Trump threw the election and then

thereafter said that

>> Canada should honestly become our 51st

state

>> which is never going to happen.

>> Pierre Polyv, leader of his majesty's

loyal opposition. There's a significant

probability that you could be Canada's

next leader and your team said I can ask

you whatever I want.

>> Okay.

>> So it appears that the United States

have made the decision to kind of go it

alone in the world

>> and that is a very big strategic

mistake. In Canada's case, we have

everything the United States needs if

they treat us like a friend. So, for

example, we have the fourth biggest

supply of oil. And if you look at the

leading five, which of these countries

do you think the United States can most

rely on?

>> And I'm looking at the third vial there

in the row, Iran.

>> Mhm.

>> Has Trump taken the right course of

action?

>> The Iranian government has been

extremely hostile and very dangerous to

Canada. They are the leading world

sponsor of terrorism. And there's no

doubt in my mind that the only reason

that they are enriching uranium is for

the purpose of developing a weapon. And

there's a far greater risk to them

having a nuclear weapon than even North

Korea. So the initial actions were

definitely necessary.

>> But how do you think this plays out? And

if Trump had called you and asked for

your support, would you have given it?

>> Well, let let's put it this way.

>> What is the thing that you're most

concerned about?

>> We're overt taxing our population. We're

punishing initiative. We have 20,000

immigrant doctors who can't work in

medicine. Wages have been destroyed.

Young people can't start a family in

this economy. And that is why the

working class across the Western world

is so angry. The good news is we can

reverse all of that.

>> And the other thing that I actually was

really keen to talk about is this.

>> Wow.

>> I can see the emotion in your face.

>> Yeah.

>> It's still there.

>> Yeah. I hadn't thought about that in a

while.

This is super interesting to me. My team

gave me this report to show me how many

of you that watch this show subscribe.

And some of you have told us according

to this that you are unsubscribed from

the channel randomly. So favor to ask

all of you. Please could you check right

now if you've hit the subscribe button

if you are a regular viewer of the show

and you like what we do here. We're

approaching quite a significant landmark

on this show in terms of a subscriber

number. So, if there was one simple free

thing that you could do to help us, my

team, everyone here, to keep this show

free, to keep it improving year over

year and week over week, it is just to

hit that subscribe button and to double

check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll

ever ask of you, do we have a deal? If

you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do.

I'll make sure every single week, every

single month, we fight harder and harder

and harder and harder to bring you the

guests and conversations that you want

to hear. I've stayed true to that

promise since the very beginning of the

Dio, and I will not let you down. Please

help us. Really appreciate it. Let's get

on with the show.

Pierre Polyv, leader of his majesty's

loyal opposition. There is so much I

want to talk to you about. I think you

have a truly fascinating formative

childhood. One of which I've I've really

seldom seen on this show, especially

when the person rises so high in their

political ambitions. But I think the

most appropriate thing to start with

because it's just front of mind for me

at the moment is what the hell is going

on in the world?

And I mean that's genuinely I'm I'm up

all night trying to figure out if we're

on the verge of World War II. What's

going on with all these alliances we

used to have? What is going on in the

world?

>> The history of starts really in the

post-war period with a massive increase

in the power and the wealth of the

United States. They unleashed the

capitalist system. They effectively

buried the Soviet Union just by out

hustling, out producing and out

outgrowing until the Soviet Union

collapsed. And then a new authoritarian

power snuck up on the United States.

China went from having 80% of its

population living on one less than a

dollar a day to being the second biggest

economy in the world. At the same time,

uh, the American working class has been

thoroughly screwed over by relentless

money printing that has inflated their

cost of living while also inflating the

wealth of of a small group of elites.

And I think this resulted in a major

push back. Now, some of that was

justified. That push back is justified,

but I also think some of it is very much

unjustified. Tariffing countries like

Canada makes no sense. uh if you're the

United States, you should want more

friends, more trade with those friends.

And that's one of the reasons why I've

been touring the United States to make

the case for Canada and to remind our

American friends that they are stronger

working with countries like Canada and

the United Kingdom than they are pushing

those natural allies away.

>> It appears that the United States have

made the decision to kind of go it alone

in the world. I mean, I was at Davos and

I saw what Trump said. I saw a variety

of things in the leadup to there talking

about taking Greenland, turning Canada

into one of the United States 51st

states. Is that what he said? 51st

state.

>> That's never going to happen.

>> It seems to be very adversarial. And

through my childhood and through my

adulthood, over the last 30 years, the

US has always been the strong ally, not

an individualistic isolated force in the

world. What's what's going on here?

>> I think that is a very big strategic

mistake. Uh I think America would be

better off working with the the

traditional Western alliance that helped

win the Cold War. Uh we had a very big

menace as a nuclear armed Soviet Union

that was expansionary. Its empire was

pushing eastward into Europe and the

response of the United States was to

build a strong NATO alliance and then to

unleash its economy to just outproduce

the Soviets and bring them to their

knees. In Canada's case, we have

everything the United States needs uh if

they treat us like a friend. We have the

fourth biggest supply of oil.

>> You can see it here.

>> That's right. We could uh maybe pull

that over here. This is the oil reserves

by country. As you can see, Canada is

number four. And after us is Iraq and

then the United States. But if you look

at the leading five, which of these

countries do you think the United States

can most rely on? Is it Venezuela, Saudi

Arabia, Iran, or Iraq? No, it's Canada.

It works very well with American

refineries and we sell it to the United

States at enormous price discount.

Furthermore, we could build up an

enormous reserve of this oil so that if,

god forbid, the straight of Hormuse were

to be closed, just a random example,

you're from the American America's

friends in neighboring Canada would have

a couple hundred millions barrels that

are already produced and ready for use

uh if uh if it's needed. So this is

really uh kind of rocket fuel for the

Canadian economy, but it's strategically

important for our American friends. We

could cooperate better on this if we got

a friendly posture and a fully

tariff-free trade ar arrangement with

the US. What's interesting when I look

at these uh vials of oil that we have on

the table and I see that Venezuela's

number one, Saudi Arabia is number two,

Iran, Canada, Iraq, and then the US is a

lot of these countries that have a lot

of oil are in conflict with the United

States right now.

>> That's right.

>> And it now as I look at this, it seems

like I understand why. So, Venezuela, I

mean, Trump just flew in and took the

leader of Venezuela and his wife out of

bed and sees the country. Iran, US are

at war with Iran now. Um, Iraq, I mean,

that's a a story already. And Canada has

been the other one where it's been

incredibly adversarial over the last

couple of months. Is this just all about

oil?

>> Frankly, we don't really understand what

the dispute with Canada is about because

we've been a very good and friendly

partner to the United States ever since

the early 1800s before we even formed as

a confederation. What I would say to

Americans though is you shouldn't have

to worry about all of these countries.

If you're working collaboratively with

Canada and you're trading freely with a

a separate country to the north, then

you will not be bound by what happens in

these other less stable and arguably

more hostile countries. What I believe

we as Canadians need to do is use our

natural resources as leverage to get

what we want from this administration

and future ones. What we want is

tariff-free trade for our steel,

aluminum, lumber, and automobiles.

And in exchange for that, we can produce

more oil and sell more of it at better

prices to the United States of America.

