00:02:33.060Nevertheless, this is Thursday, January 25th, 2023.
00:02:37.120You are tuned into Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.
00:02:39.780Was that a sufficiently irreverent opening to the program here?
00:02:43.480I'm going to be talking a little bit later on about Alberta Premier Danielle Smith taking the stage with Tucker Carlson in Alberta, where he started his efforts to liberate Canada.
00:02:56.100Has Canada been sufficiently liberated after what happened 24 hours ago? We'll find out, I guess.
00:03:00.660But also talking later on about the fallout from the federal court's ruling on the Emergencies Act, finding that Justin Trudeau was not only not justified in invoking the Emergencies Act, but that the way he did it violated Canadians' constitutional rights.
00:03:17.540We've been covering this all week. We will continue as the show progresses.
00:03:21.540But I wanted to actually start off with a bit of like inside politics, inside baseball here for Canadian politics,
00:03:27.700because there is in a majority government, a ton of members of parliament you've never heard of before.
00:03:33.940In a minority government, not as many, but there are still some that are backbenchers in the governing party
00:03:39.000where even someone like me who follows politics a lot, I'll hear their name and I'll be like, I have no idea.
00:03:44.640It could have been like my doctor or something.
00:06:19.740It just makes him a responsible Canadian and a respectful representative of his constituents
00:06:25.760by effectively saying, yeah, I don't want these people saddled with the carbon tax.
00:06:29.820Now, when the Liberals gave that exemption to Atlantic Canada,
00:06:33.040That seemed to be all it took to get Mr. McDonald there to just pipe down, shut up and fall in line because he looked after his constituents.
00:06:40.860It didn't actually matter about the rest of Canadians when all was said and done.
00:06:46.420So why am I talking about Ken McDonald again?
00:06:48.900Well, this week, Ken McDonald showed once again a little glimmer of independence.
00:06:53.440He stood up and said that Justin Trudeau should face a leadership review.
00:06:59.160He says, every leader, every party has a best before date.
00:12:47.320before 2025 the call needs to come from within the house and the number of people in that caucus that
00:12:53.240cannot put their long-term interests front and center is actually shocking because if you're a
00:12:58.300liberal member of parliament in, you know, let's say the GTA, you're in Vancouver, you're in
00:13:04.380Atlantic Canada, you are not going to have a job in two years if the party continues on the path
00:13:11.140it's on. So either these people are just complete and utter cowards, they're complete and utter
00:13:16.120morons because they can't actually see the writing on the wall here, or they just don't care if they
00:13:20.940go down with the ship. And to be honest, I think there's some truth to that idea that a lot of
00:13:25.020these people genuinely do not know that things are as bad as they are. I mean, this is the
00:13:31.380Sunnyways government, but I think a lot of liberal members of parliament, believe it or not,
00:13:35.760are just so enamored with Justin Trudeau themselves. They don't realize just how
00:13:40.680unpopular he is. I won't play it for you because if you've seen it before, but the liberals
00:13:45.980recirculated Pierre Polyev's Apple video. And the text accompanying it was like about Donald Trump
00:13:52.980winning New Hampshire. Like it was a bizarre thing. And I'm like, you don't realize Polyev
00:13:57.300comes out looking pretty good in this exchange, but all they can do is be like, Trump, like that's
00:14:03.360the only liberal, the liberal platform is actually just going to be a picture of Donald Trump and a
00:14:07.520picture of Polyev. And then like 19 pages of just like, you know, Mad Libs or, you know, picture
00:14:12.780books and crosswords or whatever like they don't even need a platform in their view they can just
00:14:16.700say paliev is trump and that's going to be enough for them nevertheless the big news of the week has
00:14:23.100not been the flip-flop of ken mcdonald but it's been the federal courts uh trump card if you will
00:14:29.100on the federal government declaring that the use of the emergencies act was unlawful it did not
00:14:35.420comply with the emergencies act and the measures employed did not comply with the canadian
00:14:40.700constitution. We've talked a lot about what this means in terms of the legal arguments that are
00:14:46.740being put forward. We spoke a bit yesterday on the longer term implications of this and what
00:14:51.760it'll mean if it goes to the federal court of appeal and most likely beyond that to the Supreme
00:14:56.920Court. But I wanted to delve into this in a bit more detail because there have been a lot of
00:15:00.880questions. And one big one is how this has been such a divergence from a lot of the other case
00:15:07.760law on constitutional freedoms in the last few years, which have been, as I've said on the show,
00:15:12.200very deferential to the government and not particularly mindful of protecting people's
00:15:17.380freedoms. James Manson is the Director of Legal Services with the Justice Center for Constitutional
