Juno News - March 03, 2020


Coronavirus Panic, Big Tech Censorship and Marginalizing So-Cons (feat. Richard Décarie)


Episode Stats


Length

45 minutes

Words per minute

167.00795

Word count

7,585

Sentence count

145

Harmful content

Misogyny

4

sentences flagged

Hate speech

14

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Coming up, should we be panicking about coronavirus, Big Tech censorship, and Richard Dacre rejoins to talk about his disqualification from the Conservative leadership race. The Andrew Lawton Show starts right now on the True North Network.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Welcome to Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.
00:00:06.740 This is the Andrew Lawton Show, brought to you by True North.
00:00:12.980 Coming up, should we be panicking about coronavirus, big tech censorship,
00:00:17.760 and Richard Dacre rejoins to talk about his disqualification from the Conservative leadership race.
00:00:24.800 The Andrew Lawton Show starts right now.
00:00:30.000 Hey, welcome to another edition of Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.
00:00:35.920 You're tuned in to the Andrew Lawton Show here on True North.
00:00:39.200 Coronavirus free so far, so thank you very much.
00:00:42.340 We'll see how it is by the end of the show, but I don't have any in-studio guests,
00:00:45.360 so I think I can probably make it.
00:00:47.460 We'll be talking about the coronavirus scare later on in the show
00:00:53.140 and why I'm kind of alienating myself from, not in quarantine,
00:00:57.820 but I mean ideologically from both sides of this,
00:01:00.900 people that think it's nothing to worry about
00:01:02.780 and people that think we all need to be stocking up and prepping for doomsday.
00:01:06.140 I'm somewhere in between those two.
00:01:08.140 So we'll be talking about that later on in the show,
00:01:10.500 as well as big tech censorship and where the answer to that,
00:01:15.200 if there even is one, lies.
00:01:17.620 That's all coming up later on.
00:01:18.900 But I want to talk first off about where the Conservative Party of Canada
00:01:23.380 has gone, in my view, horrendously wrong in disqualifying Richard Descaires.
00:01:29.680 So the Conservative Party had its leadership filing period, which has now ended.
00:01:34.700 It was on the 27th or 28th of February, last weekend.
00:01:39.200 And in order to be on the ballot as a leadership candidate,
00:01:42.100 you had to submit by that point, 1159 p.m.,
00:01:46.160 your 1,000 signatures of members that are active
00:01:48.880 in a number of provinces and ridings across Canada
00:01:52.160 and also a check for $25,000, which could have been your own money.
00:01:56.620 You could loan it to the campaign.
00:01:58.960 And the money is not as difficult as the signatures are.
00:02:03.220 It's actually hard to find 1,000 people who are paid up members.
00:02:07.120 But regardless, a number of candidates did that.
00:02:10.240 Candidates were successful.
00:02:11.340 There were, to be exact, nine of them that submitted their papers in time.
00:02:17.760 Eight of them are authorized as candidates right now,
00:02:22.760 or approved applicants, as the party calls them.
00:02:25.040 One of them, Richard Descaires, was disqualified.
00:02:28.300 Now, the party has not said why he was disqualified specifically.
00:02:33.320 A spokesperson did tell me, quote,
00:02:35.420 reasons for not allowing a candidacy are not disclosed
00:02:38.520 per our standard nomination practices,
00:02:40.680 but it's not a decision the committee ever takes lightly.
00:02:45.720 Now, the only thing we can really do is read between the lines
00:02:49.980 and look at what it is that Richard Descaires has done
00:02:52.940 that the party might not like.
00:02:54.760 And it's something that we actually talked about on the show
00:02:57.100 when it happened a few weeks ago.
00:02:59.160 He was doing an interview on CTV with Evan Solomon
00:03:02.660 in which he avowed that he views homosexuality as a choice
00:03:05.920 and said that he opposes same-sex marriage.
00:03:09.220 Now, Dick Harry is a devout Catholic.
00:03:11.800 He adheres to the traditional Catholic Church teaching
00:03:15.160 on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
00:03:18.180 He is avowed as a social conservative,
00:03:21.260 but they didn't bar other social conservatives from running.
00:03:24.960 They didn't bar Leslyn Lewis,
00:03:26.460 who identifies as a social conservative,
00:03:28.820 or Derek Sloan.
00:03:29.860 Jim Carajalios, very devoutly pro-life.
00:03:32.660 He was approved as a candidate as well.
00:03:34.740 The only one that was denied is Descaires.
00:03:38.640 Now, in many respects,
00:03:40.500 this sounds like an example of the party feeling,
00:03:44.380 okay, we've got to make an example of this guy
00:03:47.000 to fend off the attacks we're going to get from the media
00:03:50.280 if we allow him to be a candidate.
00:03:52.260 The problem with that is that you cannot,
00:03:55.700 as a party establishment,
00:03:57.360 as a group of, for the most part,
00:03:59.080 unelected people in a conservative party boardroom
00:04:02.060 or on a conference call,
00:04:03.220 say, we are going to decide
00:04:05.080 who has the right to stand as a candidate
00:04:08.800 rather than letting the voters decide
00:04:11.180 who they think is going to be the best suited
00:04:14.600 to lead the party.
00:04:15.840 And this is where I am now,
00:04:17.500 because you may remember a few weeks ago,
00:04:19.740 I said very unequivocally on this show
00:04:21.620 that I thought Descaires' comments
00:04:23.760 were not in alignment with the party.
00:04:25.840 They were not in alignment
00:04:27.360 with where the party needs to be
00:04:29.380 as far as the messaging
00:04:30.840 and the form of communication goes.
00:04:33.200 And I say this as someone
00:04:34.400 who is more of a social conservative
00:04:36.860 that I don't think we need to be dwelling
00:04:39.480 on certain issues
00:04:41.140 that seem to be in the SOCON Rolodex sometimes.
00:04:44.360 And one of those is gay marriage. 0.80
00:04:45.980 I don't think it's an issue
00:04:46.920 that social conservatives should be campaigning on
00:04:49.800 or the Conservative Party of Canada.
00:04:52.060 But, you know, that's really beside the point,
00:04:54.400 because I think that even though Descaires' 0.70
00:04:57.020 may have said something and done something
00:04:59.460 that makes him unsuitable
00:05:01.280 to cast a ballot for in many people's eyes,
00:05:04.500 that is the responsibility
00:05:06.280 and the prerogative of the members to decide,
00:05:09.580 not the leadership committee.
00:05:12.080 And this is the issue,
00:05:13.460 is that I don't think he would have won.
00:05:15.300 He's not a well-known person.
00:05:18.220 He's not someone that was a frontrunner
00:05:21.400 in the race necessarily.
00:05:23.100 He had support.
00:05:24.180 I mean, clearly he was able to get 1,000 members
00:05:26.260 and he was able to get the money together
00:05:28.940 to file that application.
00:05:31.120 But it says a lot that the party was so scared
00:05:34.220 of having him on the ballot.
00:05:36.620 It says a lot that the party didn't want him
00:05:38.820 to even have a shot.
00:05:40.540 And that's interesting
00:05:41.580 because if you look back in 2017,
00:05:43.940 it was the social conservative vote
00:05:46.160 that gave Andrew Scheer the victory.
00:05:48.640 It was the social conservative votes
00:05:50.240 that were cast for Pierre Lemieux
00:05:52.260 and more specifically Brad Trost
00:05:54.320 that ultimately filtered into Andrew Scheer's support
00:05:57.740 because of the ranked ballot
00:05:58.940 and gave Andrew Scheer the victory.
00:06:02.120 So by taking out a social conservative
00:06:04.660 that was unlikely to win,
00:06:06.680 what the conservatives are actually doing
00:06:08.760 is taking out a support base
00:06:12.780 that would have gone to another candidate.
00:06:16.020 And the theory that's been advanced
00:06:17.700 by Richard Desqueries' campaign
00:06:19.520 is that the party establishment
00:06:21.260 is trying to help Peter McKay.
00:06:23.300 Now, Peter McKay has taken
00:06:24.640 a very anti-social conservative stance
00:06:26.860 to date in his campaign.
00:06:28.960 Aaron O'Toole,
00:06:29.840 who's the other frontrunner,
00:06:31.360 I guess you could say,
00:06:32.620 not a social conservative,
00:06:34.280 but has said unequivocally