Oil is only one part of it. There's also

the strategic minerals that are

necessary for, god forbid, modern

warfare, and we have those as well. We

are a resource superpower, and I want to

leverage that to get what we want from

the US and from other nations.

>> I'm looking at the third vial there in

the row, Iran.

>> Mhm.

>> Has Trump taken the right course of

action in bombing Iran in the way that

he has? And the other question that's I

think on everyone's mind is like, how do

you get out of this? Is is this going to

end? Well,

>> the Iranian government has been

extremely hostile and very dangerous to

Canada. They killed 55 Canadian citizens

and 30 permanent residents by shooting a

civilian aircraft out of the sky, PS752,

uh for reasons we still do not

understand and with no explanation

whatsoever. They have unleashed agents

into our communities and streets to

harass the Jewish and Persian

communities of Canada. and uh they are

the leading world sponsor of terrorism.

It it is absolutely unacceptable for the

Iranian government to ever acquire

nuclear weapons. And there's no doubt in

my mind that the only reason that they

are enriching uranium is for marshall

purposes. There's no need to enrich it

to the degree they have in order just to

have nuclear power plants. I have no

doubt that they were doing it for u the

purpose of developing a weapon and if

that were to happen uh it could be

catastrophic for neighboring countries

but also for far away lands if given the

ability to develop uh long range

missiles. So uh we my view and the view

of the Canadian government is that the

Iranian government cannot be allowed to

develop nuclear weapons and any action

to stop them from doing that is

necessary for world peace. Was this

action necessary to stop that in your

view?

>> I think that the initial actions were

definitely necessary, particularly the

bombings four or five months ago to

target the nuclear development sites.

But I think any actions to degrade their

nuclear capabilities, prevent them from

ever achieving them is favorable. And I

hope that it will weaken the regime

enough for the people to overtake it and

claim control of their country.

>> It doesn't look like that's the case. I

think they've appointed the son of the

Ayatollah to lead the country now and

they seem to be firing at everybody in

the region. There was some reports that

they might have ballistic missiles that

could reach Europe as well. Yes. And and

this is what we have to stop. I mean the

idea that they are they are carrying out

this aggression simply because they've

been attacked is false. They would have

eventually carried it out. The question

is when and with what means. And if we

had just sort of slept and waited, we

would have ended up with a catastrophe.

This is different than North Korea.

North Korea was allowed to get nuclear

weapons, but they don't have the same

celestial fundamentalist ideology there.

Ultimately, the regime in North Korea is

interested in its own survival and its

power.

>> The regime in Thran has a theocratic

dream. They believe that there's an an

afterlife in which they could be

rewarded for carrying out mass

destruction on what they call the

infidels. They don't respond to

deterrence the same way that Pyongyang

in North Korea would. There's a far

greater risk to them having a nuclear

weapon than than even having that in in

a communist totalitarian state like

North Korea. But for Canada in this

environment, our superpower is again our

resources. And that's why it has been

one of my major obsessions to unblock

our resources, get them to tide water,

accumulate them in a strategic reserve

that would allow us to really flex our

energy muscles in environments like this

and also reduce dependence on regime

like Iran, like Saudi Arabia, like

Venezuela.

>> If Trump had called you and asked for

your support, had you been leading the

government of Canada, would you have

given the support? This is the big

conversation at the moment in the UK

because K Starmmer was reluctant to send

troops originally and it seems to have

irked Trump in an interesting way.

>> So our prime minister did support the

attack and I agreed with Prime Minister

Carney on that point. That is distinct

from contributing Canadian soldiers or

sailors and air crew. I'm not proposing

that we send ground troops to Iran and

we are not in a position right now to

supply a lot of the demands that this

conflict would require. It depends on

what they ask for um before we get an

answer from Canada on what what it is

that we can provide.

>> You're someone that knows a lot about

history. You seem to know a lot about a

lot, frankly. Um and I I don't know a

lot about a lot. So when you think

through how this could go, it doesn't

appear that the Iranians are going to

roll over very easily. The the Iranian

leadership are going to roll over very

easily. Trump doesn't appear to be a man

that likes taking hits to his ego. So it

doesn't appear that he's just going to

pull out and let you know things

unravel. Uh and then the third option

one would say is that they double down

even further and send troops to the

region. What how do you think this plays

out based on everything that you know

about both history about Trump and from

your pattern recognition?

>> Well, it could go a variety of ways.

Remember the first Persian Gulf War,

George Herbert Walker Bush decided that

he had downgraded and penalized Saddam

Hussein enough for the invasion of

Kuwait.

>> He declared victory and he moved on and

ultimately that left a lot of stability

in the region. his son then went and and

and pursued a full uh out-and-out regime

change and that was a much longer

enterprise. Uh the the president will

have to decide which of those two Bushes

he uses as a model. But I think that the

important thing is to know what the

objective is for me. The objective has

to be to make sure that the Iranian

government never gets the capacity to

send long range nuclear missiles to

countries uh or even short and medium

range to Israel for that matter. Beyond

that, I think it's up to the Iranian

people to take advantage of the weakness

of the regime and rise up and reclaim

their country. I I I don't think this

regime has popular support. Uh I know a

lot of Iranians, we're blessed to have a

lot of very secular, pro-western

Persians who live in Canada, are proudly

Canadian, and they will tell you that

there's almost no support for the regime

among the people of of Iran. Mhm.

>> They need to find a way to overturn the

regime. Uh, and that would that would

give a a lot of comfort and peace to the

rest of the world, but it would also

give democracy to a deserving people.

>> What would you do if you were Trump?

>> Oh, that's a good question. Um,

>> and no offense to

>> like I said, I would focus on the core

objective of making sure that there's

not a nuclear armed Iran without getting

involved in a permanent quagmire. So

everything's been bombed now. Fordo has

been bombed. So is this the time to pull

out then?

>> I think it all depends on the

intelligence they have about the nuclear

capacity. That that is the the hinge

point. We cannot allow a nuclearpowered

um Iranian military. That is what they

they need to determine.

>> For me at the moment it looks a little

bit like it's a little bit lose-lose for

Trump in an interesting way. And I think

this is also reflecting the fact that

nobody really has a perfect answer for

what to do next because it's all just

trade-offs. That's right.

>> That's right. I mean, that's what the

the great uh Thomas Soul said. There's

no solutions, just trade-offs in life.

>> And it's hitting the the price of um gas

at the pumps in a big way.

>> Yes.

>> A way that concerns you or

>> Well, it's funny you should ask because

it shouldn't have to concern Canadians.

Our enormous supply of oil should

actually insulate us from it. Normally

what what used to happen in Canada is

when the global price of oil rose, our

dollar would rise with it because people

would be buying more of our oil, which

meant they had to first buy our dollar.

A more powerful Canadian dollar meant

that we had more buying power for

internationally priced commodities like

oil and food. So, we used to be

protected from international oil price

increases in a way that we're not

anymore because our sector is no longer

as strong and as big as it was as a

share of our economy. And so, uh, what I

want to do is unleash oil production in

Canada, clear, uh, the regulatory

bureaucracy, the government gatekeepers,

get rid of industrial carbon taxes, and

have a stronger dollar that makes life

more affordable and much more

geostrategic power in the world.