00:15:23.500Freedoms and joins me now. James, it's good to talk to you. I should say to my audience,
00:15:28.420by way of disclosure, I sit on the board of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, but
00:15:32.760that has no bearing on this interview. And this is not to be taken, James, as a performance review
00:15:37.020by your board thanks very much you showed up on time so you're getting a passing grade so far but
00:15:44.060welcome let's start there i mean we've seen a lot of dismal rulings on constitutional freedoms
00:15:49.820in the last several years on covet era cases on free speech cases why did this one in your view
00:15:55.740go the other way like where was the judge going with this that we haven't seen many of his
00:16:00.220colleagues go? That's an excellent question, Andrew. And, you know, I have been struggling
00:16:07.140with the answer to that question for a couple of years, probably like you, probably like a lot of
00:16:13.060the viewers and listeners. Why is it that these courts have been so unwilling to, you know,
00:16:19.700even consider the Charter of Rights or consider these very important issues dealing with all the
00:16:26.760COVID stuff? Why were they so unwilling to do that? And yet, a couple days ago, Justice Mosley
00:16:32.640comes right through and gives us that win that we were looking for so desperately. Why was that the
00:16:38.680case? And I think part of it may be legal. There may be a legal answer to part of that. There also
00:16:45.220may be a psychological answer to part of that. Now, I'm not a psychologist, of course, but
00:16:49.600I think that back in those days, a couple, two, three, four years ago, we all remember the
00:16:56.560the fear right that was going on in our society there was a lot of it going on and i mean i think
00:17:04.800maybe some of us felt it to a greater or lesser degree but i think a lot of people in society
00:17:10.240were very very afraid and i think that that fear extended throughout society which would include
00:17:17.200government the the judiciary a lot of people in positions of authority and i think a lot of this
00:17:24.800may have come from the reticence the fear to say I can't take a position on this I can't hear this
00:17:31.980I'm too afraid of getting COVID and getting sick and potentially dying or you know all the horrible
00:17:36.940things that we were talking about back a few years ago I think a lot of that may have been
00:17:41.760partly what was responsible and so the reason I say that Andrew is because now we're three years
00:17:48.220later we're four years later we're not quite so worried anymore about COVID now COVID is a bit of
00:17:53.800punchline i don't mean to be that glib about it but people say oh i got covered over the weekend
00:17:58.760and it sucked and i had to stay home and no big deal that's where we are now with code right so i
00:18:03.720think partly there's a psychological explanation but the other explanation andrew is more in my
00:18:09.400bailiwick which is legal and so i think maybe the covet stuff was um much more scientifically driven
00:18:22.760it was much more about you know whether there is a scientific explanation for vaccines
00:18:28.440or whether or not staying at home is is the right thing to do medically or whatever and
00:18:32.520there's all these scientific expert reports flying around for all that stuff and the courts were
00:18:37.160really reticent to get involved in all that because of course expert opinions expert evidence
00:18:42.840in the courts it's always very very tricky and in this particular case we weren't really talking so
00:18:49.720much about any of the stuff that was really covid really hardcore covid stuff it was a totally
00:18:56.280different question which was about the emergencies act which is a very very um you know complicated
00:19:04.040issue but it's very legal it's very constitutional it's much more it's something that that a judge
00:19:11.080or a court would have much easier time grappling with in the abstract than covid science medicine
00:19:18.680all that stuff and i mean don't get me wrong andrew i totally um think that the courts should
00:19:25.560have gone there anyway with all the science they totally should have but that's that ship has
00:19:31.000already sailed of course yeah i mean to find a judge who is an expert in science and medicine
00:19:37.720is is very very difficult it's incredibly rare so judges have to be deferential to the the experts
00:19:43.960and when the government puts out you know all of these people in lab coats it's very easy to say
00:19:47.960say, well, okay, yeah, that must be science. And your point about the legal aspects, I think,
00:19:53.640is incredibly important. Now, I'm not a lawyer. I kind of play one on TV sometimes because I've
00:19:58.440studied these cases and covered them. And I have people like yourself whose expertise I get to
00:20:02.780claim credit for in later shows when I repeat it back to my audience. But the Emergencies Act is a
00:20:08.460very well-written piece of legislation, I think, in terms of spelling out the test. And I actually
00:20:14.520found it very easy to go kind of point by point through all of the premises and caveats that it
00:20:20.880gives and try to line that up with the government's argument. And to be honest, there was not a lot
