need when we're thinking about
[74:16] doing a post for our social media
[74:18] channels is inspiration. Building an
[74:20] audience has fundamentally changed my
[74:22] life, and I think it could change yours,
[74:23] too. So, I'm inviting you to give this
[74:26] new tool a shot and let me know what you
[74:28] think. All you have to do is search
[74:30] coach.stand stand.store now to get
[74:32] started.
[74:33] You know, every once in a while you come
[74:35] across a product that has such a huge
[74:37] impact on your life that you'd probably
[74:39] describe it as a gamecher. And I would
[74:42] say for about 35 to 40% of my team, they
[74:47] would currently describe this product
[74:49] that I have in front of me called Ketone
[74:51] IQ, which you can get at ketone.com,
[74:54] as a game changer. But the reason I
[74:56] became a co-owner of this company and
[74:57] the reason why they they now are a
[74:58] sponsor of this podcast is because one
[75:01] day when I came to work there was a box
[75:02] of this stuff sat on my desk. I had no
[75:04] idea what it was. Lily in my team says
[75:06] that this company have been in touch. So
[75:08] I went upstairs tried it and quite
[75:10] frankly the rest is history in terms of
[75:12] my focus, my energy levels, how I feel,
[75:15] how I work, how productive I am. Game
[75:17] changer. So if you want to give it a
[75:19] try, visit ketone.com/stephven for 30%
[75:21] off. You'll also get a free gift with
[75:23] your second shipment. And now you can
[75:26] find Keton IQ at Target stores across
[75:28] the United States where your first shot
[75:31] is completely free of charge.
[75:33] We have finally caved in. So many of you
[75:36] have asked us if we could bundle the
[75:39] conversation cards with the 1% diary.
[75:40] For those of you that don't know, every
[75:42] single time a guest sits here with me in
[75:44] the chair, they leave a question in the
[75:45] diary of a CEO and then I ask that
[75:47] question to the next guest. We don't
[75:49] release those questions in any
[75:50] environment other than on these
[75:52] incredible conversation cards. These
[75:54] have become a fantastic tool for people
[75:56] in relationships, people in teams, in
[75:58] big corporations, and also family
[76:00] members to connect with each other. With
[76:02] that, we also have the 1% diary, which
[76:04] is this incredible tool to change habits
[76:06] in your life. So many of you have asked
[76:08] if it was possible to buy both at the
[76:10] same time, especially people in big
[76:12] companies. So, what we've done is we've
[76:14] bundled them together and you can buy
[76:16] both at the same time. And if you want
[76:18] to drive connection and instill habit
[76:20] change in your company, head to the
[76:21] diary.com to inquire and our team will
[76:23] be in touch. What is the biggest threat
[76:26] do you think to the western world and
[76:28] the western way of living? Cuz people
[76:29] often, you know, they point at Iran,
[76:30] they say China, they say Russia.
[76:32] >> I think it depends on what China decides
[76:34] to do. I China is a a spectacular and
[76:38] brilliant civilization with so much to
[76:41] contribute to to world harmony. if
[76:44] that's their choice. If the if the
[76:46] government decides that it's going to to
[76:49] direct the immense um successes of that
[76:52] country towards um trading and working
[76:55] with other countries, then there's no
[76:57] nothing to worry about. But if it is a
[76:59] very aggressive Bellose approach using
[77:02] technology for espionage uh interference
[77:06] in foreign countries as they have done
[77:07] in Canada uh invading Taiwan then China
[77:11] and Beijing in particular the regime
[77:14] could become the biggest risk and threat
[77:16] to our country and our world.
[77:18] >> What does history say about this kind of
[77:20] moment in time where there's seemingly
[77:22] two world powers? Mhm. Well, there is an
[77:24] incredible book called Thusidities Trap
[77:27] uh which a professor named Allison um
[77:30] said that throughout history he took I
[77:33] think 20 occasions where the where an
[77:38] incumbent superpower was caught up on by
[77:42] a challenging superpower and in I think
[77:45] the majority of cases it did end up in
[77:47] war and now he said it's not necessary
[77:50] though and it doesn't have to happen. it
[77:52] can be avoided and uh he lays out a plan
[77:55] in his book for it to be avoided. I
[77:57] think it can be avoided as well if uh
[78:00] Beijing can be made to understand that
[78:02] it is in in the interest of China to be
[78:04] part of the community of nations to work
[78:06] collaboratively to trade freely to uh to
[78:09] be a partner rather than an enemy and I
[78:12] hope they make the right decision. Is it
[78:14] fair to say that the United States is
[78:16] really at war with China now already,
[78:18] but just through proxy wars and other
[78:20] types of sort of economic wars? And
[78:22] because now that they both have nuclear
[78:23] weapons, you can't really have a direct
[78:27] conflict, can you?
[78:28] >> Well, let let's put it this way. Um,
[78:33] Venezuela,
[78:35] Iran, Cuba, these are all countries that
[78:38] were in the realm of influence of
[78:40] Beijing.
[78:41] and um they're the countries where the
[78:45] United States is pursuing uh change. So
[78:48] there there is the the war that we watch
[78:51] on the evening news and the the real
[78:54] interest behind them that that is
[78:56] driving it.
[78:57] >> Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons,
[78:58] does it?
[78:58] >> No, we do not.
[78:59] >> Why?
[79:00] >> We made a decision, I think it was about
[79:02] I I want to say about 40 or 50 years ago
[79:05] not to pursue nuclear arm. We didn't
[79:07] think we had any need need for it. lots
[79:09] of nuclear power, lots of uranium, but
[79:11] we don't use it for for weaponry.
[79:13] >> Do you think Canada should have nuclear
[79:15] weapons?
[79:16] >> I don't see a need for that. Um I don't
[79:19] know what we would get from it. We don't
[79:21] uh we don't have any desire to to
[79:24] threaten anyone with nuclear weapons.
[79:25] So, um uh I don't I don't see a purpose
[79:29] for that right now.
[79:32] [laughter]
[79:32] >> What you think?
[79:34] >> Sounds quite Canadian.
