Juno News - Choosing Free Speech Over ＂Respectful＂ Speech

00:00:00.000 Welcome to Canada's most irreverent talk show. This is the Andrew Lawton Show, brought to you by True North.

00:00:12.660 Coming up, Justin Trudeau's disrespect of freedom of speech and why conservatives shouldn't fall into the Liberals' environmental trap.

00:00:22.500 The Andrew Lawton Show starts right now.

00:00:26.120 Welcome to the Andrew Lawton Show, Canada's most irreverent talk show here on True North.

00:00:35.420 Well, well, well, what do you know, Justin Trudeau's Liberals still aren't all that fond of free speech.

00:00:42.560 I did a little video the other day in which I talked about a tweet from Francois-Philippe Champagne, Canada's foreign minister,

00:00:49.980 making what I thought to be a very equivocal stand for free speech rather than the unequivocal stand for free speech that is warranted with what's happening in France.

00:01:01.320 And just to give you a little bit of backstory here, France has had a spate of Islamist terror attacks over the last couple of weeks,

00:01:07.460 starting with the killing of a teacher who dared to show the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad in a classroom discussion on free speech.

00:01:17.060 His punishment was being killed by an Islamist terrorist who doesn't believe in free speech. 0.96

00:01:24.020 You fast forward, the French government refuses to bend the knee, says we will always stand up for freedom of expression,

00:01:29.260 even with people trying to slaughter and succeeding in some cases in slaughtering French citizens in the streets,

00:01:37.000 because you do not capitulate on core fundamental values like that of freedom.

00:01:42.900 So when I saw that Canada's foreign minister said he was supporting freedom of speech with respect or freedom of expression with respect,

00:01:51.460 I knew what was happening because I've seen this rhetoric time and time again.

00:01:56.540 And I actually had an email from someone yesterday identifying themselves as the grammar police,

00:02:01.840 saying that I'm illiterate or something like that because I was misreading it and he actually meant that he's being respectful in his...

00:02:08.360 No, no, no. I said the reason I knew that is because I've seen the government go down this road before

00:02:12.900 and I'm very aware of this government's position on free speech.

00:02:16.800 And the broader point that I made was that the liberals are only interested, and not just the liberal party,

00:02:23.040 I'm talking about progressives in general, are only interested in discussing the limits of speech

00:02:28.620 because they don't actually have that ideological or philosophical commitment to freedom of speech.

00:02:34.640 And what do you know, Justin Trudeau proved me right.

00:02:38.440 Trudeau was speaking about what France has been experiencing and said that free speech has limits.

00:02:44.040 limits. Oh yes, he said we will always defend freedom of expression, except always has a bit of an invisible asterisk there.

00:02:51.840 He said freedom of expression is not without limits.

00:02:55.160 We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those

00:03:04.560 with whom we are sharing a society and a planet.

00:03:07.680 We do not have a right, for example, to shout fire in a movie theater crowded with people.

00:03:14.200 There are always limits.

00:03:16.580 This is a very disingenuous argument that we hear from people, and in fact, one of the best rebukes of it I've ever heard,

00:03:23.600 and I can't remember who I heard it from, so I apologize for not citing them,

00:03:27.800 was that you're allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater when the theater is in fact on fire.

00:03:33.520 And that's the whole point of this right now.

00:03:35.540 If you're speaking out against Islamist terror and you're speaking out against people that are going to kill you 1.00

00:03:39.820 for having an opinion, for saying something that might be offensive or unwise,

00:03:44.980 well, that is exactly why that sort of speech is necessary.

00:03:48.740 You shouldn't be censoring it because other people decide that you deserve to be killed for saying it, for doing it.

00:03:54.940 And again, the point I made, because I've had people, including a very kind email from a Muslim person,

00:04:00.020 who said, well, how would you like it if someone was depicting your God in such a terrible way?

00:04:06.580 And I said, I would hate it.

00:04:07.760 And I do deal with that.

00:04:08.980 There was that famous artwork of sorts, I don't even know if you can call it art,

00:04:13.080 some time back called Piss Christ, which I don't even like saying it because I feel like it's using the name

00:04:18.440 of Christ in vain.

00:04:20.040 But that was what it was, and it was, as is imagined, a depiction of Jesus suspended in urine.

00:04:25.360 I saw that.

00:04:26.820 I've seen many other things.

00:04:28.320 I've seen in Charlie Hebdo, for example, depictions of Christians, and especially depictions of Jews.

00:04:33.580 I'm not Jewish, but I have a great many friends who are that are not exactly pleased with being depicted

00:04:39.640 the way they are in Charlie Hebdo.

00:04:41.720 But they are not killing people for sharing them.

00:04:45.160 They are not killing people for doing that.

00:04:47.400 Christians are not killing people for doing that.

00:04:50.020 A vast majority of Muslims are not.

00:04:51.660 But you've got enough of a subset that is, and then you've got people like Erdogan in Turkey

00:04:57.700 that are standing up and saying that they're basically going to war with France over this,

00:05:02.580 that they want to boycott French products.

00:05:04.540 And then you've got the former prime minister of Malaysia saying that Muslims are right to stand up and kill.

00:05:09.760 So you've got people that are coming from a place of having some cachet on this,

00:05:14.420 that are standing up and saying that, oh, no, no, these are not outliers.

00:05:17.000 We need to fight against France's commitment to free speech.

00:05:21.660 And that's why the battle lines have been drawn here in a way that you can't just say,

00:05:25.700 oh, well, these are just individual terrorists.

00:05:27.380 They don't speak for any broader movement.

00:05:29.260 Because there are people that do have some leadership that are getting up and saying,

00:05:33.940 no, countries should not allow free speech if that free speech is used to mock one particular religion.

00:05:40.620 To which I would reiterate what I said in my video the other day.

00:05:44.220 You don't need to protect free speech that is inoffensive.

00:05:47.540 If I am to go out and say the sky is blue, that requires no legal protection

00:05:53.900 because everyone finds it to be a completely banal statement, I hope.

00:05:57.700 I mean, it's 2020, so who knows.

00:05:59.640 If I go out and say, I'm not even going to say anything.

00:06:03.340 I don't want to give someone something that could be clipped against me.

00:06:06.200 But if I say something that is offensive, well, that needs legal protection

00:06:11.120 because that's exactly the kind of speech that someone would try to have censored.

00:06:15.340 So this idea that we should draw the limit at what is no longer free speech

00:06:21.100 at, as Trudeau said, and as Monsieur Champagne said, speech that does not respect,

00:06:27.820 that is bollocks, frankly, and does not actually align with what freedom of speech is.

00:06:33.600 And I get very passionate about this issue, if you haven't understood it, for two reasons.

