Skip to content

Interview with President of Christian Heritage Party


Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal (Unpublished)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/01

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, tell us a little bit about your family background and how they have been involved in Canada and how that has an influence on your own political interests as a youth?

Rod Taylor: I was born in the States. Both my parents were born in the States. Dad was born in Colorado and mom was born in Maine. When I was growing up, we attended Quaker meetings. Dad was a pacifist. Both of them were involved in social works on various levels.

We moved around with Dad’s work. We were in Minnesota. That’s where I was born, or Wisconsin, New Jersey. I changed my school in California within the New York state. So, dad was a Conscientious Objector in World War II, spent time in jail for refusing to participate with the system.

That was an interesting time. He then was involved in my younger years with the Civil rights movement with Martin Luther King; not with him, but attended some of the marches and things, that Martin Luther King was involved in.

Later on in the ‘60s, we were in Salamanca, New York, where the Seneca Indians were being flooded off land, land that had been promised to them by George Washington. It was the longest-standing two years and had not yet been broken.

Dad was defending them trying to prevent the flooding from taking place, but was unsuccessful. That was our introduction to Indian or First Nation issues in the United States. Later on, I finished my school at a Quaker boarding school in California, by that time mom and dad were planning to move to British Columbia, which they did.

I joined them when I graduated from high school in Vancouver and in British Columbia. Dad got involved increasingly with various environmental issues and First Nations’ issues that occupied him for the most of the rest of his life up to May 2002.

But it certainly influenced our family’s awareness of some of the issues in the country and environmental issues as well. By the time I left home, my saw travelled a bit and saw the country, both The United States and Canada.

I trekked back and forth across the country a few times, worked on farms. I was in community living for some time there, into gardening. That’s where I met my wife. She was a Christian when I met her, had become a Christian.

A few years later after we were married, I became a Christian too. That certainly influenced the way I looked at the world. We moved to Smithers, BC, where I worked in a lumber industry. Then we moved out to Alberta for 12 years, worked on the railroad’s track maintenance for about six of those years.

We went to Bible School for couple of years at Caroline, Alberta. Then in 1987, we moved back to Smithers area, northern BC. The next 22 years, I worked in the lumber industry and during that time in 1997 was when we first got involved with Christian Heritage Party.

And so, my wife went to a meeting one night. I was working night shift at saw mill. The next morning, she told me about some folks that want to do something in defense of innocent human life, in defense of traditional family values and freedom of speech and those kinds of things.

She felt it was a good thing for us to get involved with and we did. We were busy building a house and I was getting the hang of my working career in the lumber industry and became quality control supervisor. I was involved first in the union and later on in management in the lumber industry.

So, we have been involved for quite a number of years. In 2001, we had in the previous couple of years been involved in helping to organize a provincial party, the BC Unity Party, which was a coming together of five center-conservative parties: The Family Coalition Party of BC, The BC Party, Social Credit, and one other one that basically came together and formed a single party and that ran as a provincial candidate in Buckley Valley-Stikine in 2001.

None of our candidates were elected, but it was a good experience for me. From that point, I have been increasingly involved in politics and especially a few years later. I became a candidate for The Christian Heritage Party.

I have run a number of times there and in 2008 I became the Deputy Leader of the party. So, I was working in a mill. It was a voluntary position as a deputy leader, but shortly after I took on the role of Director for the party, which allowed me to do promotional work for the Christian Heritage Party full time across the country

In 2014, I became the leader’s party.

Jacobsen: [Laughing] You’ve been married to Elaine for 41 Years.

Taylor: It’s for 42 Year now.

Jacobsen: 42 Years. Congratulations!

Taylor: Thanks.

Jacobsen: You have two children and four grandchildren. That might have changed in the past year.

Taylor: No, it’s still the same.

Jacobsen: What perspective does having children and grandchildren, in other words lineage, on the future of a nation for you?

Taylor: It’s important; we don’t live for ourselves. I don’t mean Elaine and me, but people generally don’t live for themselves. This is by experience; we are the inheritors of the work. The labor, the traditions, and culture and love and care of those who’ve gone before.

We can also have fraternities to participate in; they’ve got a type of world that our children and grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren are going to inherit. There’s a lot of talk in the media or maybe in the parts of society that are leaving more focus on environmental issues.

There are talks about our environmental program, but about what a world we’re going to leave for our children in terms of pollution. Those types of things, which are certainly important. We have a legacy.

We have a planet. We want to pass it on in good shape, but we also have a little calm world environment. The society that our children and grandchildren will be living in. This freedom that we hope they will have the type of interactions they will have with their neighbors and those beyond borders to our international neighbors as well.

So, we have a short period of time as human beings. Even a strong person: but if we use a hundred years as an optimistic lifespan, 70 to a 100 years, we’re here for a short period of time. When we’re gone, we hope that we left a mark, and a positive mark, on the landscape; something that our children will appreciate.

Freedoms and opportunities that we can help create for them.

Jacobsen: Your personal values relate to not only thinking about future generations, but also standing for the innocent, the helpless, and freedom of speech. What’s the importance of these values to you?

Taylor: At some point, I’ll cross back into the world view. I have a Christian world view, but everyone has a religious world view and may not all call it that. But we believe that we are created for a purpose. That there is something beyond being born, punching the clock for so many years and being put into that dirt.

There’s the belief where God comes into play We have a responsibility. The opportunity to represent something beyond the 9 to 5 world. Something greater than the grief and struggle to maintain the physical existence.

So, for our children, we want them, and of course the children of this generation, to understand that they’re here for a purpose; something higher, we may name it your God, the opportunity to have positive interactions.

If we lived for ourselves then the survival of the fittest is the right way to live; get what you can, don’t worry about the other guy, find the ladder, enjoy all the things in life, and don’t worry about tomorrow, but our understanding of why we’re here is that God has put us here for His glory.

He has created mankind to have a relationship. He cares enough and that the creator of the universe cares enough to have a relationship with us and it’s ours to take. We are willing to participate in His plans.

Now, we can have a satisfying life if we want to live for ourselves which is over in a short period of time, but by cooperating with the One who has plans for us. We can be satisfied that we are contributing to an understanding of our fellow man, our children, grandchildren, and all others, but those who live around us.

If we give away human relationships, if we give away the value of human life, that is something beyond drawing your breath and pumping blood and tasting food for a short few years, then we have to look beyond that.

Otherwise, it could be a dismal existence. That’s why people who don’t think that way maybe tried to during their candidate experience as much as they can in this new year that we have here. That they don’t see something beyond the grave; we do believe there is life beyond the grave and soul.

We believe in everything from that promise. We have to look beyond our daily existence. Otherwise, we see around us in society, the plague and suicide. People trying to fill their soul as they’re trying to experience everything they can, whether it’s tasting things or feeling things or hearing things.

They’re trying to cram it all in. We believe that there’s things for us to experience beyond the grave that are far beyond what no one is supposed to experience here in this life.