[79:36] >> That's true. But listen, we are a
[79:39] warrior nation. Uh make no mistake about
[79:41] it. We were in the World Wars two years
[79:42] before the Americans. Uh and we we are
[79:47] we're kind of like a a golden retriever.
[79:49] Uh we're friendly. We're likable. Uh we
[79:52] like to get along, but if provoked, we
[79:54] will fight back.
[79:55] >> Canada is building up its military.
[79:57] >> Absolutely.
[79:58] >> Why? because there's a consensus that we
[80:01] have not done enough to to protect our
[80:03] territory from the incursions of hostile
[80:07] powers and uh we often say in Canada if
[80:10] you don't use it you lose it. Uh there's
[80:12] large territories of our country that
[80:14] are very hard to live in. We have an
[80:16] incredible Inuit population but
[80:19] obviously you know you can't heavily
[80:21] populate the Arctic archipelago with
[80:24] industry and stuff. So, how do you
[80:26] assert sovereignty over those treasured
[80:29] uh territories? Well, you have to have a
[80:31] military presence there.
[80:32] >> What's changed
[80:34] >> for Canada? It's it's that we want to
[80:37] maintain and ensure that we can make our
[80:39] own decisions without relying on the
[80:41] Americans
[80:42] >> because the Americans have expressed
[80:44] that they are maybe not going to be as
[80:46] collaborative and friendly
[80:47] >> and we want to be able to decide for
[80:48] ourselves. We want to be masters in our
[80:50] own home. uh in Quebec they say mashu
[80:53] and uh so if we want to control our own
[80:56] destiny and territory we have to pro we
[80:57] have to be able to protect ourselves. It
[80:59] has been
[81:01] very good for Canada to be next door to
[81:03] the biggest military power the world has
[81:05] ever seen and have friend friendly
[81:07] relations that go back to um the early
[81:10] 1800s before we were even a country. We
[81:13] had largely friendly relations with this
[81:16] enormous power. But what has become
[81:18] clear is that we cannot simply rely on
[81:21] the Americans to protect us. We have to
[81:23] be able to protect ourselves. And that
[81:25] requires a massive military buildup for
[81:27] a country of our size, the second
[81:29] biggest country anywhere in the world.
[81:30] We have the longest oceanic coastline,
[81:32] even longer than Russia. So that takes
[81:35] money and it takes a a buildup like
[81:38] we've never seen. And that's what we're
[81:40] we as Canadians agree has to happen.
[81:42] Now,
[81:43] >> this is in part because of Trump.
[81:45] >> In part, yes. because Trump threw the
[81:47] election and then thereafter said that
[81:48] he was going to make Canada an American
[81:50] state [laughter]
[81:52] >> which is never going to happen.
[81:54] >> But that you know with the the leader of
[81:57] the most powerful military on earth says
[82:00] even jokingly that they are about to
[82:02] take your country you can laugh but at
[82:06] the same time one if I was leading
[82:09] Canada I'd go wait is this possible? Are
[82:11] we ready to defend ourselves? we uh as
[82:14] Canadians react very badly to that and
[82:16] uh we're we're we're not going to uh
[82:19] ever be the 51st state or or any part of
[82:22] the United States of America. The
[82:24] American people are our friends. They've
[82:25] been our top trading partner, our
[82:27] closest ally. As uh President Kennedy
[82:30] said, um history has made us friends,
[82:33] economics has made us partners. Uh
[82:36] geography has made us neighbors and
[82:38] necessity has made us allies. those whom
[82:41] nature have thus joined together. Let no
[82:43] man put us under. But he understood that
[82:46] that Canada was a separate country that
[82:48] had its own unique interests. And I
[82:51] think the American people understand
[82:53] that as well. I I think the American
[82:55] people are very fond of Canada as a
[82:57] neighbor and friend. Um but they
[82:59] understand we will always be a sovereign
[83:00] country.
[83:01] >> You would have been negotiating with
[83:03] Trump right now if um the election, the
[83:05] recent election in Canada had gone your
[83:07] way. This is a pretty uh pretty stark
[83:11] graph that I've just lid you. It shows
[83:13] that you were leading in the polls
[83:15] seemingly up until the very very last
[83:17] moment in the elections.
[83:19] >> Is that accurate that poll?
[83:20] >> Yeah, I think that's probably a weighted
[83:22] average, but yeah, I think more or less.
[83:24] >> What happened?
[83:25] >> Well, if you look what happened, we our
[83:26] support didn't drop that much. Uh the
[83:28] other parties collapsed in behind the
[83:30] Liberal party and uh it was largely due
[83:34] to the uh the Canada US issue that you
[83:37] raised
[83:38] >> really. So, but at the same time, we got
[83:40] the biggest vote count we had ever
[83:42] received and the highest share of vote
[83:45] that we've received since 1988. So, we
[83:48] did perform very well. Our opponents
[83:50] performed even better. And now we have
[83:53] to build on the solid base that we've
[83:55] accumulated in order to win the next
[83:57] election.
[83:58] >> Just as the election comes into the home
[84:00] stretch, your polling basically stays
[84:03] the same.
[84:03] >> Um, slight little bit of a drop, but
[84:06] roughly stays the same.
[84:08] >> [snorts]
[84:08] >> What caused the drop in that sort of
[84:10] home stretch there? Do you think
[84:12] >> what one of the challenges I had was I
[84:14] wanted to focus on the things that were
[84:15] going on in people's lives, the doubling
[84:19] of housing costs, the rising crime rate,
[84:21] the inflation crisis, and my solutions
[84:24] to all of those problems. But a lot of
[84:26] that was swept off of the conversation
[84:29] because everyone was focused suddenly on
[84:32] the the tariffs and the president the
[84:35] president saying that he was going to
[84:36] take Canada as a state but also him
[84:38] saying that he was going to apply
[84:39] tariffs.
[84:40] >> That's right. And those tariffs are
[84:42] still in place.
[84:44] >> Why did that impact you and help Mark
[84:46] Carney?