00:06:35.700 that he supports conscience rights
00:06:37.300 and he realizes that the conservative party
00:06:39.540 has a place for social conservatives.
00:06:42.340 So it's likely that a lot
00:06:44.200 of the social conservative votes
00:06:46.100 would have eventually trickled
00:06:48.300 to Aaron O'Toole
00:06:50.440 if the party dynamics
00:06:52.160 and the leadership dynamics
00:06:53.260 stay the way they are right now.
00:06:54.980 And that's a big if.
00:06:55.800 We're still talking about months away.
00:06:58.160 So it's actually quite important
00:06:59.960 because the party has not just handicapped
00:07:02.360 Richard Desqueries.
00:07:03.960 They're handicapping anyone 1.00
00:07:05.640 who would have benefited
00:07:07.380 from votes that Desqueries brought
00:07:10.080 into the race.
00:07:11.280 And that's why there is an element
00:07:13.100 of 3D chess that's going on here
00:07:15.680 in whomever made the decision
00:07:17.280 to disqualify him
00:07:18.500 because there are other votes
00:07:20.320 that are at stake
00:07:21.020 and other candidates
00:07:21.960 that are at stake here.
00:07:23.640 I want to speak to Richard Desqueries himself
00:07:26.980 about what the party has told him
00:07:29.180 because so far the party
00:07:30.440 has not said anything
00:07:32.180 other than that statement
00:07:33.300 that I gave you basically
00:07:34.620 that well we don't make
00:07:35.920 these decisions lightly
00:07:36.880 but we aren't going to talk
00:07:37.900 about what's happening
00:07:39.100 and what went wrong
00:07:39.920 and why.
00:07:40.980 Richard Desqueries joins me
00:07:42.140 on the line now.
00:07:43.340 Richard good to talk to you.
00:07:44.340 Thanks very much
00:07:44.880 for coming on today.
00:07:46.060 Thank you for having me.
00:07:47.320 So let's get through
00:07:48.560 the nuts and bolts of this.
00:07:50.800 You submitted all of the documents
00:07:52.580 that the party required.
00:07:54.040 The form, the questionnaire,
00:07:55.820 1,000 signatures,
00:07:57.100 the $25,000.
00:07:58.520 You did all of that correct?
00:08:00.180 Yes.
00:08:00.740 Yes absolutely.
00:08:01.300 And what happened
00:08:03.240 when you did that?
00:08:04.460 Because I understand
00:08:05.120 there's supposed to be an interview.
00:08:06.680 Did the party interview you?
00:08:08.780 Yes, the interview
00:08:09.520 occurred last Thursday
00:08:11.660 and it went very well,
00:08:13.640 about 45 minutes,
00:08:14.700 asking questions
00:08:15.440 mainly about the things
00:08:16.820 that were already public
00:08:18.200 and there were no sub-questions
00:08:20.540 or other questions.
00:08:21.640 So I think it went very well.
00:08:24.120 And since it was only in English,
00:08:26.260 I think they saw
00:08:29.400 that I could
00:08:30.320 speak English very easily.
00:08:33.780 And so at the end of that,
00:08:35.840 you didn't think
00:08:36.800 that you were being disqualified.
00:08:38.380 They never told you
00:08:39.380 they had these grave concerns
00:08:41.000 about your candidacy.
00:08:42.960 No, and apparently
00:08:43.940 from an anonymous source
00:08:46.820 that said that
00:08:47.800 it wasn't based on
00:08:48.880 what I said publicly,
00:08:51.620 it's very mysterious
00:08:52.960 because they're not supposed
00:08:54.560 to comment at all.
00:08:56.020 So somebody has commented,
00:08:57.540 first of all.
00:08:58.620 And if they had had
00:08:59.540 something else
00:09:00.340 other than what I said publicly
00:09:02.760 in the past months or years,
00:09:05.180 they should have asked me
00:09:06.660 about it during the interview.
00:09:08.080 I think the interview
00:09:08.740 is based on the fact
00:09:10.940 that they must ask
00:09:11.760 that could be confidential
00:09:14.760 and nothing occurred
00:09:17.060 towards that way.
00:09:18.660 So I think,
00:09:19.720 and that's the rumor internally,
00:09:22.780 that the decision
00:09:23.740 of the committee
00:09:24.300 was positive
00:09:25.280 after the interview
00:09:27.080 and 48 hours later,
00:09:29.720 it was the opposite.
00:09:31.660 So in the absence
00:09:32.760 of any real substantive
00:09:34.720 information from the party,
00:09:36.160 I read the statement
00:09:37.140 they gave earlier
00:09:38.120 on the show
00:09:39.200 that reasons are not disclosed
00:09:41.340 and it's, quote,
00:09:42.120 not a decision
00:09:42.880 the committee ever
00:09:43.660 takes lightly, unquote.
00:09:45.240 The only assumption
00:09:46.560 that anyone's been able
00:09:47.740 to make is that
00:09:48.660 it goes back
00:09:49.300 to that interview
00:09:50.100 you did with Evan Solomon
00:09:51.360 where you talked
00:09:53.240 about your belief
00:09:53.900 that homosexuality 1.00
00:09:54.860 is a choice
00:09:55.460 and I don't want
00:09:56.100 to re-litigate that,
00:09:57.340 but you're saying
00:09:58.640 that you've heard
00:09:59.340 that wasn't the case,
00:10:00.540 that they had something
00:10:01.460 of else mysteriously
00:10:02.740 that they're using
00:10:03.660 to justify your disqualification?
00:10:05.700 Something mysteriously
00:10:07.900 according to that
00:10:08.820 anonymous source
00:10:09.920 and saying also
00:10:12.180 that it wasn't
00:10:13.580 something I said publicly,
00:10:15.080 so it disqualifies
00:10:16.120 the fact that I said
00:10:17.260 what I said
00:10:18.240 at the CTV interview.
00:10:20.020 And what I said
00:10:21.020 at the CTV interview
00:10:21.920 was based on
00:10:23.120 scientific
00:10:23.680 studies
00:10:27.120 that were
00:10:27.840 public since
00:10:29.380 2019,
00:10:30.920 August 2019,
00:10:31.880 in a magazine
00:10:32.940 Science
00:10:33.660 that revealed
00:10:35.500 that 470,000
00:10:36.740 people were polled
00:10:38.220 and more than
00:10:40.020 90% of the chances
00:10:41.940 were that
00:10:42.880 homosexuality 0.87
00:10:44.180 was a choice.
00:10:45.000 That's mainly
00:10:45.600 what I base
00:10:46.640 my mind on.
00:10:50.480 You know,
00:10:51.380 even most
00:10:52.100 social conservatives
00:10:53.180 that I know,
00:10:54.120 however,
00:10:54.640 are less interested
00:10:56.040 in gay marriage
00:10:57.300 and homosexuality 0.59
00:10:58.380 than they are
00:10:58.900 in things like abortion
00:10:59.940 or gender identity.
00:11:01.660 So I guess
00:11:02.040 the question
00:11:02.520 is legitimate.
00:11:03.380 Why did you feel
00:11:04.200 it was so important
00:11:05.000 to focus
00:11:05.660 on that issue
00:11:06.920 early on
00:11:07.520 in the campaign?
00:11:09.160 Because
00:11:09.680 one of the main
00:11:11.320 things that brought
00:11:12.080 Brad Truss
00:11:12.940 to run
00:11:15.020 at the last
00:11:15.880 leadership race
00:11:16.560 in 2017
00:11:17.380 was the fact
00:11:18.300 that the party
00:11:18.900 changed the definition
00:11:20.140 of marriage
00:11:20.820 in 2016.
00:11:24.500 Unilaterally,
00:11:25.280 it was done
00:11:26.100 against
00:11:27.380 Aldo Salkan base
00:11:28.820 who was amazed
00:11:30.000 to see that change.
00:11:31.540 Well,
00:11:32.100 in fairness,
00:11:32.740 Richard,
00:11:33.040 it wasn't unilaterally.
00:11:34.220 The members voted on it
00:11:35.400 as they vote
00:11:35.920 on other policy.
00:11:37.240 I've been in the back
00:11:38.300 office of
00:11:39.440 a party organization.
00:11:41.220 I can tell you
00:11:41.720 the way it works.
00:11:42.820 So we won't
00:11:43.300 extend on that.
00:11:44.840 I agree with you
00:11:45.780 that we need
00:11:46.500 to do the same process
00:11:47.860 and that's why
00:11:48.640 I was bringing that
00:11:50.660 into this race,
00:11:53.360 saying that we need
00:11:54.460 to reverse
00:11:55.440 the process
00:11:56.120 and we will do it
00:11:57.460 democratically.
00:11:58.420 And I think
00:11:58.980 the party
00:11:59.340 was fearing
00:12:00.380 that I could
00:12:01.040 succeed doing that.
00:12:03.440 And I was just
00:12:04.220 asking to change
00:12:05.620 the name
00:12:06.120 and destitution
00:12:06.940 of marriage
00:12:07.840 to be applied
00:12:10.560 only to a couple
00:12:11.860 that is made
00:12:12.520 out of men
00:12:13.460 and women. 0.98
00:12:14.840 And all the other
00:12:15.900 unions would be 0.63
00:12:17.160 celebrated
00:12:17.940 as civil unions
00:12:18.920 like it was
00:12:19.560 already the case.
00:12:20.540 So it wouldn't
00:12:20.900 change much,
00:12:22.060 but the impact
00:12:23.300 on a social
00:12:24.320 conservative base
00:12:25.260 was very important.
00:12:26.440 and I have been
00:12:28.860 praised by
