In this episode of Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show, host Andrew Lawton talks about David Johnston, dandelions, and the fact that he almost ate a dandelion on air. Plus, he explains why he thinks it was a good idea to eat it.
00:05:42.620So David Johnson has decided that David Johnson should continue to look into this.
00:05:48.020And David Johnson also says if you criticize his appointment,
00:05:52.160if you accuse him of being impartial, you are undermining confidence in democracy or undermining confidence in Canadian elections.
00:06:02.020So this is actually a pretty sweet gig for David Johnson because he's the guy, you can't criticize him,
00:06:07.640and he's making sure to reward Justin Trudeau by saying they did nothing.
00:06:11.760So he's made this report available. There are five key recommendations in it.
00:06:17.040Five key recommendations. The most important is that we don't apparently need an inquiry.
00:06:21.800That is the reason. His argument was kind of bizarre. It was that, well, you know, I had the full context on this. All these media outlets like Global News and the Globe and Mail, they didn't have all the information I did, but I, David Johnston, did. And, well, it's classified, though. The rest of you can't see it.
00:06:40.440So this was legitimately the point that he was trying to make.
00:06:44.200And I think we actually have a clip to this effect where he says that media reports lack proper context.
00:06:52.400Much of what has been reported has been based on limited and partial intelligence.
00:06:57.940That reporting has been made without the benefit of the full context provided by all relevant materials.
00:07:05.580Experienced intelligent professionals understand that individual pieces of intelligence must be viewed with considerable skepticism.
00:07:14.360It is extremely rare to draw conclusions, much less take action from a single intelligence report.
00:07:23.260Each piece of intelligence is a brushstroke to paint a broader picture.
00:07:28.560Only upon seeing the full picture, with the benefit of all relevant intelligence,
00:07:34.580Can one conclude that much of the reported intelligence has been misconstrued in media reports, presumably because of this lack of context in these instances?
00:07:48.240Oh, yeah, what a great approach there.
00:07:50.560So all of you can't see what I can see.
00:07:54.040And then the obvious question is, OK, well, why don't we all see this?
00:07:57.980Why don't we declassify these documents?
00:08:00.960The general public can't see classified documents.
00:08:03.280So his recommendation is that there should be no public inquiry because to have a public inquiry, you would need to provide people with documents that they can't see. So the only way we get to have accountability is by he continuing to look at this stuff and David Johnston continuing to be the one who gets to decide what's relevant and what's not.
00:08:24.300And he said, oh, but, you know, maybe this committee like NSACOP can look into it.
00:08:28.340And if they disagree with my findings, they can tell the government.
00:08:31.000But he still becomes the gatekeeper on information.
00:08:35.400So for a guy whose whole thesis in his report is that the media got it wrong and the media
00:08:40.700didn't get the so-called full context, he then turns around and say, well, nobody else
00:19:35.140And even the uncontested substance, which is that he was having a conversation with Chinese officials
00:19:40.320while China was keeping two Canadians locked up for years without due process.
00:19:46.160And we're supposed to be concerned about all the adverse effect that Global News' reporting had on Mr. Dong.
00:19:54.260So I think that if it's false, great, let's see the transcript.
00:19:58.180Why are we being told to just trust David Johnston when David Johnston was reviewing a transcript of a call
00:20:04.260that he's saying no Canadians should be allowed to see.
00:20:07.960And this is exactly why there needs to be an inquiry,
00:20:10.700an inquiry that makes public documents that right now are not being public
00:20:14.700because right now the government has shown itself to not be trustworthy on this.
00:20:19.420Not Justin Trudeau, not the brass at CSIS, and certainly not David Johnson.
00:20:25.480We're going to revisit this a little bit before the show ends,
00:20:28.540but I want to shift gears to another topic which is important.
00:20:31.980We had actually planned to talk about this today as of last week, and that is the move towards climate-friendly banking, which sounds like a bit of an absurd thing, but there are some MPs that are actually trying to force this on financial institutions, on pension funds, that they rejig their investment rules to only back projects or initiatives or corporations that have climate-aligned goals.
00:20:59.080We spoke a while ago about this in the context of what Gina Papano of InvestNow is doing,
00:22:32.240because they've decided, oh, you know what?
00:22:34.220We only need to invest in climate aligned companies
00:22:37.740or you could take that to any number of other issues.