00:06:40.060 Number one, I was actually in line with a lot of my friends and colleagues

00:06:46.200 that were at the really hotbed battles of free speech

00:06:50.200 before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

00:06:52.060 If you go back, you know, what, 14, 13, 12 years now.

00:06:56.700 I had friends that were facing human rights complaints because of things they wrote.

00:07:01.920 Blogger Kathy Shadle, a good friend of mine, has had to go through this rigmarole.

00:07:06.000 My friend and colleague, Mark Stein, who battled the human rights tribunals

00:07:10.500 alongside Ezra Levant and won.

00:07:13.060 But this was a long slog.

00:07:14.600 And if you were in blogging when I was, if you were blogging

00:07:17.760 when the government actually had a mechanism to go after so-called internet hate speech,

00:07:22.540 you'd understand why it's important that governments have to commit to free speech

00:07:27.460 and not start saying, oh, but, but, you know, only if it's respectful.

00:07:30.700 That was his line.

00:07:33.000 We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others

00:07:36.040 and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those

00:07:39.540 with whom we are sharing the planet.

00:07:41.100 He's not saying that in the guidance of some sort of moral lesson of,

00:07:45.580 oh, we should all respect one another,

00:07:47.020 like it's some, you know, nonsensical Trudeau after-school special.

00:07:50.380 He's saying that in the context of talking about the limits of freedom of expression.

00:07:55.780 He's associating free speech with limits and limits with you have to have respect for others.

00:08:03.120 And that in and of itself is quite a disrespectful position

00:08:06.700 to people living in what they thought was going to be a free country.

00:08:10.520 And whether the liberals are going to act on this or not is not really a question.

00:08:16.240 Remember, I've talked about this in the past.

00:08:18.320 It would have been a year and a half ago.

00:08:19.840 I was in Ottawa when they were having hearings on online hate.

00:08:24.920 And the day that I was there was the day that my colleague, Lindsay Shepard,

00:08:28.220 Mark Stein, and Professor John Robson were testifying before the committee,

00:08:32.060 which was the same day, incidentally,

00:08:34.260 that the committee voted to purge MP Michael Cooper's comments from the record.

00:08:39.080 He had made a comment in response to something a witness had said

00:08:43.100 about the New Zealand killer.

00:08:45.820 And the committee voted to just evaporate Michael Cooper's words

00:08:49.200 because they thought they were offensive.

00:08:50.880 So how ironic that on a discussion about censorship,

00:08:54.220 the committee itself undertook an act of censorship.

00:08:58.360 And the very nature of these committee meetings

00:09:00.740 was because the liberals were exploring

00:09:02.560 whether to bring back a form of that Section 13

00:09:06.160 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that I mentioned earlier

00:09:08.840 that was used to go after so-called online hate speech.

00:09:12.420 And with the pandemic, the liberals haven't gotten around to it yet,

00:09:16.000 but they have committed to exploring something like this,

00:09:19.200 which means there could be an online hate ban coming,

00:09:23.000 which if you're a normal person

00:09:24.880 that doesn't pay attention to these issues, 0.64

00:09:26.440 you'd think, well, that sounds pretty reasonable.

00:09:28.420 You know, I don't like hate.

00:09:29.340 I don't like people being mean.

00:09:30.780 Well, they haven't yet defined hate.

00:09:32.700 And I assure you the definition will not be one

00:09:35.320 that does not cut a huge swath around forms

00:09:38.200 of protected discourse that, while you may not like them,

00:09:41.680 are in fact a part of free speech

00:09:44.040 and a part of free and open debate.

00:09:46.540 And the other aspect of this

00:09:48.220 is just this malignant relationship

00:09:50.120 between government and big tech.

00:09:53.000 And I'm firmly opposed,

00:09:54.720 and I have remained firmly opposed

00:09:56.300 to regulating Twitter and Facebook,

00:09:58.220 even when I see examples

00:10:00.000 of just rampant censorship from big tech.

00:10:03.460 In fact, just, I think it was yesterday or two days ago,

00:10:06.620 Twitter finally, finally unlocked

00:10:09.300 the New York Post Twitter account.

00:10:10.940 So since October 14th,

00:10:12.560 the New York Post has been banned from tweeting

00:10:14.320 because they tweeted a link to their story

00:10:16.640 about Hunter Biden,

00:10:17.840 a story that has actually been verified.

00:10:19.840 The emails have since been verified.

00:10:21.860 And there was no question about their authenticity.

00:10:24.320 Twitter just said,

00:10:25.020 it violates our policy.

00:10:27.000 Now, as it so happens,

00:10:28.240 Twitter has changed that policy

00:10:30.080 and still didn't until yesterday,

00:10:33.280 I think it was,

00:10:34.380 a takedown or allow New York Post

00:10:36.460 to start tweeting again.

00:10:37.680 And then they did this big tweet about,

00:10:39.380 oh, you know, we've decided that,

00:10:40.860 you know, even though we normally

00:10:41.960 don't retroactively reverse decisions

00:10:44.720 because this was the one

00:10:46.020 that made us change the policy,

00:10:47.560 we've decided that we're going to like,

00:10:49.060 they were just trying to twist themselves in knots

00:10:51.040 because they realized they lost.

00:10:53.500 They aimed, they fired, and they missed.

00:10:55.920 And Twitter lost

00:10:56.740 because the backlash has been so significant.

00:10:59.940 But what's happening now

00:11:01.520 is that I do not believe government regulation

00:11:04.620 will help any of these things.

00:11:06.020 They will only hurt them.

00:11:07.140 So when I hear talk about governments

00:11:09.500 regulating social media companies into complying,

00:11:12.060 I'm saying, hell no.

00:11:13.860 And in Canada, a lot of that

00:11:15.620 is going to be whether governments

00:11:17.140 look to Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.

00:11:20.280 when it comes to regulating online hate speech.

00:11:23.340 Instead of using the Human Rights Commission,

00:11:25.340 it's just using these corporate censors.

00:11:27.660 And there was an article in the National Post

00:11:29.820 I wanted to share about

00:11:31.040 where the group is calling for an end

00:11:34.500 to the cozy and unacceptable relationship

00:11:37.340 between senior government officials and Facebook.

00:11:40.820 Now this is a story, oddly enough,

00:11:42.680 about Friends of Canadian Broadcasting,

00:11:44.720 which is this like CBC shill group

00:11:46.600 that I normally don't quite like.

00:11:49.040 But they are calling this out

00:11:51.180 based on documents that were released

00:11:53.320 by the Toronto Star

00:11:54.780 showing a very, again, cozy relationship

00:11:57.780 between Facebook and Canadian Heritage

00:12:00.100 in one particular case in February.

00:12:03.200 Facebook's head of public policy, Kevin Chan,

00:12:06.520 emailed an official at Canadian Heritage

00:12:08.560 basically trying to recruit talent,

00:12:11.360 saying, hey, do you know of anyone

00:12:12.480 in the public service

00:12:13.340 that we can get to come and work for Facebook?