[84:47] >> That's a good question. I think I think
[84:49] it allowed the conversation to move away
[84:52] from the domestic record of the
[84:54] government and on to two external
[84:57] factors and that always helps the
[84:59] incumbent and hurts the challenger.
[85:02] >> How was this emotionally?
[85:04] >> Oh, it was a roller coaster and it was
[85:06] like so things were changing so fast and
[85:08] moving so quickly in the moment. It's
[85:11] like you don't really have time to feel
[85:13] anything. you're just doing so much so
[85:15] quickly
[85:16] >> that um your emotions
[85:20] they're put on delay until after it's
[85:22] all over.
[85:22] >> So after it's all over, I've got this
[85:24] wonderful photo of that.
[85:26] >> Yes.
[85:26] >> You and your family. You said the
[85:28] emotions came after cuz you were going
[85:30] going going.
[85:31] >> Yes. So my leadership started in 2022 as
[85:35] we were coming out of co and there were
[85:37] so many people who placed so much hope
[85:40] in me who had suffered so much. They
[85:42] would tell me they felt like they lost
[85:44] control of their lives and that they
[85:46] vested hope in me. So I'd get young
[85:48] people would say, "You have to win
[85:50] because I want to start a family and I
[85:53] can't start a family in this economy."
[85:56] Or mothers would say, "We just can't
[85:58] afford food anymore." Or police officers
[86:01] say, "I've arrested the same guy four
[86:04] times this week and he keeps getting
[86:05] released." You have to win to fix these
[86:08] problems. It's not about you, Mr. Polyv.
[86:10] It's about the stuff that's happening in
[86:12] our lives and and you have to fix it.
[86:15] You know, uh I had a lady come to one of
[86:17] my rallies cuz when you vote in a to
[86:19] choose a leader of a party, you have to
[86:22] pay $15 to join the party. And she came
[86:25] up and told me about her life story. And
[86:27] then she went up to the membership desk
[86:29] and said, "Can I borrow $8?" And they
[86:33] said, "What do you need it for?" She
[86:34] said, "Well, I only have $7." They said,
[86:36] "Oh, well, there's a bank machine
[86:38] downstairs. you can go get some more
[86:39] cash. And she says, I don't have a bank
[86:41] card. And they said, well, is there
[86:44] perhaps could you go to your car and get
[86:45] some money? She said, well, uh, I don't
[86:47] have any money in my car. What about
[86:48] your home? Um, because we're not allowed
[86:51] to buy them under the rules for other
[86:53] people. And she said, I don't have a
[86:54] home. I live in my car, and the $7 is
[86:57] all the money I own, and I'm spending it
[86:59] on a membership so that I can vote for
[87:01] Mr. Polyia because he is my only hope.
[87:03] This is the only chance I have. So, I
[87:07] wanted to deliver for these people and
[87:10] when we didn't win, uh, I felt I felt
[87:13] terrible that I hadn't delivered for
[87:14] them.
[87:15] >> What does that look like? The
[87:17] disappointment of not delivering for
[87:18] people the night of election, the day
[87:20] after, if I'm watching you as a fly on
[87:23] the wall, what do I see?
[87:24] >> You know, I didn't spend a lot of time
[87:26] on that. I just got back at it because
[87:28] at the end of the day, you have to focus
[87:30] on what you can control. And my my
[87:32] approach in life is to zero in on what
[87:35] is in your control. That is the greatest
[87:38] thing you can do for your mental health
[87:41] and for your output as a person. I
[87:43] believe in a stoic approach. So I didn't
[87:46] spend a lot of time sort of rolling
[87:48] around on the ground um in melancholy.
[87:52] >> Do you think that if Trump hadn't have
[87:53] said the thing about taking Canada and
[87:55] he hadn't have done the tariffs, you
[87:57] would be leading Canada right now?
[87:59] >> We'll never know. I mean uh these are
[88:01] the kinds of uh things you speculate
[88:03] about but at the end of the day what
[88:04] what good does it does it uh do to
[88:06] speculate and I also don't like to make
[88:08] excuses. I like to say look I'm uh if if
[88:11] this person hadn't done X then I then I
[88:13] would be in charge. I have to own my
[88:15] result and that's what I do.
[88:17] >> As someone that doesn't know a ton about
[88:18] this stuff I'm asking kind of for me I
[88:21] find it interesting to see how
[88:22] consequential
[88:23] >> these what do they call them? not um
[88:26] butterfly effect or just how the
[88:29] unexpected dominoes can fall and change
[88:30] the course of history.
[88:32] >> So if Trump hadn't have said those
[88:33] things, if we were to speculate, do you
[88:37] think it would have changed the outcome
[88:38] of the election?
[88:39] >> I don't know because we we don't know
[88:40] what would have happened in absent of
[88:42] that.
[88:42] >> If you had to bet your house,
[88:44] >> I don't have to bet my house. So outcome
[88:47] either way. I I don't I don't want to
[88:48] blame someone else for the outcome of
[88:50] the election because at the end of the
[88:51] day, the people voted and they made
[88:53] their decision. I have to be at peace
[88:54] with it. So, I can't spend my time
[88:57] thinking on whatifs because if that
[88:59] whatif hadn't happened, then there might
[89:01] have been another whatif. So, I have to
[89:03] focus on what I can control.
[89:05] >> Dealing with those moments. You
[89:06] mentioned stoicism. I found this book u
[89:09] meditations by Marco Surelius, which I
[89:11] think was quite formative for how you
[89:13] see things in some respects and
[89:14] generally stoicism.
[89:16] >> Yes. Um it's it's a great book. The
[89:18] amazing thing about it is it's so
[89:19] readable. Like he he talks about um this
[89:23] is just a random page but it's a very
[89:25] interesting uh excerpt. When you wake up
[89:27] in the morning tell yourself the people
[89:28] I deal with today will be meddling,
[89:30] ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous
[89:32] and sirly. They are like this because
[89:34] they can't tell good from ego evil. But
[89:37] if you go in and read it, what it
[89:39] basically says is expect these things
[89:41] and if you do but don't be controlled by
[89:45] them. These are control. These are
[89:47] factors outside of your control. Put all
[89:50] of your emphasis on the things that are
[89:52] within your control and it will bring a
[89:54] tremendous amount of peace because when
[89:57] you're focused on what you can control,
[89:58] you're the boss of your life. And that's
[90:01] what that's what stoicism has done for
[90:02] me.