00:22:40.440We only want companies that have a feminist focus.
00:22:43.520We only want companies that fly the pride flag or whatever.
00:22:46.080If you're an investor in this, is this even something you care about?
00:22:51.940Well, if you're an investor, you should only be concerned, it's public money.
00:22:56.800So the investors, the public pension funds, the banks, they should be concerned with providing the best returns to their shareholders, to their beneficiaries.
00:23:07.020And imposing this rule eliminates an entire sector from the investment potential.
00:23:13.280and that is not that's not even ESG investing because if you if you take a if you take away
00:23:20.660the oil and gas sector for example you can't invest in any Canadian oil and gas sectors
00:23:24.700any oil and gas companies the demand is still there so the supply will come from somewhere
00:23:31.260it just won't be Canada and emissions will go up and everything that they're trying to do
00:23:36.640will not be attained achieved but what will happen is the elimination of the oil and gas sector in
00:23:42.680Canada, jobs, our way of life. There's just so many industry will shut down. So many industries
00:23:52.100rely on oil and gas. The mining industry, you can't have industries without oil and gas
00:23:56.780because they fuel every industry on the stock exchange.
00:24:00.720So prior to the environmental dimension that we talked about previously and that we're talking
00:24:06.100about now, has there ever been a moral test to these investment funds or is that in and of itself
00:24:11.720a new phenomenon well there was apartheid uh so people weren't investing in south african companies
00:24:18.840um and tobacco companies in the past but um there's what they found was um those pension
00:24:28.360funds lost out especially tobacco companies they lost out on returns and i think if someone wants
00:24:36.440to do what whatever they they if they want to invest in something of their own money but this
00:24:42.200is taking the public pension plan and using it weaponizing it basically to invest in what is
00:24:51.160termed climate friendly but we we really have no way of proving that because i mean there therein
00:24:57.320lies i think the other problem which is even if you agree fundamentally with what they're trying
00:25:02.040to do uh it's not even clear that it will do that and i think all the evidence probably points in
00:25:07.200the other direction i mean uh you talk about the environmental impact of the mining industry and
00:25:13.080it is there but it's the mining industry that benefits the most when we decide that everything
00:25:17.260needs to be electric like i remember once seeing uh at davos there was this mining executive that
00:25:22.540was talking about oh we need battery powered everything and everyone's like oh he's so he's
00:25:26.440such a climate champion and it's like well yeah who stands to benefit from you know the world
00:25:30.080ratcheting up its demand for lithium. It's these mining executives. So it's not even like it will
00:25:35.740achieve that environmental objective. No, it's really an exercise in magical thinking because
00:25:41.080to think that we can eliminate our oil and gas sector, especially in Canada, where we're blessed
00:25:45.220with the natural resources, we should be getting our Canadian oil and gas out there. We should be
00:25:50.380investing in it because the divestment activists may believe that they're helping Canada and
00:25:58.600reducing co2 emissions but the facts point to quite the opposite just today 84 percent
00:26:05.800of primary energy needs are coming from oil natural gas and coal and global demand is
00:26:11.880increasing not decreasing so we want canada and canadian companies to meet this demand
00:26:18.360otherwise we're hobbling ourselves and giving it to you know the supply will be met from someone
00:26:25.640and we want it to be from Canada. When we look at these regulations, do they make a distinction
00:26:32.120between, you know, Canadian companies that, as you've noted, are doing a lot of work to really
00:26:37.820comply with government environmental regulations and to innovate themselves and reduce their
00:26:42.200emissions and, you know, foreign oil companies that might not be as diligent with this? Or does
00:26:47.480it basically just paint any traditional energy source with the same brush and any company in
00:26:51.760that space. That's right. It's all oil and gas and coal painted with the same brush. There's no
00:26:57.220distinction for Canada. It's obvious that they want to dismantle this sector in Canada. And we