Jacobsen: With that form of community, with that ultimate framework for a view on life, principles and values will be scripturally based, biblically based.

Taylor: That’s correct. I mean, we do believe that the Bible is God’s Word to man and that we are following – I don’t want to call it suggestions, but following – God’s directions. It is a way for us to safety, security, and happiness.

Ignoring what He has to say to us is basically ignoring the opportunity to be secure; so, I’m going to say no one inside agrees with that world view. Everyone has a worldview, but no one has a Christian world view.

We believe that when people ask us about the tie between our religious point of view and our political point of view. We believe that the things that God wants for mankind are good for all. So, it’s not a matter of trying to impose restrictions on people that will make their lives narrower and less enjoyable.

We want people to be free of disease. We don’t want people to be suffering. For instance, abortion is an issue we talk about a lot. There’s a lot of studies that show increased rates of breast cancer from abortion, especially in the first pregnancy.

So, when we are trying to save someone from some agony or an increase in depression or suicide following on a percentage basis, following abortion compared to those who fear the job or term, we think of broken home syndrome in this country.

It’s way out of control ever since the “No Fault Divorce” concept came in, but we think that imposes pain and suffering on children that they spend the rest of their lives trying to sort out when the two people that are most important in their lives – their mother and father – are no longer in a relationship.

We’re not saying that can always be avoided, but policies should lean towards encouraging families to stay together because it avoids pain. Those pains that are inflicted in childhood. Often, we see them come home in later life.

Children who’ve never witnessed a sustained marriage are probably more likely to fail in their own marriage. At times, they’re going to say, “My parents could not do it. So, maybe, it’s impossible to hold a family together.”

We take our guidance from the whole Bible. Itself is a big. It has lots of angles to it, instructions and important things, but first is to do to others as you would have them do unto you, love neighbor as yourself, honor God, have a reverence for the one who made you, and reverence and respect for your fellow human being.

If all of this is spiritual wisdom was followed, from man down to our society, if they lived according to those, we’d have a lot better society than we have today.

Jacobsen: With the foundation in Scripture in the Bible, in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the final moral precept, ethical precept, of the Golden Rule exists there.

This can be taken at multiple scales, not only at the individual level, but with respect to how one treats oneself, as how one treats one’s neighbor, how one treats people that they happen to come across in the street, their own family, their community, their province or territory, and the larger society.

Does this perspective with the ethical precept of the Golden Rule at all levels in society impact at the parties’ positions?

Taylor: Sure. I mean, first example that comes to mind, is when we as a society or as a government do not spend money that has not yet been earned by the children of the next generation, or is stealing their money or spending money that they didn’t give permission.

They didn’t get to elect today’s politicians, but they’re going to have to pay the bills tomorrow. So, that is one example on income. Of course, our intervention or our attempt to intervene in the protection of innocent human life.

the child in the womb is my neighbor. So, to see a life shortened is something we should intervene in on an individual level, that becomes a suicidal issue at an individual level. We can speak to people as individuals.

We don’t have authority to tell people what they should do and indeed the strength of our influence should be persuasion rather than caution. We as Christians, Canadians, who care about other Canadians.

We should be getting better at our powers of persuasion and another angle to this is the family. The broader wings of our relationships, but self-government. everybody wants to be independent.

But if we will have a true self-government as individuals and restraining ourselves as opposed to restraining someone else, if all of us have that and we were all doing unto others that we would have done unto us, we would need as many rules and regulations, court cases, and people suing one another.

That only happens because were trying to assert our rights over somebody else’s rights. If we were caring about each other than on that level, it’s a pretty high standard price to set to love others as we love ourselves, but your neighbor’s fence line or whatever it is.

If we were doing that, we would need far fewer rules and regulations than we have today – than frankly the rules and regulations we have today. The laws aren’t doing it as it seems to be in many ways becoming more lawless.

There is more anarchy and more people doing the wrong things and not caring about others. Here comes a point where you can’t hire enough policemen to make sure there’s no graffiti, to make sure things don’t get broken at night. If you do hire enough policemen to do that, you can’t afford them.

Secondly, how are you going to ensure society, the individuals that make up our society, don’t have the law written in their heart or don’t have self-governance? How would we know that the policemen or the judges that takes the cases are going to judge properly?

So, we need to become a nation of people who are governed from within. Then we’ll be able to find the right people to govern from without or to oversee the peaceful, prosperous, and connected society.

Jacobsen: That freedom to speak and those anarchic tendencies with a fraying of social ties in society. It can reduce the amount of peace in the society. This goes back at least 2,500 years to Plato, when he was writing about these kinds of things.

The party has talked about “the high cost of a bloated and unaccountable bureaucracy.” How does this impact the working class especially with respect to a “sovereign national debt and an unsustainable tax burden”?

Taylor: Good. The bureaucracy, everyone has seen it grow. The number of civil servants. It can keep expanding, trying to cover what we need. When people count on government to do everything for them and nobody does that, but when people want government to do everything for them, we’ve put our trash can on the street.

Now, what if we want the government to come into our house and clean our house and take the trash out to the street? You can develop levels of dependence that are unsustainable. If people watch over the lock in front of their own house’s door, that’s another example.

That you don’t need some entire government set of personnel. I’m not saying that’s unnecessarily a bad thing, but those are examples. If we become a society, or maybe we are already a society, that requires a government agency to ensure that we’re not polluting a stream.

It could even be more than one agency. Maybe, it’s a federal level, provincial level, or a regional district. Then I have officers, staff, and vehicles and as opposed to individuals saying, “I’m going to be sure that I don’t pollute a stream.”

Maybe, they got people that are doing a great job of that and one person who doesn’t care, but because of that one person we have to create a government department to look after that. Everybody has to pay for it. Those are some levels of family.

If families would stay together, a whole lot of problems would go away or would be reduced at least, whereas now you need the court system to deal with family break down and so on. You need social workers.

So, it’s back to the point of taxes are unaffordable. Obviously, we’re having deficit year after year It’s also happening in the household. I wouldn’t go on forever because someone will come and take your house, right?

We can’t spend money that we don’t have; we can’t at least on an annual basis because of the potential for some great natural disaster. We have to spend a little bit more one year then another, but you have to pay it back the next year.

You can’t do what we’ve been doing over and over again. Now, we have a debt of six hundred and twenty billion looking something like seventy-one million dollars a day in interest. So, the interest payments and to our other costs.

It goes on and on, but it hasn’t been curtailed except for a few years. Then all that was saved in over ten years’ time has been re-spent again. So, it’s best to find out what are the important things that we can’t do without that requires taxpayers to cover the cost and to read the taxpayer magazine.

There are numerous examples of things that money gets spent on. even if you went to empty your salaries, some of the costs are going to CEOs of Crown Corporations and things like that. it’s always ridiculous.