>> There's a quite significant probability

that you could be Canada's next leader.

And for you to achieve all those things

you've just described, you'll need to

have, you know, productive relationship

with the United States. Trump if all

follows the law won't be able to be

elected. So it'll probably be a

different leader by the time that you

were in power. Although I know that you

know there could be a vote of no

confidence which mean that you could get

into power earlier.

>> Your relationship with Trump good, bad,

indifferent.

>> I've never met him.

>> I've never spoken to him. No, I don't

have. No. Um I made the decision that uh

we have one prime minister at a time and

because we are negotiating a trade deal

or it's more like a review of an

existing deal uh I don't want our side

as Canadians to be divided even though I

obviously disagree with my prime

minister on a whole range of policy

issues. I don't want to uh undermine in

any way the the Canadian side of the

bargaining table. I would only do that

kind of conversation with a teamwork uh

with the current government. But what

I've said is that our approach visa be

Trump should be to focus on what we can

control. So why not focus on what what

we can do at home? Um unlock our

resources, build up a strategic reserve

of of minerals that are important to our

American friends, but also to our other

allies. Clear the way to export more

goods to overseas markets. uh build

alliances with the United Kingdom, New

Zealand, Australia uh to diversify and

become more self-sufficient.

>> You keep using this word unlock.

>> Yes.

>> And clear the way.

>> Yes.

>> What are you referring to when you say

clear the way and unlock?

>> Removing bureau bureaucratic obstacles.

Um the the resources we have are

massively profitable for the private

sector to mine, refine, store, and ship

as long as they can get the permits and

the low enough taxes to do it. So we

need to remove those obstacles so that

it now becomes uh possible for private

investment, not subsidized by

government, no handouts for business,

but private investment to unlock and

unblock those resources. You're just

saying there you don't want to get in

the way of Mark Carney.

>> Well, I I don't want to get in the way

of of negotiations with a foreign

country. I obviously my job is to to be

his opposition in the House of Commons

on domestic issues and even on

international issues, but not to do so

in a way that undermines the national

interest.

>> A lot of countries aren't like that. It

was interesting because you're on Joe

Rogan's show. It's got a global

audience.

>> Yes.

>> So, you know, if you talk about him

there, you're talking about him all over

the world. And you said you wouldn't

criticize the leader of the opposition

unless you were in Canada. But you know

that you know you're reaching everybody

everywhere all the time.

>> That's true.

>> No, that's true. That's true. But uh I I

just think it's it's a good principle to

follow particularly during a negotiation

that's happening across the border in

that country. like you know I think it

would be a little different if we were

in normal times and there was no trade

dispute or if we were in a country with

which we have no particular contention

that for me to say something critical

about the government's policy back home

would not have any repercussions for the

nation but particularly over the next

several months while these talks are are

hopefully going to go on uh I want to

get the best outcome for Canada and I

have to put my country above myself.

>> Why are you better than the current

leader of the Canadian government? Well,

what what what is it you offer that is

better than what he has to offer?

>> My mission is to make Canada the most

affordable

uh freest and richest country in the

world. My upbringing, I grew up in very

humble beginnings. I grew up surrounded

by working-class people. Yeah, these are

my folks. Yeah, that's an old one.

>> Got a photo of you there and your your

parents and your is it your stepbrother?

Your half brother?

>> Half brother. Yes. So, uh it's my dad

and my my mother. or they were school

teachers. Uh my brother is my half

brother because we came from the same

biological mother but a different

biological fathers adopted into the same

family. Kind of a complicated story.

>> Your biological mother adopted you at 16

years old.

>> Put us up for adoption at 16 years old.

She was 16 and then um then about 3

years later she had another little boy

and he Patrick was then uh adopted by

the same parents.

>> And they were two teachers that adopted

you and Patrick.

>> Yes, that's right. Yeah. I still

remember when we went to pick him up. It

was uh so we we went to this um we got a

phone call and he said, "There's a

little boy who happens to be half

brothers with your with with Pierre.

Would you like to to adopt him, too?"

And he said, "Absolutely." So, we went

over to this building and we walk into

this room and there were all these rows

of babies

>> and uh you know, we walked past them and

then we said, they said, "That's him

right there." And that was when I met my

brother. You know, we picked him up.

That's why I thought that's where babies

came from. There was a store. you know,

we go to a store and get your your

groceries. There's a store where you can

go and get a baby. That's what I thought

cuz that was my first experience with

it. And um we brought him home and and

we grew up in working-class

neighborhoods. When I was about 3,

fourish, uh we lost everything. We got

smashed by high interest rates. My

mother had had saved up enough to buy

two little rental properties. We lost

those and our home and had to borrow

from our grandfather to get a down

payment so we'd have a place to live. My

dad was driving this old mobile that was

falling apart and our neighbors were,

you know, workingass folks. They were

just, you know, electricians, uh, oil

workers, police officers. So, that's

those are the people I grew up with. And

I always grew up admiring those those

people, uh, admiring what they were able

to do and believing that they were

generally taken advantage of by

government, never listened to, and

definitely and kept on the outside of

decision-m.

And my mission has been to bring back

what I call the promise of Canada that

uh anyone can achieve anything. It

doesn't matter if you start off as an

adopted kid uh raised by school teachers

uh or you know an immigrant from

Batswana who uh grows up really poor. If

you you work at it, you should be able

to buy a house uh launch a business,

become a you know a famous global

podcaster uh or maybe cure a disease.

And that was what Canada was all about.

And that is what I'm trying to

reinstate.

>> What age do you get to meet your

biological mother for the first time?

>> 21 22. My adopted mother was very

gracious because I said I won't meet my

biological mother without the permission

of my adopted mother. She did all the

work of raising me. all the hardships,

all of my she put up with all of my

rambunctiousness and teenage years and

uh drove me to hockey practice and you

know emptied her bank account to pay for

our food and stuff. So I did not want

her to feel like she was going to be

left behind or forgotten about or

replaced. And I asked her, you know,

would you be okay if I met her? And she

said, "Yes, of course, cuz I won't

always be here and I always want you to

have a mother." And I thought that was

um a really incredible thing to do

because it's so big part such a big part

of um a mother's identity is that they

are the mother of that child. But to

have a love that's so much deeper than

that personal identity or interest is

something I'll always remember. It's one

of the most gracious things I've ever

seen.

>> I can see the emotion in your face as

you say it.

>> Yeah.

>> It's still there.

>> Yeah. I hadn't thought about that in a

while.

What beautiful people.

>> Yes, we're very blessed. And uh

um and it's and it's it's it's people

like these that inspire me that uh keep

me going in in uh in this crazy world of

politics.

>> So you get to meet your biological

mother at 21, 22.

>> Yeah, around that.

>> Yeah.

>> What does one say? What are the

questions one needs to ask if any?

I'm trying to remember. We went on we

went on a bit of a road trip from uh

Ottawa to Montreal and we just got to

know each other. Uh she had a lot of uh

questions about how my life had been and

uh I had a lot of questions about our

our biological family, about her father

who was a really great man. I would go

on to meet a great Irishman

and um the circumstances that led to my

my conception and and birth. And I

really came to understand her decision

to put me up for adoption. And I've

never been resentful for it at all. She

she was 16. She just lost her mother to

a heart attack. She um didn't have a lot

of means. And she just made a selfless

decision that we would have more

opportunity if we were raised by someone

else.