[90:03] >> I heard you say you're not the you're
[90:05] not acted upon.
[90:06] >> That's right. When you're when you focus
[90:09] on what you can control, you are the
[90:11] actor rather than the acted upon. If you
[90:13] say if you spend a lot of your time
[90:15] thinking about the things you can cannot
[90:16] control then you become a helpless
[90:18] victim. Whereas if you if you focus on
[90:21] what you can then you you become uh like
[90:23] the driver of the car you decide where
[90:25] it goes. And um you know as my favorite
[90:28] poem says uh Invictus that um Nel Nelson
[90:32] Mandela used to read himself when he was
[90:34] in prison for all those years in South
[90:36] Africa. He he would he would recite to
[90:38] himself the the poem Invictus to remind
[90:41] him that he he could focus on what he
[90:44] was in control of which was his own
[90:46] soul. I am the master of my fate. I am
[90:50] the captain of my soul is how it ends.
[90:53] And that that gives you a lot of peace.
[90:56] One of the things you often find in
[90:57] stoicism and other sort of uh teachings
[90:59] of that time is this idea of being
[91:01] flexibly minded in terms of being able
[91:04] to learn and being growth minded and
[91:05] being able to evolve. Mhm.
[91:06] >> I was wondering as you went on that
[91:08] campaign trail and generally over the
[91:09] last 10 years of your career, it's it's
[91:11] clear to me that your your core
[91:13] principles have been quite consistent.
[91:15] >> I I uh have this um
[91:18] this document you wrote when you were I
[91:20] think 20 years old, which was part of a
[91:22] contest where you won $10,000.
[91:26] >> That's right.
[91:26] >> For explaining what you would do if you
[91:28] were prime minister, um if you were
[91:30] leading Canada.
[91:31] >> You even dug up the check.
[91:32] >> I found the check. It wasn't cashed. No,
[91:34] it's a it's a fake check. We'll go have
[91:36] lunch.
[91:36] >> So, you won $10,000 for submitting this.
[91:40] >> Yes.
[91:40] >> When you were 20 years old, explaining
[91:42] what you would do if you ever became the
[91:44] prime minister.
[91:45] >> Yes.
[91:46] >> And I would like you to actually just
[91:48] read the opening three paragraphs
[91:50] because it it does um it is quite
[91:52] interesting to see how you've evolved if
[91:53] at all. Could you just read those first
[91:55] three paragraphs and give me any other
[91:56] of the context which I might have
[91:58] excluded?
[91:59] >> Sure. Although we Canadians seldom
[92:01] recognize it, the most important
[92:02] gardening guardian of our living
[92:05] standards is freedom. Freedom to earn a
[92:07] living and share the fruits of our labor
[92:09] with loved ones. The freedom to build
[92:11] personal prosperity through risk-taking
[92:13] and strong work ethic. The freedom of
[92:15] thought and speech. The freedom to make
[92:17] personal choices and the collective
[92:19] freedom of citizens to govern their own
[92:21] affairs democratically. Government's job
[92:24] is to constantly find ways to remove
[92:26] itself from obstructing such freedoms.
[92:28] Human beings are graced with the gifts
[92:30] of creativity, wisdom, and ingenuity.
[92:33] The the best way for a society to go
[92:36] about improving its living standards is
[92:37] to allow citizens to apply these
[92:39] qualities to the challenges of everyday
[92:42] life. Asking a prime minister to
[92:43] single-handedly improve the living
[92:45] standards of 30 million of the world's
[92:47] brightest is as about as realistic as
[92:50] asking him to take to an Olympic
[92:53] sprinting track to help a lineup of
[92:55] worldclass athletes reach the finish
[92:57] line. The more the government becomes
[92:59] involved in the race, the greater the
[93:01] number of hurdles competitors will
[93:03] encounter. Therefore, as prime minister,
[93:05] what I would do to improve living
[93:07] standards is not as nearly as important
[93:09] as what I would not do. As prime
[93:11] minister, I would relinquish to citizens
[93:13] as much of my social, political, and
[93:15] economic control as possible, leaving
[93:16] people to cultivate their own personal
[93:18] prosperity and to govern their own
[93:20] affairs as directly as possible.
[93:23] >> In the last decade, since you've been
[93:25] out on the road, more speaking to
[93:27] people, campaigning,
[93:29] where have your views evolved?
[93:34] I would say my temperament has matured.
[93:37] 10 years ago, I did not have a wife and
[93:39] kids. As a father, you end up having to
[93:42] grow in a tremendous amount of patience
[93:44] because kids don't do what they're told
[93:46] or they have needs that are that must
[93:48] supersede your own. You're constantly
[93:50] making compromises
[93:53] uh with a spouse in order to juggle all
[93:56] of the difficulties of family life. And
[93:58] that necessarily spills over into your
[94:01] political approach. I think
[94:03] temperamentally I've changed. I'm much
[94:06] more careful and thoughtful than I was
[94:11] say in my late 20s and and early 30s.
[94:15] >> The people that have um you know
[94:16] opposition parties have often referred
[94:18] to you as Trump light.
[94:20] >> And what do they base that on?
[94:22] >> I guess because you're both
[94:23] conservatives, I guess that would be
[94:25] much of the the argument. And you both
[94:27] you both have spoken out against this
[94:29] term wokeism and DEI.
[94:32] >> Yeah. Look, I I on the on DEI and I
[94:35] don't think that is something particular
[94:37] to President Trump. I mean, there's a
[94:39] lot of people around the world who for
[94:42] their own reasons and based on their own
[94:45] experiences
[94:47] have criticized that particular
[94:48] ideology. What I think has changed is
[94:51] that liberals used to believe in liberty
[94:54] and conservatives believed in conserving
[94:56] it. You know, they used to say liberals
[94:58] were the gas pedal, conservatives were
[95:00] the brake, but we were both heading in
[95:02] generally the same direction. But what I
[95:06] think happened with wokeism is that it
[95:09] it it is a deeply illiberal ideology.