00:12:31.160 this declaration
00:12:33.100 everywhere I went
00:12:34.820 in Ontario
00:12:35.500 and Quebec.
00:12:36.500 People were amazed
00:12:37.420 that I have
00:12:38.320 the guts to say
00:12:39.900 that on national
00:12:40.920 television.
00:12:41.400 If your disqualification
00:12:44.320 by the party
00:12:45.180 was about
00:12:46.160 your social
00:12:47.240 conservatism,
00:12:48.200 how would you
00:12:48.700 explain the fact
00:12:49.680 that other social
00:12:50.440 conservatives
00:12:51.060 were approved?
00:12:52.360 Derek Sloan,
00:12:53.320 Leslyn Lewis,
00:12:54.640 Jim Carajalios,
00:12:55.540 I know he's pro-life,
00:12:56.420 I don't know
00:12:56.760 about other issues,
00:12:57.620 but at least two
00:12:58.640 social conservatives
00:12:59.860 that were approved
00:13:01.000 when you weren't.
00:13:01.880 How do you
00:13:02.320 explain or think
00:13:03.780 about that disparity?
00:13:05.740 First of all,
00:13:06.580 none of them
00:13:07.180 are bilingual,
00:13:07.940 so I'm the only
00:13:09.200 bilingual social
00:13:10.420 conservative in
00:13:11.320 that race.
00:13:12.600 So I was
00:13:13.440 a threat
00:13:13.960 to Peter McKay
00:13:15.380 who is not
00:13:15.940 bilingual,
00:13:16.540 by the way.
00:13:17.620 So to keep
00:13:18.940 those candidates
00:13:20.700 who were less
00:13:21.660 local
00:13:24.280 than I was,
00:13:25.520 and I said
00:13:25.900 three words
00:13:26.460 during this interview,
00:13:27.420 you know,
00:13:27.860 three words
00:13:28.300 that killed
00:13:28.700 my campaign
00:13:29.300 and killed
00:13:29.840 all the
00:13:31.320 SOCON base
00:13:32.660 of this party,
00:13:33.880 it's pretty amazing.
00:13:34.680 So at the same
00:13:37.240 time,
00:13:37.580 you think
00:13:38.020 that it was
00:13:38.520 because you
00:13:39.220 had a better
00:13:39.880 shot
00:13:40.500 or were
00:13:41.520 a more
00:13:42.240 electable
00:13:43.440 candidate
00:13:44.000 in the leadership
00:13:44.780 than the other
00:13:45.420 ones that were
00:13:46.020 approved?
00:13:47.400 I think so,
00:13:48.240 because I was
00:13:48.720 bilingual,
00:13:49.380 that would help
00:13:50.220 for sure.
00:13:51.040 I have extensive
00:13:51.840 experience
00:13:52.540 in politics,
00:13:54.780 like I said,
00:13:55.420 in back office
00:13:56.220 work,
00:13:56.960 so I know
00:13:57.440 about all the
00:13:58.340 tricks,
00:13:59.140 and I was ready
00:14:00.100 to fight the
00:14:00.880 good fight,
00:14:01.460 so I think
00:14:02.160 they were scared
00:14:02.620 about that.
00:14:03.080 But at the same
00:14:04.420 time,
00:14:04.800 you've not
00:14:05.340 held elected
00:14:06.060 office,
00:14:06.600 you're not
00:14:06.920 one of the
00:14:07.260 people that
00:14:07.740 was one of
00:14:08.200 the perceived
00:14:08.800 frontrunners
00:14:09.620 of the race,
00:14:10.560 why do you
00:14:11.180 think you
00:14:11.560 would have
00:14:11.820 been seen
00:14:12.400 as a threat
00:14:13.200 in those
00:14:13.580 terms,
00:14:13.960 just because
00:14:14.420 you're
00:14:14.640 bilingual?
00:14:16.460 Not just
00:14:17.160 because I'm
00:14:17.640 bilingual.
00:14:18.500 Since I am,
00:14:19.540 and Peter McKay
00:14:20.140 is not,
00:14:20.820 and Erin O'Toole 0.89
00:14:21.800 has difficulties
00:14:22.500 to speak
00:14:22.940 French,
00:14:23.920 it would have
00:14:24.720 been a disaster
00:14:25.780 at the French
00:14:26.420 debate,
00:14:26.880 you can't
00:14:27.300 imagine that.
00:14:28.300 But also,
00:14:29.080 all the
00:14:29.760 frankness
00:14:30.820 of my
00:14:31.480 directness
00:14:38.860 of what
00:14:39.880 I was
00:14:40.120 saying,
00:14:40.840 I think
00:14:41.280 was a
00:14:42.380 threat to
00:14:43.200 the party
00:14:43.920 establishment
00:14:44.420 and to
00:14:45.240 those other
00:14:45.980 candidates.
00:14:47.000 And when you
00:14:47.380 say I'm not
00:14:47.920 in the
00:14:48.780 frontrunners,
00:14:49.840 I think
00:14:50.320 that's the
00:14:51.320 way liberals
00:14:52.360 work in
00:14:53.980 and out
00:14:54.320 of the
00:14:54.600 party,
00:14:54.940 I would
00:14:55.120 say,
00:14:55.840 by controlling
00:14:56.960 the messaging
00:14:57.860 and having
00:14:58.960 a lot of
00:14:59.420 money so
00:15:00.100 they can
00:15:00.580 spin the
00:15:01.640 news and
00:15:02.140 all that.
00:15:03.000 So I'm
00:15:03.380 used to
00:15:03.740 that and
00:15:04.260 I was
00:15:04.540 ready to
00:15:05.000 fight it
00:15:05.580 with my
00:15:06.600 very small
00:15:08.720 partition,
00:15:09.840 I would
00:15:10.040 say,
00:15:10.400 in this
00:15:10.880 race.
00:15:12.780 And I
00:15:13.040 think the
00:15:13.540 fact that
00:15:13.920 I was a
00:15:14.340 threat
00:15:14.640 shows that
00:15:15.780 the content
00:15:17.700 that I was
00:15:18.400 presenting
00:15:19.460 was stronger
00:15:20.520 than all
00:15:21.940 the marketing
00:15:24.200 that those
00:15:25.040 parties are
00:15:25.600 used to
00:15:26.140 build on.
00:15:27.320 I think
00:15:27.820 that's fair
00:15:28.400 and I
00:15:28.840 think in
00:15:29.140 my defense
00:15:29.620 I said
00:15:29.980 perceived
00:15:30.580 frontrunner
00:15:31.240 because I
00:15:31.700 was trying
00:15:32.220 to establish
00:15:33.420 that this
00:15:33.860 is the
00:15:34.220 narrative.
00:15:34.880 And I
00:15:35.180 mean,
00:15:35.340 ultimately,
00:15:35.820 until people
00:15:36.520 cast ballots,
00:15:37.360 you don't
00:15:37.760 technically know
00:15:38.600 who the
00:15:38.940 frontrunner
00:15:39.440 is.
00:15:39.840 And I've
00:15:40.680 maintained,
00:15:41.300 and I said
00:15:41.840 this to my
00:15:42.220 listeners and
00:15:42.760 I'll say it
00:15:43.140 to you as
00:15:43.520 well,
00:15:43.880 that you
00:15:44.540 have a
00:15:45.380 democratic
00:15:45.900 process or
00:15:46.580 what's
00:15:46.840 supposed to
00:15:47.440 be a
00:15:47.700 democratic
00:15:48.140 process,
00:15:49.080 which means
00:15:49.580 the voters
00:15:50.080 have the
00:15:50.480 opportunity to
00:15:51.260 say if they
00:15:51.960 don't think
00:15:52.340 you're a
00:15:52.600 suitable
00:15:52.860 candidate.
00:15:53.480 And that
00:15:53.740 should have
00:15:54.120 been where
00:15:54.600 the decision
00:15:55.440 was made,
00:15:56.120 not in a
00:15:56.520 back room.
00:15:57.400 And that's
00:15:58.880 why I was
00:15:59.240 surprised and
00:15:59.840 my team was
00:16:00.560 very surprised
00:16:01.200 that I was
00:16:01.740 disqualified
00:16:02.320 because they
00:16:03.120 should have
00:16:03.420 let me run
00:16:04.240 for the
00:16:04.680 next month
00:16:05.160 at least
00:16:05.680 to show
00:16:06.740 if we can
00:16:07.160 gather
00:16:07.520 $300,000.
00:16:08.900 It's a
00:16:09.320 bit exaggerated
00:16:11.160 because the
00:16:12.360 first rule
00:16:12.880 that they
00:16:13.280 should have
00:16:13.660 put,
00:16:14.680 their first
00:16:15.280 requirement
00:16:15.720 to be a
00:16:16.480 candidate
00:16:16.780 should have
00:16:17.440 been to
00:16:18.060 be bilingual
00:16:18.680 enough to
00:16:19.720 debate at
00:16:20.320 a French
00:16:20.900 debate.
00:16:21.860 Since
00:16:22.220 they didn't
00:16:23.360 do that,
00:16:24.440 we ended
00:16:25.780 up with
00:16:26.600 over 10
00:16:28.200 candidates
00:16:28.820 potential.
00:16:30.020 We would
00:16:30.440 have been
00:16:30.800 maximum
00:16:31.340 three people
00:16:32.080 in this
00:16:32.840 race.
00:16:33.300 So what's
00:16:34.080 the need
00:16:34.440 to have
00:16:34.740 a $300
00:16:35.200 barrier
00:16:38.060 when you
00:16:39.540 have simple
00:16:40.560 things like
00:16:41.160 bilingualism?
00:16:43.100 I guess
00:16:43.920 the question
00:16:44.540 that I
00:16:45.160 would ask
00:16:45.960 you or
00:16:46.660 any other
00:16:47.240 candidate
00:16:47.680 here is
00:16:48.460 do you
00:16:48.840 think that
00:16:49.360 the party
00:16:49.900 has an
00:16:51.140 issue with
00:16:51.640 social
00:16:52.000 conservatives
00:16:52.620 who make
00:16:53.140 up a
00:16:53.660 sizable
00:16:54.240 chunk of 0.97
00:16:54.700 the base?
00:16:55.240 I mean,
00:16:55.720 Andrew Scheer
00:16:56.320 was elected
00:16:57.500 as leader
00:16:58.200 as a
00:16:58.880 social
00:16:59.260 conservative
00:16:59.820 and I
00:17:00.200 think there
00:17:00.480 are some
00:17:00.800 disputes
00:17:01.860 about whether
00:17:02.440 he maintained
00:17:03.700 his leadership
00:17:04.320 as one,
00:17:04.920 but he was
00:17:05.460 chosen as a
00:17:06.320 leader as a
00:17:06.780 social
00:17:07.020 conservative.
00:17:07.900 A lot of