>> Did you ever learn anything about your

biological father?

>> Yes. Yeah. He he works at at a um a

concrete plant in British Columbia. And

so I went and met him. He's a great

father with children that that he

subsequently had and raised and and so

he he's a very good man as well. And my

my adoptive father is a a teacher and uh

he gave me a lot of uh wonderful lessons

and I think is responsible for my way

with words.

>> Marlene and Donald.

>> That's right.

>> So Marlene's your adopted mother.

Donald's your adopted father. They

divorce when you're 12 years old.

>> Yes. It would be around that time. I was

in grade five.

very difficult time for parents to

divorce. Very difficult time. I remember

that that period of life very very

clearly because I remember one day my

parents coming to me and telling me that

they didn't love each other anymore that

they were going to get a divorce. They

didn't.

>> Okay.

>> But I remember bit which you know I

think did enough damage for but it was

around that age and I I remember where I

was stood in the house. I remember what

I was wearing when they said that to me

cuz it's earthshattering.

>> It is actually.

>> I just can't I can't unforget it. It was

it was traumatizing. Well, we were my

dad told me and he wanted to tell me

alone. So, he we we got into uh the car.

He said he wanted to take me for a drive

and we drove to the local corner store

and we parked in the car and he told me

that there. But it is very traumatizing

and um but at the same time like they

were very very good parents. So, I I I

don't judge them for how they ended up

uh apart. Uh we were very blessed. Uh,

you know, they gave me a great start in

life. Even though they weren't together,

they they loved us very much and they

gave us all all they could.

>> And Donald would would eventually come

out as gay.

>> That's right.

>> One would assume that he was dealing

with the conflict of feelings.

>> Yes.

>> For much of the time,

>> he had been raised in a very devotly

French Catholic household and that's why

we have a French name. And before he got

married, he'd even consider going into

the priesthood and he so he was a very

devoutly Catholic person. He genuinely

loved my mother, but obviously he wasn't

programmed uh that way. You know, he has

a wonderful partner and we're friends

with uh very close with him and his

partner Ross right now.

>> Do you see how that's changed you as a

man um as you've grown up, whether it's

your sort of your perspective on what

love and romance is or anything else? I

think that if everything just been, you

know, white picket fences and, you know,

hu, you know, totally predictable and as

then then I wouldn't be the kind of

person I am today. I think it's also,

you know, it's it's like you I would you

have been as successful as you are if

you had had a very easy childhood? I

doubt it. I bet all the the hardships

that you had and the the twists and

turns that took you from Batswana to the

United Kingdom and and then onward

probably gave you some superpower. And

so uh this I think it gave me the chance

to understand that you have you don't

judge people. You you love them for who

they are. My parents also taught me an

important lesson that uh Shakespeare

says to thine own self be true. Um my

mother had when she was a a small baby,

she was in a car accident and her

fingers were burned off and she had

horrible scars um horrible burns on her

hand at the time. And as I got to my

adolescence, I said to my dad, um did it

ever bother you when you started dating

her that she she had this injury?

And he said, "No, because it didn't

bother her. She was totally at peace and

she never hid it." It wasn't long after

we met that I forgot it was even there.

And the message that I took from that is

be yourself. Don't try to hide the

scars. Scars are the trophies of

survival.

So those are some of the the lessons

that my mother and father taught me. And

my dad was the same about who he was. He

just lived his life unapologetically and

openly and he never apologized for who

he was. And that has stayed with me.

When you speak of Marlene, you you speak

up with her with a great fondness and

expression in your face that you know I

sit I've sat here six 700 times. So you

get to see who matters most to people in

their lives just by looking at their

face.

And she's she's clearly on the podium.

>> Yeah. She's a very feisty little lady,

very short and very uh very forceful.

She she taught me a lot about being, you

know, pugnacious and fighting for what

you want and what you need in life. and

um and we argued a lot when I was a kid

and I think that maybe forged some of my

current uh political uh argumentation as

well. My wife is a has a big part of it

as well. She's a very strong feisty

intelligent lady with an incredible

upbringing as well. She's a a refugee

from Venezuela and came with really

nothing. And so she has this sort of

maggyver like skill set to to get

anything done no matter how difficult

the logistics. So I've been very very uh

blessed with strong women around me.

>> At a very young age, it appears that you

took a a liking to politics. I mean you

I mean you mentioned hockey first and

Marlene taking you to hockey. I've got a

found a couple of photos of you playing

hockey which I found to be quite

interesting but um

>> yes

>> but politics when did politics come into

your your psyche?

>> I would have been uh kind of in my mid-

teens. Well, I I got into football, hurt

my back in football, so I couldn't stay

on the team. My mother had always gone

to these sort of local conservative

meetings. Um sometimes just bringing

baked goods or uh attending a volunteer

meeting. And I said, "Well, why don't

you bring me to one of those cuz I'm

bored out of my skull." And she did.

This gives me meaning. This gives me

purpose. I want to go and pursue this.

So, I started getting more and more

involved. I got an internship uh making

almost no money and uh and dressing up

in a used suit and really threw myself

fully into this mission.

>> One of the books that I um I realized

you'd read at that time from some

research is this book Adam Smith the

theory of moral sentiments.

>> Yes. So this is this really this book

has to be accompanied by its more famous

sister book which is the wealth of

nations which that's the book that most

people know Adam Smith for. think of him

as kind of the father of capitalism

because in 1776

he wrote this book which described what

we now call the free market system. And

this was a really revolutionary idea

because up until then we basically had

various forms of feudalism.

>> What's that?

>> Where a small group of lords and knights

and aristocrats control all the land and

the the the great masses do all the

work. And so you called them surfs. They

would uh do all the heavy labor and then

the lords of the manor would would take

all of the benefit. Along came the

system of free enterprise that Adam

Smith describes which is basically it

has a very simple premise voluntary

exchange of work for wages, product for

payment and investment for interest. And

that the economy rather than being

guided by the iron fist of the king or

the state is guided by the invisible

hand of the free market. And this had

been it had been thought that this was

crazy. How could the economy just sort

of run itself? And the answer is through

price signals. If the price of something

goes up, people just automatically start

making more of it. And if you need more

workers to make that thing, well, you

raise the wages and all of a sudden,

what do you know? The workers arrive.

And this system is absolutely ingenious.

Like, it's why when you go into a coffee

shop and you buy your coffee, you say

thank you. They don't say you're

welcome. They say thank you because they

have something worth more to them than

they had before, the money, and you have

something worth more to you than you had

before. And this voluntary exchange puts

everyone on equal scale. Even if you're

a massive corporation, you want to sell

something to a 15-year-old kid, you have

to convince them that's worth more than

the cost. So, everybody has to be better

off in the exchange for it to occur. And

that was how free enterprise formed. And

it has led to a spectacular increase in

the quality of living and the economic

growth 200fold increase in economic

growth in the in the free enterprise era

versus the feudal era. So a lot of

people thought Adam Smith is only

interested in a in a system where people

are out serving themselves their

self-interest. That's what they took

from the statement in the wealth of

nations that it is not from the b

benevolence of the brewer, the baker or

the butcher that we get our meal but

from his own self-interest.