Why would politicians vote themselves for those kinds of salaries when the average Canadian can’t support themselves? Sometimes, it’s hard for me to believe that politicians would have the brass to do that, but that’s where we’re at today.

A rough answer to your question, maybe if you need to redirect the question or reframe it, if you do that then I could try again [Laughing].

Jacobsen: [Laughing] So, with respect to that response about government bureaucracy, the national debt, the tax burden on the working class, and so on, what would the Christian Heritage Party of Canada do to remove what it deems unnecessary red tape and other obstacles to success?

Taylor: We would have our own cabinet. We’d form a government. You have to go through line by line on what can we do without. At any end, you have to make some decision what can we live without. We have to do it as a family.

We can’t afford this particular item this year or this month. We have to do without. There’s no other way around it. Unfortunately, the difficulty for politicians in making those tough decisions is your decision affects somebody else. Since you require the relics of those people, of at least of some of them to get re-elected, that’s the trend: the downward trend.

It’s easy to promise people things on the way into office and hard to deliver them. If you’re promising to cut taxes, you have to say “then what are we not going to buy?” So, Thomas Jefferson said, “Democracy will only last until the people discover they can vote themselves money.”

Essentially, that’s where we’re at today is it’s easy to promise things and the public seems to be practically unaware that what is promised with one hand is being taken on their back pocket with the other one.

So, it is a challenge. We believe as Christian Heritage Party Christians that we need to be honest with people. We can’t promise things and then not deliver them, and promising things that we can’t afford will not be practical either.

So, we’re focused on cutting. We would pay off the national debt; the existing national debt, we will pay it off a mortgage, So, we’d save so much a month. Our monthly bill monthly mortgage payment is going against the national debt.

We wouldn’t implement a mandatory balanced budget. So, that it would be illegal to make a budget that was going to be a deficit budget with, I suppose, the exception of horrendous natural disaster or war. There are times when you have to make an exception.

So, this trouble when the exceptions become the norm or what constitutes a natural disaster. That’s a national disaster that it would warrant breaking your commitments, right? Now, we may have to go line by line. Where do we cut?

Give me one example where we wouldn’t be spending money on gay pride parades and all. I mean, that’s a relatively small example, but even under the Conservative government $400,000 went to the gay pride parade.

For something that we think is lowering the standards for Canadians contributing to disease and dysfunction. We’re adding to national woes instead of building the country up. Right now, I wouldn’t be spending the money that the Prime Minister has spent flying to participating in gay pride parades.

There’s the couple of hundred thousand dollars right there that can be saved. So, there are places to cut funds. The court system needs to be sped up. Of course, you can’t do that whether you have to or not.

Everything has to be done in the line of maintaining. You can’t compromise principles. Right now, it’s taking sometimes a couple years for a murder trial. It’s on everything. If you have no evidence and no suspects, that’s a different story.

But when all the evidence you’re ever going to have is before you. Why should things drag out for years and tie up a lot of people’s time and energy? They’re criminal. If there’s an innocent person accused, they deserve to have their name cleared; if there’s a guilty person accused, they deserve to come to grips with what they’ve done.

In case of murder, you can never bring a person. The person, even the guilty party, can become whole again, can become a productive member of society again. We believe in restitution. So, I’m getting into that platform as opposed to how we’re going to cut cost, but victims of property crimes need to be made whole again if it’s possible.

If the perpetrator can contribute to that person’s window being fixed or their car being restored or whatever’s happened, the money that was taken to be replaced. That should be first and foremost. It might reduce the number of things that are happening to people.

There are a lot of areas where cost can be cut. I see sometimes various forms of wasteful spending in highway construction, not always, but we notice quite often there’s an extra bit here and there.

Where it seems common sense should be enough to guide the day, that the driver should be able to figure out how to get past a place without having to have two people tell him how to do it, but everything has to be weighed in the balance for safety, security, and cost-effectiveness.

Jacobsen: Now, with respect to the demographics of the Christian Heritage Party, who are they? What are their general demographic stances, e.g. age, ethnicity, and so on?

Taylor: We probably don’t have any graphs and charts to show that exactly. So, my comments are pretty generic. The party was started in 1987 and many of our original members are still with us. Some have gone to be with the Lord already.

There was a gap where the families of the original members maybe didn’t see the results. Some are waiting to see that before they get involved and partly this is the pace of life. So, I’m going to say that our demographic is certainly older than ideal.

We would like to have a surging group of young members. We do have new members. Some middle-aged and young people joining our party. We need the party to grow, but there probably was a gap between those who originally saw the vision for the party and those who are the beneficiaries of a Christian worldview.

Our society’s freedoms and prosperity are a result of God’s blessing on this nation. The honor that He has historically been given and His principles have been given up until now, but no one in society, whether they’re in a church or out of a church, recognizes that.

And so, our side has gotten busy and volunteerism has taken a hit. So, many people have won the benefits of the society. We’re working for it, but maybe either through busyness or lack of understanding they haven’t committed the time to it.

So, it’s a challenge for us as far as the backgrounds; our founding members were Catholics and Protestants involved in the founding and still are. I would say the original membership was a large contingent from some of the Reformed churches.

The Christian reformed and other reformed churches and that still is probably the case. I would say across the country there are many of our long-standing members and hard-working members come from that background.

I would say in recent years those joining the party have come from a variety of backgrounds, Catholics and various streams of Evangelical Christianity. So, what else would you to know about demographics if I touched on it?

Jacobsen: So, my sense is as described: as with global Christianity, you have a wide representation of nationalities and ethnicities, backgrounds, ages, of course, because not only thousands but hundreds of millions of people adhere to scripture to one degree or another claiming Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

The party will represent that to a degree. So, that will inform both the perspectives; the people that join, the values and principles, and the platform and the policies that the party adheres to and advocates for.

Taylor: Yes, and, of course, we want to appeal to and we believe that we can basically represent those who belong or who are currently in other faith groupings as well. Our policies are based on a Christian worldview, but now we believe that same worldview too.

We do believe in freedom of religion. So, we promote freedom of religion for all in this country who being any faith and that includes no faith or those who, for instance, would maybe classify themselves as atheists and think that they only look at things from a scientific point of view.

We believe of course that science comes from the Bible or science is proven in the Bible and God created all the scientific laws. The interactions of chemicals and living things, but we believe that atheists should be allowed to proclaim their lack of belief in God.

It becomes a type of humanist that they believe in mankind and some of the staunch radical environmentalists have put the Earth at the top of the pinnacle on a level of priority, things to be maintained.

Earth and animal life sometimes even human life, but it’s a different worldview. But we consider that also a religious worldview and that’s of course in many cases a religious worldview that’s being taught in schools today.

When this discussion for the challenge between secularism and the Christian worldview is many cases being fought out in the classrooms or in the boardrooms that control the classrooms; There’s a worldview being taught in classrooms that we think is a religious worldview.