00:17:08.420 the support
00:17:08.880 that Brad
00:17:09.360 Trost had in
00:17:10.200 that leadership
00:17:10.720 race was what
00:17:11.500 pushed Andrew
00:17:12.500 Scheer over
00:17:12.940 the edge.
00:17:13.680 So do you
00:17:13.980 think that the
00:17:14.400 party is against
00:17:15.180 social conservatives
00:17:16.080 or do you
00:17:16.420 think the party
00:17:16.980 is just for
00:17:17.500 whatever reason
00:17:18.140 against you?
00:17:19.640 When we
00:17:19.960 say the party,
00:17:20.560 I think we
00:17:20.980 say the
00:17:21.260 establishment
00:17:21.740 that is
00:17:22.240 behind the
00:17:23.900 party and I
00:17:25.080 think the
00:17:25.640 establishment of
00:17:26.520 the progressive
00:17:27.060 conservative who
00:17:28.100 tried to fight
00:17:28.960 Harper's
00:17:29.840 beginning when I
00:17:33.240 helped him in
00:17:33.780 2003-04 to
00:17:35.120 get elected as
00:17:36.120 a leader.
00:17:37.280 Those people
00:17:38.460 are still
00:17:39.020 fighting and
00:17:39.800 they tried to
00:17:40.480 come in with
00:17:41.860 Peter McKay
00:17:44.920 and Aaron
00:17:45.600 O'Toole.
00:17:45.900 So I think
00:17:47.100 this is not
00:17:48.060 a surprise
00:17:48.700 that those
00:17:49.480 people and
00:17:50.040 Peter McKay
00:17:50.700 was very
00:17:51.280 clear about
00:17:52.460 that with
00:17:53.980 his stinking
00:17:54.800 albatross
00:17:55.420 image about
00:17:58.000 the fact that
00:17:58.720 social
00:17:59.220 conservatism
00:17:59.900 for them
00:18:00.460 is from
00:18:02.560 the past
00:18:03.060 and we
00:18:03.960 should get
00:18:04.400 rid of
00:18:04.720 those people.
00:18:05.680 So that's
00:18:06.020 what brought
00:18:06.520 Brad Trost
00:18:07.620 into the
00:18:08.300 race.
00:18:09.580 Unfortunately,
00:18:10.740 Mr. Scheer,
00:18:12.100 who is a
00:18:12.460 social conservative
00:18:13.160 personally,
00:18:14.420 couldn't defend
00:18:15.780 his own
00:18:16.180 position,
00:18:16.780 his own
00:18:17.060 values at
00:18:18.360 the last
00:18:18.740 election campaign
00:18:19.460 and that's
00:18:19.920 why he lost.
00:18:20.840 I agree with
00:18:21.400 Peter McKay
00:18:22.140 and all those
00:18:22.860 people about
00:18:23.580 that.
00:18:24.540 But the
00:18:25.000 fact that
00:18:25.640 social
00:18:26.180 conservatism
00:18:27.080 is,
00:18:28.780 we have to
00:18:29.720 get rid of
00:18:30.220 that segment
00:18:31.940 of conservatism,
00:18:33.340 I think it's
00:18:34.140 the opposite.
00:18:35.460 This is the
00:18:36.020 foundation of
00:18:36.680 this party
00:18:37.180 and if
00:18:38.440 Andrew Scheer
00:18:40.540 had defended
00:18:41.140 those values
00:18:42.160 at the
00:18:42.900 last election
00:18:43.740 campaign,
00:18:44.320 I think he
00:18:44.840 was winning
00:18:46.480 in the first
00:18:47.100 week of the
00:18:47.700 campaign and
00:18:48.300 the last
00:18:49.100 two weeks
00:18:49.560 when he
00:18:49.900 stopped
00:18:50.220 defending
00:18:50.660 those values,
00:18:51.520 that's where
00:18:52.000 he lost.
00:18:52.740 So I think
00:18:53.260 and that's
00:18:54.340 the reason
00:18:54.700 I came
00:18:55.160 into this
00:18:55.700 race is
00:18:56.340 to ensure
00:18:57.580 that we
00:18:58.640 would bring
00:18:59.140 those values
00:18:59.860 upward and
00:19:01.320 ensure that
00:19:01.840 the party
00:19:02.340 changes few
00:19:04.040 things in
00:19:04.540 its policies
00:19:05.120 and like
00:19:09.060 you said,
00:19:09.480 the members
00:19:10.080 should have
00:19:10.700 been decided.
00:19:11.780 They should
00:19:12.040 have let me
00:19:12.620 run and
00:19:13.960 see if I
00:19:14.900 had the
00:19:15.220 support base
00:19:16.700 and I think
00:19:17.200 they were
00:19:17.460 afraid that
00:19:17.940 I had it
00:19:18.500 and that's
00:19:19.060 why they
00:19:19.680 just did
00:19:20.480 what they
00:19:20.780 did.
00:19:21.860 Would you
00:19:22.240 support,
00:19:22.980 Richard,
00:19:23.480 the party
00:19:23.980 making
00:19:24.480 public
00:19:25.200 its decision
00:19:26.440 to disqualify
00:19:27.300 you?
00:19:28.580 I don't
00:19:28.880 think they
00:19:29.200 will because
00:19:29.920 we have
00:19:31.120 an agreement
00:19:31.940 signed that
00:19:33.660 nothing has
00:19:34.820 commented
00:19:37.080 or said
00:19:37.700 and like
00:19:38.320 I said
00:19:38.640 I didn't
00:19:39.120 say anything
00:19:40.060 about the
00:19:41.420 interviews
00:19:41.940 or all the
00:19:42.980 answers I
00:19:43.520 gave and
00:19:43.900 everything
00:19:44.220 so I
00:19:44.980 think it's
00:19:45.860 going to
00:19:46.080 stay
00:19:46.280 confidential
00:19:46.820 and that's
00:19:47.480 okay
00:19:47.760 but the
00:19:48.800 proof is
00:19:49.200 in the
00:19:49.420 pudding
00:19:49.640 in the
00:19:49.940 sense
00:19:50.160 that
00:19:50.440 if the
00:19:51.540 anonymous
00:19:51.960 source
00:19:52.580 is
00:19:53.300 true
00:19:54.060 is
00:19:55.420 right
00:19:57.220 about the
00:19:57.740 fact that
00:19:58.240 it wasn't
00:19:58.840 based on
00:19:59.500 what I
00:19:59.840 said
00:20:00.060 publicly
00:20:00.560 so if
00:20:01.980 it's
00:20:02.200 something
00:20:02.560 else
00:20:03.160 that is
00:20:03.660 not
00:20:03.860 public
00:20:04.320 we will
00:20:05.100 never
00:20:05.320 know
00:20:05.600 and then
00:20:06.240 I think
00:20:07.660 I'm not
00:20:09.720 the type
00:20:10.140 to go
00:20:11.140 fight for
00:20:12.400 the recognition
00:20:13.280 and all
00:20:13.740 that
00:20:14.080 you know
00:20:14.400 to go
00:20:14.760 a lot
00:20:15.280 of people
00:20:15.600 are asking
00:20:16.080 me if
00:20:16.620 I want
00:20:16.940 to fight
00:20:17.400 in the
00:20:17.780 this one
00:20:19.240 through the
00:20:19.960 tribunals
00:20:20.520 and all
00:20:20.780 that
00:20:20.960 it's not
00:20:21.700 my type
00:20:22.120 I think
00:20:22.460 it's a
00:20:22.760 political
00:20:23.120 party
00:20:23.600 we need
00:20:24.440 to fight
00:20:24.820 it
00:20:24.980 politically
00:20:25.440 and that's
00:20:26.560 why I
00:20:26.820 will continue
00:20:27.340 with
00:20:27.860 richarddecarry.ca
00:20:29.460 my website
00:20:31.240 and we
00:20:31.880 will gather
00:20:33.120 all the
00:20:33.740 social
00:20:34.000 conservative
00:20:34.520 and others
00:20:35.140 real
00:20:35.500 conservatives
00:20:36.160 from the
00:20:37.520 CPC
00:20:38.080 from the
00:20:38.720 PPC
00:20:39.160 because a
00:20:39.800 lot of
00:20:40.080 those
00:20:40.580 members
00:20:41.240 were
00:20:42.360 following
00:20:42.760 me
00:20:43.040 or
00:20:43.240 supporting
00:20:43.960 me
00:20:44.220 in my
00:20:44.480 campaign
00:20:44.920 and also
00:20:45.780 those who
00:20:46.200 are not
00:20:46.480 affiliated
00:20:46.860 to any
00:20:47.400 parties
00:20:47.800 I
00:20:48.340 welcome
00:20:49.040 them
00:20:49.360 to
00:20:49.740 my
00:20:50.480 new
00:20:50.820 movement
00:20:51.380 I would
00:20:51.980 say
00:20:52.220 and we
00:20:53.080 will
00:20:53.260 get
00:20:53.660 organized
00:20:54.120 in the
00:20:54.380 next
00:20:54.560 weeks
00:20:54.880 and we'll
00:20:55.460 follow
00:20:55.880 this
00:20:56.200 leadership
00:20:56.560 campaign
00:20:57.040 closely
00:20:57.460 and I
00:20:58.620 even
00:20:58.840 told
00:20:59.180 journalists
00:21:00.320 that I
00:21:00.720 will be
00:21:01.180 very
00:21:01.900 available
00:21:02.420 to
00:21:02.880 comment
00:21:03.620 whatever
00:21:04.280 will
00:21:04.620 happen
00:21:04.960 and we'll
00:21:05.800 ensure
00:21:06.120 that the
00:21:06.540 social
00:21:06.780 conservative
00:21:07.260 members
00:21:07.940 who are
00:21:08.280 still in
00:21:08.720 the
00:21:08.960 CPC
00:21:09.520 party
00:21:09.940 will have
00:21:10.940 a voice
00:21:11.400 I'm
00:21:11.820 the voice
00:21:12.200 of those
00:21:12.600 who don't
00:21:12.920 have a
00:21:13.280 voice
00:21:13.520 unfortunately
00:21:14.040 so we'll
00:21:15.380 be there
00:21:15.840 until the
00:21:16.340 next
00:21:16.600 general
00:21:17.340 election
00:21:17.820 and I
00:21:19.180 am
00:21:19.580 pretty sure
00:21:20.560 that if
00:21:21.000 it's
00:21:21.200 Mr.
00:21:21.540 McKay
00:21:21.820 that is
00:21:22.180 leading
00:21:22.440 this
00:21:22.680 party
00:21:22.980 we'll
00:21:23.680 have
00:21:23.900 a big
00:21:24.240 problem
00:21:24.960 big trouble
00:21:26.120 to be
00:21:26.680 elected
00:21:27.040 at
00:21:27.460 the next
00:21:27.780 general
00:21:28.040 election
00:21:28.460 so on
00:21:29.400 that note
00:21:29.900 are you
00:21:30.360 going to
00:21:30.860 support
00:21:31.280 the other
00:21:31.720 social