00:12:15.840 And just this idea of just,

00:12:17.360 you need someone

00:12:17.980 and you just want to go to the government

00:12:19.500 and say, hey, you know,

00:12:20.400 anyone we can offer a job to?

00:12:22.200 And the idea that Facebook

00:12:23.620 is ramping up its operations in Canada,

00:12:26.720 not in tech, not in development,

00:12:28.380 but in governance is something to watch.

00:12:32.240 I know of a number of former political staffers

00:12:34.740 that have gone over to Facebook

00:12:36.760 and, you know, some are liberal,

00:12:38.120 some are conservative,

00:12:39.180 but still Facebook is making

00:12:41.060 its lobbying presence larger and larger,

00:12:43.640 which means that Facebook

00:12:45.600 wants something out of this.

00:12:47.340 Now, my hope is that they're going to lobby

00:12:49.020 against having themselves regulated,

00:12:51.280 but what's happening

00:12:52.220 is you end up just having these connections

00:12:53.900 and these ties

00:12:54.760 and these relationships that exist

00:12:56.740 between government and Facebook

00:12:58.160 that will span

00:12:59.360 whichever government is there.

00:13:01.480 And well, in some ways,

00:13:02.600 that's just a part of

00:13:03.480 how business operates in Canada.

00:13:05.420 It also leads to a great many questions.

00:13:08.200 Do we want these getting in bed together?

00:13:10.180 Do we want all of a sudden

00:13:11.180 Facebook being awarded

00:13:12.260 a government contract for fact-checking?

00:13:14.820 Do we want Canadian elections

00:13:16.480 to come with a priority

00:13:17.940 that Facebook and Twitter

00:13:18.980 have to act in a certain way?

00:13:20.860 And all of a sudden,

00:13:21.720 the government's hands are clean.

00:13:22.880 They don't need to get dirty by saying,

00:13:24.320 you know, we're ordering something down.

00:13:25.980 The social media companies

00:13:27.160 have these policies

00:13:28.140 that they're putting in place

00:13:29.460 to avoid regulation,

00:13:31.380 which to the end user,

00:13:33.180 are regulation,

00:13:34.580 to the end user,

00:13:35.720 still manifest as censorship.

00:13:39.100 So we have all of these different areas

00:13:41.620 where the government

00:13:42.680 is going after free speech

00:13:44.920 and may go after free speech

00:13:46.500 and is poised to go after free speech.

00:13:48.860 And people wonder

00:13:49.640 why I take issue with the word respect

00:13:52.100 in a tweet by Minister Champagne

00:13:54.720 or in a comment

00:13:55.880 by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

00:13:57.680 because they are so concerned

00:13:59.960 about the limits of free speech

00:14:01.540 that it means

00:14:02.380 they don't actually have

00:14:03.260 an underlying commitment

00:14:04.220 to free speech itself.

00:14:06.160 And once that commitment is gone,

00:14:08.800 all of these other things

00:14:10.760 are fair game.

00:14:12.280 All of these other areas

00:14:13.580 are up for grabs.

00:14:15.000 When we come back,

00:14:17.140 more of The Andrew Lawton Show

00:14:18.360 here on True North.

00:14:20.400 You're tuned in

00:14:21.600 to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:14:25.760 Welcome back

00:14:26.640 to The Andrew Lawton Show,

00:14:28.180 Canada's most irreverent talk show

00:14:30.100 here on True North.

00:14:31.740 Let's talk about

00:14:33.340 the Paris Accord.

00:14:34.920 I know it's a topic

00:14:35.920 we haven't heard much of

00:14:37.300 and that's because

00:14:37.900 the Liberal government

00:14:38.840 and also the mainstream media

00:14:40.400 tend to accept at face value

00:14:43.240 and take for granted

00:14:44.680 that the Paris Accord

00:14:45.900 is a good thing.

00:14:47.680 I'm not so convinced

00:14:48.860 but I also want to talk

00:14:50.000 about how Conservatives

00:14:51.140 tend to fall into a trap

00:14:53.260 on Paris

00:14:54.260 and also on other

00:14:55.380 environmental policies.

00:14:57.080 And I'm going to be

00:14:57.800 perfectly frank,

00:14:58.700 what triggered this discussion,

00:15:00.440 what it was that motivated me

00:15:02.060 to talk about this

00:15:02.980 was a speech that

00:15:04.340 Leslyn Lewis,

00:15:05.260 the Conservative candidate

00:15:06.320 for Haldeman Norfolk

00:15:07.680 and a former leadership candidate

00:15:09.660 for the party,

00:15:10.400 said in an address

00:15:11.700 at the United Conservative Party,

00:15:13.240 annual general meeting

00:15:14.800 about a week ago.

00:15:16.420 She was one of the keynote speakers

00:15:17.900 at the virtual AGM.

00:15:19.300 She was speaking at the conference

00:15:20.500 to Alberta Conservatives

00:15:21.720 from Toronto

00:15:22.860 and a lot of what she said

00:15:23.840 was entirely on point.

00:15:25.720 She talked about

00:15:26.300 being more of an Albertan at heart

00:15:27.720 and her strong showing

00:15:28.760 in the leadership race in Alberta

00:15:30.580 and the values of Albertans

00:15:32.060 and all of that.

00:15:33.120 But she also devoted

00:15:34.240 a considerable amount

00:15:35.880 of her speech

00:15:36.460 and when I say considerable,

00:15:37.700 I mean she kept coming back to it

00:15:39.260 talking about the Paris Accord.

00:15:41.980 Now when you're speaking

00:15:42.660 to Alberta Conservatives,

00:15:43.780 you're going to think

00:15:44.380 that the person is going

00:15:45.500 to be talking about

00:15:46.000 how terrible Paris is, right?

00:15:47.400 And how Canada should

00:15:48.220 have its own

00:15:49.140 made-in-Canada approach

00:15:50.460 to the environment

00:15:51.280 and well,

00:15:52.220 that wasn't what happened.

00:15:53.580 Just take a watch.

00:15:54.800 The fight is right here

00:15:56.820 in this country

00:15:58.120 and not in an international realm.

00:16:01.760 And the best example of this

00:16:03.360 is when we look

00:16:04.100 at the Paris Accord.

00:16:05.160 Our energy industry

00:16:08.780 has been under attack

00:16:10.620 for years.

00:16:13.000 Even before Justin Trudeau's

00:16:15.060 anti-energy legislation

00:16:16.900 began to cripple 0.98

00:16:18.420 the oil sector

00:16:19.240 and the gas sector,

00:16:21.220 activists were hard at work

00:16:22.960 to kneecap this industry.

00:16:26.620 But I believe that the Paris Accord

00:16:28.820 is really just a distraction.