00:27:04.300hear the government using these, you know, nice little words like just transition as though this
00:27:09.040is all just part of some natural evolution. And, you know, they don't often conceal the
00:27:13.320fundamental goal of envisioning a future without oil and gas. No, but the problem is, is that even
00:27:20.480possible you know there's so much so much more to oil and gas than just electricity there are so
00:27:26.000many products that rely on oil and gas and uh you can't make steel without coal there's so many um
00:27:32.560products that we rely on to live our lives to uh to drive to work to you know um to to heat our
00:27:41.600homes to air condition our homes and so we we we can't i don't even think you can fathom a world
00:27:48.640without oil and gas right now but people think we can just flip a switch in 20 years and be done
00:27:54.080with it i i know there's been a big push and it's actually been unfortunately getting some success
00:27:59.920at universities to have universities divest from from oil and gas and i was wondering if you could
00:28:05.520just provide an update on on kind of how that is because i think there were uh some calls and i'm
00:28:10.000in london ontario there are some calls at western university which hasn't yet done it yet but some
00:28:13.920pretty big universities have that's right u of t has um so the divestment movement's been around
00:28:20.160for 10 years uh the universities were a prime target to get the endowment funds to divest from
00:28:26.240oil and gas but if you if you look at the movement um pension funds have divested now they're attack
00:28:33.920you know they're going after the banks to divest so you see an escalation in their targets but what
00:28:39.840you don't see is any reduction in emissions. In 10 years, demand has gone up, emissions have gone
00:28:46.960up. So even though all of these endowment funds and public pension plans have divested,
00:28:56.240there has been no discernible impact on emissions. Now, I know that the Canadian
00:29:02.640pension or the Canada pension plan has rejected this call, but are you optimistic that position
00:29:07.840will hold if the current trajectory keeps up? Well, we've been tracking all of the movements
00:29:14.460and I guess the targets of the divestment activists. And we're just trying to state
00:29:20.520our case of why the Canada pension plan should not be divesting from oil and gas. They should
00:29:25.940be investing in oil and gas. It's good for innovation. It's good for emissions reductions.
00:29:31.140It's good for our economy. And so the Canada pension plan should not be entertaining divestment.
00:29:37.280but we're just hoping to be able to um get our messages out there our narrative well yeah and i
00:29:43.360think as you should be and i know you've talked about the demand issue but you know they talk
00:29:47.120about a divide between the real economy and the financial economy here because if you know if you
00:29:52.080if you could divest you know all your stocks and holdings in an oil and gas company but it does
00:29:56.800nothing to eliminate the demand for oil and gas which is still there and and the need for hydrocarbon
00:30:02.480But it really does try to just kill this industry by a thousand blows.
00:30:08.020It's just affecting their access to capital.
00:30:10.980And it gives other companies in less democratic regions an opportunity to fulfill the supply.
00:30:21.120Yeah, and that's always been the reality here, is that anything that we do in the West to hurt our oil and gas sector benefits Venezuela
00:30:30.820and benefits the Middle East and to indirectly Iran and all these other places that tend to do
00:30:38.180very well. So when you get Justin Trudeau saying there's no business case for exporting LNG to
00:30:44.400Germany, well, Germany is looking around, desperately looking for it. It's another
00:30:48.000country that fills that void. Yes. And also at the same time, China's building a coal plant every
00:30:53.360week right now, or getting approvals to build a coal plant every week. So there's not a global
00:30:59.920alignment on this stuff and to just hobble ourselves makes no sense. So I guess the big
00:31:07.440question here, and I don't know if you can answer it simply, but are you an optimist or a pessimist
00:31:11.600on this? I'm an optimist. I think the way things are looking in Europe is like a marker for us to
00:31:22.620watch. And even like countries like Qatar are saying that due to the lack of investment,
00:31:29.320there's going to be a severe oil supply shortage, which means prices are going to go up.
00:31:35.040So I think people might start connecting the dots that, hey, maybe investment is not such a bad
00:31:41.220thing. We need to invest in our supply. We need to invest in our Canadian companies. We have the
00:31:46.280highest environmental standards in the world. So I think we just have to keep getting our messages
00:31:50.900out and we might be heard. I'm optimistic that we'll be heard. All right. Well, we certainly
00:31:58.160hear you here as well. And I think there is obviously a little bit of a deck stacked against
00:32:03.640the little guy feeling that a lot of individual investors have. But I think you need to call up
00:32:08.300your banks. I think you need to call up the people managing your funds because we know that the
00:32:12.420activists are doing that. And if they're not getting anyone on the other end saying it's
00:32:16.640important that you keep my money going towards this, if there's a business case there, then it's
00:32:21.860completely going without being contested. That's right. We need to stand up and fight for the
00:32:27.640industry. All right. Well, you're certainly doing that. And I think everyone needs to join you in
00:32:31.940that fight. Gina Papano, Executive Director of InvestNow. Thanks so much. And do keep us posted
00:32:37.100on this. Thank you, Andrew. All right. Thank you, Gina. I said before the show was up, I'd get back
00:32:42.720to the China files here. And I will in just a moment. But speaking of being heard, let me just
00:32:49.080briefly offer an update to a story we've talked about at True North, which is the ban on Canada
00:32:55.760day fireworks by the city of calgary so uh the city of calgary decides uh when mayor jody gonda
00:33:01.920gets in that it's a climate emergency so all of a sudden the climate crisis means you can't light
00:33:07.340fireworks uh it has nothing to do with their hatred of canada day it's their hatred of anything
00:33:12.460that emits into the atmosphere or something like that so uh now they've decided to replace it with
00:33:17.720a sound and light show now i'm not against sound and light shows i went and saw an abba hologram
00:33:23.440concert that was a sound and light show and I loved it, but I didn't do it because they were
00:33:27.680fighting against the climate crisis. I did it because it looked like it was good on its own
00:33:32.060merits. And now in Calgary, thousands have signed a petition to bring back Canada Day fireworks. So
00:33:38.980I don't know if Jody Gondak is going to listen. I think some, I think anyone who wants to should
00:33:44.400chip in and have their own private firework show that's going to rival the cities. Just rent some
00:33:49.020giant acreage and do the fireworks show that the city is not allowing and make sure you admit
00:33:54.300twice as much as the city would have just to prove the point. But all that being said, let's talk
00:33:59.460about the China stuff here. If you're just tuning in, David Johnston has decided to give a clean
00:34:06.060bill of health to Justin Trudeau's handling of the China file. He said, oh no, he didn't know
00:34:11.520anything. He didn't avoid anything. He didn't ignore anything. The real problem is those pesky
00:34:16.620civil servants, that we need to figure out what a good way is for them to be able to communicate
00:34:21.480stuff to government and communicate stuff to Justin Trudeau. So they're the ones we need to
00:34:27.080look at here, not Justin Trudeau. And oh, the media, you guys, no, no, no, the media just got
00:34:31.860it wrong. We didn't have access to all of the wisdom and documents that David Johnson had. So
00:34:37.220the recap on this, and if you're having trouble following along, you're not alone, because I think
00:34:42.580anyone with two IQs, two IQ points to rub together is even having trouble with this. And the whole
00:34:49.780point here is that David Johnston is effectively saying that everyone but Justin Trudeau is the
00:34:57.920problem. And if you criticize Justin Trudeau, you're part of this media misinformation. If you
00:35:02.460criticize David Johnson, you're undermining faith in democracy. It's actually quite brilliant because
00:35:06.640it means that no one is able to say anything but David Johnston because, well, you didn't have all
00:35:11.220the facts you didn't have all the full context so uh it's a pretty smart way of doing things but is
00:35:17.580it in canada's best interest absolutely not and i i pointed out on twitter earlier you can tell why
00:35:23.900johnson and trudeau are friends because both of them whenever they're busted on something just
00:35:29.560talk about broad abstract shortcomings well not talking about their own responsibility and saying
00:35:35.480it's the system to blame and then pointing to the media more than anything else. But what happens
00:35:42.260here, and I'm just going to go through some of the greatest hits of this, the five conclusions
00:35:45.760that Johnson had. One, yes, foreign interference is happening in Canada's elections. Two, materials
00:35:51.720were misconstrued in some media reporting. Three, there are serious shortcomings in how intelligence
00:35:59.340is communicated and processed. Again, the general, the abstract, nothing to do with Trudeau.
00:36:04.440number four, I'll get back to in a moment. Number five is that Trudeau should invite
00:36:10.740these independent oversight committees like NSACOP to review his conclusion and have access
00:36:17.260to classified information and say if they disagree with his conclusion. Number four, though, was that
00:36:23.640a further public process is required, but that should not be a formal inquiry because to do so
00:36:30.460would mean that documents that have been classified
00:36:34.180would have to be made public, and we can't have any of that.
00:36:36.780So instead, Johnson is going to embark on a second phase