00:21:32.100 conservatives
00:21:32.560 in the
00:21:32.980 race
00:21:33.240 or have
00:21:33.500 you kind
00:21:33.820 of washed
00:21:34.220 your hands
00:21:34.820 of the
00:21:35.480 conservative
00:21:35.860 party at
00:21:36.460 this point
00:21:36.980 I already
00:21:37.720 told Derek
00:21:39.940 Sloan who's a 0.98
00:21:40.660 very nice man
00:21:41.380 an MP from
00:21:42.040 Ontario
00:21:42.500 we were very
00:21:43.340 close to his
00:21:44.260 positions
00:21:44.760 socially
00:21:45.540 unfortunately
00:21:46.580 Derek doesn't
00:21:47.420 speak French
00:21:47.980 so I told
00:21:48.480 him that I
00:21:49.140 would support
00:21:49.820 him
00:21:50.100 because he
00:21:52.280 will be
00:21:52.700 Peter McKay
00:21:54.500 who doesn't
00:21:54.900 speak French
00:21:55.520 anyway
00:21:55.840 so it's
00:21:56.580 not a
00:21:56.860 big
00:21:57.040 problem
00:21:57.500 that will
00:21:59.340 probably bring
00:22:00.960 us a leader
00:22:01.920 that doesn't
00:22:02.380 speak French
00:22:03.040 enough to
00:22:03.760 be fighting
00:22:04.340 as a
00:22:05.300 prime minister
00:22:05.800 so we
00:22:07.140 will be
00:22:07.420 supporting
00:22:07.840 Derek
00:22:08.160 Sloan
00:22:09.040 well I
00:22:09.940 appreciate you
00:22:10.620 letting me
00:22:11.100 know that
00:22:11.480 and also
00:22:11.860 taking the
00:22:12.420 time to
00:22:12.800 chat
00:22:13.040 and interestingly
00:22:13.780 only a couple
00:22:15.120 of candidates
00:22:15.860 have really
00:22:16.540 defended you
00:22:17.620 against the
00:22:18.320 process
00:22:18.780 and Derek
00:22:19.500 Sloan was
00:22:19.960 one of them
00:22:20.460 Jim Carajalios
00:22:21.780 was one of
00:22:22.300 them
00:22:22.460 but I think
00:22:23.420 that's a
00:22:23.920 very interesting
00:22:24.740 dynamic as
00:22:25.740 well that
00:22:26.320 there's a lot
00:22:27.280 of silence
00:22:27.840 from some
00:22:28.280 of the
00:22:28.480 others
00:22:28.820 yeah I
00:22:30.180 think the
00:22:30.520 silence
00:22:30.860 is talking
00:22:31.940 by itself
00:22:32.540 Richard
00:22:33.740 Descarry
00:22:34.140 thank you
00:22:34.520 very much
00:22:34.860 for your
00:22:35.080 time sir
00:22:35.480 thank you
00:22:36.520 have a good
00:22:36.800 day
00:22:37.260 you know this
00:22:37.820 sort of thing
00:22:38.320 I find
00:22:39.080 just so
00:22:40.620 very frustrating
00:22:41.900 because this
00:22:43.060 is what happens
00:22:44.200 that gets
00:22:44.920 parties really
00:22:46.360 in a lack
00:22:47.820 of alignment
00:22:48.440 with their
00:22:49.060 members and
00:22:49.720 with their
00:22:50.280 base and
00:22:50.800 and look I
00:22:51.460 say this I
00:22:52.000 want to make
00:22:52.460 perfectly clear
00:22:53.800 that I am
00:22:54.580 totally pro
00:22:55.820 social conservative
00:22:56.960 and I'm pro
00:22:58.100 having social
00:22:58.820 conservatives in
00:22:59.500 the party
00:22:59.980 I'm pro
00:23:00.520 life and I
00:23:01.460 take a
00:23:01.920 libertarian
00:23:02.720 stance as far
00:23:03.580 as the role
00:23:04.140 of government
00:23:04.680 on issues
00:23:05.260 like gay 1.00
00:23:05.780 marriage etc
00:23:06.520 but again I
00:23:07.700 am not
00:23:08.220 someone who
00:23:09.120 is resistant
00:23:10.060 to having
00:23:10.700 social
00:23:11.100 conservatives
00:23:11.600 in the
00:23:12.060 party
00:23:12.380 I do
00:23:13.200 realize that
00:23:14.020 there are
00:23:14.360 messaging
00:23:14.800 challenges
00:23:15.420 I think
00:23:15.900 that you
00:23:16.220 need to
00:23:16.500 be able
00:23:16.760 to sell
00:23:17.340 your
00:23:17.620 policies
00:23:18.180 and sell
00:23:19.080 your ideas
00:23:19.640 well and
00:23:20.180 I say this
00:23:20.980 again as
00:23:21.500 someone who
00:23:22.460 writes for
00:23:23.200 the interim
00:23:23.820 a social
00:23:24.300 conservative
00:23:24.720 magazine
00:23:25.240 one of the
00:23:25.840 columns I
00:23:26.380 wrote recently
00:23:27.020 was talking
00:23:27.640 about how
00:23:28.660 social
00:23:29.380 conservatives
00:23:29.940 need to
00:23:30.620 better package
00:23:32.000 their message
00:23:32.860 and not all
00:23:33.980 of them
00:23:34.440 I'm saying
00:23:34.900 in some
00:23:35.400 particular
00:23:35.800 cases
00:23:36.280 so when
00:23:37.320 that initial
00:23:38.500 CTV interview
00:23:39.520 came up
00:23:40.020 this was an
00:23:40.520 example where
00:23:41.160 I'm like you
00:23:41.540 know what I
00:23:41.920 think this is
00:23:42.300 probably not the
00:23:42.880 best way to
00:23:43.860 put this forward
00:23:44.640 now Richard
00:23:45.320 Descartes and
00:23:46.020 his defense he's
00:23:46.960 saying yeah this
00:23:47.600 is what I think
00:23:48.120 this is what I
00:23:48.700 feel this is the
00:23:49.420 basis for it and
00:23:50.800 I'm going to be
00:23:51.260 honest and
00:23:51.880 transparent about
00:23:52.640 where I stand
00:23:53.320 and I have a lot
00:23:54.420 of respect for
00:23:55.140 politicians that
00:23:56.100 are not leaving
00:23:56.900 you wondering
00:23:57.700 what it is that
00:23:58.600 they believe
00:23:59.260 and this was the
00:24:00.520 frustration that a
00:24:01.620 lot of social
00:24:02.280 conservatives had
00:24:03.240 with Andrew Scheer
00:24:04.440 is that they knew
00:24:05.080 he was one of
00:24:05.860 them but he
00:24:06.280 wasn't speaking
00:24:07.100 like that during
00:24:08.540 the general
00:24:09.560 election campaign
00:24:10.420 and he was still
00:24:11.500 getting criticized
00:24:12.240 just as much
00:24:13.240 for being a
00:24:14.520 social conservative
00:24:15.320 so it's not even
00:24:16.080 like it really
00:24:16.680 won him all
00:24:18.040 that much in
00:24:18.840 the way of
00:24:19.340 support from
00:24:20.060 these people
00:24:20.620 but to go
00:24:22.480 back to the
00:24:23.040 disqualification
00:24:24.000 the party cannot
00:24:25.400 disqualify people
00:24:26.700 because it does
00:24:27.600 not want them
00:24:29.060 to have an
00:24:29.680 opportunity to
00:24:30.440 put their message
00:24:31.160 to the voters
00:24:31.900 unless they
00:24:33.220 have some
00:24:33.920 major disqualifying
00:24:35.720 reason as this
00:24:36.480 anonymous source
00:24:37.280 supposedly said
00:24:38.280 that is against
00:24:39.520 the rules or
00:24:40.500 eligibility
00:24:41.120 in which case
00:24:42.480 disclose it at
00:24:43.520 the very least
00:24:44.260 to the candidate
00:24:45.000 you don't need to
00:24:45.540 make it publicly
00:24:46.160 but disclose it
00:24:47.080 to the candidate
00:24:48.260 which it sounds
00:24:48.980 like did not
00:24:49.580 happen here
00:24:50.180 so I'm
00:24:51.240 wanting to see
00:24:52.660 a lot more
00:24:53.460 transparency from
00:24:54.460 the party
00:24:54.900 because again
00:24:55.500 the conservative
00:24:56.460 party of Canada
00:24:57.540 did not do
00:24:58.880 itself any
00:24:59.740 favors by
00:25:01.780 really muddling
00:25:03.520 this process
00:25:04.880 at first they
00:25:05.620 weren't saying
00:25:06.160 anything
00:25:06.680 they were just
00:25:07.640 saying nope
00:25:08.120 we have eight
00:25:08.780 approved candidates
00:25:09.700 and everyone's
00:25:10.640 like well hang
00:25:11.300 on there was
00:25:11.800 this other guy
00:25:12.400 that applied
00:25:12.920 we have eight
00:25:13.540 approved candidates
00:25:14.440 and then they
00:25:15.340 started to say
00:25:16.040 we don't discuss
00:25:17.300 and we don't
00:25:18.360 take these
00:25:18.760 decisions likely
00:25:19.640 they're not even
00:25:20.360 mentioning his
00:25:21.060 name
00:25:21.500 they're not even
00:25:22.720 saying the guy's
00:25:23.740 name
00:25:24.020 so by doing
00:25:25.280 this they let
00:25:26.040 people fill in
00:25:26.840 the blanks
00:25:27.380 themselves
00:25:27.780 they force
00:25:28.420 people to fill
00:25:29.100 in the blanks
00:25:29.700 themselves
00:25:30.120 and everyone
00:25:31.000 assumes the
00:25:31.640 worst that this
00:25:32.320 is an assault
00:25:33.000 on the social
00:25:33.900 conservative wing
00:25:34.860 of the party
00:25:35.440 by the party
00:25:36.700 establishment
00:25:37.320 that's the way
00:25:38.040 this is perceived
00:25:38.860 and yes you
00:25:40.120 have social
00:25:40.720 conservatives
00:25:41.220 that were
00:25:41.780 approved
00:25:42.420 like Leslyn
00:25:43.420 Lewis and
00:25:44.620 Derek Sloan
00:25:46.000 and I think
00:25:46.980 that there is
00:25:48.420 some disparity
00:25:51.020 there of okay
00:25:51.660 well if they're
00:25:52.080 against social