[95:13] It is liberalism, traditional liberalism
[95:15] was was a color-blind ideology. It was
[95:18] based on total equality
[95:21] regardless of gender, sexuality, race,
[95:24] or anything else.
[95:26] Wokeism is exactly the opposite of that.
[95:29] It's it like accentuates all of those
[95:31] differences and disagreements. It groups
[95:33] people based on what should be
[95:35] irrelevant characteristics like race and
[95:37] gender. And then having divided people
[95:40] into groups, it seeks to expand state
[95:41] control over their lives. What I believe
[95:44] in is uh is treating people as
[95:47] individuals and letting them live their
[95:48] own lives, judging them exclusively on
[95:51] their own merits. And I think that was
[95:54] the consensus view of both liberals and
[95:56] conservatives up until this toxic
[96:00] ideology came along and divided people.
[96:03] >> One of the things I you know I'm a black
[96:04] man.
[96:05] >> Mhm.
[96:06] >> I was I moved from Botswana when I was a
[96:08] baby and came to the UK and thank God uh
[96:11] there was sort of social systems in
[96:12] place because I don't think that I would
[96:14] have had the outcomes I'd had. One of
[96:15] the things that I did know though when I
[96:17] was um 18, dropped out of university and
[96:20] started to get into a world of business
[96:21] is I was aware because when you look at
[96:23] like funding data for entrepreneurs that
[96:25] are black or especially women, it's
[96:28] clear that there's like a systemic
[96:30] disadvantage of some sort and I I wonder
[96:33] someone like yourself who's against this
[96:35] sort of DEI ideology, how do you contend
[96:37] with like systemic institutional
[96:40] discrimination towards certain groups
[96:41] which does pose objectively real
[96:44] disadvantage on them being able to climb
[96:45] the ladder cuz you said something
[96:47] earlier about your goal being in Canada
[96:50] to make sure everybody like has a fair
[96:51] shot.
[96:52] >> That's right.
[96:53] >> How does one counteract the systemic
[96:55] issues around race or gender or whatever
[96:57] it might be that stop that being
[96:59] possible? Cuz I I find myself in an
[97:02] interesting position where like on one
[97:03] end I'm like I want to be treated like
[97:05] everybody else,
[97:06] >> right? And I've always felt that way.
[97:07] And I've always I've always actually to
[97:09] some degree cringed a little bit when I
[97:11] felt like someone was giving me special
[97:15] treatment
[97:17] because my skin color was different
[97:19] because it in some way made me feel like
[97:21] I was at a disadvantage which I know can
[97:23] become quite self-fulfilling. However,
[97:24] on the other side of the spectrum, I do
[97:27] also believe that there is like systemic
[97:30] discrimination that is going to hold
[97:32] certain groups back if there isn't
[97:34] something done to level that playing
[97:37] field. So, look, I think the answer is
[97:40] equality. There has to be strict
[97:42] equality and equal treatment regardless
[97:45] of race, gender, uh, ethnicity,
[97:47] religion. And that is the that is the
[97:51] ideal to which we were all striving. And
[97:53] I think if we get back to that, then we
[97:56] can give everybody a chance to achieve
[97:58] based on their own merit. Uh what we
[98:00] need is a meritocracy that is colorblind
[98:04] and and judges people based on what they
[98:07] can do.
[98:07] >> People aren't color blind, though, are
[98:09] they?
[98:09] >> No.
[98:10] >> I think I my dad said to me when I was
[98:11] younger, he said, "Everybody's
[98:13] prejudice." I remember sitting in the
[98:14] back of the car, "My dad's white."
[98:15] [laughter] And I was and I'm thinking,
[98:17] "My dad just said that he thinks
[98:18] everyone might be like might be racist
[98:20] and everyone's prejudice." I'm like, "Is
[98:21] my dad racist?" But um as I've got
[98:24] gotten older, I realized that he to some
[98:26] degree is telling the truth. That
[98:27] prejudice is part of how we survived as
[98:29] humans and we're able to understand
[98:30] danger from not. So prejudice is
[98:33] something that I think is very prevalent
[98:34] in society whether we believe we're not
[98:36] and everyone else is. So if prejudice is
[98:39] very prevalent in society, does there
[98:40] need to be measures that counteract that
[98:43] to give everybody a fair chance? Our
[98:46] institutions have to be conscious about
[98:47] making sure that we are judging people
[98:49] based on their merit and they should you
[98:52] know work aggressively to make sure that
[98:55] there is that everyone regardless of
[98:57] where they come from their background
[98:59] has a chance to succeed get the job get
[99:02] the promotion move up the ladder I don't
[99:05] think that is achieved by breaking
[99:08] people down into more and more different
[99:10] groups and divisions by trying to build
[99:13] the barriers between pe people based on
[99:17] race and gender. I think it's by
[99:19] actually removing them. So the the
[99:21] problem I have with with wokeism is it
[99:23] it seems almost designed to divide
[99:26] people. And that is exactly the opposite
[99:29] of the objective that we all sought when
[99:32] we uh when we pushed for racial equality
[99:35] and personal and personal freedom and
[99:37] responsibility.
[99:38] >> How does one contend with the systemic
[99:40] issues though the like the prejudices? I
[99:42] I I remember reading about studies where
[99:44] like if you they got a bunch of people
[99:45] and got them to apply for jobs and just
[99:47] based on the names whether they were
[99:49] like a a typically white name versus say
[99:52] a typically black name the response rate
[99:54] is marketkedly different.
[99:56] >> Well, I go back to my first principles.