00:16:30.780 Canada is the only G7 nation

00:16:35.280 in the world

00:16:36.540 that has implemented

00:16:38.260 the job-killing

00:16:40.300 national carbon tax.

00:16:42.940 It was not the Paris Accord

00:16:45.160 that drove $100 billion

00:16:47.600 worth of investments

00:16:49.100 out of this country.

00:16:52.620 Neither was it the Paris Accord

00:16:54.820 that caused over 0.81

00:16:56.620 100,000 oil and gas workers

00:17:00.260 to lose their jobs.

00:17:03.540 The Liberals want to

00:17:04.780 divide the Conservatives

00:17:06.800 by having us focus

00:17:08.540 on the Paris Accord

00:17:10.040 and not focus

00:17:11.680 on their bad laws.

00:17:14.220 If we continue to focus

00:17:16.080 on the Paris Accord,

00:17:17.300 we lose sight

00:17:18.120 of the domestic policies

00:17:20.320 that are crippling

00:17:24.000 like the carbon tax,

00:17:25.860 Bill C-48

00:17:27.220 like Bill C-69.

00:17:30.780 We must hold

00:17:32.220 the Liberals

00:17:32.860 to account

00:17:33.620 for these bad

00:17:34.860 environmental policies.

00:17:37.660 Within the last

00:17:38.720 five years,

00:17:39.680 there's been three pipelines

00:17:40.960 that were cancelled.

00:17:42.860 One was purchased

00:17:43.920 by the government,

00:17:45.160 likely never

00:17:45.960 to be completed.

00:17:49.020 Albertans are victims 0.99

00:17:50.640 of laws

00:17:51.960 that are passed

00:17:52.860 right here in this country.

00:17:54.240 But it is so easy

00:17:56.060 for us to point

00:17:56.900 the finger

00:17:57.420 outside of this country.

00:17:59.520 And I know

00:18:00.360 that as Canadians,

00:18:01.600 it's emotionally easier

00:18:03.220 if we could look

00:18:04.580 to the United Nations

00:18:05.680 and blame them

00:18:06.600 for all our problems.

00:18:08.560 But while I have

00:18:10.200 many problems

00:18:11.080 with the United Nations,

00:18:13.160 I have to say this.

00:18:15.580 Our wounds

00:18:16.640 and Alberta's wounds

00:18:18.200 have been self-inflicted

00:18:20.240 by the policies

00:18:21.480 of this nation.

00:18:23.180 If the United Nations

00:18:24.900 has any influence

00:18:26.280 over us,

00:18:27.080 it's because

00:18:27.920 our government

00:18:29.000 gave them

00:18:30.120 that authority.

00:18:31.740 We relinquished

00:18:33.220 our sovereign rights

00:18:34.700 over the environment,

00:18:36.660 not through

00:18:37.340 the Paris Accord,

00:18:38.640 but because

00:18:39.300 of national legislations

00:18:41.080 like Bill C-48

00:18:42.980 and Bill C-69.

00:18:45.280 These laws

00:18:47.080 must be repealed

00:18:48.540 international agreements

00:18:53.000 are largely voluntary.

00:18:56.180 And with respect

00:18:57.560 to the Paris Climate Agreement,

00:18:59.560 it is at best

00:19:00.780 an aspirational agreement.

00:19:04.220 It is a non-binding

00:19:05.900 international agreement

00:19:07.200 that we could easily meet

00:19:09.160 with our eyes closed.

00:19:10.640 And all we need

00:19:15.100 to do

00:19:15.600 essentially

00:19:16.280 is do

00:19:17.060 what we have been doing

00:19:18.340 and what we do best.

00:19:20.140 And that is

00:19:20.620 being the world leader

00:19:22.160 in the clean

00:19:23.360 energy

00:19:24.140 creation

00:19:25.180 and innovation

00:19:26.580 sector.

00:19:27.440 Now that is

00:19:28.200 by no means

00:19:28.920 the entirety of it.

00:19:30.100 As I said,

00:19:30.580 she kept going back

00:19:31.800 to it,

00:19:32.220 making these

00:19:32.940 defenses

00:19:33.920 of Paris.

00:19:34.960 And at some times

00:19:35.860 they seem to be

00:19:36.560 a bit more tacit.

00:19:37.820 But generally speaking,

00:19:38.780 what she was saying

00:19:39.480 is that conservatives

00:19:40.320 should shut up

00:19:41.560 about the Paris Climate Accord.

00:19:43.440 And you know what?

00:19:44.100 I could not disagree more.

00:19:46.920 Now just to take this

00:19:47.900 out of abstract terms,

00:19:49.200 the Paris Agreement

00:19:50.000 is a United Nations framework

00:19:52.140 signed by a great many countries,

00:19:53.900 196 of them,

00:19:55.440 including Canada,

00:19:56.800 talking about

00:19:57.520 very specific targets

00:19:59.540 for climate change.

00:20:01.080 The goal

00:20:01.520 is to keep

00:20:02.220 the increase

00:20:02.780 in global average temperature

00:20:04.120 to below

00:20:05.120 2 degrees Celsius

00:20:06.340 above pre-industrial levels

00:20:08.160 to pursue efforts

00:20:09.380 to limit the increase

00:20:10.360 to 1.5%

00:20:11.720 and to set

00:20:12.600 very specific

00:20:13.320 greenhouse gas emissions

00:20:14.660 targets.

00:20:15.300 Now,

00:20:15.480 the whole point of this

00:20:16.600 is that it is a bit

00:20:17.460 of a farce in some ways.

00:20:18.880 The fact that

00:20:19.600 Canada should shoulder 0.99

00:20:20.760 the burden

00:20:21.280 of what is

00:20:22.080 pollution caused

00:20:23.280 by China

00:20:24.220 and India

00:20:24.900 and other large emitters

00:20:26.160 if in fact

00:20:27.220 we can blame 0.55

00:20:28.140 climate change

00:20:29.260 on this sort of

00:20:30.320 pollution as directly.

00:20:31.500 And I know

00:20:31.900 I've talked about this

00:20:32.620 on the show in the past.

00:20:33.820 There are a great many

00:20:34.500 questions about

00:20:35.140 just how anthropogenic

00:20:36.480 global warming is

00:20:37.980 versus natural variability

00:20:39.460 and all of that stuff.

00:20:40.320 I don't want to get

00:20:40.860 into that right now

00:20:41.660 because I do want to talk

00:20:42.900 about the politics of it.

00:20:44.360 But the Paris Accord

00:20:45.460 is an agreement

00:20:46.340 that Canada has used

00:20:47.980 as justification

00:20:48.880 to pursue

00:20:50.240 very aggressive

00:20:51.560 anti-jobs,

00:20:53.060 anti-economic

00:20:53.940 pro-environment policies

00:20:55.540 or supposedly

00:20:56.320 pro-environment policies.