But that was only half the story. The

other half was in this book called the

theory of moral sentiments in which he

explains how self-interest overlaps with

virtue. So what he said is that we have

something called fellow feeling which is

to say we feel for the other person and

we feel good when someone else does

good. It's why we explain that you know

people donate to charity or they leave

the door open for a stranger or they

might help an injured person uh on the

street because they feel bad when they

see someone else their fellow suffering

and they feel good when they see him

succeeding. And that's why it's called

sentiments because you feel these

things. I saw this in my own son. He um

for the first time he got a little toy

and he gave it to his sister. It was the

first gift he'd ever given his life. And

he was so happy. Like he literally ran

in a big circle around our the foyer of

our of our residence and just laughing

and screaming. It just made him so

happy. Happier than she was to even

receive it. And this is the best of

human nature that his interest, his

happiness was served by seeing his his

sister better off. And this is really

laid out in some detail in the theory of

moral sentiments. And it for me it's

like it like brings together all of

human nature in one place. Now he's not

naive. He does accept that there are

bad, you know, dark angels in our

nature, but he gives the only plausible

explanation that I have seen about how

you intersect self-interest with

altruism.

>> And how did that change your perspective

and therefore you know your policies and

your career? I have found that

those who push a socialist ideology have

a gross contradiction

in their view of human nature. They say

that human beings are wretched,

self-interested, greedy when they're in

the private voluntary economy, but

they're angels when they're in the

governmental economy. And therefore they

argue that the government should just

control everything because then we have

all these angels that will decide for

us, decide what we get to where how our

money is spent, what we're supposed to

believe in the modern day what kind of

vehicles we drive, what we should think.

Um but that is a a huge contradiction.

If a if a man if man is not capable of

deciding for himself, surely he's not

capable of deciding for others. And I

think the worst the worst vices in human

nature come out when there is too much

power and concentrated in their hands.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So

my ideology is that we should disperse

power that it should be a bottom-up

system with as much freedom and agency

as humanly possible that people should

be free to choose for themselves and

that the go the purpose of the

government is to do only those things

people cannot do for themselves. I guess

if there's, you know, socialists

listening now, they might think, well,

we tried this sort of capitalistic

approach to the economy and it's

resulted in us being able to buy less uh

food and vegetables for our money. It's

mean the price has gone up at the pumps.

People are struggling. It seems that

inequality has widened and the the

working class seem to be struggling more

now than ever before. They can't buy

homes anymore like my my parents or my

grandparents could could have. So

clearly we need socialism they would

argue because the current system has not

worked.

>> Well, 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. And that is why we see record

inequality. Government is actively

intervening in the economy to forcefully

redistribute wealth up the chain.

>> Up the chain.

>> Absolutely. And there are countless

examples of it. When they block home

building with heavy regulations, they

limit the supply of homes. Those who

have mansions therefore are wit richer

because their houses are worth more. But

young people, newcomers, working-class

people can't actually get a home. Uh

that is a one example of state

intervention. Well, we could do maybe do

an illustration here.

>> Okay. So, this is um this is the total

amount of land in Canada.

>> Yes.

>> Where homes could be built. And actually

this is quite reflective I think of the

much of the western world even the UK

>> and this is a penny.

>> Yes.

>> Do you you understand this

demonstration?

>> Yes. I think what you're trying to say

is that this is about how much land we

live on.

>> Yes.

>> Yes.

>> So um Canada is a great example of this

because we have 10 times as much land

per person as the second closest G7

country. And yet we have the fewest

homes per capita to live in. And why is

that? It's because that the vast

majority of the cost that goes into

building a new home is not land, labor,

or lumber. It's government. It's

government taxes, fees, charges, uh,

bureaucracy,

lobbyists, consultants. So if you think

of this home here,

this home here in Canada, when you buy

this house, more of the money for your

purchase would go to bureaucrats in

office buildings than to the carpenters,

electricians, and plumbers who actually

build the home.

>> Why? How?

>> Because the bureaucracy has grown like

um any organism in nature which seeks to

to survive and multiply. They uh give us

the second slowest building permits of

any country in the OECD. They charge

enormous development taxes which started

out just to pay for plumbing and and

roads for the the related housing but

now have grown into just a huge cash cow

for local governments because sales

taxes still apply on most new homes. And

all of that gets consp.

In fact, we uh we are the most expensive

in the G7 even though we should be it

should be dirt cheap to own a home in

Canada because we have the most dirt to

build on. Uh and my goal is to remove

all of that bureaucracy speed have the

fastest permits in the world and and

make it tax-free to build homes so that

everyone can afford one. I was reading

some stat that said, again, I might

butcher this a little bit, but it said

that Canada needs to build between four

roughly 450,000 new homes every single

year until 2035.

>> Yes.

>> Just to restore affordability.

>> That's right. And we're building about

240,000 per year. So, we need to roughly

double our home building to do that. The

good news is we have 100,000 Well, it's

not good news. We have 100,000

unemployed construction workers who'd be

happy to pick up a hammer and start

building. We have hundreds of billions

of dollars of investment that's ready to

do it. We have an abundance of land.

What we need are fast permits and low

taxes so that we can unlock that

building.

>> What is the case for slow permits?

>> There isn't one.

>> There isn't one.

>> Zero. There is no benefit to having slow

permits. They do not protect the

environment. They do not uh protect

public safety. We used to build houses

um a lot faster and they didn't fall

down. After the Second World War,

permits were almost instantaneous. We

had a massive buildup of homes so that

our returning veterans could have a

place to live. In many neighborhoods of

Canada, those homes are still standing.

They have not collapsed. There's no I'm

not saying we get rid of building codes.

They should all have to follow standards

of environmental responsibility and be

fire resistant and and safe. But it

doesn't it shouldn't take seven years to

approve a subdivision to do that. We we

know how the the developers know how to

build according to the rules. They just

need quick permits and freed up land to

do it.

>> You'd think now with AI you'd be able to

approve these permits within minutes.

>> Look, with all the technology, housing

should be so much cheaper than it than

it was before. Uh in fact, everything

should be so much cheaper. But this is

another area where government is re

redistributing wealth from the working

class to the super rich. It's the

monetary inflation where we're creating

cash at a far faster rate than we're

creating the stuff that cash buys. We've

in Canada increased the number of homes

over the last 10 years by 13%. But we've

increased the money supply by 100%. In

other words, there is now eight the the

growth in the money supply is eight

times faster than the growth in the

growth in the housing supply,

>> which means for the average person that

it bids up the price. Now, you might

say, well, if everybody's equally

getting their share of that money, then

who cares? But they're not. There's

something called the Catalon effect,

which is that the first people to touch

the money in a uh monetary expansion are

those who are already wealthy and

already connected to the financial

system. So when government creates cash

to fund its deficits, it doesn't just

dump the the bills out of an airplane

into a suburban neighborhood. It injects

it into the banking system by buying

government bonds at inflated prices. And

those who trade in those bonds are the

first to get the cash. Those connected

to the to the financial system are the

first to borrow it. they get to deploy

it before it loses its value. By the

time it trickles down to the

workingclass people, it's lost its value

and their wages have been destroyed. And

this has been happening on and off

throughout all of human history. But

it's been particularly bad in the last

55 years. And that is why I think the

working class across the Western world

is so angry.