[99:58] I think that government is responsible
[100:00] for a lot of the the barriers that are
[100:02] put in place. So, [clears throat] let me
[100:04] give you some examples. When government
[100:06] brings into place these anti- housing
[100:08] policies that I described, they v they
[100:11] they impact far more on minorities and
[100:14] disadvantaged people than they do on
[100:16] established uh people obviously because
[100:19] if if you're new to a country or you
[100:20] come from a a poorer background, you
[100:23] won't have a house and then you're the
[100:25] one who's going to pay the biggest price
[100:26] for the fact that government is making
[100:27] housing unaffordable. If you think at
[100:30] the occupational licensing rules that I
[100:31] just described that block immigrants
[100:33] from having working in their professions
[100:35] even when they're thoroughly qualified,
[100:37] those are government-imposed obstacles
[100:39] that prevent people from getting ahead.
[100:42] Also, a lot of these soft on crime
[100:44] policies have been sold to us on the
[100:47] grounds that they're going to help
[100:48] minorities by ensuring that they we we
[100:50] don't have as high a conviction rate.
[100:52] Well, what they've actually done is that
[100:53] in many minority communities where the
[100:56] law-abiding people are now suffering as
[100:59] a result of
[101:01] criminals of all backgrounds. And so,
[101:04] ironically, it's actually government
[101:06] policies that are causing people of
[101:08] disadvantaged backgrounds to suffer even
[101:10] more. So, wokeism accentuates all of
[101:14] those problems rather than solving them.
[101:16] So I'm interested in solving problems to
[101:18] give everybody the opportunity to live a
[101:20] safe, affordable, opportunityfilled
[101:22] life. And wokeism is not doing that. The
[101:25] actually get creating a free market,
[101:28] free enterprise economy with free people
[101:30] who have free speech. That that's the
[101:32] the single best way to give people of
[101:34] all racial backgrounds a better chance
[101:36] in life.
[101:37] >> Again, I'm holding the position of uh
[101:39] the DEI to try and I like the clash of
[101:41] ideas because it helps me to think
[101:43] through these things. I've never had the
[101:44] chance to ask somebody these kind of
[101:46] questions before. And on that point of
[101:47] housing, one of the things that I I
[101:48] found to be quite surprising was that
[101:51] black mortgage applicants are up to 200%
[101:54] more likely to be denied a home loan
[101:56] than white applicants with the similar
[101:58] financial profile.
[102:00] >> This is in Canada.
[102:01] >> These stats are for the West. So,
[102:02] >> okay,
[102:03] >> but but what is going on there? because
[102:06] it says that they have similar financial
[102:08] profiles, yet their their applications
[102:11] are being denied up to 200% more than
[102:16] white home buyers.
[102:18] >> So, I had not seen those data that data
[102:19] point before, but I would say that this
[102:21] is these sound like really stupid
[102:23] bankers um because they're making a bad
[102:25] decision to deny people a mortgage and
[102:29] ultimately deny themselves the business
[102:31] um if they're if if that's how they're
[102:33] making their judgments. And then DI
[102:35] comes in to make sure that their
[102:36] judgments aren't stupid. [laughter]
[102:37] >> Well, I'm not sure that DEI cures
[102:40] stupidity though. In some cases, we've
[102:43] seen it cause more.
[102:44] >> That's how it shows up, right? It's like
[102:45] a logical next step, which is there's
[102:47] prejudice going on in the system, which
[102:49] is making it in inequal.
[102:53] And it's a DEI becomes this corrective
[102:55] measure so those stupid bankers don't
[102:56] make stupid decisions.
[102:58] >> But but DEI has been in place now for
[103:01] several decades. and how is it working?
[103:04] You're reading the statistics to show
[103:05] that it's not. So maybe it's not
[103:07] actually doing what it's designed to do.
[103:09] Maybe it's doing other things.
[103:10] >> The other thing that I actually was
[103:11] really keen to talk about, I just
[103:12] realized, is um
[103:13] >> Sure.
[103:14] >> is this
[103:16] >> Oh, that's little Valentina there. She
[103:18] loves to be on daddy's shoulders.
[103:20] >> How old is Valentina?
[103:21] >> Valentina is seven years old.
[103:23] >> Seven years old. And she's she's
[103:24] non-verbal.
[103:25] >> She's non-verbal. Yes.
[103:26] >> What does what does non-verbal mean?
[103:29] >> She is autistic. She's on the spectrum.
[103:32] So, um, she her biggest the biggest
[103:35] difference between Valentina and other
[103:38] children is the ability to communicate
[103:41] verbally. Um, so we're working very hard
[103:44] on that. She's making some encouraging
[103:46] progress, but she does uh have some
[103:49] challenges in that area. She's um very
[103:52] acrobatic and rambunctious. She loves to
[103:55] climb, swing, bounce, jump, and she is
[103:59] extremely affectionate. And one of the
[104:02] superpowers she has is that whatever she
[104:04] does, she does 100%. She's also 100%
[104:07] authentic.
[104:09] >> So, and that's not the case once kids
[104:11] get old enough to manipulate to get what
[104:13] they want. They can put on acts and
[104:15] artififices. She doesn't do that. She's
[104:16] a the real deal all the time. Uh you
[104:20] know exactly how she feels because she
[104:21] indicates it. and she's very blessed to
[104:24] have a a little brother, Cruz, who
[104:27] adores her and treats her better than
[104:29] anyone else in the world.
[104:32] >> I often hear parents talk about their
[104:35] concerns with, you know, someone like
[104:37] Valentina growing up in the world as
[104:39] non-verbal. You're not going to be here
[104:40] forever
[104:41] >> to protect her. And you know, I was
[104:42] saying to you before, my brother has
[104:44] three kids under the age of what, seven
[104:45] years old now. and I've noticed uh just
[104:48] how much he thinks about how they're
[104:51] going to be when he's not here. How does
[104:53] that relate to Valentina being
[104:55] non-verbal and and how you think about
[104:56] the future?
[104:57] >> Well, a lot of things. Like one, we
[105:00] obviously have to build up a nest egg
[105:02] for her so that if she can't earn
[105:04] income, she will have uh uh the
[105:06] resources for a great life after we're
[105:09] gone. And second, we're really hoping
[105:11] that there we forge a very permanent and
[105:15] um
[105:16] deep bond between her and her brother
[105:19] Cruz because he will be there. And he
[105:22] one of the things he says again and
[105:23] again is my job is to protect Valentina
[105:26] from bad guys. So um this is a good
[105:29] attitude especially that they are
[105:31] actually in the same class even though
[105:33] she's older. She is in his class at
[105:35] school and so she's daddy he's daddy's
[105:38] eyes uh to protect our little princess.