We think it doesn’t belong here. It’s not helping kids, but they’re a section of society – or at least certain groups within that society have been able to frame the issue as religion opposed to science. After creationism, did God create the world? Or did it all just happen?

They teach that it all happened and that’s a religious worldview, which we don’t think that it’s helping our nation to have our children indoctrinated with that religious worldview – the non-God the God view or non-God thing.

But anyway, it is a challenge to ensure that our commitment to religious freedom. That we don’t get walked on in the process, which has been happening for a number of years. The freedom that we’ve enjoyed in this country is now being twisted into some form of compulsion to participate in the belief system being promoted in schools.

That’s where we have a concern and we need to be able to frame that issue. So, that secular society can understand why we’re concerned. They think that we want to impose something on them; they never realize it that they are much more so imposing a worldview on us and on our children.

Jacobsen: With regards to the CHP and pro-life policy, it is noted that it is the only pro-life federal political party.

Taylor: Yes.

Jacobsen: In addition to the advocacy, teaching, and espousal of Judeo-Christian principles and values, one nuanced point might be of interest to readers at some point maybe a month, a year, or 5 or 10 years from now reading this; some will hyphenate Judeo-Christian-Islamic values or principles. Others will highlight Judeo alone. Others will highlight Judeo-Christian together.

Regardless, you note Judeo-Christian principles enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. Why Judeo-Christian in early 21st century rather than Judeo-Christian-Islamic?

Taylor: Thank you for that question. Of course, you take the Old Testament the New Testament together, they are considered the written Word of God. The Old Testament is the Judeo worldview up until the birth of Christ.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew, was born into a Jewish culture and brought, in our point of view, the fulfillment of the Jewish concept of the Messiah and, of course, while there may be a disagreement that not all Jews have accepted that point of view.

Still it’s the same, it’s the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There’s a shared history right up to the birth of Christ at least. Of course, many Jews today are taking the next step as when he did in Jesus’s day and saying, “Oh! This is the Messiah,” which to us makes sense.

We think it’s the reality and that’s the reality we teach. Islam is based on a different prophet, the teachings of a different prophet; we disagree with the Islamic teachings. Now, of course, there are some pro-life points of view.

Finally, they also promote traditional marriage between one and one woman or between one man and four women. So, it begins to be a divergence there. But as far as sharing a pro-life value, we certainly support freedom for speech for Muslims in Canada.

As long as Muslims’ or any group’s teachings don’t result in attacks on others, then we’re fine with that, as around the world, there’s a lot of concern about Islamic terrorism. So, that’s a concern. I would find it a stretch to tie Islamic-Judeo-Christian worldview because there is a diversion on that one in many countries.

The Islamic focus is on killing Jews and Christians. We hope one day that that focus will be gone, but right now the teachings: it’s hard to relate to that and of course some of those are direct. They lean on direct quotes from the Quran in terms of not finding a Jew behind a rock and kill them and so on.

So, I don’t see how we would tie it together as a worldview. I certainly see how we can work together; those who are committed to protecting the family and protecting innocent human life. We would to work together and represent those values, and the freedom of religion.

I would have a hard time framing it as Islamic-Judeo-Christian, though. We believe in one God. That’s something that we share if there is only one God.

Jacobsen: In some of the ads for CHP, seven core point’s touched on. They are family values, traditional marriage, sanctity of life, free speech, freedom of religion, fiscal sanity, and accountable government.

I would like to explore each of those a little bit in some minor detail. So, in the order as presented, with respect to family values, these can mean different things to different people and different groups of local parties.

In general, though, within a Judeo-Christian worldview and set of principles, what are family values to you and to the CHP?

Taylor: Thank you. First of all, if we first recognize that the family has value, then there is value in the unit that we call a family. Now, Ontario passed the All Families Are Equal Act and, of course, they’re going somewhere different than when we say a family.

We are referring to husband and wife, one man one woman married with or without children. That’s what we consider a family. Now, there are situations where the husband dies. Then you have a single mother or the wife dies or there is unavoidable separation.

Then you have a broken family, still a family. It’s family with tremendous additional challenges. Every family has challenges. So, family values: there’s the value of having time together. There’s a value of mentorship, or fathers teaching their sons how to behave towards each other, how to behave towards outsiders, how to behave towards women.

There’s a value that is being passed on that is the value that other people have value. That you can play king of the hill in the backyard, but you have to care about other people if you want to have a life that it has its own dignity and value.

Mother’s teaching her daughters how to walk in a way that is purer; a way that protects that which God has given them. They have a special place, obviously. Mothers and women have a special place in our society, totally unrecognized.

Often, the value that the girls bring to the softening effect on what might otherwise be a selfish society. So, those are values: spending time together. Of course, all the things that parents do for their children: providing shelter, food, teaching them skills, teaching to read and tie their shoelaces.

All these details that go into the transference of skill, knowledge, and character one generation to the next. So, when we say family values, we also include, and most people understand when a Christian says family values we include, protection of innocent human life, the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

Those types of things. The scripture says to honor your father and your mother. That’s a family value not to disrespect them. Parents have a responsibility to their children whether if you like it or not.

In the night, when the baby cries someone has to see to that infant’s cries. It’s a family value to make personal sacrifices for the good of your family members and, of course, it extends beyond your family unit, but that charity begins at home.

Are there other specific questions about family values?

Jacobsen: That covers the gamut that would be requisite with the question. The next in that order: number two was traditional marriage. What defines traditional marriage to you? Why is it important? What makes it a foundation for society; civil society?

Taylor: Traditional marriage is one man and one woman committed for life. Why is it important? That is the source where everyone being comes from; you need one man one woman. Of course, brothers and sisters are not always from the same man and the same woman depending on circumstances, but we all have in our DNA and our genes that it is one man and one woman.

It’s put there by God. God created Adam and Eve; first man and first woman, put them together. There’s symbolism also in Christ being represented as the bridegroom, the husband, waiting for the bride at the church.

Those who allow him to be joined to him. There’s more of a spiritual or mystical parallel that God has designed the family. If we want His blessing on our homes, His peace, His provision and in our communities, we should be following His footsteps.

No matter what people claim as far as their lifestyle. Their acquired gender, whatever the gender leanings or whatever. Every one of them also came from one man one woman. Nobody got here any other way.

So, it is the building block literally of society. Our DNA reflects our lineage that goes back through one man one woman. Each of them came from one man one woman; each of them came from one man one woman till you come all the way back to Adam and Eve.

So, that’s between that and God’s direction. That’s good enough for me.

Jacobsen: Thank you. The third on that list was the sanctity of life. This might require some follow-up questions to suss out the nuances here because it is a topic of still deep discussion, not only contention, but nuanced discussion with probably too much stereotyping on many of the sides that are taken into consideration for it.

So, with respect to the sanctity of life, let’s start with definitions. What is sanctity to you? What defines life to you?

