I never watch these things back, so can’t speak to how OK or bad this is.
Here are my notes — stuff didn’t make to air:
I find these attempts to create or rediscover a Canadian strain of conservatism mostly boring. Brian Lee Crowley is a good example. I was profoundly unconvinced by his books like Fearful Symetry, which was like the Ancient Astronauts of Canadian conservative theory. And he’s the Erik von Danniken: “Hey, look at this hieroglyph of a guy in what looks like a space suit! That means aliens built the Pyramids!!”
If all you’re going to do is cherry pick a bunch of old quotes from speeches by some long dead politician to prove your point, how is that different from the dubious leftist approach? They do the same thing, creating entire movements out of Eisenhower’s farewell address, or Washington’s letter to the Danbury Baptists.
When politicians give speeches, they’re usually lying. Can you imagine someone 100 years from now taking a bunch of Tim Hudack speeches and saying, “behold, conservatism was alive and well in the 21st century.”
So why are you using that stuff as evidence for anything?
My standard of Canadian conservatism is the Juno Beach Standard: what did the men on Juno Beach die for?
Now some would say these were teenaged boys who didn’t have some kind of fully developed philosophy and that’s fair enough.
But let’s define it from the negative: I feel deeply secure in declaring the men on Juno Beach did NOT die for gay marriage or sex ed in kindergarten or a massive welfare state or an immigration policy specifically designed to literally change the face of Canada and “create a new people” who would all vote for the Liberals (and now the Conservatives).
That’s as good a starting point and digging up old stuff about John A. Macdonald.