00:20:58.120 So when anyone says

00:20:59.380 that Paris is

00:21:00.320 quote-unquote

00:21:00.880 non-binding

00:21:01.920 it doesn't really matter

00:21:04.000 because Canada

00:21:04.780 has chosen

00:21:05.620 to use Paris

00:21:06.540 as a guiding principle

00:21:08.160 and as a legal justification

00:21:10.120 and a moral justification

00:21:11.340 to do what the

00:21:12.760 Justin Trudeau government

00:21:13.780 wants to do

00:21:14.480 on the environment.

00:21:15.480 The national carbon tax

00:21:16.700 being one of the

00:21:17.600 most notable examples.

00:21:19.600 So for Leslie Lewis

00:21:20.800 who went through

00:21:21.460 the leadership race

00:21:22.600 without actually saying

00:21:24.400 what she thought

00:21:25.220 about Paris

00:21:26.000 to come out now

00:21:27.480 and say

00:21:28.080 oh Paris is great

00:21:28.960 conservatives

00:21:29.400 shouldn't talk about it

00:21:30.280 we're already going to do it

00:21:31.200 we're doing it

00:21:31.620 with our eyes closed

00:21:32.420 I'm like

00:21:33.080 well hang on here

00:21:33.900 why were you not

00:21:35.300 talking about this

00:21:36.060 during the leadership race

00:21:37.260 why when you were

00:21:38.000 courting votes

00:21:38.720 from conservative Canadians

00:21:39.960 did you not own up to it

00:21:41.800 and I want to actually

00:21:42.980 go very specifically

00:21:44.240 to what Leslie Lewis said

00:21:45.780 in her leadership platform

00:21:47.560 and this is still

00:21:48.180 on her website

00:21:48.940 she pledges to

00:21:50.500 put other international

00:21:51.700 agreements

00:21:52.260 under a microscope

00:21:53.160 to ensure that Canada

00:21:54.340 is not relinquishing

00:21:55.480 sovereignty

00:21:56.100 to any foreign entity

00:21:57.720 on any matter

00:21:58.460 quote

00:21:59.240 that includes

00:22:00.440 a thorough review

00:22:01.680 of the Paris Accord

00:22:02.880 and if it is found

00:22:04.360 that it is encroaching

00:22:05.420 on our sovereignty

00:22:06.520 or not in our best interest

00:22:08.280 we will withdraw

00:22:09.480 from it as well

00:22:10.740 unquote

00:22:11.540 so here's what she's saying

00:22:13.440 we'll have a review of it

00:22:14.540 and if it's not

00:22:15.880 in our best interest

00:22:16.740 if it encroaches

00:22:17.800 in our sovereignty

00:22:18.560 then we'll withdraw

00:22:20.000 from it

00:22:20.580 well hang on there

00:22:21.580 I do believe she's

00:22:22.360 insulting people's intelligence

00:22:23.720 just a little bit

00:22:24.780 because on the very same page

00:22:26.660 she talks about

00:22:27.780 her bona fides

00:22:28.840 in this area

00:22:30.180 she says

00:22:30.680 as Prime Minister

00:22:31.360 I vow to use

00:22:32.260 my experience

00:22:33.040 in negotiating

00:22:34.040 international agreements

00:22:35.300 and my PhD

00:22:36.500 in international law

00:22:37.920 to make sure

00:22:38.780 that Canada

00:22:39.280 is no longer seen

00:22:40.400 as the pushover

00:22:41.140 it has been

00:22:41.820 for the last five years

00:22:43.280 she's got a PhD

00:22:44.680 in international law

00:22:45.980 I believe

00:22:46.620 that at the time

00:22:47.440 she said that

00:22:48.440 she fully knew

00:22:49.820 what there was

00:22:50.660 to know about Paris

00:22:51.880 and if not

00:22:53.080 why has the position

00:22:54.020 changed so much

00:22:54.960 in the last couple of months

00:22:55.960 to well we'll see

00:22:57.480 to oh no no no

00:22:58.780 it's good

00:22:59.100 we all have to

00:22:59.720 shut up about it

00:23:00.460 it's just a wedge

00:23:01.500 that conservatives

00:23:02.140 are using

00:23:02.780 and incidentally

00:23:04.420 in November

00:23:05.540 sorry in February

00:23:06.740 of 2019

00:23:07.560 she had actually

00:23:08.480 tweeted to Peter McKay

00:23:09.940 about how great

00:23:11.360 the sustainable

00:23:12.100 development goals

00:23:12.980 and Paris

00:23:13.920 were to

00:23:14.920 international law

00:23:15.920 this was in response

00:23:16.640 to a tweet

00:23:17.260 that Peter McKay did

00:23:18.120 talking about

00:23:18.700 how great the UN was

00:23:20.220 and that was in

00:23:20.860 February of 2019

00:23:22.200 and I saw this

00:23:23.500 on Dan McTagg's

00:23:24.980 affordable energy website

00:23:26.180 a former liberal MP

00:23:27.560 but one who's actually

00:23:28.860 very solid

00:23:29.540 on green energy scams

00:23:31.140 and McTagg

00:23:32.160 had actually called

00:23:32.960 Leslyn Lewis

00:23:33.780 the green energy

00:23:35.440 candidate

00:23:35.980 because he pointed out

00:23:37.820 that even though

00:23:38.240 she checks the boxes

00:23:39.100 on wanting to repeal

00:23:40.140 the carbon tax

00:23:41.560 and bills

00:23:42.060 C48 and C69

00:23:43.700 she also had 0.60

00:23:45.360 these very

00:23:46.200 sort of murky

00:23:47.360 and questionable

00:23:47.980 relationships

00:23:48.660 with a lot of

00:23:49.720 green energy schemes

00:23:50.640 that we know

00:23:51.320 are very costly

00:23:52.580 including going

00:23:53.340 right back to

00:23:54.100 a dissertation

00:23:54.940 she wrote

00:23:55.780 where she actually

00:23:57.260 talked about

00:23:58.000 trying to attract

00:23:58.840 foreign investment

00:23:59.640 for green energy

00:24:00.400 projects

00:24:01.020 and as McTagg

00:24:02.480 says

00:24:02.860 she focused on

00:24:04.160 third world countries

00:24:05.200 that are at a

00:24:05.800 disadvantage

00:24:06.460 when it comes

00:24:07.120 to green energy

00:24:07.840 as they often

00:24:09.000 cannot afford

00:24:09.720 the patents

00:24:10.280 to build

00:24:10.820 the green

00:24:11.380 infrastructure

00:24:11.940 so he's pointing

00:24:13.560 out here

00:24:14.000 that she knows

00:24:15.000 her stuff

00:24:15.440 she knows

00:24:15.900 about these issues