Taylor: Okay. Let’s set apart their definitions along those lines, sanctity – or being sanctified – is to be set apart, it’s special. What we’re saying here is that human life is special compared to animal life.

Most of us are meat eaters. Those who aren’t they consider all animal life sanctified, but we regard human life as made in the image of God according to the Bible. He made all the creatures. All plant life: the fish, the birds, and everything else, bugs, but human beings were the last creation.

He said it was good. So, He has made us in His image, which, of course, doesn’t mean everyone looks at some a cartoon stereotype of God sitting on a throne that we know can only vaguely imagine or dream about, but we’re made by Him.

That we have creativity. We have the ability to love, the ability to think and plan. We have the ability to design and interact with the design. We can take things and build things out of them. Of course, God made everything from nothing.

God made everything, but He’s given us stuff to work with. So, God brings us into the world; we believe that even at conception that in a man and woman there’s a child created and, under normal circumstances, goes through the cycle of life: is born, grows as a period of productivity, then midlife, old age, and hopefully is still finding a useful role even in old age as a mentor or something.

Then we pass from this Earth, and then we go to a better place if we know the Lord. So, in Canadian society, there is one stream of activity. God does not want us to cut off someone’s life at any stage, whether it’s a child in womb or a child in society – we’ll all agree – such as leaving a child in a hot car.

It dies. It’s terrible. You go to jail for that. But a few months earlier, you take a knife and cut a baby out of its mother’s womb and then it is somehow alright. Of course, what with euthanasia, that has now become so-called legal in Canada.

We think it’s still illegal in God’s eyes, but to end someone’s life prematurely before God has called them; we think that’s not our place to do that. So, sanctity of life: there’s another angle. It needs to be brought off that we’re made in His image for his purpose, for his pleasure.

We are human beings set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, we have a special role It pleases God while we treat human life as with the same respect that it deserves.

Jacobsen: You mentioned euthanasia as well. What would the CHP do in terms of laws and practices for both euthanasia and abortion within Canada? What would be the stance in other words?

Taylor: If we had a majority government tomorrow, then a practical way to the end to abortion and euthanasia would be a goal. The reality is at this point in time our role is to provide persuasive influence.

Even if we have members of Parliament, a handful of members, we could only appeal to the deeper nature or the higher nature of fellow MPs. Even if you have a majority government, you have to educate the public on some things.

You can’t impose, but, on the other hand, there’s a responsibility to take steps to persuade. One of my concerns was Prime Minister Harper over the years when he said that if people wanted to reduce the number of abortions then you need to change hearts not laws.

In other words, he said I’m not going to do anything in that direction. That other people need to change hearts. You are the Prime Minister. You could at least speak to the young people and educate young people and encourage young people to consider the details, the facts.

So, there’s the education aspect of it. Here’s the practical steps we would be taking with abortion, this Parliament, the past Parliament, were unwilling to take the simplest steps that could be taken to outline gender related abortion killing of young girls at a higher rate than killing young boys because they want a boy.

Some have a girl killed by abortion. Most Canadians think that’s wrong. Of course, it’s a slice in the face of much feminist rhetoric. Here’s little girls being killed, then boys aren’t, but Parliament has avoided that question and is not willing to take it on.

So, we’ve introduced that legislation to have a specific thing that societies agree is wrong. We would want to defund that version. Why should so many people who have deeply held beliefs about it be forced to pay for it and to enable the ongoing slaughter of a hundred thousand babies a year while making abortionists rich?

So, that would be another thing in both BC and Ontario. Those two provinces, you can’t even find out the statistics about abortion, which is a violation of freedom of information. People’s taxes are being used for that and being called healthcare, but they can’t find out how many are being done, what reasons they are being done for, and what the demographics are in the end.

They can’t even find out the bad results. There’s a breast cancer link to abortion. These things are even being shared with people. So, women are undergoing abortions without having adequate information. So, they’re not even having informed choice.

Then we would come against coercion to have an abortion, which has been tried a couple times in the previous governments. But where many girls, sometimes about 60% have abortions because their boyfriend or husband or their parents or peers are almost compelling them to have an abortion.

We would take steps to, I suppose, put an end to that. That would free a lot of babies right away. On Euthanasia, we think it was a terrible ruling, a couple things need to happen; number one, government needs to start using the notwithstanding clause; federal government never has.

When the Supreme Court ruled that the law against assisted suicide was unconstitutional, that’s the ruling. These are nine fallible human beings; they’re not perfect. They never were perfect. The government did not have to accept that.

The government should have gone back to using the notwithstanding clause and stood up for protection of innocent human life, but the government didn’t. The government allowed the Supreme Court to set the stage.

Of course, there’s a lot of pressure in that direction already, but what many people or countries have not grasped is the extent to which the euthanasia bandwagon is being driven by those who simply want to cut hospital costs for old people.

It’s a known fact that elderly people consume a lot; in your final year, you consume more healthcare dollars than when you’re young and healthy. So, for governments that are struggling to make ends meet, it’s convenient when people’s health is failing to give them a way out because it frees up a hospital bed and saves money.

That’s a terrible reason to end somebody’s life, but it’s part of the driver there. So, one of the things we would do for both – Euthanasia and abortion – for doctors involved in surgery and for educators: conscience legislation.

Canadians, whether doctors, lawyers, or teachers, should not be compelled to do things against their conscience. No doctors should have to participate even in recommending an abortion when they know in their heart of hearts that they’re violating God’s principles.

No teacher should be forced to teach sexual perversion as an alternate lifestyle when they know that that is a violation of God’s will and as from your own conscience. Right now, we don’t have conscientious objection in this country. We need to have it. So, that’s one of the things the CHP would strive for.

Jacobsen: Thank you. What do you see as the state of free speech within Canada? Do you think it needs amendments or is it fine as is?

Taylor: Freedom of speech is under attack. Ontario’s past legislation that taking mother and father off government documents is ridiculous. I can’t think of a more ridiculous blurring of lines between reality and fantasy.

Jordan Peterson, University of Toronto (U of T), is fighting for his career because he refuses to use a new language to refer to people who he knows are men and women, or boys and girls, and he’s being told that he must be willing to use different pronouns instead of “he” and “her” or whatever.

He refused to do that. He is taking a principled and difficult to understand position. A teacher in British Columbia was fired for mentioning in class, in a casual passing manner. Of course, when another discussion mentioned that he was opposed to abortion, a complaint was filed by one student and that man has lost his job.

This is ridiculous, especially when he was right; but regardless, freedom of speech needs to be protected. Trudeau has introduced Bill C-16. He’s sitting in the Senate now. That makes it dicey to talk about sexual preferences, sexual lifestyles, so-called genders, transgender-ism, any of those things, and to make any statements that are not supportive of them.

For instance, speaking about the negative health impacts of the homosexual lifestyle, they could be under attack. We’ve seen that years ago already, where there were pint-sized Human Rights Commissions.