00:20:26.100of subjectivity in the test for a national emergency, in the test for a threat to the
00:20:31.440security of Canada. The only time you got into a pretty ambiguous territory was when it talks
00:20:36.960about cabinet has to have a reasonable belief because they're carving in a bit of subjectivity
00:20:42.120there. But that was where I thought Justice Mosley's decision was much stronger than Commissioner
00:20:49.240Rouleau's decision in the Public Order Emergency Commission, because he was really accepting the
00:20:54.200government's very muddied and muddled interpretation of that legal test, whereas Justice Mosley was
00:20:59.800much stricter and more literal with it, which is, I think, how it was intended. I agree. I totally
00:21:04.860agree i i can't improve upon your comments andrew i mean i mean i think that um i mean we're talking
00:21:14.200about two different animals obviously the the public order commission and then this and i think
00:21:19.240the listeners and viewers know all about what those two different animals are designed to achieve
00:21:24.140one may be totally different than the other one is subject to appeal and one is subject to much
00:21:30.280more rigorous cross-examinations and evidentiary requirements and the other one is not etc
00:21:34.860all that stuff but i think really what every reasonable observer needs to um i think admit
00:21:44.120at the end of the day is that this decision from from from the federal court is much more
00:21:49.460authoritative shall we say with respect to the actual you know text of the of the legislation
00:21:54.860the actual intent of the parliament in in bringing it into effect i mean remembering this all came
00:22:00.820out andrew from the war measures act back in 1970 and the whole debacle of the flq crisis
00:22:06.800basically parliament got together and said we have to change this it has to be much harder
00:22:12.440to invoke these very very stringent very very um serious powers and this is what they came up with
00:22:20.760Right. And so to say that the government suggested or maybe Justice Rouleau acquiesced in in in to suggest that it should be easy or that it should somehow fall to the executive, to cabinet, to just be able to do this whenever it basically wants to.
00:22:40.900is crazy in my view it is it is it is totally totally anathema to what parliament
00:22:49.420did in in you know enacting this brand new piece of legislation a few years 50 years ago right
00:22:56.400yeah and i wanted to ask a little bit about the the mechanics of the next step we know the federal
00:23:01.540government is going to be appealing this which means it will likely go to the federal court of
00:23:06.980appeal. I've heard several lawyers say that the federal court of appeal is almost certainly going
00:23:10.700to take this up given the circumstances. But I'm curious, and I don't know if you can actually
00:23:15.920drill this down into a statistical analysis, but how commonly are trial court decisions from the
00:23:23.000federal court overturned by the federal court of appeal? Or is it really a toss up? Yeah, I don't
00:23:28.260have that statistic. You could probably, I'm not sure if you could find it if you looked. I can tell
00:23:33.420you though that um in this particular case um first of all just so that everybody's clear
00:23:40.580it's not a question of whether they will take it up they have to take it up if the federal court
00:23:46.600of appeal gets a notice of appeal from the government they they have to do the appeal
00:23:51.500because the government and and you know anybody on our side also would have the right to an appeal
00:23:57.260in this case the second appeal which in this case would be to the supreme court of canada
00:24:03.400that one would need to be done by permission you would have to get what they call leave to appeal
00:24:09.020so anyway we're in the first step this is this is a um this is an appeal as of right which means
00:24:15.700that you can you can appeal it there will be an appeal now the question becomes what happens on
00:24:21.400the appeal you know there's different tests and different factors and different things that
00:24:26.740happen on an appeal based on the type of of proceeding we're talking about okay so this
00:24:33.800isn't a trial with a jury for example this is this was what we call a judicial review
00:24:40.000i don't need to bore everybody with it with exactly what that means it's a bit different
00:24:44.420than just a regular case but basically when you go on appeal from this decision um from a judicial
00:24:52.420review, the standard of review, which is what we use to say, what does the court of appeal do?
00:24:58.480What is their function? What are they looking for? Sometimes the appeal court has got a very
00:25:05.280narrow function. They're only looking for some place where the judge made a mistake,
00:25:09.440screwed up, did something really, really wrong. In other cases, like this one,
00:25:15.180Basically, it's kind of a rehearing. It's kind of a do-over. Not entirely a do-over, but kind of a do-over, which is to say that what the appeal court has to do is take a look at the lower court judge's reasons and determine if they basically applied the right standards of review to the declaration and whether or not they applied it all properly.