>> Canada have consistently dropped down

the sort of happiness league table.

>> Well, actually from 2015 we've gone from

fifth to 25th. the 18th. We went from

18th to 25th just in the last year.

>> So you were the fifth happiest country

in the world and now you're 25th.

>> That's right. And part of it is food. We

have the worst food price inflation in

the G7 today. It's due to a lot of

hidden taxes that are baked into food

production. Uh we have an industrial

carbon tax that it charges on farm

equipment, fertilizer, and uh food

producers. We have a new fuel tax that's

just come in. single-use plastic is now

banned, which makes it that so that food

goes bad about five days quicker. So, it

sounds kind of very virtuous. We're not

going to use plastic anymore, but it

ultimately means food uh goes bad and

and somebody pays for that. So, uh we we

need I want to get rid of all of those

taxes and fees and unnecessary

regulations that do nothing for our

health and safety so that we can have

more affordable food. But um more

broadly, we have to get rid of the the

monetary inflation that I described. As

I said, we've doubled our money supply

in Canada from 1.4 trillion to 2.8

trillion in 10 years. So, it is not

actually that these things cost more.

It's that the money with which we buy

them is worth less

>> because

>> because we're creating so much of it.

And it's

>> and why why are you doing that?

>> To fund deficits

>> to pay for debts.

>> That's right. And that's why all

government, it's not just Canada, by the

way, it's across the Western world,

they're creating cash to fund deficits.

>> And the deficits come from having a big

government.

>> Yes.

>> Government that's too big.

>> That's right.

>> That's too involved.

>> That's right. And the result is that

we're we're creating cash faster than we

grow food, build homes, or produce

energy. And my mission, Stephen, is to

flip that. I want us to create more of

what kash buys by unblocking food

production, energy production and home

building so that we add those things

faster than we add what um we add the

cash to the system.

>> Why I mean I saw this graph here this

chart which is GDP per capita with

international counterparts. So on there

it has Canada, United States, OECD and

it shows it's quite stark. It shows that

Canada has basically plateaued in terms

of GDP per capita. What does for the

average person what is GDP per capita?

What does that actually mean?

>> It's your income really. It's the it it

ultimately the GDP gross domestic

product is the the value of all the

things that you produce. If you're

producing more per person over time,

people will see their wages rise, their

real wages rise. If you don't produce

more per person, then your wages are

flat. And so that is what we've

effectively had in Canada over the last

10 years.

>> Why?

>> Because we we are not unlocking our

resources. Our biggest industry is oil

and gas and it's locked behind uh very

aggressive anti-development laws and

bureaucracies because we're we're

blocking home building and because we're

overt taxing our population. We're

punishing initiative with high taxes.

The good news is that we can reverse all

of these things. If we we have the most

prodevelopment, and the fastest permits

in the world, if we cut taxes on work,

investment, home building, and energy,

then we can massively increase our

output of the things that we need to

have a good life and the wages that

people earn to buy it.

>> This seems to be a familiar story across

some Western nations.

>> It is.

>> What are those Western nations and what

is the thing that they've all got in

wrong in common?

Well, I think that it's probably true in

the UK and the European Union as well.

Well, let's take Germany. They shut down

their nuclear sector and they tried to

effectively drive oil and gas out of

their country. The end result was

extremely high energy costs. And this

was another intervention that took from

workingclass people and gave to the very

rich. Those who were able to get the

subsidies for windmills and solar panels

got fabulously wealthy, all very

powerful people. But the workers in the

in the plants and the mines of rural

Germany ended up losing their jobs and

paying higher prices for electricity.

All of which, by the way, has been

reversed because now the Germans are

back to burning coal. So it did

absolutely nothing for the environment.

Uh this is another example of government

intervention totally screwing over the

working class, a phenomenon across the

western world. And this is the big lie.

The big lie is that when government gets

big, it gives people their fair share.

What it does in fact is it gives the

money and the resources to those who

have the most political power. Those

people are all rich and it pays for it

by taking from the working class. So my

mission in politics is to reverse that

entire approach. Have a small government

with big people, a meritocracy that

rewards work and a free enterprise

system that requires businesses compete

for workers with higher wages and

consumers with lower prices.

>> I'm looking here at the GDP forecasts

for various countries around the world.

In the United States, uh, GDP forecast

looks like it's, um, it's been pretty,

you know, pretty strong relative to

others. Canada looks like it's going

down. 2025 estimates 1.7%,

26 estimates 1.3. The United Kingdom as

well seems to have been lagging. Um,

both the United States and Canada. And

Germany, as you said, in 2024, their GDP

growth was only 0.2, two, which is

hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and

hundreds of percentages lower than the

United States, Canada, or even the UK.

But clearly there is a problem with GDP

growth here

>> um for Canada, for the United Sta, for

the United Kingdom relative to a country

like the United States. It looks like

the United States are doing something

right.

>> If you look at GDP growth is the main

measure.

>> Look, um there are some policies that we

can learn from. Um it's not just the

United States though. Look at uh look at

Switzerland for example. Uh the Swiss

are among the wealthiest in the world.

They have the best money, the lowest

inflation. They have almost no inflation

in Switzerland by the way. They have

very strong money. The the Swiss Frank

is the best currency in the world,

better than the euro or the American

dollar. What do they have? Free

enterprise, small government. the share

of of the economy consumed by government

spending is significantly lower than

anywhere else in the western world um

outside of uh outside of Asia and so

they do very well. How is it that the

Singaporeans have become one of the

wealthiest nations on earth? They have

no resources, literally nothing. They

have to import their water for God's

sakes. They they took an a swampy uh

mosquitoinfested island and three

peoples who were struggling to survive

in their homelands and they came

together and created the wealthiest

country in the world outside of the Gulf

States. Why? They have free enterprise.

They have low taxes. It's easy to start

a business. You're rewarded for your

hard work. This is the kind of thing we

could be doing.

>> So looking at the numbers of Singapore,

Singapore operates in a league of its

own, outperforming both the UK, Canada,

and the USA in terms of growth. um and

per capita wealth as a hub economy. It

is currently riding the wave of the

global AI boom because they've enabled

entrepreneurship and it is more than GD

from a GDP perspective last year more

than double the United States GDP

growth. Um and I mean it's it's left uh

Canada and the United Kingdom and even

Switzerland in its tracks in that

regard. Interesting.

>> It's a spectacular achievement. And I

mean uh Lee Kuanlu who founded the

country and created this miracle uh

should be studied by every leader in the

world. Um because I don't think there's

anyone who's been able to generate such

a a a massive uh increase in the quality

of life and to do it with literally no

resources whatsoever except for

geography that and they managed to

exploit their geography as you said to

be kind of like modern-day Nabotans.

They're a trading hub uh for for all of

Asia. Every sort of economic policy or

philosophy does have a trade-off.

>> I mean, it's one thing you learn as a

podcaster. There's just always

trade-offs. And if you're not clear on

what the trade-offs are, then they might

surprise you,

>> right?

>> I mean, that, you know, you can talk

about socialism or you can talk about

capitalism, whatever. All of them have

trade-offs. What are the trade-offs of

your economic

strategy and philosophy?

