Juno News - October 31, 2020


Choosing Free Speech Over ＂Respectful＂ Speech


Episode Stats

Length

33 minutes

Words per Minute

175.6379

Word Count

5,906

Sentence Count

175

Misogynist Sentences

6

Hate Speech Sentences

8


Summary


Transcript

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.
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
00:29:31.400 from the Fraser
00:29:32.000 Institute
00:29:32.420 because she's an
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
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
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