Alberta for being a so-called hate speech people. It was the accurate relaying of a research study done by a university regarding the health impacts of homosexuality and to not be able to discuss those things is absurd.

We need to fight for these things soon and quickly and effectively because once freedom of speech is gone. I look at it. Life is the top priority. If you don’t have life, then none of your other rights matter and freedom of speech is next.

Because if you don’t have freedom of speech, you can’t defend. But again, you have your other rights including the right to life. So, we need to have absolute freedom of speech. That is not the freedom to tell lies.

That is the freedom to express your opinion. Without that, of course, we regard this as almost demonic. I can’t or don’t want to say that there’s a spiritual struggle or attack against those who oppose our worldview and who oppose it aggressively and viciously.

But we find ourselves having to take this road to try to stop our free speech because when you have free speech you might persuade someone to think differently. But if you take away free speech, then you can coerce people like Hitler did, or Chairman Mao.

You can make everyone say the same things. Those you won’t say the things are out. They are either dead or in prison. Mary Wagner was arrested again for bringing roses into an abortion clinics’ waiting room and for the ladies offering prayer for them.

She would to be able to speak freely in her independence in her life. She’s denied that merit to Linda Gibbons earlier.  Linda has spent over ten years in jail for standing in front of that abortion clinic.

That’s the free speech right that’s being denied. Bill who went in the Gay Pride Parade in disguise and handed out some information there. No one agrees with his tactics, but he’s being sued for a 104 million dollars by gay rights people.

Even Prime Minister Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne have joined that [Laughing], the guy may not have a 104 dollars at any one time but anyway. The freedom to speech is definitely under attack.

Jacobsen: With respect to freedom of speech within a multi-party pluralistic democratic society, it seems like the glue. The grease of the wheels – so to speak – in terms of furthering discussion about topics between parties, between demographics.

With that threat to freedom of speech where people might feel offended, it is a two-way street. In a way, if you can’t tell someone what to say, in another way, then you can’t tell someone else what to say in return or feel in return to that.

So, someone can say something that is either pro-choice or pro-life, someone might feel offended by either position or they can respond with the opposing position, but to restrict either a pro-life or pro-choice position would be an illegitimate restriction on freedom of speech from your own perspective as the representative of the CHP.

Is that a fair representation?

Taylor: That’s fair. We don’t go around trying to interfere with those who have a different point of view. We would be able to offer our point of view and many of our positions are now represented by government. So, they have not only our approval.

We’re also paying for them as there comes a point where I shouldn’t be forced to pay for someone else’s stuff, for their – what I consider – faulty things. We elect to government. They do certain things, but, for instance, this goes into a slightly different realm.

But in political parties in the last election of 2015, because the Liberals and the Conservatives each got over 10% of the vote with parties which they spent respectively, the Liberals spent $43 million and the Conservatives spent $41 million during the campaign.

They will get 50% of that money back from the taxpayers. I’m not sure when they get it, though. So, $20 million dollars of taxpayer’s money is going into the Conservative coffers. The same amount going to the Liberal coffers.

They are able to use that money to promote not only the party, but their point of view. I’m not getting [Laughing] that money would we ever achieve that 10% threshold. So, we don’t receive the old money back after an election.

That’s an example of how it got off on the side track there, but I don’t like my money being used against me. So, when there was the send out with this electoral reform card, it’s a terrible card. The website is terrible. Their questions are terrible.

There’s questions with two answers and neither one is the right answer. At the end, they tell you you’re an innovator or you’re a guard or something like that. You wanted examples of waste of money, where we could cut a bloated bureaucracy.

That would be one right there, conducting those meetings across the country trying to give us Canadians the idea that we were being consulted and in the end they keep the cards close to their chest and do their own thing anyway.

But freedom, yes, I’ll give you a local example here. I’m on the Smithers Pro-Life Society for years and years. They’ve put billboards up in our area and for years and years somebody comes along at night and paints them over, tears them down, tries to burn them, or cuts them down, or pulls them down with the vehicle.

That’s not their property. It’s free speech. It’s also a matter of private property, going on someone’s private property and damaging something that belongs to someone else. So, we’re not running around pulling down their stuff.

The reality is some people feel so strongly about these issues that they then use any means. They don’t care if you get to say your speech because they don’t agree with you. They don’t want people to hear what you have to say.

So, another way of putting it is, you only have freedom of speech if people can hear what you’re saying. There are numerous cases of Pro-Life speakers at universities being shouted down to get rid of them.

It’s not the matter of standing there with signs and expressing their different opinion. It’s a matter of making so much noise that the person cannot speak. So, pretty much speech is important and if we don’t have it, we will have mob rule. We’re probably not far from mob rule in some cases.

Jacobsen: Now, I want to touch on the fifth point we’ve listed before, which was freedom of religion. What is the importance of freedom of religion in Canada? How does Canada’s freedom of religion provide a marker for the world in how to do things? What are we doing well with respect to it? What are we doing poorly with respect to it?

Taylor: Okay. As our Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins with the Preamble to Canada’s founding principles that recognizes premise, you’ve got a rule law. Such a statement by government, at one time, it was believed by all levels of government that there is a religious foundation to our society and to our laws and so on.

That foundation for the Government of Canada, it was a Christian foundation. It wasn’t a generic religious foundation. It was evident. They the name ‘The Dominion of Canada’ came from Psalm 73. The description, it was a specific reference to the God of the Bible.

But in our memory, there’s not been a persecution of a religious minorities in our memories. There have been in Canada, for sure, especially some of the First Nations. Certainly, you add these cultural practices that may have had religious connotations that were banned and so on.

But that’s not been a big part of our history. In China, you have the Falun Gong or along with Christians being thrown in jail sometimes even being sacrificed for body parts to be sold on the world market.

It’s a religious minority that the Chinese government does not want. As to what do we do in this country, I’m giving you some examples from other countries. Many of the Islamic countries. If you are a Muslim and you become a Christian, you are subject to the death penalty for that.

That’s now so far removed from what happens in Canada that it’s hard to even imagine, but any Christian can become a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, an atheist and walk the streets of this country. We’re not going to be thrown in jail for changing religion.

So, we have that level of religious freedom in this country. We have had, of course, with our churches; churches have been considered places where it’s accepted and expected that the teachings of a particular religion will dominate in all the Christian schools and so on.

That’s also allowed, but pressures are coming as in the places within the province of Alberta, wanting to force different standards on Christian schools than have been in the past, wanting to force in teachings about gay rights and positions that aren’t based biblically at all.

It’s a Christian school; it’s not a non-Christian school. So, that’s where freedom of religion and freedom of speech are mingling and mixing there. The one father complained because in Toronto his child had some other religious view being brought to them in class.

There are these places where there are schools that have Islamic prayer rooms, but they don’t have Christian prayer rooms. There’s a case in BC with cultural or religious practices of Aloha First Nations.