00:25:52.740 conservatives how
00:25:53.480 come these ones
00:25:54.160 were allowed in
00:25:54.840 and a lot of
00:25:55.800 people are trying
00:25:56.660 to say right now
00:25:57.500 that oh well
00:25:57.880 there's a right
00:25:58.360 way and a wrong
00:25:59.040 way to be a
00:25:59.580 SOCON and
00:26:00.160 they're doing it
00:26:00.780 the right way
00:26:01.380 and Richard was
00:26:02.540 doing it the
00:26:03.060 wrong way
00:26:03.580 and again
00:26:04.120 whatever you
00:26:05.200 think it is
00:26:05.920 the responsibility
00:26:06.940 of the voting
00:26:08.140 members of the
00:26:09.820 voting members
00:26:10.700 to make that
00:26:11.520 determination
00:26:12.080 not the party
00:26:14.300 elites which is
00:26:15.500 by definition
00:26:16.340 what the
00:26:16.760 leadership committee
00:26:17.440 and I have
00:26:17.900 friends on that
00:26:18.600 committee I
00:26:19.460 none of them
00:26:19.840 have given me
00:26:20.300 any inside
00:26:20.900 scoops I
00:26:21.440 assure you and
00:26:22.440 I don't know
00:26:22.860 if it was a
00:26:23.360 split decision
00:26:24.000 I want to
00:26:24.460 believe and I
00:26:25.120 certainly hope
00:26:25.760 there was some
00:26:26.300 pushback on
00:26:27.480 that committee
00:26:28.120 to say this
00:26:29.700 is not what
00:26:30.200 we should be
00:26:30.640 doing when we
00:26:31.720 come back more
00:26:32.380 of the Andrew
00:26:32.960 Lawton show
00:26:33.460 stay with me
00:26:34.360 you're tuned in
00:26:36.240 to the Andrew
00:26:37.020 Lawton show
00:26:37.840 welcome back to
00:26:41.360 the show still
00:26:42.180 no coronavirus
00:26:42.980 still none I
00:26:44.160 mean I did
00:26:44.540 cough a couple
00:26:45.200 of minutes before
00:26:45.900 I started this
00:26:46.940 segment but no
00:26:47.740 coronavirus just
00:26:48.660 yet so we're
00:26:49.180 still managing to
00:26:50.200 sit pretty as we
00:26:51.620 coast through this
00:26:52.240 I don't want to
00:26:52.800 make light of
00:26:53.380 something well I
00:26:54.160 do actually because
00:26:54.880 I try to make
00:26:55.600 light of things
00:26:56.160 it's the only way
00:26:56.660 to survive the
00:26:57.280 world sometimes
00:26:57.980 but we have the
00:26:59.300 number of
00:26:59.680 coronavirus cases
00:27:00.880 worldwide passing
00:27:02.140 90,000 and I'm
00:27:04.600 following this very
00:27:05.740 closely because I'm
00:27:06.640 supposed to be going
00:27:07.260 to Taiwan in less
00:27:08.920 than two months so
00:27:10.040 obviously if there's
00:27:11.180 a massive pandemic
00:27:12.740 outbreak in Taiwan I
00:27:14.780 might have to
00:27:15.280 reevaluate this but
00:27:16.340 I'm planning on going
00:27:17.480 at this point I
00:27:18.220 received a very kind
00:27:19.400 invitation to a media
00:27:21.380 opportunity there but
00:27:23.400 I do think that
00:27:24.540 where we are at
00:27:26.280 now and I said
00:27:27.300 this at the top of
00:27:27.980 the show is that
00:27:28.680 you've got people
00:27:29.360 that are on full
00:27:30.080 blown panic clearing
00:27:31.640 grocery store shelves
00:27:32.940 of hand sanitizer
00:27:34.100 disinfectant wipes
00:27:35.320 canned foods all of
00:27:36.320 that and then you've
00:27:37.320 got people that are
00:27:38.200 just completely
00:27:38.820 uninterested that
00:27:39.740 think that it's
00:27:41.020 basically just a
00:27:42.140 bunch of hooey and 0.99
00:27:43.020 not really a thing at
00:27:44.000 all that it's no
00:27:44.840 different than the
00:27:45.460 flu and even better
00:27:46.440 than the flu and
00:27:48.100 I'm actually somewhat
00:27:49.640 in between these two
00:27:50.960 camps because I think
00:27:51.800 it has the potential to
00:27:52.820 be something very
00:27:53.620 serious it is very
00:27:55.100 serious in several
00:27:56.200 parts of the world
00:27:56.960 and for several
00:27:57.560 people Iran most 0.78
00:27:59.520 notably where it
00:28:00.460 seems I think it was
00:28:01.140 like eight percent of
00:28:02.320 eight percent of
00:28:03.820 lawmakers had
00:28:04.640 coronavirus I saw
00:28:05.760 something I haven't
00:28:06.340 looked into the report
00:28:07.160 but that was what I
00:28:08.040 read and then you've
00:28:09.700 got of course China
00:28:11.060 and the big variable
00:28:12.780 here is whether China
00:28:14.240 has been deliberately
00:28:15.360 downplaying the impact
00:28:17.900 of this and I think
00:28:18.900 that's where the real
00:28:20.900 issue is going to be
00:28:22.060 because when everyone
00:28:22.880 talks about the
00:28:23.820 mortality rate and
00:28:25.500 says that oh it's
00:28:26.200 actually lower than the
00:28:27.180 common flu they're
00:28:28.580 missing that China may
00:28:29.940 be grossly deflating
00:28:31.800 its deaths from this
00:28:34.340 and I think that is
00:28:35.500 where we are looking
00:28:37.320 at this now there's
00:28:38.260 been a number of
00:28:39.200 reports that have been
00:28:39.980 talking about mass
00:28:41.520 cremations in China
00:28:43.780 mass cremations in
00:28:45.520 China and when you
00:28:46.980 look at some of these
00:28:48.040 and this is not just
00:28:49.180 some conspiracy BBC
00:28:50.480 was writing about
00:28:52.660 this and there was
00:28:54.440 basically a swift
00:28:56.540 cremation that was
00:28:58.000 taking place an order
00:28:59.240 by China's top health
00:29:00.360 authority to not even
00:29:01.620 do funerals to just do
00:29:03.160 direct cremation you
00:29:04.740 had crematoriums that
00:29:06.000 were working around
00:29:07.340 the clock and in one
00:29:09.500 particular case that I
00:29:10.860 read you had Wuhan
00:29:12.920 crematoriums burning
00:29:14.080 bodies 24-7 to cope
00:29:16.800 with extra workload
00:29:17.760 during coronavirus and
00:29:19.160 that doesn't align with
00:29:20.820 what China says its
00:29:22.420 death toll has been
00:29:23.460 officially and this is
00:29:25.320 getting a lot of people
00:29:26.260 to wonder okay have
00:29:27.440 there been a lot more
00:29:28.340 fatalities that China 1.00
00:29:29.480 was not talking about
00:29:31.000 and let's face it it was
00:29:31.980 China it was China you 0.99
00:29:33.480 can't believe what they
00:29:35.620 say when they have so
00:29:36.900 much invested in their
00:29:38.280 image around the world
00:29:39.460 so the Epoch Times had
00:29:41.320 an interview with a
00:29:42.520 crematorium worker who
00:29:43.560 said 90% of their
00:29:45.160 employees working 25%
00:29:46.800 24-7 since January
00:29:49.040 28th and if you do
00:29:51.600 the math that is a
00:29:53.560 lot more than the
00:29:55.600 490 I think it was
00:29:58.520 that China officially
00:29:59.700 said Wednesday was its
00:30:00.960 death toll around the
00:30:02.380 clock for a month and a
00:30:04.500 week around the clock
00:30:05.360 for six seven weeks
00:30:06.420 basically so a lot of
00:30:08.040 question marks there so
00:30:08.940 this is why I realize
00:30:10.140 there is probably a
00:30:11.360 legitimate reason to be
00:30:13.120 concerned and I think
00:30:14.640 general precautions like
00:30:16.040 washing your hand and
00:30:17.180 not just doing open
00:30:18.180 mouth kissing with
00:30:18.960 strangers which I mean
00:30:20.140 we do all the rest of
00:30:21.400 the year I guess not
00:30:22.580 doing that I think is
00:30:23.440 probably pretty reasonable
00:30:24.660 I did find it
00:30:25.920 interesting I was I'm a
00:30:27.580 former Anglican I'm now
00:30:28.720 I go to a Pentecostal
00:30:30.040 church so we don't do 1.00
00:30:31.820 the communion wine thing
00:30:32.900 but I do realize that
00:30:35.080 the communion tradition is
00:30:36.460 very important around
00:30:37.460 this time of year because
00:30:38.500 of coronavirus and in
00:30:40.460 the Anglican church I
00:30:41.440 don't know if they still
00:30:42.140 do it in most Catholic
00:30:43.080 churches but in the
00:30:44.260 Anglican church a lot of
00:30:45.340 the time you will all
00:30:46.300 sip from the common
00:30:47.640 communion chalices and
00:30:50.000 the bishop of the
00:30:51.320 diocese of Toronto for
00:30:52.680 the Anglican Church of
00:30:53.680 Canada has suspended
00:30:55.460 communion wine so no
00:30:57.140 communion wine in
00:30:58.500 Toronto Anglican
00:30:59.460 churches for the next
00:31:00.280 little while amid the
00:31:01.860 coronavirus scare we the
00:31:04.140 statement that was
00:31:05.040 released says presiding
00:31:06.380 celebrants are to
00:31:07.220 consecrate both the bread