00:25:43.860Now, that's all very formal language to say it's kind of a do-over. So we're going to have to see how much of a do-over we're talking about here. Are we going to literally have 11,000 pages of the record put before the Court of Appeal? Are we going to have a multi-day hearing in the Court of Appeal? Is it going to take months to get there while everybody prepares their briefs again a second time?
00:26:07.780I don't know as I sit here. I hope not, because I don't want to have a totally, you know, second kick at the can on the part of the government.
00:26:21.040My thinking, my hope anyway, is that this is going to be a fairly, fairly tailored process.
00:26:29.920But nonetheless, it's possible that we get into everything all over again, that we get into the mootness again.
00:26:36.340It's possible that we get into the national emergency finding again.
00:26:40.100It's possible that we get into the national security threat finding.
00:26:44.420It's possible that we get into the Charter of Rights again, because, of course, the Section 2 and Section 8 violations of, you know, with those regulations, those horrible regulations, freezing people's bank accounts.
00:26:58.000It's possible that we have to revisit all of that.
00:27:00.600And given the way the government is going these days, that they seem to be completely unable to recognize and respect the rule of law.
00:27:12.660I'm sorry to be to be so spicy when I say that, but it appears like I honestly can't believe, Andrew, that a government would consider appealing a decision like this.
00:27:24.960Well, yeah, I mean, I can't believe they would have done the first thing, which was freezing the bank accounts right in the get there.
00:27:29.540so that's a fair point i mean they're only they're only real recourse is to just keep digging in and
00:27:34.500hope that eventually they're going to get some seal of approval from from a court i guess well
00:27:38.420and as you said in your last segment i mean we're not going to get help from mr singh so
00:27:42.660yeah it's basically it's basically 2025 or bus right true yeah yeah very very well said
00:27:49.620james manson is the director of legal services with the justice center for constitutional
00:27:53.940freedoms thank you so much james thanks andrew cheers all right thanks here i was thinking on
00:27:58.500the show we would have all of these like great insightful and in-depth comments about uh ken
00:28:02.820mcdonald and avalon about justin trudeau and jagmeet singh about the constitution of canada no
00:28:08.180everyone's commenting on the damn fly so if you want an update on flygate i i plucked it out of
00:28:13.380the coffee his uh lifeless limp soggy corpse is sitting on my coaster and actually oh sorry no
00:28:19.060that is uh those are justin trudeau's poll numbers uh sorry i thought it was the fly
00:28:22.980but uh then we also had uh richard peters says man up and drink the coffee sean is just worried
00:28:29.940about the flies family sean is a a bit of a closet hippie here and angry canadian we see this is what
00:28:36.100i was concerned about angry canadian on youtube which is probably many of you fit that name says
00:28:40.660it's courtesy of klaus schwab yeah this is like i spent too long in davos and now the bugs are just
00:28:45.860like dive bombing themselves into my drink so uh this is like klaus schwab's you believe the bugs
00:28:51.220he just like shipped it over and the fly landed uh perfectly so i don't do i do i i don't know
00:28:57.000i'm i don't know we'll see maybe by the end of the episode i'm still awake though sean says the
00:29:01.720fly was supporting three children so well unfortunately you can just go on a serb like
00:29:06.560everyone else there fly and hopefully you'll be looked after all right the big news yesterday in
00:29:11.140alberta was tucker carlson making good on his vow to liberate the country that's not just my wording
00:29:18.320here he used that himself in a phone call to the prime minister. Thank you for your call you have
00:29:25.900reached the media line for all urgent requests please send your request by email. Yes hi I
00:29:36.620couldn't understand the French part but it's Tucker Carlson calling from the United States
00:29:41.180and I'd be grateful if you pass a message on to the prime minister Justin Trudeau
00:29:45.640we are coming to liberate Canada. We are coming to liberate Canada and we'll be there soon. Merci.
00:29:57.180And so he did. I think there were a combined like 15,000 people out at his two events yesterday,
00:30:04.460one in Calgary and then one in Edmonton in the evening. He had a star-studded panel there,
00:30:10.660conrad black and w brett wilson and the of course jordan peterson who is a late addition and alberta
00:30:18.180premier danielle smith now we'll get to danielle smith in a moment i want to show she tweeted this
00:30:23.780picture which seems to just like trigger so many people here she says free speech means you don't
00:30:28.900just have to talk to the mainstream media finished up in calgary off to edmonton next now i i liked
00:30:35.540the photo, I thought there was a little something missing from it. It was a je ne sais quoi that was
00:30:41.720missing from it. So I tried my own hand at fixing the photo and came up with this.
00:30:47.300Yeah, I think that right there is the real photo. This is a Canadian heritage moment.
00:30:52.960From left to right, there is Jordan Peterson, Premier Danielle Smith, Tucker Carlson,
00:30:57.460and Baron Black of Cross Harbor. Not, just to be technical here, he should never be called Lord
00:31:03.380Lord Conrad Black. It is Conrad Lord Black or just Lord Black or just Conrad Black. But
00:31:08.460he's often erroneously referred to as Lord Conrad Black, which is just not the proper styling. But
00:31:14.040anyway, this is what happens when you watch too much Downton Abbey. But all of that notwithstanding,
00:31:19.120there was one more addition to the photo that I thought was even better than that. And I saw this
00:31:22.960one this morning. Let's put up this one. Oh, right there. We've got Baron Black of Cross Harbor.
00:31:28.300We've got Tucker Carlson, and then we've got Lady Rachel of Emanuel.
00:31:32.760Rachel Emanuel, who is the host of the Alberta Roundup on True North and graced the stage last night and joins us now gracing our stage here.
00:31:42.220Rachel, good to talk to you. Thanks for coming back on the show.
00:36:18.160I'm wanting to learn less just by your introduction.
00:36:21.180One thing I find so offensive, I mean, you talk about the disrespect to our province.
00:36:27.260This is a guy who is an environmental advocate. He's best known for scaling the CN Tower in opposition of fossil fuels when he was working as an environmental advocate.
00:36:38.960But he also scaled the house of our premier.
00:36:41.280So he's a rock climber, not an engineer.
00:36:44.220Maybe he'd be better at that. But imagine that. Imagine somebody going and taking a criminal offense, going onto the roof of a premier,
00:36:51.220that they make that person in charge trying to dictate to us how to pull our resources out of
00:36:56.740ground and how to manage our natural resources how to how to manage our electricity grid that's
00:37:01.620what justin trudeau has done so i'm trying to get him fired and i would love your help on that
00:37:10.020yeah i mean what she said they're entirely consistent with what she and minister rebecca
00:37:14.500schultz have said about gilbo at many other occasions and affairs and i find it interesting
00:37:19.540that the rhetoric on social media appears to be trying to like put on her things he said at other
00:37:25.800points, either in his career or even at other points on stage, instead of like, does anyone
00:37:29.980take issue with what she herself said at this event in front of a crowd of, I think a combined
00:37:35.220crowd of like 15,000. And I don't know, I'm not aware so far, maybe you can correct me if I'm
00:37:39.060wrong, Rachel, of any controversy stemming from anything she said. Of course there isn't, but
00:37:43.740that's not what media is anymore. It's trying to associate with you with people that are perceived
00:37:49.120to be controversial and trying to paint those people as controversial as possible by taking
00:37:53.200clips out of context or saying that things are racist just because you're simply pointing to
00:37:57.360the statistics of something or saying that mass immigration is a bad thing for our countries and
00:38:01.760that it's actually making it so that our healthcare systems are failing and that we don't have enough
00:38:05.760houses in our country and all these types of things and that's really all that media is and
00:38:09.920it's one of the reasons why i just don't watch it anymore i don't pay attention to what the legacy
00:38:13.680media does other than to occasionally point out major mistakes they've made because it's useless
00:38:18.800and it's just untrue. So one thing that I think will be interesting here is that, and let me back
00:38:25.280up. I'm sure there were many people on Daniel Smith's staff. In fact, I've heard whisperings
00:38:29.040of it. They didn't love that she was doing this. And let's face it, there are things that I disagree
00:38:32.860with from with Tucker Carlson on a lot of foreign policy stuff, as well as elsewhere. But it seemed
00:38:38.020to be a win for her. I mean, she spoke to a crowd that might not even be connected to partisan
00:38:43.980in politics because they were drawn there by an American speaker. And I think in that sense,
00:38:49.500she was doing something that probably will help her long term. I mean, there was one guy,
00:38:53.740I think it was Bruce Anderson, the pollster who said, oh, this is going to like hurt her in the
00:38:56.940polls in the next election, which I'm like, yeah, good luck with that. Yeah, I agree with you. I
00:39:01.420think that this event actually boded very well for her. And I think something we've seen the
00:39:05.540premier really improve on, obviously, let's remember, she took a break from politics and
00:39:10.260was a talk show host and as a talk show host you discuss controversial ideas and you sort of say
00:39:15.220your thoughts on things and during the election you know the ndp rolled their clips of daniel
00:39:19.380smith saying all these talking about ideas and they tried to paint it as some really controversial
00:39:23.940and crazy lady for simply wanting open and fair discussion and so i think we've seen that be a bit
00:39:29.540of an issue for her in the early days of her politics and even still she had that willingness
00:39:33.540early on to continue that discussion and i think that she's really kind of coming into her own as
00:39:38.180a politician and she's really learned to finally craft into her message and so i don't notice that
00:39:43.380we're seeing those types of blips at events that she attends as often anymore because she's just
00:39:47.300as really focused and i think she stays really on point on message and i think she did that yesterday
00:39:52.100so i agree that this will really bode well for her in the long run all right well we look forward
00:39:56.900are you going to be doing any of this on your show this weekend of course so you guys on saturday for
00:40:01.620that so keep an eye out for the alberta roundup i i kind of assume i hoped because that would
00:40:06.180would have been a really anticlimactic end of the interview. You said, no, we're doing something
00:40:09.100else. So that'll be on Alberta Roundup this weekend. Rachel Emanuel, as always, keeping us
00:40:13.540connected with what's happening in my, I don't want to say my favorite province in Canada, but
00:40:17.640your favorite province. It's my favorite province in Canada. All right. Thank you so much, Rachel.
00:40:21.660We'll talk to you soon. Talk to you soon. All right. That Sean says, Sean, you're from Toronto.
00:40:26.200You don't get to how dare you me on that. Sean is like now defending the honor of Toronto when I
00:40:31.300say that i love alberta every time i go out to alberta uh there were i there name one good thing
00:40:36.420about ontario sean see he can't do it he says niagara falls you don't even live in niagara
00:40:42.300falls and i don't i couldn't even tell you the last time i went to niagara falls i i should say
00:40:46.000i grew up in ontario i i love ontario for the familiarity of it i can't even say the weather
00:40:51.840is all that much better because i live in the middle of the great lakes we get like ice in our
00:40:56.020faces they just end up like uh you're basically a human icicle you're jack frost when you walk
00:41:00.440down the street in the winter and again here the fly i've never fly has never dive bombed my coffee
00:41:05.380in alberta uh you may get a cougar attack in a parking lot of tim hortons but you're never going
00:41:09.880to get a fly attacking your coffee so uh now this is like my whole chat is everyone's turning on me
00:41:14.520all the ontarians i mean i'm an ontarian i'm one of you all right all of that notwithstanding we
00:41:19.240will uh have that fight on our show we'll do alberta versus ontario if you're one of the other
00:41:23.360provinces i'm sorry you have to find your own fights but uh that does it for us for today we've
00:41:28.080got something very special planned next week, which I want to give you a bit of a glimpse of
00:41:32.120now. So my friend and colleague Mark Stein has been on trial for the last two weeks in Washington,
00:41:39.080D.C. in a, it's again, a case 12 years in the making. He was sued for defamation by Michael
00:41:45.580Mann, who is a big climate Scientologist, not climate Scientologist, a climate scientist,
00:41:50.420I was going to say. And he was the guy who came up with what's called the hockey stick graph,
00:41:55.480which shows that like there had been no warming in the earth ever.
00:41:58.560And then just, you know, in the industrial revolution,
00:42:00.700it just shot up and we're all going to burn and die.
00:42:03.540And Mark Stein has viewed that graph as a fraud.
00:42:24.800And there's certainly a Canadian connection because the Canadian government under Paul Martin, I believe it was, was using the hockey stick graph to justify a lot of what it was doing when it was going into the Kyoto Accord.
00:42:38.140So this has been an influential figure in Canada.
00:42:41.160So we're going to be covering that on the show.
00:42:43.400The show is going to look a little different next week just because of scheduling.
00:42:46.380We're still trying to fine tune that, but we're going to have some interviews and there is going to be an Andrew Lawton show, but it won't be live.
00:42:52.320and we will have daily updates from the trial in Washington, DC.