>> Well, the the leadership has to have

humility because it has to let go of

power and and and turn it back to the

people. And um that is a very hard thing

for politicians to do. Um I mean uh no

politician wants to have written on

their gravestone. Um 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. But I should also say

that like there is a role for

government. I'm not suggesting that

there isn't. There there should be a

basic social safety net that provides

the things that people who are less

advantaged would not be able to have for

themselves to make sure that everyone

has health care even if uh they can't

afford to pay for it. That there's basic

schooling and roads and infrastructure.

But what happens is that once you get

beyond providing those basics and

government starts to to metastasize into

well well uh all kinds of other things

that are not its core responsibility

each dollar spent has less and less

return and then it turns into a negative

return where the more they spend the

more damage they do and I think we're

beyond that point on the curve

>> because I'm thinking about how

immigration ties into all of this and to

GDP growth. I think in Canada from the

research I was doing there has been a

decline in birth rates. Yes.

>> So there's significantly less people

getting married. There's significantly

less people being born. So how does one

run their economy when you're not having

new children being born without bringing

in lots of immigrants to to help support

that economy?

>> Well, first of all, I think we have to

ask ourselves why has the birth rate

gone down? And I I would argue that it's

economic re reasons. Uh if you cannot

afford a home, then you have no place to

raise children. Um, you know, we have

this phenomenon of in Canada of

35-year-olds still living in their

parents' basements. And h how do you

even get a date? I mean, how do you

bring a date home? You know, it's it's a

challenge if if you're 35. And these are

great high achieving people who've got

jobs, but they just can't afford a place

to live or they're stuck in a a small

apartment because that's all their

paycheck will buy them in the way of

rent. And so I think for those economic

constraints, we we have a lot of young

people who otherwise would love to have

children in their late 20s, early 30s

who simply have nowhere to raise them.

>> Am I right in thinking that a lot of

these western economies have allowed a

lot of people into their countries to

make up for

the the willingness or desire or the

availability of people to do the sort of

low wage jobs? Is this is what is this

what's happened globally? Because it's

what people tell me in the UK. Yes, I

think I frankly I think that a lot of

multinational corporations have abused

the immigration system in order to drive

down wages. Um in Canada, for example,

the government massively expanded um the

international student and temporary

foreign worker programs and that allowed

corporations to pay artificially low

wages to people who do not have the same

mobility rights and opportunities. and

that drove down wages, displaced people

from their jobs and ultimately ballooned

housing costs. And so my position is

that we need to to cap numbers um and

ensure that the the economy, healthcare

and housing grows faster than the

population at all times.

>> If you cap numbers, does that mean that

these corporations, these entrepreneurs,

these companies don't have enough people

to fill the roles in their companies and

therefore have to move somewhere else?

What what does it mean? No, we have

unemployment. We have people without

jobs. But they just some multinationals

don't want to pay full wages. So they

think, well, I just undercut the wage by

bringing someone in from a very poor

country who's willing to work for a lot

less and who has fewer rights because

they can't leave the job to go to

another employer. So it's uh kind of

like easy street. And so my view is that

when you've got unemployed people and

you're trying to fill your workplace,

pay higher wages. Give uh give people a

better return on their work. You've got

unemployment. Are those people trained

and skilled and willing to do the jobs

that Canada needs them to do?

>> Yes, absolutely. I mean, we have 100,000

unemployed construction workers. They

could be building the homes that we need

built. Uh we have um young people coming

out of um out of high school without a

job. We have a 30-year highs in

unemployment among youth. They should be

getting those jobs. And you know,

Starbucks says, "Well, they don't want

to take them." Well, maybe you're not

paying enough. If you're not paying the

right wage, then you're not going to get

the right worker. But pay an equivalent

wage and you'll attract a worker who

will who will do the job.

>> Again, I'm trying to play devil's

advocate here. So, you know, Starbucks

increase wages. Yes. Which means that

Starbucks then will increase the cost of

a cup of coffee presumably.

>> Well, unless they can find more

efficient ways to run their systems. You

know, more competition in the system

will allow the worker to gain more and

the consumer to pay less. and the

entrepreneur in the middle has to find

ways to to save and operate more

efficiently. That's the magic of the

market is that everybody has a a a

vested interest in driving the most

value for the lowest cost.

>> One of the interesting ways lots of

employers are finding ways to drive

efficiencies is this new technology

called AI,

>> right?

>> And again, maybe somewhat ironically

here, Anthropic, who one of the world's

leading AI companies, released a report

two weeks ago. I'll throw the graph up

on the screen, but it shows where job

disruption will take place based on how

people are currently using their tools.

And one of the things they noticed is

that there's been a

increase by I think roughly 14% in youth

unemployment because entry- levelvel

jobs are the ones often in white collar

industries that are being taken out

first,

>> right?

>> And you hear these things and you go,

oh, you know, that's some stats and

whatever and it's, you know, not

necessarily tanked the economy yet. But

as an employer of hundreds and hundreds

of people all over the world now, I have

started to notice that the case for

hiring certain groups of people is

becoming much more tricky now because of

these tools. And doesn't make me sound

great saying that. It's not that we're

not hiring hundreds of people, but

there's this certain set when I look at

specifically entry level grads. if they

aren't really AI proficient, they are a

lot less appealing in some roles than

people young grads that that are

extremely AI proficient. The problem is

not many of them are. And that just in a

company like mine, if you're AI

proficient, really irrespective of age,

and you know how to build this thing

called AI agents, it's kind of like you

come with 50 team members of your own.

>> Wow.

>> That's what it's like. So, I've got a

kid called Cass here. You know, he's a

young guy in his 20 his 20ies. He's

built a team of agents that now work for

him. So hiring Cass means I get Cass and

his team of agents because he's

proficient in that technology. Most of

the workforce hasn't been trained

because of the education system to know

a thing about this. So it's becoming

increasingly difficult to to hire entry-

level people but actually all the way up

the board unless you have deep expertise

in a domain which would mean that I can

get Cass to make you the agents. So like

on my CFO, you know, for example, you

know, 50 50 years working in finance,

etc. deep expertise. I just need her and

then she can build out a team of AI

agents to work with her. Back in the

day, if you'd got 5 years ago, I would

have needed her and her to have a

massive team of people, right?

>> I say all this to say that there's a

certain group in society, people that

have deep domain expertise and people

that are technical that I think are in

higher demand than ever before. and

everybody else um as AI continues to

replace them through things like

autonomous driving and um robotics is

around the corner um is I I think there

needs to be a real conversation about

what happens to these people.

>> Can I ask you a question?

>> So

throughout history we've had these

scares where new technological

developments

have threatened to replace and in

reality have replaced certain human

labor. So you had like the during the

industrial revolution machines were

replacing muscular power and then you

had the lites who came and tried to

smash those machines to protect their

jobs. In the end they just got different

jobs with higher pay because they could

do more with these machines and they

didn't have to walk behind a you know a

mule's ass pushing a pushing a plow in

the hot sun all day. They had a tractor

that would pull the plow um and so on

and so forth. But and then in the in the

dotcom era, we were told again that

people are going to lose their jobs to

computers.

In fact, they were made more productive

by computers. Do you think this time is

fundamentally different than those prior

technological revolutions?

>> I would say first thing is nobody knows.