[105:42] But I think when he's older I I believe
[105:45] based on his nature that he's going to
[105:46] be there for her and um we we are
[105:49] building a plan towards that.
[105:51] >> My job is to protect Valentina from bad
[105:53] guys.
[105:54] >> That's right. [laughter]
[105:56] [sighs]
[105:57] It's it's a it's a great instinct.
[106:00] >> How has it changed your politics?
[106:06] It's reinforced my sense of um
[106:12] compassion for people who can't provide
[106:14] for themselves. And you know, I've
[106:16] talked a lot about how government should
[106:17] be limited. I do think there's a very
[106:20] real role for government to help people
[106:22] who genuinely cannot provide for
[106:24] themselves. People who suffer from with
[106:26] disabilities being probably the best
[106:28] example.
[106:29] And um it has reinforced to me that we
[106:33] have to also have policies that
[106:35] recognize the inherent worth of every
[106:37] individual.
[106:39] Too often governments have seen people
[106:43] with disabilities as just someone they
[106:46] have to care for but not someone who can
[106:48] contribute. And I believe that everybody
[106:50] has something to contribute and that we
[106:53] should try to unlock that in every human
[106:55] being. Um, we don't know exactly what
[106:58] Valentina will do, but I believe she
[107:00] will do some kind of a job at some point
[107:02] in the future and um, I'm very
[107:05] passionate about policies that enable
[107:08] people with disabilities to have work
[107:10] opportunities, even if it's just very
[107:12] limited, to design programs so that when
[107:15] they have a, for example, cash or
[107:17] medication support, it doesn't get
[107:18] robbed from them just because they get a
[107:20] job. So, it has focused my mind a lot on
[107:24] people. It gives you a sense of
[107:25] compassionate because when you see
[107:27] somebody who might be different like I
[107:29] see my daughter in that person. I see my
[107:32] daughter my often my wife is very good
[107:34] at this. She'll see someone who might be
[107:36] acting differently in a crowd and other
[107:38] people are looking at that person and
[107:40] she'll grab my hand. She'll say I think
[107:42] he's autistic and then she will often go
[107:44] and talk to that that boy and make him
[107:46] feel loved. Um so compassion is about
[107:50] feeling what the other person feels. And
[107:52] you have but a greater ability to do
[107:54] that when there's a loved one close to
[107:55] you who has the experience.
[107:58] >> An interesting range of emotions to be
[108:01] the father, the parent of a autistic
[108:04] child.
[108:05] >> I know this because I get messages on
[108:08] mass from our audience members who have
[108:10] an autistic child.
[108:12] >> Yes.
[108:13] >> What what can you say to to the range of
[108:14] emotions you feel?
[108:16] My wife was able to discern that there
[108:20] was something different about Valentina
[108:22] very early on when she was still a baby
[108:24] because she didn't make a lot of eye
[108:25] contact and there was a period during
[108:27] which she was not very communicative at
[108:30] all. Um even in ways that babies
[108:32] normally are. Uh there wasn't a lot of
[108:34] reciprocal communication to start with.
[108:38] So when we went for the diagnosis
[108:41] we were not that shocked. So, you know,
[108:44] when the when the I think she was a
[108:46] nurse or she was a specialist gave us
[108:48] the diagnosis and she was like paused
[108:50] like waiting for us to burst into tears.
[108:51] I mean, we were just kind of like,
[108:53] "Yeah, we we expected that and let's get
[108:56] on with it." And then we just started
[108:57] doing the things that we had to do. And
[108:59] my message to parents of autistic
[109:01] children is just focus on what you can
[109:02] control. Get on to the things that you
[109:04] have to do. Get a speech therapist. Get
[109:06] the play structures in the house that
[109:08] they love. with Valentina. It's it's a
[109:10] it's a b bouncy castle and a little
[109:12] trampoline and a lot of building blocks
[109:15] and enjoy them. Like they they're she
[109:17] she's so much fun. Like she's a fun
[109:19] little girl. She loves to jump. She's
[109:21] scared of nothing. If anything, the
[109:23] problem is she's a bit too much of a
[109:25] daredevil, but she's she's a thrilling
[109:28] little girl to be around. She loves to
[109:29] like you see all the pictures with her
[109:31] on my shoulder. She always loves to
[109:32] climb on my on my back and she loves to
[109:35] run. She loves me to run with her on her
[109:37] shoulders. So like en enjoy the special
[109:40] things that they bring because they they
[109:42] they are magical. They're they're
[109:44] they're wonderful. They're just they
[109:47] they call it autism because they're
[109:48] autotapping
[110:01] on something might might give her a
[110:02] tremendous sensation that we can't
[110:04] appreciate.
[110:06] On the other side, minor irritants that
[110:08] you and I would brush off might drive
[110:11] her completely crazy.
[110:12] >> And so, if she's having a meltdown, it's
[110:14] not because she's a bad kid. It's
[110:16] because she's going through a horrific
[110:18] sensation that we can't quite
[110:19] understand. So, but you just have to
[110:22] embrace it all. And um it's a lot of
[110:24] extra leg work that goes into a child
[110:28] that has these um conditions, but it's
[110:30] worth it and it's rewarding in the end.
[110:33] She uh you know obviously not met her,
[110:35] but from all the photos she she makes
[110:37] you smile just looking at the photos.
[110:38] >> She makes everyone smile and she's got
[110:40] uh she's very popular at school. The
[110:42] kids are very nice to her, by the way.
[110:44] Like we we we get secondhand reports and
[110:46] it's like they love her. They're sweet
[110:49] to her. Um she has a little boy that has
[110:52] a crush on her, so I'm keeping an eye on
[110:54] that. Um but she's so affectionate. Like
[110:57] we went to a fall fair one time and
[110:59] there were these little old ladies
[111:01] sitting there and Valentina just decided
[111:02] she liked this little old lady and went
[111:04] and sat on her lap like complete
[111:05] stranger. But that's how she is. She
[111:08] decides she likes you and you're in.