There was an activity in class and all the students were supposed to participate in it. Parents complained and, of course, that’s now how you’re being accused of racism or similar stuff; whereas, all the person was saying is that we have our own religious place.

We don’t need things imposed on us and schools. The foundation of the country is Christian religion. If there was ever an area of overlap in free speech and to not have anything imposed, to stand in Parliament and speak the name of Jesus, should be all right in my opinion, I’m sure it would take flak.

We would receive flak, but because of our foundation there is fiction for allowing Christian prayers and Christian references. The wall has affirmative Christian verses written on them. I do not fear the attempts.

It is going to be unsuccessful; the attempt to purge any religious statements from any public presentations. You can’t do it because we are all religious beings. I said even an atheist has religion. They will express that publicly. An atheist will get up and say there is no God.

That’s a religious statement. I would say it’s a challenge. It’s going to be a challenge. It already is for people in the Christian Heritage Party, but for all those who are involved in social activities or social activism of any sort.

Pro-Life or other activities to try to present our views in such a way that they can be understood and appreciated by society at large without stepping on toes and a lot of the challenges are unreasonable challenges.

People coming against you for having a manger scene, right? It is a pluralistic society. It’s a multifaceted society. We need to get along, but I honestly think the best way to get along would be to back up quite a few steps to where there is a respect for guidelines and commands that He’s given for all of us to have happy and successful lives.

Jacobsen: As we talked a bit on fiscal sanity, which is the sixth point, the proposition by implication is a solution to a problem; where fiscal insanity is the problem, fiscal sanity is the solution.

In brief, as we have touched on this a little before, what is the fiscal insanity of the current moment? What is the fiscal sanity proposition?

Taylor: Fiscal insanity here, cutting it short, is spending money we don’t have, pretending that money comes out of thin air [Laughing]. Yes, it does because of our banking system. Money is created out of thin air.

Money wanted to create or reduce debt, but to spend money that we cannot recover from our tax base and to do that year after year is fiscal insanity. To send four hundred thousand dollars to a gay pride parade is an example of fiscal insanity, we should promote the use of the Bank of Canada.

Right now, we’re borrowing from chartered banks, which are making a profit on the borrowing and when we have to repay them we’re repaying privately owned banks. We do have a government owned bank. It’s called The Bank of Canada.

We should be using it. Our national proposal is to use it for infrastructure renewal. We think they can go much beyond that, but that would be a place to start. So, provinces, municipalities, and Crown corporations that have need for, not wishful thinking but a need for, infrastructure renewal or development to be rail lines, optics, fiber optics, ports, canals, highways, sewage treatment, there’s a lot of airports.

Things where there needs to be a significant amount of money spent to achieve a long-range goal as we paid off over the years and will have a residual benefit for all Canadians that they would be able to borrow from the Bank of Canada interest free to accomplish those objectives.

It would put people to work. It would accomplish a real solid task. Is that any pie in the sky? At the end of it, you have an airport or you have a railway extension. They would. It’s not a grant from the federal government. It’s a loan.

So, as it’s repaid, the money would be retired for circulation. So, we wouldn’t have a long-range inflationary impact. So, we think that’s fiscal insanity to go on borrowing money and paying interest to China or to other international banks.

So, that they can use our interest payments to go build their world-class Navy. We think that is insanity. Things that are going on. Ontario is an example. Ontario is building wind farms when Ontario doesn’t need the power, paying extravagant amounts of money for wind and solar power when they have reliable and affordable power.

Then selling that power to the United States at loss or to go back at loss; now, that’s insanity. That’s doing things for political impact not for any common-sense objective. We would want to put an end to those kinds of things.

Paying doctors to kill babies then because we don’t have enough for our own people growing up in our country that we have to fast-track the immigration to try to bring in people that can fill the jobs because we’ve killed off a hundred thousand babies a year or formally knock off four million babies.

It’s not only moral insanity, but it’s fiscal insanity. Then we’re paying for the immigration benefits and all kinds of things that could have been invested in babies that should have been born here. So, many examples of the insanity. The sanity would be a small cabinet, reduced salaries for MPs, for bringing government employees at all levels into a pension regime that is comfortable to most Canadians.

Not having a special pension arrangement for MPs and government workers; those are the areas for improvement there. And to stop throwing money at political parties, but to raise their own money, that’s what we’re doing now.

We think if all parties were doing that it would reduce some of the clutter in the political world and probably get better results than now.

Jacobsen: Your final point was accountable government. Some of these statements prior imply what that means. As a general principle, what would make an accountable government? What would the CHP do to keep itself accountable if in government?

Taylor: That’s a good follow-up question. Accountable government, we find anything many Canadians feel that once a government is elected, then everybody wants your votes and wants your support and everything else, but once a government is in power they seem to do their own thing.

When same-sex marriage passed in 2005, I have no doubt in my mind that that would not have passed a national referendum, but it was overseen by government. They are accountable right now as Bill C-16 went through second reading, went to committee, they had no hearings; they didn’t want it to be discussed at length by the public.

So, they ignored the chance to have bill input and from people who have knowledge and wisdom.  Nobody held them accountable, we raised the question, but they carry on as if it’s their right. They have been elected. They have a majority government and so they’ll do what they want.

If you don’t it, it’s tough. So, how would the CHP keep ourselves accountable? Yes, that’s a good question. Basically, it goes down to human character; it goes down to the character of men and women who make the decisions.

If you don’t put something in place, for instance, if there is a federal recall, they still have it in BC. Recall and citizens’ initiative legislation, that was successfully used in turning back the HST. It was introduced by the provincial government. Although, it was quite a challenge to get the number of signatures required and so on.

I understand the former premier was part of that movement and succeeded in turning back something that the government had done on its own and unaccountably because it’s that they weren’t going to do it in the election.

Then since the election was over, they passed it. So, there’s an example and maybe some new additional emphasis that way federally could be implemented, e.g. first referendums and things that are difficult and costly to put into place.

Some people think we should have referendum on everything. I don’t agree with that. If we do elect a representative government, I’ll say that our party is committed to our principles. If attaining power was more important to us than principles, we would probably do what Conservatives have done and take a more moderate approach some of these issues.

We believe it’s important to protect innocent human life. These types of things. We’re going to tell people on the way in because if we don’t say it when we’re running for office we won’t have a mandate to do it once we’re elected.

Any government and any number of Parliaments. If they’ve told people they are going to do something, they should do it when they get in. So, other than the possibility of introducing some recall and initiative legislation on a federal level I don’t have a real strong answer for that.

Jacobsen: When I reflect on the conversation today, the core principles and values come from Christianity. In particular, biblical and scriptural firm interpretation with respect to values and principles. The core ones would be things including the Golden Rule.

Now, you have noted that there have been restrictions on freedom of speech, whether de-platforming, for instance, of people that are Pro-Life in terms of speaking at certain events – whether on campuses or elsewhere.