00:31:08.460 and the wine and to
00:31:09.740 consume in both kinds but
00:31:11.340 to administer only the
00:31:12.960 bread to the rest of the
00:31:14.340 congregation and they
00:31:15.880 say that the church's
00:31:16.740 ancient teaching is that
00:31:18.140 the whole Christ is
00:31:19.140 received whether one
00:31:20.440 receives only consecrated
00:31:22.540 bread or both bread and
00:31:23.660 wine the protocol is
00:31:25.120 effective today and to be
00:31:27.140 continued until further
00:31:28.440 notice so we've gone from
00:31:30.340 this is my body this is my
00:31:31.860 blood to this is my body
00:31:34.160 and we'll save the blood
00:31:35.460 for once the flu season
00:31:36.880 and the coronavirus season
00:31:38.160 ends that's where things
00:31:39.440 are now and I like this
00:31:41.300 part better we are
00:31:42.640 advising people to share
00:31:43.760 words and smiles only not
00:31:45.980 handshakes or hugs you
00:31:47.340 know there are a lot of
00:31:48.480 people that would love to
00:31:49.420 have the no handshake no
00:31:51.240 hugs no greeting your
00:31:52.340 stranger rule at church
00:31:53.360 year-round so this may
00:31:54.940 actually be like boosting
00:31:56.480 church attendance because
00:31:57.560 people that don't like
00:31:58.500 for social interaction are
00:32:00.200 like all right I guess I
00:32:01.160 can go to church now
00:32:01.960 without being put on the
00:32:03.280 spot to do the exchange of
00:32:05.000 peace so I am curious do
00:32:07.440 send me an email let me
00:32:08.340 know what you think
00:32:08.900 andrew at andrew lawton
00:32:10.480 dot ca are you panicking
00:32:12.820 are you worried I do a
00:32:15.080 lot of travel for some of
00:32:16.880 the work things that I do
00:32:17.860 not just covering various
00:32:19.360 things but I also do media
00:32:20.700 and PR consulting and I
00:32:22.300 have clients that I travel
00:32:23.420 for and I've done a fair
00:32:25.540 bit of air travel in the
00:32:26.560 last couple of weeks
00:32:27.580 relative to the general
00:32:29.040 population and haven't felt
00:32:30.780 concerned really I do think
00:32:33.440 that in the next few weeks
00:32:34.640 things are ratcheting up a
00:32:36.360 little bit I don't have
00:32:37.540 anywhere that I'm going
00:32:39.280 for at least I think three
00:32:41.720 weeks or two weeks or
00:32:43.020 whatever two and a half
00:32:44.200 weeks so again I'm cautious
00:32:46.940 but I I'm not panicked
00:32:48.740 about it and I may entirely
00:32:50.120 be the one in the wrong
00:32:51.220 here but I also think that
00:32:53.180 we can't downplay the
00:32:55.260 possibility that China has
00:32:56.780 been at the at the anchor
00:32:58.680 the epicenter of something
00:33:00.300 that is much bigger than
00:33:02.200 China has acknowledged and I
00:33:03.540 think that's the big
00:33:04.360 variable here and it's not
00:33:05.440 racial or racist to say
00:33:07.600 that it's about
00:33:08.240 understanding that China as
00:33:09.640 a country does not have
00:33:11.320 the best track record when
00:33:12.480 it comes to honesty we'll
00:33:14.280 be talking about big tech
00:33:15.340 censorship when we come
00:33:16.380 back here on the Andrew
00:33:17.600 Lawton show you're tuned in
00:33:21.060 to the Andrew Lawton show
00:33:22.680 I gotta mention this story
00:33:26.920 very briefly here this comes
00:33:28.320 from CTV news an eight-year-old
00:33:31.060 won $200 worth of cannabis
00:33:33.740 products at a youth hockey
00:33:35.800 tournament in BC now a I bet
00:33:38.560 the prizes have increased in
00:33:40.140 value and an interest since
00:33:41.460 you were a kid right a BC
00:33:42.960 grandfather is angry after a
00:33:45.460 novice hockey playing grandson
00:33:47.720 of his was the winner of this
00:33:50.340 $200 stash which you look at it
00:33:52.460 it just looks like cannabis there
00:33:54.520 is a lighter USB which I didn't
00:33:57.780 know you could have a USB lighter
00:34:00.360 but you've got all of these
00:34:02.400 cannabis products you've got
00:34:03.720 edibles you've got this box of
00:34:06.740 this container of pills it looks
00:34:08.080 like you've got a camo pipe for
00:34:10.620 smoking the pot that you get like
00:34:12.080 you have all that you need to
00:34:14.140 embrace the cannabis life which is
00:34:16.220 in British Columbia as
00:34:17.420 quintessential as drinking water
00:34:19.520 anywhere else in Canada and this
00:34:22.860 this prize was it was a raffle
00:34:25.800 prize each team apparently at this
00:34:28.460 tournament was responsible for
00:34:29.700 putting a gift basket together with
00:34:31.800 a minimum value of $5 and they
00:34:34.680 have the paper bags you've been to
00:34:36.020 these raffles the paper bag in front
00:34:37.560 of each one you buy your tickets and
00:34:38.980 you go and you stick them in the bag
00:34:40.340 of whatever prize you want to be in
00:34:42.240 the draw for and this eight-year-old
00:34:44.500 spent $10 on raffle tickets and ended
00:34:47.800 up winning this he says he thought he
00:34:49.960 was getting chocolate because when he
00:34:52.140 was looking at the list the basket
00:34:53.800 wasn't actually on display but when
00:34:56.600 he was looking at the list of items
00:34:58.020 he was seeing vanilla chai chocolate
00:35:01.380 edibles and other things and the
00:35:03.260 words just jumped out to his eight
00:35:05.040 year-old sensibility he didn't realize
00:35:06.760 that they were all laced with THC and
00:35:09.020 stuff like that so the I when I read
00:35:11.980 into this I was actually on the hockey
00:35:13.920 association side because the Dawson
00:35:16.500 Creek Minor Hockey Association said
00:35:18.480 look listen we clearly marked this for
00:35:20.160 adults it was a fun prize it was a
00:35:22.120 it was never out in the open and we
00:35:23.800 didn't give it to the kid it was
00:35:25.480 collected by his father or grandfather
00:35:28.000 one of the two who proved they were
00:35:30.100 overage so that the kid was not
00:35:32.620 actually given this which I think is a
00:35:35.260 very important distinction on this
00:35:37.360 although I still think it's hilarious
00:35:38.440 that like I would never supply because
00:35:40.420 this is a minor league hockey
00:35:43.000 thing I would never bring in like the
00:35:45.580 $200 bag or basket of weed for a kid's
00:35:49.180 school fundraiser or like PTA fundraiser or
00:35:52.420 something so maybe hockey parents are a
00:35:54.220 little bit different maybe they're a
00:35:55.260 lot more freewheeling or maybe it's just
00:35:57.160 the British Columbia thing but there's a
00:35:59.180 boldness in bringing this to a family
00:36:01.600 event one way or another but this is
00:36:03.860 Trudeau's Canada eight-year-olds winning
00:36:05.500 $200 cannabis baskets that a lot of
00:36:08.060 people are probably very jealous of so in
00:36:11.060 any case I wanted to talk about this
00:36:13.480 story out of the US a bit because it
00:36:15.920 impacts all of us if you're watching
00:36:18.000 this on YouTube listening to it on Apple
00:36:19.880 podcast and if you aren't subscribed to
00:36:22.060 the podcast do subscribe please go to
00:36:24.780 andrewlottonshow.com and whatever
00:36:26.480 podcast platform you like we have all the
00:36:28.740 subscription links there but anyone that
00:36:31.100 is partaking in digital media is going to
00:36:34.260 be at some point faced with the world of
00:36:37.300 shadow banning of censorship of big tech
00:36:40.080 clamping down on your right to free
00:36:42.240 speech and the challenge here is that big
00:36:46.080 tech evil as they are in many cases are
00:36:49.100 examples of private companies despite
00:36:51.360 their ubiquity they are private companies
00:36:53.980 with their own rules and their own
00:36:55.400 policies and PragerU which is Dennis
00:36:58.740 Prager's fantastic platform has been
00:37:02.580 shadow banned by YouTube they've been
00:37:04.440 unable to get the views that they used to
00:37:07.140 get because YouTube is not pushing them
00:37:09.260 into people's feeds and related videos and
00:37:12.020 stuff because YouTube does not like
00:37:13.780 conservatives we know this
00:37:15.260 PragerU sued YouTube or Alphabet which is
00:37:19.500 the parent company of Google which owns
00:37:21.680 YouTube saying that Google is infringing
00:37:25.660 upon their First Amendment rights and
00:37:29.180 they say that Google's censorship quote