00:24:16.740 which is why

00:24:17.820 I don't think

00:24:18.560 she was not

00:24:19.460 fully aware

00:24:20.360 of the implications

00:24:21.920 of the Paris

00:24:23.260 climate accord

00:24:24.040 now her argument

00:24:25.860 okay

00:24:26.320 if we are already

00:24:27.520 on track

00:24:28.020 to do these

00:24:28.600 things

00:24:28.980 then why worry

00:24:30.560 about Paris

00:24:31.200 well there's a

00:24:32.400 symbolic aspect

00:24:33.360 to it

00:24:33.760 but also a very

00:24:34.520 tactical one

00:24:35.420 because even

00:24:36.380 if we are already

00:24:37.220 doing generally

00:24:37.920 speaking quite well

00:24:39.020 on environmental

00:24:39.740 issues compared

00:24:40.640 to other parts

00:24:41.620 of the world

00:24:42.120 and the global

00:24:42.680 south and the

00:24:43.480 developing world

00:24:44.600 then Paris

00:24:45.740 is in a lot

00:24:46.600 of ways

00:24:47.000 very theatrical

00:24:47.960 but Justin Trudeau

00:24:49.380 is still using

00:24:50.420 Paris

00:24:50.900 as justification

00:24:52.280 to do all sorts

00:24:53.480 of things

00:24:53.880 they've made it

00:24:54.640 this linchpin

00:24:55.500 of Canadian

00:24:56.760 environmental policy

00:24:58.020 and for any

00:24:59.600 conservative

00:25:00.220 to start accepting

00:25:01.840 liberal premises

00:25:02.880 on these things

00:25:03.700 is very dangerous

00:25:05.160 but more importantly

00:25:06.440 why not own up to it

00:25:07.600 if that was your view

00:25:08.400 that this is great

00:25:09.120 and conservatives

00:25:09.620 should stop

00:25:10.200 complaining about it

00:25:11.080 why not own up

00:25:12.260 to that in the

00:25:12.860 leadership race

00:25:13.660 and some people

00:25:14.840 may think I'm

00:25:15.560 picking on

00:25:16.120 Leslyn Lewis

00:25:16.740 I'm not

00:25:17.200 that's not the intent

00:25:18.000 the fact is

00:25:18.800 she's a very

00:25:19.200 high profile member

00:25:20.220 of the Canadian

00:25:20.960 conservative movement

00:25:21.960 and if elected

00:25:23.040 in her riding

00:25:23.720 which she probably 0.70

00:25:24.360 will be

00:25:24.900 it's very likely

00:25:25.960 she's going to be

00:25:26.700 a very significant

00:25:27.760 player in conservative

00:25:28.920 politics moving forward

00:25:30.540 and I would say

00:25:32.180 that this is a reason

00:25:34.100 that we need to be

00:25:34.900 listening very carefully

00:25:36.600 so when she's going

00:25:37.960 to go before

00:25:38.620 Alberta conservatives

00:25:40.040 Alberta conservatives

00:25:42.120 and say

00:25:43.140 well you know

00:25:43.760 you guys shouldn't

00:25:44.380 complain about Paris

00:25:45.180 all that much

00:25:45.860 there are a lot

00:25:46.780 of people in

00:25:47.540 the grassroots there

00:25:48.680 and across the country

00:25:49.840 that I think

00:25:50.720 are not going to be

00:25:51.680 too pleased

00:25:52.300 with that

00:25:52.740 which brings me

00:25:54.000 to my broader

00:25:54.860 point about how

00:25:55.820 conservatives engage

00:25:57.040 on environmental

00:25:58.060 issues

00:25:58.800 if you believe

00:26:00.420 that global warming

00:26:01.400 is this big

00:26:02.200 giant threat

00:26:02.920 and you believe

00:26:03.500 that we need

00:26:04.000 to find ways

00:26:04.660 to tackle it

00:26:05.800 to reduce emissions

00:26:06.760 to do all of this

00:26:08.120 okay that is

00:26:09.020 completely fine

00:26:09.920 if you don't

00:26:11.980 and I think

00:26:12.720 most conservatives

00:26:13.720 are people

00:26:14.640 that would be

00:26:15.120 lumped into

00:26:15.700 the denier

00:26:16.460 or skeptic category

00:26:17.860 by the alarmist

00:26:18.720 most conservatives

00:26:19.480 I think are people

00:26:20.060 that say yes

00:26:20.640 the climate

00:26:21.420 is changing

00:26:21.980 yes we need

00:26:22.640 to be conservationists

00:26:23.840 and good stewards

00:26:24.540 of the environment

00:26:25.260 but do we need

00:26:26.320 to tax our way

00:26:27.380 into saving

00:26:28.600 the environment

00:26:29.180 no

00:26:29.540 can we compete

00:26:30.960 with the Chinas

00:26:32.200 and the Indias

00:26:33.080 and the South Koreas

00:26:34.140 of the world

00:26:34.660 no

00:26:35.240 on in terms

00:26:36.600 of our emissions

00:26:37.460 or should we even

00:26:38.200 have to

00:26:38.580 are we even

00:26:39.020 in the same realm

00:26:39.840 even the United States

00:26:41.080 for example

00:26:41.680 and can we allow

00:26:43.100 the market

00:26:43.660 to work in this area

00:26:45.040 I would say yes

00:26:46.060 so most conservative

00:26:47.900 Canadians

00:26:48.400 who are conscious

00:26:49.260 of these issues

00:26:50.120 are not alarmist

00:26:51.480 we take a very measured

00:26:52.560 and dare I say

00:26:53.740 conservative

00:26:54.440 approach to these things

00:26:56.220 however

00:26:57.700 and this is the big question

00:26:59.860 are we going to win

00:27:01.760 any votes

00:27:02.580 as small c conservatives

00:27:03.800 on these issues

00:27:04.640 I'm going to say no

00:27:05.520 and I'm going to tell you

00:27:06.840 a story about the time

00:27:07.900 that I ran as a candidate

00:27:08.980 I've talked about

00:27:09.720 this period of my life

00:27:10.880 before

00:27:11.220 I ran for the

00:27:12.120 progressive conservatives

00:27:13.020 in Ontario

00:27:13.780 in 2018

00:27:14.480 and when I went

00:27:15.680 knocking on doors

00:27:16.440 we knocked on

00:27:17.080 over 20,000 of them

00:27:18.380 I asked the same question

00:27:20.100 to pretty much

00:27:20.560 everyone I met

00:27:21.180 what are the issues

00:27:22.140 you care about

00:27:22.920 and in the 21,000 doors

00:27:25.880 that I knocked on

00:27:26.980 and the thousands of people

00:27:28.980 to whom I asked

00:27:29.920 that question