What relates those seems to me bias against what would be the majority of Canadians, it would be where the majority of Canadians are, if combining Catholics and Protestants, about 70% of the population, which is several million people.

Does bias or prejudice and bigotry against – not ideological differences based on argument and evidence and so not against ideas and principles and things within Christianity but rather against – individual Christians or sects of Christianity, groups of Christians? Does that seem to you an increasing trend in Canada over the last decade or two?

Taylor: Absolutely… The stakes are heating up in that way. The material points are becoming much more sensitive. Certainly, the trend that has become less tolerant of the Christian worldview. It’s a powerful trend. We’ve seen it always where someone doesn’t want to bake a cake for somebody or whatever.

The intolerance, I would say a lot of it begins with a movement. Some activism that usually results in a court case somewhere or a human rights case. That gets built into these government documents. For instance, the taking out mother and father, but then it gets into the education system.

Of course, that’s where the rubber meets the road, but the media – and it is not only the news media, of course, but CBC has been indoctrinator extraordinaire in this country for many years at our expense again.

My money being used to convince people that I’m wrong [Laughing]. Our money, our taxpayer money, being used to promote alternate sexual lifestyles, for motives or something like that. Then by the time when you get into the classroom, teachers are supposed to be teaching children, number one: there’s no God because evolution is the means by which we got here.

I could go down the road on environmental issues and carbon. There’s no sin except producing carbon, right? But then making it so that a teacher can’t even speak their own beliefs in the classroom and children being badgered to believe things that their parents don’t believe, by the time this generation that’s now in kindergarten and grade one graduate from high school and universities – unless there’s been dramatic shift – a lot of the freedoms will be left behind.

It wouldn’t take that long. Unless, we have a major societal repentance or awakening, which is possible. We pray for that. We work for that. But if the trend we’re on right now, free speech is being hindered dramatically.

When we lose that ability to speak the truth in our society, we can take historical examples. Germany collapsed in a short period of time, where the freedoms were gone in a short period of time and today we see them to be closing the doors, closing the gates all around us and trying to limit and restrict.

That’s why we’re speaking up urgently today to try to wake people up before it’s too late because once the freedom of speech is gone the government is free to enact laws and nobody dares say anything about it because they’ll be thrown into a cell and we don’t want to get thrown in the cell [Laughing].

Jacobsen: [Laughing] what political parties align in values most with your own?

Taylor: We share some things with the libertarians. We want smaller government and the difference is that we see there is a need for self-government. As a fair libertarian, you want to deal with whatever you want. That’s not our point. That’s not freedom.

That’s becoming a slave to passions and fads or whatever. But if it’s, for instance, libertarians want to be able to smoke pot. Then you’re becoming a slave to something else besides government, but when we do agree that government should restrict its reach.

We believe that we should protect people from harm. It should provide weights and balances. It has to be the intermediary between nations for international trade and security and things like that, but government should not try to be all things to all people.

It can’t be the sugar daddy for everyone that wishes their life were different. The government has to treat all people the same. That’s the second part of the Preamble De Chartres is Canada’s thought on principles that recognizes the supremacy of God.

We know that. But then the rule of law; So, the rule of law is to treat all peoples the same. If in this country, if you’re from one of the first nations, you aren’t treated the same as others; if you’re right now in one of the alternative sexual lifestyles, you can do and say things, e.g., a man who claims to be transgender can go into women’s washroom.

There’s no way to prove that he has a reason. It’s his own statement. But a man who says, “No, I’m a man,” could not. They may be the same person, but it was with this political correctness being afraid to call a spade a spade.

It was refraining of being afraid to call a man a man and a woman a woman. We’re getting into all kinds of crazy stuff. So, the protection for women and girls to have their privacy is being thrown away in order to placate something less than 1% of the population and is being done for political agendas.

Nothing is being done anything because the people are feeling uncomfortable. They’re making more than 99% uncomfortable to accomplish protocol objectives and we object to that and our right to say that is under attack.

Jacobsen: And any feelings or thoughts and conclusion about what we’ve talked about today?

Taylor: You’ve taken me on a good course through our party. Our publicly stated principles. I have enjoyed wandering over those grassy fields [Laughing] and rocky meadows wherever. Those are the main things that people need to know.

In my personal reflections, if I conveyed much except that I came from a place and I want people at some point to realize, especially those who may disagree with our points of view on things or may not want our points of view to be represented in Parliament, that I came from a place of being a non-Christian.

An atheist, basically, a person who was following my own will; everything that can be wrong in a person in his selfishness, self-centeredness, or whatever. As a young person, many young people do have a self-focus, but a change of place of realizing that there’s a whole lot more that we’re not here by accident.

We’re not here by our own efforts; we’re here for a purpose. I’m grateful that God rescued me from my narrow world view and introduced me to His view of whole of this planet we call Earth and our interactions as human beings.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak these things in the public square. We still have that freedom today; we need to maintain it. We don’t know what is the future that God has for us as individuals or as a party.

How many years we have on this earth? We’re here for a limited period of time. The party, we’ve been here for 30 years. We’ve never yet elected someone to office. We believe that is still possible. We work towards that. I totally work towards the end of having members elected and bringing our principles right into Parliament.

If that were to never happen, we still have the opportunity to speak truth to our friends and neighbors and in the political realm there is a platform from which we can bring truth, especially young people, many young people, are not getting at home.

Many of them do not go to church. They’re not getting it from the media. They are not getting it in the universities, not getting it from the courts. So, we have a unique opportunity to speak some things, to tell young people that they’re made for a purpose.

That God has plans for them, good plans for them and for this country if we will labor His footsteps and follow them, if we pay attention to the Golden Rule ‘Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.’

So, I do have hope that we can fulfill the plan and purpose God has for us. We don’t know exactly what that looks in Parliament, but I have a verse: ‘faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not yet seen.’

So, we hope things that we have not yet seen. We work towards them. We believe that God has plans that are better than our plans. That we’ll be excited to see how He leads us and what He does in and through us in the years to come.

I have met not all the leaders, but most are not leaders of the parties but people who are involved in running their parties. Some of the smaller parties I have met the leaders. Other parties, I meet some of the operatives who help their party, the purpose of those meetings is to keep us all functioning within the guidelines of Elections Canada and maybe occasionally to have some feedback or input into how Elections Canada does their work.

There’s nobody else who’s standing up for Pro-Life issues, sad state.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, thank you much for this opportunity.

Taylor: [Laughing] I hope to meet you one day. Anyway, I’m pleased that you would take time to do this interview. I wish you all success in all the other endeavors, which, first thing, you must never sleep.

So, let’s stay in touch and God bless you and thanks again.

Jacobsen: I enjoyed doing this much. So, thank you much for your time, and I hope you have a good evening.

Taylor: Thanks a lot.

Jacobsen: Take care.

Taylor: God bless. Bye.


In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Based on work at


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, or the author(s), and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors copyright their material, as well, and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: