LAWTON： Stop With The Social Issues Litmus Test
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
183.91351
Summary
In this episode of the True North Report, Andrew Lawton takes a look at why the Liberals are only talking about social issues, and why they should be talking about anything other than the things that affect people the most.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to another True North Report. My name is
00:00:04.360
Andrew Lawton, Fellow with True North, with you for the next little while in
00:00:08.640
what will be our last one of these in the month of August, which has no
00:00:14.920
significance other than the fact that we're all going to be very miserable
00:00:17.880
when September arrives and we realize that the summer has unfortunately wasted
00:00:23.040
away like Justin Trudeau's promise to balance the budget. The two are just as
00:00:28.200
real right now, which is to say non-existent, but there is going to be a
00:00:32.160
lot to talk about in the fall though, so I'm not as much lamenting the loss of
00:00:37.080
summer as usual because it's election season, which is really like a big old
00:00:41.160
summer vacation for any of us freaks that are addicted to politics. So you always
00:00:45.780
have to find the silver lining, as they say. In any case, thank you very much for
00:00:49.700
tuning in. A lot to talk about today, but I want to start off with a bit of a
00:00:54.520
question, and if you're tuning in you can chime in on this in the comments section.
00:00:58.480
We're gonna have lots of discussion going hopefully, and that is what do you
00:01:02.380
think the biggest issue facing Canadians is this election? Now this is one of
00:01:08.680
those things like your teacher might have told you when you're in your in your
00:01:11.800
classroom years ago, there's no right answer, there's no wrong answer, but there
00:01:15.820
are common answers. And I would venture a guess to say that if I were to go and
00:01:20.400
talk to 100 people right now and say what do you care about the most this
00:01:25.200
election, I could probably tell you with a fair bit of accuracy what people are
00:01:31.740
going to say. And I can say this because I did this about a year ago when I was a
00:01:36.240
candidate in a provincial election. Now obviously the issues are slightly
00:01:39.780
different provincially compared to federally, but I think the way that
00:01:43.520
people approach elections is pretty much the same. They care about cost of living,
00:01:49.140
they care about taxes, they care about, I mean accountability and transparency or
00:01:54.900
evergreen topics. The federal elections specifically you might get people
00:01:59.580
citing specific scandals like SNC-Lavalin or the treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould,
00:02:04.620
but the issues that people care about the most in Canada in politics in
00:02:09.880
elections are the issues that affect people the most. And 95 times out of 100 I'm
00:02:16.620
going to say these are pocketbook issues. And you get people that of course are
00:02:20.700
going to bring their own specific concerns to the table and this is always
00:02:25.360
going to happen. And you know what, one of the great things about living in a
00:02:28.860
democracy is that you can decide whatever issue it is that will become the chief
00:02:33.300
criterion for you to cast your ballot. If you want to cast your ballot on tax
00:02:37.120
policy you can, if you want to cast your ballot on environmental policy you can, and if
00:02:42.120
you want to cast your ballot on horse racing in the West Indies you might be
00:02:46.380
looking for a candidate that shares your position for a while, but you can do
00:02:50.320
that, you can make that case. But the reason I bring this up is to say that most
00:02:55.320
Canadians do not care about social issues. And when I say don't care I mean it
00:03:01.560
doesn't even come up one way or another. When people do care about it, typically
00:03:06.300
it's because they're socially conservative. It's a lot more common for a
00:03:10.320
social conservative say I you know I care about abortion than it is for someone
00:03:14.020
who is not pro-life or someone who's pro-choice. But people just don't care
00:03:19.500
about these issues. Which is why it makes it all the more curious that the
00:03:24.000
Liberals insist on talking about pretty much only those issues this week. And
00:03:28.980
there's an understandable reason for that that we'll talk about. But I wanted to
00:03:33.780
preface this discussion by saying think of the issues that you care about, think
00:03:37.780
of how you rank the issues you care about, and for the most part abortion is
00:03:42.720
not going to be the top concern, even less so gay marriage. Gay marriage is not
00:03:47.280
going to be the top issue for Canadian voters. It's been settled, it was settled
00:03:51.600
15 years ago. Even a conservative, remember this, even a conservative government in
00:03:57.780
2006 had the question about whether it was worth reopening the debate and that
00:04:03.060
party that government under Stephen Harbour opted against it. So there is not an
00:04:07.920
appetite to deal with these things and that's there's a reason for that because
00:04:13.060
by and large it just isn't the top priority. But the Liberals are doing what
00:04:18.240
is stunningly known as wedge politics which is trying to drive a wedge between
00:04:23.580
Andrew Scheer and the electorate or trying to drive a wedge between Andrew Scheer and
00:04:28.560
perhaps some of Andrew Scheer's own supporters, which is why the Liberals only
00:04:32.940
want to talk about social issues. They own this thing. The Justin Trudeau is the
00:04:37.200
most unabashedly pro-choice Prime Minister Canada's ever had. He's one of the most
00:04:42.840
ostentatiously pro-LGBT. He wants to talk about nothing other than social issues
00:04:48.960
because if the election is going to be fought on those, he's pretty confident that
00:04:52.500
he's going to win because you know why not. But the reason this is an important
00:04:57.400
topic is because Andrew Scheer has not ever ever brought these issues up. He's
00:05:02.940
responded to questions about them. Obviously he's a social conservative, he's
00:05:07.340
pro-life, he's got a personal personal moral objection to same-sex marriage, but he
00:05:12.600
has never made those the focal point of his campaign, not even in the leadership. Now
00:05:17.740
when he was seeking the leadership, there were a lot of pro-life people that sought
00:05:21.760
him out. He was endorsed by pro-life groups, he had a lot of pro-life support,
00:05:27.200
he didn't hide that part of him, but he has never been the one to bring it up. So it
00:05:31.780
is fascinating that the Liberals insist on pegging him with this hidden agenda on
00:05:36.340
an issue that he doesn't really seem to care about as a politician, even if he does
00:05:42.120
care about it as a personal Catholic and as a personal social conservative.
00:05:47.740
So let's go back to a few days ago, how this all started out. Ralph Goodale, the Liberal
00:05:52.580
Minister, found this 15-year-old clip of Andrew Scheer talking in the House of
00:05:57.100
Commons when the one of the same-sex marriage discussions was going on. It was the
00:06:01.840
bill that ultimately was passed that made same-sex marriage the law nationwide in
00:06:06.820
Canada. And Andrew Scheer, at the time a Conservative member of Parliament, very
00:06:12.340
devout Catholic, he's still both of those things. Andrew Scheer got up and he spoke
00:06:16.920
against it. He spoke, you know, it was a bit of an awkward speech, there's no denying
00:06:21.480
that, but he was talking about how he was against same-sex marriage for the
00:06:25.680
reason that marriage is predominantly for the purpose of procreation. Now, this is
00:06:31.860
not an argument that necessarily holds up if you're talking about the state role of
00:06:36.420
marriage, if you're talking about the spiritual role of marriage, I think it's a
00:06:39.440
very valid point. But he did what pretty much almost half of the members of
00:06:46.000
Parliament did in that vote, which is to vote against it. And by the way, there
00:06:51.920
were a couple of Conservative members of Parliament who voted for gay marriage, and
00:06:56.180
there were 30-some-odd Liberals who voted against it. So this was not a bill that was
00:07:02.480
a landslide victory. This was a bill that was very close and had a number of Liberals, mostly
00:07:08.880
Catholic Liberals, voting against it. And Ralph Goodale himself, despite posting this
00:07:15.880
video of Andrew Scheer, neglected to mention that he voted against gay marriage twice, in
00:07:21.240
99, and I believe the one before that was in 95. Now, the 1995 and 1999 votes on gay
00:07:28.360
marriage in Canada were votes in which a Liberal-majority government, both times, a
00:07:35.120
Liberal-majority government under Jean Chrétien voted against. This is, I think,
00:07:41.740
something that is very important here. And, you know, Jean Chrétien oftentimes is held up
00:07:48.580
as this sort of dynastic figure in Canadian politics. He had a majority government, he had
00:07:55.900
good caucus control, he had good caucus discipline, and even in spite of that, two times there
00:08:02.900
were votes by the Liberals against legalizing gay marriage. So when Ralph Goodale, who was
00:08:10.440
one of the ones to vote against it, is saying, oh, how dare this man be against gay marriage
00:08:15.380
15 years ago, he neglects to mention that he was just a few years before that. Now, I'm not
00:08:21.460
even talking about whether it's good or bad policy. I mean, I've been clear on this. I'm
00:08:26.740
a Christian, but I do have a firm belief that it's not the role of the state to enforce
00:08:31.720
a religious definition of any policy issue, and marriage is an example of that. So I support
00:08:37.720
where the law is right now, which is that there is a complete legal equality for a gay couple
00:08:42.740
or a straight couple when it comes to marriage. But the reason I'm bringing this up is because
00:08:48.760
there are lots of Canadians who don't believe that, and that's absolutely fine. We have a country
00:08:54.980
right now where if you look at how people are identifying themselves in the census, two-thirds
00:09:02.200
of the country is Christian. Two-thirds of the country is Christian. Now, are they practicing?
00:09:09.280
I'm not going to make that claim. I know religion's on the decline. Are they devout? Again, we know
00:09:15.660
religion's on the decline. But two-thirds of the country, when asked how they identify, they say
00:09:21.700
they are Christians. And if you look at the denominational breakdown, and I did a short video
00:09:26.520
on this earlier in the week where I really crunched some of the numbers. If you look at the denominational
00:09:30.940
breakdown, the majority of these, about three-quarters, I think, are from denominations that have
00:09:38.040
a moral objection to gay marriage. The Catholic Church, most mainline Protestant denominations,
00:09:46.760
evangelicals. When you look outside of Christianity, you see the Muslims and Jews. Again, on paper,
00:09:54.240
most of them against gay marriage and are against abortion as well. So a majority of Canadians
00:10:00.220
identifies with a religious denomination that is in line with what Andrew Scheer was saying 15 years
00:10:08.740
ago. Now, this is important, not because I'm making the case that a majority of Canadians are anti-gay
00:10:15.780
marriage or pro-life. I'm not going to make that claim because there are lots of people that are part
00:10:20.600
of the Catholic Church that don't adhere to Catholic Orthodoxy on every issue, or people that are in the
00:10:26.400
Muslim faith that don't adhere to the fundamental teaching of Islam or what the denominations
00:10:32.720
supposedly believe. But you have the majority of the country that identifies with a religion that
00:10:39.320
believes the exact same thing that Andrew Scheer is saying that is apparently so controversial to
00:10:45.060
the liberals. And the reason this is such a dangerous belief is because right now what the liberals
00:10:51.780
have tried to do, and the media is very much included in this, the media has contributed this,
00:10:57.240
is to make it that a belief that is shared by even a quarter, let's lowball to the nth degree,
00:11:04.720
a belief shared by even a quarter of Canadians should not be represented by more than zero percent
00:11:10.800
of politicians. The belief is that Andrew Scheer is unfit to be a political leader because he believes
00:11:17.720
something even if that belief is on side with where most religions are in Canada and where a great
00:11:24.620
many Canadians are, certainly in the millions. And again, this isn't even talking about whether it's
00:11:29.800
right or wrong. I don't want to get into a theological discussion, and I don't even want to get into
00:11:34.700
a theoretical discussion about it. I'm just talking about the numbers, the liberals, and this is when
00:11:40.400
we talk about the elites, what we're talking about here. The liberals want to make it so that they
00:11:46.040
determine the minority liberal position is the only one that can be represented in political
00:11:53.300
institutions, in the House of Commons, in the media narrative, even if it is a minority when you
00:11:59.340
poll Canadians at large. And this idea of the elite versus the ordinary is such a huge dynamic,
00:12:09.000
and the liberals have been doing this since Justin Trudeau was the liberal leader. You may remember
00:12:13.560
he banned anyone who was pro-life from running as a liberal candidate. So it wasn't enough to say,
00:12:19.820
look, we're a pro-choice party, we're a party that supports abortion, rah, rah, rah, women's rights,
00:12:25.320
we're going to march in the parade. If you didn't believe that 100%, you could not run for the party.
00:12:31.320
You didn't even get to be in politics. Now, there were a few liberals that voted against gay marriage
00:12:36.900
that, you know, just shut their mouth on it and went along with it and said, yes, we're now going to
00:12:41.440
support the liberals. But this was what Justin Trudeau was saying. So I want to talk a little bit
00:12:48.660
more about where Andrew Scheer, I think, has gone wrong here. And I don't blame Andrew Scheer for it
00:12:55.860
because he fell into a trap that pretty much every conservative falls into, which is thinking that
00:13:01.420
there's anything you can say that will satiate the social issues litmus test. There isn't. The liberals
00:13:08.440
are always going to put this litmus test down. They're going to say, oh, well, what does this
00:13:12.040
person think about this? And why is he not marching in the parade? And what would he say
00:13:15.960
if someone introduced this bill? And, you know, what do you think about this? And no one ever punches
00:13:20.740
back. No one ever punches back. You know, and here's a great example. So Justin Trudeau claims to be a
00:13:26.800
Catholic. He claims to be a Catholic. He claims to be a very devout Catholic. And if you read his book,
00:13:32.780
and I don't know, in fairness, I don't even know if Justin Trudeau has read his own book. But
00:13:35.980
if you read his book, he talks about how his faith is deeply important to him.
00:13:40.980
Why is no one in the media asking Justin Trudeau, hey, how do you go to a church that says abortion
00:13:46.600
is a grave sin? Why is no one asking that? And, you know, it's funny, Michael Corrin wrote this
00:13:54.140
laughable piece. I thought it was comedy. It's not comedy. He means this seriously. He wrote a piece
00:13:58.920
in McLean's where he says, this is the question to ask Andrew Scheer about abortion. And he says,
00:14:04.520
his religion says abortion is homicide and a grave sin. Can we believe Scheer when he says that given
00:14:10.700
the power to stop it, he simply won't do so? Well, Justin Trudeau says he's a Catholic. So why
00:14:17.920
should that same question not be put towards Justin Trudeau? You identify with a religion. Now,
00:14:23.720
in fact, no one buys Justin Trudeau as religious. That's the answer to the question. But I'm just
00:14:29.280
following this through to its natural end. If we insist on putting a social issues litmus test
00:14:35.040
based on our politicians religious identity, why are we not putting it on Justin Trudeau? Why are we
00:14:41.680
not putting it on Jagmeet Singh, for example? He's a Sikh. The Sikh faith has a very traditional view
00:14:48.220
of marriage and abortion as well. Why does Jagmeet Singh not have to answer questions about what his faith
00:14:55.300
position is on social issues? And the reason is that this is just used against conservatives. This
00:15:02.920
is the greatest tool to use against conservatives to try to drive a wedge between them and the voters.
00:15:09.560
Now, I do think that it backfires in a lot of ways, just as I think that the summer jobs program
00:15:14.140
fiasco backfired on the liberals because they realized that a lot of people are kind of okay with
00:15:20.140
a church group having a day camp or a church group having some summer internship program. And I think
00:15:26.600
that it backfired and we saw a lot of people that weren't really political get up in arms about it.
00:15:33.220
But there is still this idea that the liberals are trying to drive, which is that if Andrew Scheer
00:15:39.800
has ever opened a Bible in his life, he's unfit to be a political leader. And this is not just
00:15:46.520
offensive to Catholics, it's not just offensive to Christians, it should be offensive to anyone of
00:15:51.500
faith in Canada, because the liberals are saying that people who have a religious belief are unfit
00:15:57.540
for public life, and by extension, are unfit to even open their mouths in public. This is the sense
00:16:03.360
that the liberals are trying to drive about this. And if you look at some of the headlines, I'll read
00:16:08.080
one from Huffington Post, I think it was this morning, Andrew Scheer tries to clarify Tory's stance
00:16:14.100
on abortion, but creates more confusion. And I, this was by Althea Raj, who, by the way,
00:16:20.300
she's going to be one of the moderators of the leadership debates. I like Althea, I get along
00:16:24.920
with her. I think this was certainly a confusing piece, because she says that Andrew Scheer's Tory
00:16:33.100
stance on abortion creates more confusion. You read the article and the position is quite clear. He says,
00:16:38.140
look, I'm never going to interfere with a private member's ability to vote on matters of conscience,
00:16:44.660
but the Conservative Party is not going to talk about gay marriage, is not going to talk about
00:16:49.060
abortion. This is an identical position to the one that Stephen Harper had, where the party itself
00:16:55.000
had a 50-foot pole approach to social issues, but the small number of people in the party that were
00:17:01.080
going to be vocal on social issues were allowed to. And we saw a couple of pro-life bills that were
00:17:06.180
introduced from Stephen Woodworth, who wanted to at least have a discussion about it, and the Unborn
00:17:12.300
Victims of Crime Act, which, because of the pro-choice lobby, ended up getting sabotaged, even though it was
00:17:18.480
a very important bill that would have done a lot of good and had nothing to do with abortion. It was a
00:17:23.960
pro-life bill in the sense that it was actually about respect for human life. But all of this is to say
00:17:30.600
that Andrew Scheer made, I think, a big mistake today, where he had a press conference, and the
00:17:37.620
sole purpose was basically to let the media beat him up about his social issues, positions. That was
00:17:42.900
it. Because there have been a few days where everyone online has been saying, oh, Andrew Scheer is going
00:17:47.560
to, you know, reach into your uterus and put a big Conservative stamp on it, and say this is now the
00:17:52.640
property of the Conservative Party of Canada. I exaggerate, but not really. That's pretty close to the tone
00:17:58.820
of media coverage. So after a few days of being on the defensive, Andrew Scheer says, okay, we're
00:18:05.960
going to have a press conference, and we're going to once and for all put this to bed, and say this
00:18:09.740
is my position. But there is no earthly reason to suspect this will put the issue to bed, when this
00:18:17.260
is a position he's already told people probably a dozen times. What he said today is no different
00:18:23.360
than what he's been saying since he became the leader, which is that the party is not going to
00:18:28.200
introduce this legislation, but we're going to have conscience rights for individual members.
00:18:32.760
But that's not enough. That's not enough for the critics. That's not enough for the media. That's not
00:18:38.200
enough for the Liberals. And I'm sorry, but if Andrew Scheer were to come out today, and he were to have
00:18:44.020
had this press conference and say, you know, everyone, I'm a devout Catholic. I think abortion's a sin.
00:18:49.340
And if I'm Prime Minister, I'm going to ban it and send women who have abortions to the stockades
00:18:55.460
for public humiliation and then criminal charges. The criticism he gets would be identical to what
00:19:02.920
it is saying he won't touch it. And this is the thing, a little bit of an exaggeration, sure,
00:19:08.720
but not much, because the people are going to hate him no matter what. The people that are demanding he
00:19:15.120
refute all of these, you know, statements he may have made 15 years ago, they're not buying into it.
00:19:21.820
When he says we're not going to touch it, they're not satisfied, because they're convinced that his
00:19:26.200
position actually is the one that I just articulated, that he's going to lock women up who
00:19:30.680
have abortions, and he's going to go back to Leviticus and replace the criminal code with it.
00:19:36.340
So this isn't to say that he should do that. But conservatives need to be less afraid of what
00:19:42.580
people are going to think about their positions, because the criticism is going to be there no matter
00:19:48.500
what. So we should be a lot less focused on that and more focused on this is what we stand for,
00:19:54.380
this is who we are. Now, to be clear, I don't think the Conservative Party of Canada is a pro-life
00:19:59.660
party. I think it's a party that has some pro-life people in it. I think it's a party that also has
00:20:05.140
pro-choice people in it. The Liberals used to be that way. They used to be a party that was
00:20:10.640
predominantly pro-choice, but had pro-life people in it. Now it's a pro-choice party.
00:20:15.180
But there's nothing wrong with saying, you know what, there are millions of Canadians who are
00:20:20.060
pro-choice, and there are millions of Canadians who are pro-life. And as a political party,
00:20:24.960
we're going to make sure that we're there to represent all of them. What is wrong with saying
00:20:30.220
that as a party? And to be honest, I think you'd go a lot further by saying that, because at least it
00:20:36.800
would be authentic. It's very inauthentic now when you get Conservatives who are coasting to victory
00:20:43.820
in leadership races and nomination races because of pro-life support. Groups like Right Now and the
00:20:50.260
Campaign Life Coalition, which can mobilize volunteers, votes, and money for pro-life candidates.
00:20:56.160
Andrew Scheer, by the way, was the beneficiary of this. The only reason Andrew Scheer is the leader
00:21:00.700
of the Conservatives right now is because of pro-life support. Remember, Brad Trost's support went to
00:21:08.480
Andrew Scheer almost exclusively in like the, you know, whenever Brad Trost was eliminated. So that
00:21:14.400
would be, he was fourth place. So whatever round of balloting that was, I think the ninth round of
00:21:18.720
counting or something. Doug Ford in Ontario. Only the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of
00:21:24.540
Ontario right now because of the social conservative support that came from Tanya Granik-Allen. When she
00:21:30.540
was eliminated, almost all of that support went to Doug Ford. So Andrew Scheer is not the conservative
00:21:38.280
leader without pro-life support. Everyone knows it. Pro-life people know it and pro-choice people know
00:21:43.440
it. So when he says, oh, I'm not talking about these, no, people don't buy it. People don't buy it because
00:21:49.520
everyone assumes there had to have been some wink wink at some point with a pro-life group. And we know
00:21:56.400
this for a fact. Andrew Scheer was interviewed by RightNow, a great organization that does a lot of
00:22:01.500
good work. And they ended up endorsing him. They gave him, I think it was an A plus or it might have
00:22:06.860
been an A ranking. And the reason is because he said, look, you know, my personal beliefs, I'm Catholic.
00:22:12.560
The Conservative Party won't introduce as a party legislation on this, but we'll let individual
00:22:17.940
members do it. And I do defend Andrew Scheer that that position has not changed. That position has not
00:22:25.440
changed since he was running in the leadership. It hasn't changed since he was a member of the
00:22:29.700
Conservative caucus. And it hasn't changed now that he's the leader. What has changed is that there is
00:22:36.360
a lot more fear now. The closer the election gets, the greater the sensitivities are about these social
00:22:42.160
issues. But the Conservatives know, because it happens all the time, that the Liberals are going to
00:22:48.400
drive at these issues. They're going to impose this social litmus test. And what ends up happening is
00:22:55.440
what ends up happening without fail is the Conservatives are so desperate to tell people
00:23:01.220
that I'm not a social Conservative, that they alienate the supporters of theirs who are. And they
00:23:07.320
don't win the support of the people that think it's off putting for there to be a social Conservative
00:23:11.820
in a position of leadership. So you end up only losing support. And I think that clinging to your
00:23:17.180
conscience is going to go a long way. Now, again, Andrew Scheer is not a theocrat. He's legitimately not a
00:23:24.060
person that wants to get in because he wants to legislate on social issues. But saying unabashedly,
00:23:29.740
look, everyone knows my stance on it. I'm a Catholic. And I go to church. And I believe what
00:23:33.600
my church says. And everyone knows where I am on this personally. And yes, my party is not there.
00:23:39.000
But individual members who want to be can be. But instead, it seems like he's apologizing and
00:23:45.520
backtracking and is unsure of his footing because he knows the attacks are coming.
00:23:49.820
And I want to make it clear, I'm not actually attacking Andrew Scheer right here. I'm not
00:23:56.360
because I think that he's going down this road that all Conservatives do. And I get it. I get why
00:24:03.380
you don't want the media to be attacking you as though you are the theocrat, as though you are,
00:24:07.620
you know, like the Canadian equivalent of like the Comanus with the Ayatollah's blue book,
00:24:13.100
or was it green? It was green book or blue book. I think it was actually published with both.
00:24:16.500
But nevertheless, this is where Andrew Scheer is right now. So I mean, Corey writes,
00:24:23.500
why wouldn't he seek all the votes he can get? This is the whole point, though, you can't be
00:24:28.440
everything to everyone. When you try to win everyone's support, you end up losing a lot of
00:24:33.680
support. Because there are going to be people whose deal breaker is someone else's vote winning.
00:24:40.420
I mean, that's the thing. So there are lots of people that will say, yes, I'll vote for you if
00:24:44.060
you're pro-life. And you say, oh, well, I'm pro-life. And then there are going to be people that say,
00:24:47.540
I'm not going to vote for you because you're pro-life. There's no middle ground between these
00:24:51.720
people. You have to pick one. And that's it. And when in doubt, you should always be yourself.
00:24:58.680
Dave writes, all he had to say was that it was a different time and half the Liberals voted against
00:25:03.700
it. He looks weak, letting them be bullies. Well, I don't like the it was a different time answer
00:25:09.700
if his position hasn't changed. And by the way, I'm convinced that Andrew Scheer does believe
00:25:14.780
the same thing that he believed then. And there was a great interview he did on, I think it was
00:25:21.380
with Rosie Barton. It was on power and politics. He had either just become the conservative leader
00:25:26.800
or he was a leadership candidate. So I can't remember the timing. But she asks about this,
00:25:33.560
you know, do you personally believe in same thing? And this is 2017. This is not 15 years ago.
00:25:38.280
She says, you know, yes, you're not going to touch it. We agree. We accept. But do you personally
00:25:42.660
believe in same sex marriage? And he kind of whispers and looks down and says, I do not.
00:25:48.900
And I think it was so quiet. I'm not even sure that Rosie Barton heard it. And if you look in the
00:25:54.720
clip, it even says, like, you know, turn your volume way up. But he is a man of integrity. And I know
00:26:00.440
that there are going to be a lot of PPC supporters that don't like that. But I believe that he genuinely
00:26:06.060
has his values, has his beliefs, has his morals, and sticks to them. Whether I agree with everything
00:26:11.500
he says and does politically is a different story. But I believe that he is a man of integrity.
00:26:16.860
And what I genuinely want people to say is, I don't need to agree with his beliefs,
00:26:24.280
his religious beliefs, his social issues beliefs, to say, maybe I would vote for him. And this is not
00:26:30.040
an endorsement of him. It should be like that with any politics, with any politician. But again,
00:26:35.280
why is the media not asking Justin Trudeau what his Catholicism means for his belief? Why are they
00:26:40.820
not asking Jagmeet Singh? I mean, this is a big one, because Jagmeet Singh is untested. He's a new
00:26:46.040
leader. Because no one wants to seem anti-Sikh. No one wants to seem racist. You better believe that if
00:26:52.920
there were a party leader right now who were a Muslim, no one in the media would dare ask about
00:26:59.120
their beliefs on issues for which the Muslim faith has a position that runs counter to Canada's liberal
00:27:05.020
sensibilities. It just would not happen. So the way around this is either A, to enforce this equally,
00:27:11.880
to enforce this evenly, or to say, hey, maybe we can back off the social litmus test, accept that there
00:27:18.120
are Canadians of all stripes, of all denominations, and of no faith at all, that have different beliefs
00:27:23.980
on these religious and social questions. And we can't accept that 100% of our politicians will be
00:27:31.260
in alignment with one third of the electorate just because the liberals say so. And that's what
00:27:37.320
they're doing here. They are, this is the very definition of elite. This is the very definition of
00:27:42.680
elite. They are trying to put their beliefs above yours, regardless of what yours are, to say,
00:27:47.780
we know better than you, we're smarter than you, and we are more morally pure than you.
00:27:53.200
And they're going to continue to berate and insult people of faith because it's what they do.
00:27:58.440
We saw when Julie Payette was on the job for not less than a year, and she's saying, you know,
00:28:03.440
mocking anyone that says they have a religious belief about the origins of the world. It's an
00:28:09.640
afterthought. I mean, they don't, it's not even a conscious decision. It's just second nature to a lot of
00:28:15.240
these people in these elite positions. And that's what's lending itself to this litmus test that I've
00:28:20.280
been talking about. So the way to fight back against it is to not shuffle your feet, look down and avoid
00:28:26.680
talking about it, but to say, look, this is who I am. This is what I am. And I have, I didn't support
00:28:32.980
Michael Chong in his leadership, but I had a lot of support for Michael Chong when he said, look, I am
00:28:38.180
pro-choice, absolutely, but 100%, anyone in my party, if I'm the leader, can advance an issue of
00:28:45.620
conscience if that's what they believe. And, you know, it was a lot more truthful when he said it,
00:28:52.640
I think, because he's not a pro-life person. Whereas he was a pro-choice person that said, yes, I realize
00:28:59.480
that the conservative movement has pro-life people. Whereas what we're used to getting in politics in
00:29:04.120
Canada are pro-life politicians that are so terrified of being branded the way that they
00:29:09.540
want to be branded when they're running in a nomination battle or in a leadership race.
00:29:14.140
And that's where we are now. So you're never going to win the support of people by abandoning
00:29:18.320
who you are, but you are going to lose the support of the people that have been backing you along the
00:29:22.660
way. One note I will say on the note of principles, we are going to be as true north this election season
00:29:29.520
covering a lot of the issues the mainstream media is not. As you've seen in this little episode of
00:29:34.800
the show here, covering the issues in a perspective the mainstream media is not. We're also doing it
00:29:40.580
without the mainstream media budget. So if you can chip in and support the work that we're doing,
00:29:45.120
please do. There's a link in the description box there to support our election coverage fund.
00:29:50.400
Because we are a charity, all donations get you a nice little tax receipt. So if you don't do it out
00:29:55.800
of principle, do it out of money. But I do appreciate in advance any support you're able to offer.
00:30:00.720
We'll talk to you next week. Thank you everyone for True North. Thank you. God bless and good day.