00:27:30.540 one person

00:27:32.320 one person

00:27:33.500 said the environment

00:27:34.280 is their top concern

00:27:35.260 and you better believe

00:27:37.340 they weren't going

00:27:38.040 to be a conservative voter

00:27:39.200 that was it

00:27:39.780 one person

00:27:40.380 and I'm not saying

00:27:41.820 that my riding

00:27:42.560 in London West

00:27:43.380 was representative

00:27:44.600 of the entire population

00:27:46.180 I'm also not saying

00:27:47.280 that the environmental issues

00:27:49.120 were not a close second

00:27:50.240 behind the issues

00:27:51.000 that people told me

00:27:51.940 were their number ones

00:27:53.200 but I am saying

00:27:53.840 that this is not

00:27:54.580 the top of mind issue

00:27:56.160 for most real voters

00:27:57.740 we're told it should be

00:27:59.120 we're told it has to be

00:28:00.360 in some cases

00:28:01.360 we're told by the media

00:28:02.340 it is

00:28:03.020 but for the most part

00:28:04.700 it is not

00:28:05.660 and in a lot of cases

00:28:07.040 I think it's like

00:28:07.760 why PBS

00:28:08.360 used to always have

00:28:09.500 such high representation

00:28:10.460 in surveys

00:28:11.340 in the US

00:28:12.420 but not in actual

00:28:14.000 metrics for viewership

00:28:15.820 because people want

00:28:16.660 to say that they're watching it

00:28:18.060 they want to sound smart

00:28:19.120 they want to sound virtuous

00:28:20.540 when they tell a pollster

00:28:21.600 ah yes I care about

00:28:22.620 climate change

00:28:23.340 but when the chips

00:28:24.240 are on the table

00:28:24.840 this is not moving

00:28:25.840 votes as much

00:28:26.680 and certainly

00:28:27.720 not conservatives

00:28:28.700 conservatives

00:28:29.780 are not going

00:28:30.720 to outflank

00:28:31.700 the liberals

00:28:32.340 the NDP

00:28:32.980 the Green Party

00:28:33.880 on environmental issues

00:28:35.680 conservatives

00:28:36.200 are not going

00:28:36.960 to win votes

00:28:37.620 from those sorts

00:28:38.680 of people

00:28:39.160 so if

00:28:40.620 the equivocation

00:28:42.200 that conservatives

00:28:43.120 tend to do

00:28:43.800 on environmental issues

00:28:45.320 is for votes

00:28:46.540 it's not going

00:28:47.320 to work

00:28:47.760 and that's where

00:28:48.260 I go back to

00:28:48.940 what I said before

00:28:49.640 if you believe it

00:28:50.440 great

00:28:50.740 but if you're doing it

00:28:52.000 just because you think

00:28:52.980 you're going to get

00:28:53.440 votes from it

00:28:54.020 you're not

00:28:54.940 you're not going to win

00:28:55.840 on the liberals turf

00:28:57.460 which is why

00:28:58.580 you have to stop

00:29:00.020 accepting

00:29:01.020 their premises

00:29:02.120 and this is so key

00:29:04.260 because the second

00:29:04.940 you accept

00:29:05.600 your opponent's premises

00:29:06.640 you have lost

00:29:07.960 you have absolutely

00:29:09.660 lost

00:29:10.200 because what you're

00:29:10.800 doing is you're

00:29:11.340 actually deciding

00:29:12.020 you're going to

00:29:12.360 play their game

00:29:13.040 on their field

00:29:13.660 by their rules

00:29:14.340 and you're never

00:29:15.060 going to play it

00:29:15.600 as well as them

00:29:16.340 we need to start

00:29:17.600 replacing those

00:29:18.620 premises

00:29:19.040 with our own

00:29:20.040 premises

00:29:20.480 and pointing out

00:29:21.840 well hang on

00:29:22.400 let's take a step

00:29:23.500 back here

00:29:24.040 and this is why

00:29:25.340 I had a bit

00:29:26.760 of mixed feedback

00:29:27.380 last week

00:29:28.060 to the interview

00:29:28.640 I did with

00:29:29.200 Dr. Elmira

00:29:30.700 Aliakbari 0.75

00:29:31.400 from the Fraser

00:29:32.000 Institute

00:29:32.420 because she's an 0.99

00:29:33.300 economist who's

00:29:34.100 determined that

00:29:34.820 carbon taxes

00:29:35.820 can be good

00:29:36.900 but most of the

00:29:37.780 political manifestations

00:29:38.920 of them we see

00:29:39.680 are not

00:29:40.600 and I mentioned

00:29:41.160 in the interview

00:29:41.800 that listen

00:29:42.960 I'm not a

00:29:43.680 carbon tax fan

00:29:44.540 however I did

00:29:45.320 think there was

00:29:45.820 merit in having

00:29:46.940 the discussion

00:29:47.520 with her about

00:29:48.260 what it would

00:29:48.800 look like

00:29:49.380 if there was

00:29:50.280 going to be

00:29:50.740 such a thing

00:29:51.320 as a good one

00:29:52.320 could that even

00:29:53.000 happen

00:29:53.360 and I got a lot

00:29:54.740 of people that

00:29:55.160 were saying

00:29:55.580 oh well you know

00:29:56.680 how are you

00:29:57.040 talking to someone

00:29:57.640 who supports

00:29:58.240 a carbon tax

00:29:58.980 and I had other

00:29:59.460 people that

00:30:00.560 came at me

00:30:01.360 like this person

00:30:02.320 did an email

00:30:02.980 I got from

00:30:03.660 a gentleman

00:30:04.120 named Andrew

00:30:04.680 who writes

00:30:05.640 I was mystified

00:30:07.100 by your conclusion

00:30:08.080 why is it an

00:30:09.300 entirely defensible

00:30:10.240 position to be

00:30:10.980 against any kind

00:30:11.780 of carbon tax

00:30:12.460 what was it

00:30:13.460 in Dr. Ali

00:30:14.980 Akbari's 0.97

00:30:15.480 logical train

00:30:16.200 that you disagreed

00:30:16.900 with

00:30:17.080 please explain

00:30:17.920 her paper

00:30:18.700 really adopts

00:30:19.480 the same

00:30:19.900 basic framework

00:30:20.660 as one finds

00:30:21.400 in a 2008 paper

00:30:22.480 by Jack Mintz

00:30:23.300 and Nancy

00:30:24.440 Oluweiler

00:30:25.140 I might have

00:30:25.600 that name wrong

00:30:26.140 I apologize

00:30:26.680 Jack Mintz

00:30:27.680 certainly detests

00:30:28.400 the Trudeau carbon tax

00:30:29.380 but he hasn't

00:30:29.920 changed his views

00:30:30.620 about carbon taxes

00:30:31.460 in general