The second thing I'd say is yes. Okay.

>> And the reason I'd say yes is just the

speed of disruption. So unlike the in

the industrial revolution where you know

it takes some time for the new

technologies to become adopted because

of the nature of their of what those

technologies were this technology is

built on the internet which has global

distribution. So open claw is a good

example of a technology that is very to

to simplify it for the audience. It can

do anything on my computer.

So if I put a computer here on this

table I can text openclaw on WhatsApp

and tell it to go on this podcast right

now. Look at the part of the

conversation that was most replayed by

the audience. Clip it. Add subtitles to

it. Tweet it or send it to my Slack

channel. I can get it to I'll tell tell

you something I did the other day. I was

in my house in Los Angeles and it was

very very hot cuz there's a heat wave at

the moment. So I said to it, can you can

you go on take a look at my house online

um buy me a umbrella that I can put

because I like to work outside. I

actually voiced it this and what it did

is it went on Google Maps. It looked all

around my house from all around the

outside because it knew where I lived

for some bizarre reason. It knew that I

charcoal umbrella at a certain size

would suit that table out there. It went

on Amazon, found the charcoal umbrella,

it ordered it, arrives at my house,

>> and it transacted like you

>> transacted because it had my my login

details to transact on this particular

website. So, but it's just, you know,

the framing is it can do anything that

you would you would do on a computer. um

a lot of people work on computers and

the speed of adoption that we're seeing

is is staggering. So my my concern is

actually the sort of near-term

displacement before we figure out the

types of jobs that um the types of new

jobs and then with robotics on the way,

you know, you hear someone like Elon

Musk saying that there'll be more

humanoid robots than humans, you know,

and people say, well, you know, he's

saying that because he's a he's got a

vested interest, right? However, what

I'd say is his timelines have sometimes

not been right. But when he said he was

going to make those spaceships land on

chopsticks, the spaceships eventually

>> Oh, he's a brilliant mind. Don't

underestimate him.

>> And my car out there drives itself

without without intervention. So,

>> I don't know. It's a really interesting

time. I can both see why this techn is

going to change the world for the better

and I believe it will. But then I'm just

really concerned about certain economies

and countries that aren't taking it

seriously because they're so distracted

by other things. Like a lot of them race

baiting. A lot of them are like

immigration seems to be the winning

lever. Like just say the brown people

are the problem. But I'm like maybe the

alien is something else. Maybe the alien

is are these agents that are actually

going to take our jobs. I believe the

basic human need is is meaning to have

the a purpose in life. And often the

question we have to ask is how can we

guide

this uh revolution in technology so that

it empowers people to do things that

continue to give them meaning. I think

it was John Adams who said something to

the effect of my father studied

warfare so that I would have the

security to study commerce. I study

commerce so that my children will have

the prosperity to study arts. If these

new systems give us the ability to focus

on the things that we love doing that

give us meaning in our lives and that

could be a different thing for each

person

while at the same time supplying with us

with a lot of our material needs. It

could be very positive. If it simply

strips away our own utility and leaves

lots of people without the ability to

work at all, then it could be very very

dangerous to to our our our lives. So,

uh I think that we have the public

policy objective is to to to ensure that

it becomes an enabler of humanity, not a

replacement for it.

>> So, you could come into power in is it

2029 if there's no uh overthrowing of

the the current leader?

>> 2029 is going to be an interesting time.

uh if these sort of forecasts that we're

getting from some of the world's leading

experts in artificial intelligence and

robotics come true, have you thought

much yet about how you would counteract

that? What you would do to make sure

that there isn't huge job job disruption

because you know a lot of a lot of

people like Sam Alman have suggested

through their actions that they might

support things like universal basic

income. In fact, Sam Alman's Sam Alman

being the founder and um co-founder of

OpenAI, which makes Chat GBT. I think

his other startup is called WorldCoin,

which uses your retina scan to to

validate that you're a real human being

so that you they can distribute money to

people because in a world of AI, we're

going to need to find a way to

distribute wealth. And if you listen to

Elon, he says, "We're going to live in

the age of abundance where working is

going to be optional." He says, "Now, if

you're a surgeon and you're training to

be a surgeon," he says, "Absolutely

don't. Because in a couple of couple of

years time there's going to be no human

that's better than any AI surgeon.

>> Wow. So if these things are true like

surely you should be making plans

and you know when a lot of smart you

know I know they have an incentive

they're raising money and they want they

have a certain narrative which helps

them raise money but if they are right

the future looks very different from the

past.

>> That's true.

>> Do you have a plan?

I I have principles that I would apply

as these technologies present

themselves. And the principle for me is

how do we make sure that the AI

enables and empowers people to make more

decisions for themselves and have more

freedom and a and um to pursue their own

meaning

rather than replacing and rendering them

um giving them a sense of of lost

meaning and purpose. And so, do I think

it's great that every minimum wage

worker might have a personal assistant

and a chauffeur vehicle? I do. Because

that that would make more of their life

uh uh they could spend on the the things

that thrill them and make them happy and

less of their life would be spent on the

drudgery of having to drive in a traffic

jam or uh or, you know, sweep their

floor. Um but uh at the same time we

have to make sure that that people have

the ability to work and contribute and

and give themselves a sense of meaning

in their lives. So the other thing I

would say is that as these technologies

bring down costs, those savings should

be passed on to people. They should not

be inflated away. The government should

not use this as an opportunity to just

print more cash to reflate the cost of

living. We should actually seek as our

goal to lower the cost of living, make

life more affordable, make our dollars

go further, which is which hasn't

happened in in generations. And so if

technology is going to allow us to

produce more for less, then let's make

sure that the workingclass people

actually enjoy that benefit rather than

having it inflated away. It is quite

concerning that you know if wealth does

acrew to these big companies and you

know people like Elon who incredible

entrepreneur

>> is going to become the world's first

trillionaire right

>> I don't think he'll be the last the way

things are going with with artificial

intelligence that and then if there is

job disruption

I do think there's going to potentially

need to be some government intervention

corrective government intervention do

you not I don't know

>> nobody knows exactly what's going to

happen I mean it was you know um Paul

Krugman, the Nobel Prizewinning uh

economist who embarrassingly predicted

that the internet would have no more

impact on our lives than the fax

machine.

>> And and he's a Nobel Prize uh economist,

I think, from Princeton or Yale or

something. So nobody's Nostradamus on

these things, but we have to have

guiding principles and and mine are the

rules around technology should always be

geared towards giving people more

agency, more meaning, and more control

over their lives and not less.

>> It's funny cuz I don't hear it reflected

enough in political discourse. I hear us

focusing on other things. And one of

those things is immigration. across the

western world, the subject of

immigration seems to be a bit of a

winning formula for political leaders.

If I think about the UK, what Trump said

about, you know, being invaded by

rapists and murderers from the the

southern border, do you feel that it's a

it's a sort of a weaponized, divisive

tool for people to get elected,

complaining about the brown people or or

foreigners? I

>> I'll just give you the Canadian

experience. So for roughly 200 years, we

had the most successful immigration

system in the world by far. In fact,

other countries, both Republicans and

Democrats in the United States used to

say, "We need to study the Canadian

system because it has been so

successful." We had a point system that

that measured whether someone would be a