00:37:32.360 unlawfully censored PragerU's educational
00:37:35.700 videos and discriminated against its right
00:37:37.900 to free speech PragerU said that YouTube
00:37:41.360 was using arbitrary and capricious use of
00:37:45.020 restricted mode and demonetization viewer
00:37:47.700 restriction filters targeting them because
00:37:50.600 of their political identity and they said
00:37:53.400 that this is a First Amendment issue because it is a
00:37:59.080 state actor essentially that a regulation of
00:38:03.820 speech by a private party in a designated public
00:38:06.780 forum is quintessentially sufficient to make that
00:38:11.040 private party a state actor and this there is case
00:38:14.800 law for this it's not as absurd a premise as it
00:38:17.140 sounds however I do not view any of these platforms as
00:38:21.760 public spaces even if the companies choose to allow the
00:38:26.620 public generally to use them that's the issue so suppose
00:38:30.340 that I own a private park in the middle of the city and
00:38:34.300 I let everyone use that park and then one day I decide
00:38:37.220 to say you know what I don't think this park is public
00:38:40.060 anymore I'm gonna shut it down and say I'm only the people
00:38:42.620 that I like can come in I don't think that I am owing to
00:38:46.580 anyone just because of how that park has been traditionally
00:38:50.780 used and the thing here is that you do not have to use
00:38:55.660 YouTube you can upload a video to Vimeo you can upload it
00:38:59.080 on your own server you can upload it to Facebook until
00:39:02.200 Facebook goes after you you do not need to use YouTube if
00:39:06.160 you choose to you have to therefore be at the mercy of
00:39:10.960 YouTube's algorithm you have to be at the mercy of what it
00:39:14.760 is that YouTube says its rules are and how YouTube chooses to
00:39:20.380 enforce those rules and this is a point that a lot of
00:39:24.340 conservatives seem to have a very difficult time understanding
00:39:27.760 they talk about wanting to treat these things as publishers
00:39:31.720 rather than platforms because they're imposing an editorial
00:39:35.200 bias and I agree I mean Facebook does have an editorial
00:39:38.260 bias if it's shifting views away from certain pages and to
00:39:42.880 others YouTube has an editorial bias if they're clamping down on
00:39:47.140 conservatives and not on people that are doing the same things on
00:39:50.800 the left but I don't think them having a bias changes that they do
00:39:55.300 not owe anyone the right to use their platform and this is what the judges ruled
00:40:00.460 against PragerU's lawsuit despite YouTube's ubiquity and its role as a public
00:40:07.840 facing platform it remains a private forum not a public forum subject to
00:40:14.080 judicial scrutiny under the first amendment they further said that YouTube's
00:40:20.740 censorship faces a formidable threshold hurdle YouTube is a private entity the
00:40:26.700 free speech clause of the first amendment prohibits the government not a private
00:40:31.120 party from abridging speech and this is so key because you have the right to
00:40:35.260 freely associate with people and views as you so desire if I own a stage I have the
00:40:42.520 right to decide who's allowed to perform on that stage and I cannot demand that
00:40:48.040 some theater let the Mirvish theater in Toronto if we're talking about this in a
00:40:52.200 Canadian context entertains me as a performer and I don't think that
00:40:58.960 conservatives are embracing an intellectually consistent position on this
00:41:03.540 because the same conservatives that I see in my life are saying you know the gay
00:41:08.140 baker or the Christian baker doesn't have to bake a cake for the gay wedding are the 0.84
00:41:14.040 same people saying YouTube censorship is illegal we need to break up these
00:41:18.500 YouTubes we need to regulate them we need to really start trust busting and look you
00:41:24.200 can dislike all of these platforms and I use them because they they make the most
00:41:29.520 sense for what I'm doing but I'm very aware that one day YouTube could say no and I'm
00:41:34.720 very aware that Twitter could one day say yeah you know I don't think you you you
00:41:37.660 want to use this their obligation is to their terms of service which is the
00:41:42.040 contract that they have with the people using them and I'm sorry but if you're
00:41:46.300 not paying for a platform and you choose to make it the center point of your
00:41:53.220 business model then you are unfortunately at the mercy of these things now I
00:41:58.040 think their decisions can and should be criticized when Twitter and Facebook get
00:42:03.160 together and they start suspending accounts and they do this whether it's
00:42:07.100 info wars or someone else whether you like them or not I think these should be
00:42:12.340 criticized I think they should do this with good faith I think they should do
00:42:15.940 this with fairness I think they should have appeal mechanisms but they don't owe
00:42:19.960 anyone the right to use their platform for free it's that simple and
00:42:24.640 conservatives should be very wary of what happens when these outlets start
00:42:29.920 being subjected to state oversight because then you get into what's
00:42:33.680 happening in Canada right now where Justin Trudeau's liberals actually want to
00:42:38.500 regulate social media companies to curb what they call hate speech and they
00:42:43.840 don't define what hate speech is they're gonna let for a social media
00:42:47.020 companies remove it within 24 hours or be punished by the government and the idea
00:42:52.940 of letting these companies do what they want is a heck of a lot better than
00:42:58.040 making them actual state actors and making government oversight government
00:43:03.160 regulation and government control the cornerstone of determining what content
00:43:08.240 is allowed and what what content isn't because if you do that then what's
00:43:13.760 happened is these companies have become essentially deputies of the state
00:43:18.420 deputies of the government and that is going to be a lot worse for everyone
00:43:22.940 involved in these platforms than letting them run wild in the more libertarian idea
00:43:28.160 which is what the judges against the PragerU case basically upheld which is
00:43:32.600 look they're private companies they can do what they want they do not owe you the
00:43:36.240 right to First Amendment protections because constitutional freedom is not meant
00:43:41.560 to protect people as much as it's meant to limit government that's what that
00:43:46.920 constitutional right to free speech is in Canada and in the US by the way it's
00:43:51.320 about limiting government it's not about protecting you from other private actors
00:43:56.700 now the one thing that I think is interesting in this case and that the
00:44:01.360 area that I thought was a more compelling argument is false advertising if a
00:44:06.540 company is pretending or presenting itself as being a bastion of free speech
00:44:10.640 and an open platform as YouTube is do they owe you procedural fairness and in that
00:44:15.800 case I'd say yes and I don't know enough about what YouTube is promising in the
00:44:20.080 terms of service but in that particular case I'd say there's a lot more of a
00:44:25.620 substantive argument you could make about where things are going in any case I am a
00:44:30.960 firm believer in the fact that big tech needs to be understood for what it is that
00:44:35.240 these oligopolies need to be reined in and they need to be criticized and they
00:44:40.360 need to be held to account but this needs to happen by their consumer base not by the
00:44:45.700 government forcing them to allow other people on because that means you're
00:44:50.320 surrendering your rights down the road when the government says oh well you
00:44:54.280 forced YouTube to have your show so now I'm gonna force you to have someone on
00:44:59.540 your show I mean it's absurd but not really if we get into that area of
00:45:04.660 government being able to regulate content on two platforms my thanks to
00:45:10.460 Richard day career and all those who tuned into today's show we'll be back in a
00:45:14.020 couple of days with more of the Andrew Lawton show here on true north thanks for
00:45:18.000 listening to the Andrew Lawton show support the program by donating to true
00:45:21.520 north at www.tnc.news