[111:11] >> What are your um what are your closing
[111:12] statements? We've got listeners that
[111:13] are, you know, all over the world, the
[111:14] United States, Canada, Australia, the
[111:16] UK. If you um if you had to send one
[111:19] final message to them, what would that
[111:22] message be in this moment in time that
[111:24] we find ourselves in?
[111:26] Well, I'm actually optimistic about the
[111:27] future and I think Canada's got a very
[111:29] bright future. Um, I think the world
[111:31] should look to Canada. We have the most
[111:32] resources of anyone in the world. We
[111:34] have probably the most uh diverse and
[111:36] educated population. Uh, we have uh the
[111:40] the most fresh water, the um uh the
[111:43] second biggest land mass. Uh, and I
[111:46] think it's going the future belongs to
[111:48] Canada. We're going to be an incredible
[111:50] place. Uh, the MB of the world
[111:52] >> if and so if we if we do the right
[111:54] things. I don't want to be egotistical
[111:55] about it, but I think it would help if I
[111:56] were prime minister as well.
[111:59] >> I love Canada. It's one of my my
[112:00] favorite places in the world for so many
[112:02] reasons. Um when I told you when I went
[112:03] to Toronto for the first time, I felt
[112:04] like I was at home.
[112:05] >> Yeah.
[112:06] >> Um because I think you know Brits and
[112:07] Canadians have a lot in common.
[112:08] >> Absolutely.
[112:09] >> Including a king.
[112:10] >> Um
[112:10] >> yeah, you would be very uh wellreceived
[112:12] in Canada. So consider um coming.
[112:16] >> I I go all the time when whenever I'm uh
[112:18] whenever I'm invited to go and I've been
[112:20] once or twice on vacation as well. So I
[112:22] hope to be back there soon. And uh
[112:23] actually going to do a tour there at
[112:24] some point with with the Dio to meet all
[112:26] the people that listen. So very excited
[112:28] about that as well.
[112:28] >> Oh, you'll bring you'll bring up big
[112:30] crowds.
[112:30] >> Oh,
[112:30] >> it'll be fun.
[112:31] >> We have a closing tradition on this
[112:33] podcast where the last guest leaves a
[112:34] question for the next guest not knowing
[112:35] who they're leaving it for. And the
[112:37] question left for you is h
[112:40] [clears throat]
[112:42] what are you most afraid of and how do
[112:45] you deal with that fear?
[112:50] Hm. [clears throat]
[112:52] I don't have a lot of fears. I mean, for
[112:56] myself, um I would say going back to
[112:59] family, it would be that something would
[113:00] happen to my kids. Uh you know, just
[113:04] you hear uh terrible terrible things in
[113:07] the news. I was just uh unfort you know,
[113:09] unfortunately I I had to go to a funeral
[113:11] for uh mass shooting victims in Tumblr
[113:15] Ridge, British Columbia. And I just, you
[113:18] know, every parent worries about
[113:20] something happening to their kids. I
[113:22] think that would be my biggest fear.
[113:24] >> What about for Canada at large?
[113:26] >> The biggest fear I have for Canada is
[113:27] that
[113:30] we just keep
[113:32] blocking our own potential and declining
[113:35] and opportunity vanishes and slowly our
[113:38] people lose the promise that the country
[113:41] gave me and so many generations. And so
[113:46] my fear is that we become the the frog
[113:48] in boiling water and it just gets slowly
[113:52] warmer and warmer and warmer and the
[113:54] frog really never notices.
[113:56] >> Is that the trajectory of travel?
[113:58] >> I think it is unfortunately but I think
[114:00] we can change that trajectory if we make
[114:03] uh some big reversals uh in direction.
[114:05] >> And lastly, what about for the world
[114:07] generally the western world?
[114:11] I would say my biggest fear is that uh
[114:13] the western world does not stay true to
[114:15] its foundational principles. I want the
[114:19] western world to stay true to the to the
[114:21] basic principles of that that grew out
[114:23] of the Magna Carta, a freedom of um
[114:26] government that is servant uh people
[114:29] that are masters and that the free
[114:33] democracies not only succeed at home but
[114:36] work together abroad to preserve the
[114:38] that that uh civilization.
[114:41] >> Thank you so much. Thank you for taking
[114:42] the time to to come have this
[114:43] conversation with me and answering all
[114:44] of my questions. Um, it's, you know, I
[114:46] don't like interviewing politicians
[114:48] because they are very slippery,
[114:50] >> right?
[114:50] >> And they slip and slide away from
[114:52] answering things in a way that makes the
[114:54] the very essence of why we started this
[114:55] show feel like we're um like we're not
[114:59] delivering for the audience who want to
[115:01] know the truth, whether it's ugly or
[115:03] indifferent or whatever it might be. And
[115:05] um, I've really enjoyed the conversation
[115:06] because I feel like you answered my
[115:07] questions to the best of your ability.
[115:08] >> Thank you.
[115:09] >> And that's often that's not usually the
[115:10] case with politicians. And
[115:12] >> thank you. I think they think that's the
[115:14] right approach, but actually I think in
[115:17] a world that's now more of a glass box
[115:18] than ever before and not a black box
[115:20] where you can paint the image of
[115:21] something on the outside, being
[115:22] transparent and being willing to come
[115:24] into these environments and your team
[115:25] didn't tell me anything was off limits.
[115:27] They didn't say there was anything I
[115:28] couldn't ask you, right?
[115:29] >> They didn't ask to be able to edit this.
[115:31] And I would like more politicians to to
[115:34] follow in that vein. YouTube have this
[115:36] new crazy algorithm where they know
[115:37] exactly what video you would like to
[115:39] watch next based on AI and all of your
[115:42] viewing behavior. And the algorithm says
[115:44] that this video is the perfect video for
[115:47] you. It's different for everybody
[115:48] looking right now. Check this video out
[115:50] and I bet you you might love