00:30:31.980 the Conservative Party

00:30:33.340 and the Ontario

00:30:34.340 Progressive Conservative Party

00:30:35.640 would seem to have

00:30:36.760 taken exactly

00:30:37.640 the wrong position

00:30:38.560 on GHG emissions

00:30:39.660 favoring the Paris target

00:30:41.060 while rejecting

00:30:41.700 any kind of carbon tax

00:30:42.880 they should take

00:30:43.720 the opposite position

00:30:45.080 favoring some kind

00:30:46.420 of carbon tax

00:30:47.100 while rejecting

00:30:48.160 the Paris target

00:30:49.040 and he goes on

00:30:49.700 in the email

00:30:50.680 to point to a paper

00:30:52.200 by Ross McKittrick

00:30:53.180 at the University of Guelph

00:30:54.320 which I've read

00:30:54.900 and I've actually

00:30:55.540 interviewed Dr. McKittrick

00:30:57.080 about this very topic

00:30:58.380 and we actually

00:30:59.180 were on the same cruise

00:31:00.460 in Alaska

00:31:01.580 a little while ago

00:31:02.420 so we got to see

00:31:03.240 the glaciers

00:31:04.220 which supposedly

00:31:05.220 were I guess

00:31:06.360 supposed to have

00:31:06.820 been melting

00:31:07.220 by the minute

00:31:07.720 in fact maybe

00:31:08.240 the glaciers

00:31:08.940 are all gone

00:31:09.480 right now

00:31:09.900 if you listen

00:31:11.300 to the alarmist

00:31:12.000 but I'm very aware

00:31:13.520 of this issue

00:31:14.000 and he says

00:31:14.500 why are you opposed

00:31:16.000 to a carbon tax

00:31:16.940 and here's why

00:31:18.140 number one

00:31:19.680 yes there are

00:31:21.300 all of these

00:31:22.080 circumstances

00:31:22.740 that have said

00:31:23.180 a carbon tax

00:31:23.920 can work

00:31:24.400 if if if if

00:31:25.800 and this was

00:31:26.840 the basis

00:31:27.640 of the interview

00:31:28.260 last week

00:31:29.000 with Dr. Ali Akbari

00:31:30.200 revenue neutrality

00:31:31.620 is one of them

00:31:32.400 if the money raised

00:31:33.880 is actually

00:31:34.440 taking away

00:31:35.480 from other taxes

00:31:36.540 there are a number

00:31:37.240 of metrics there

00:31:38.020 but I do not trust

00:31:39.940 that that is possible

00:31:41.240 so I have a

00:31:42.500 pragmatic opposition

00:31:43.660 which is that

00:31:44.380 the theoretical

00:31:45.340 carbon tax

00:31:46.320 that could 0.68

00:31:47.120 have an effect

00:31:48.040 is not going

00:31:49.580 to exist

00:31:50.160 because governments

00:31:50.920 are not interested

00:31:52.060 in going down

00:31:53.240 those roads

00:31:53.820 so I'm not going

00:31:54.500 to get into this game

00:31:55.360 of well I support

00:31:56.520 this carbon tax

00:31:57.460 but not that carbon tax

00:31:58.620 because I know

00:31:59.420 that once you move

00:32:00.200 into a political discourse

00:32:01.600 that distinction

00:32:02.680 is gone

00:32:03.200 that nuance

00:32:03.960 is absolutely gone

00:32:05.080 and number two

00:32:06.700 I refuse to accept

00:32:08.640 a policy

00:32:09.380 that is based

00:32:10.020 on the idea

00:32:10.600 of penalizing industry

00:32:12.240 when Canada

00:32:13.440 is not the problem

00:32:14.780 and I know

00:32:15.700 the logical response

00:32:16.900 to that is

00:32:17.280 oh well if

00:32:17.920 you know

00:32:18.380 every country

00:32:19.040 were to say that

00:32:19.700 but we're not

00:32:20.360 talking about that

00:32:21.140 when we in Canada

00:32:23.060 and the United States

00:32:24.040 and Britain

00:32:24.580 and France

00:32:25.180 and Germany

00:32:25.680 talk about

00:32:26.160 oh we've got to

00:32:26.700 lower this percentage

00:32:27.840 that percentage

00:32:28.500 we've got to reduce

00:32:29.220 nitrous oxide

00:32:29.960 and CO2

00:32:30.740 and all of that

00:32:31.260 what they are

00:32:31.840 completely missing

00:32:32.640 is that all it does

00:32:33.700 is grow and grow

00:32:35.040 and grow

00:32:35.680 the availability

00:32:36.760 in the market

00:32:37.780 for giant manufacturers

00:32:40.060 in other parts

00:32:40.960 of the world

00:32:41.360 to swoop in

00:32:42.140 and one of the

00:32:43.420 hallmarks of globalization

00:32:44.640 is that you have to

00:32:45.640 accept that your country

00:32:46.520 does not exist

00:32:47.260 in a silo

00:32:48.040 you are competing

00:32:49.080 as an Ontarian

00:32:50.040 with people in Michigan

00:32:51.400 you're competing

00:32:52.040 as a Michigan

00:32:53.100 with people

00:32:53.700 in Mexico

00:32:54.780 with people in Germany

00:32:56.220 you're competing

00:32:56.820 with people

00:32:57.300 all around the world

00:32:58.400 so we cannot

00:32:59.760 expect

00:33:00.500 that we can

00:33:01.620 make ourselves

00:33:02.480 uncompetitive

00:33:03.480 through a form

00:33:04.120 of taxation

00:33:04.820 that only has

00:33:06.360 a murky

00:33:07.080 at best

00:33:07.780 relationship

00:33:08.420 with actually

00:33:09.160 reducing emissions

00:33:10.140 so I refuse

00:33:11.240 to go down

00:33:11.820 that road

00:33:12.320 and my advice

00:33:13.180 to conservatives

00:33:13.880 is don't accept

00:33:14.960 the premises

00:33:15.520 reframe the debate

00:33:16.960 and that is

00:33:17.760 especially true

00:33:18.620 after hearing

00:33:19.140 what Leslyn Lewis

00:33:19.900 said about Paris

00:33:20.760 we've got to wrap

00:33:22.300 things up

00:33:22.720 my thanks to all

00:33:23.480 of you for

00:33:24.040 tuning into the program

00:33:25.040 we'll talk to you

00:33:25.660 next week

00:33:26.320 here on The Andrew Lawton Show

00:33:27.840 thank you

00:33:28.320 God bless

00:33:28.880 and good day Canada

00:33:29.780 thanks for listening

00:33:30.900 to The Andrew Lawton Show

00:33:32.100 support the program

00:33:33.160 by donating

00:33:33.740 to True North

00:33:34.400 at www.tnc.news

Juno News - October 31, 2020

Choosing Free Speech Over ＂Respectful＂ Speech

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript