Juno News - The Trudeau government wants to decide what you see on the news

00:00:00.000 What are qualified Canadian journalism outlets and why has the Canadian government put itself

00:00:04.840 in charge of deciding what you get to see for your news? I'm Candice Malcolm and this is the

00:00:08.720 Candice Malcolm Show. Hi everyone, thank you so much for tuning into the podcast. So we've been

00:00:24.440 talking in recent days and weeks about the new legislation being put forth by the Trudeau

00:00:29.380 government and how it restricts our ability to speak freely as Canadians. It impacts our free

00:00:34.920 speech as well as freedom of the press and today I wanted to look specifically at Bill C-18 and

00:00:41.560 discuss how it impacts the news that you see. So it's called the Online News Act and part of this

00:00:48.380 legislation is designating certain journalism outlets as qualified Canadian journalism outlets. So in

00:00:55.180 order to be approved by the government, we've learned, you have to be approved by a small board

00:01:00.460 put together by the Trudeau government. So I want to go back to a Twitter thread put out by Jesse Brown.

00:01:06.060 Jesse Brown is the publisher and editor-in-chief over at Candleland. We put out a request to Jesse

00:01:11.060 to see if you'd want to come join the podcast and discuss what he's found. He hasn't gotten back to

00:01:15.940 us. If he does, I'd be happy to have him on the show. But Jesse Brown writes this. He says,

00:01:20.380 in 2020, the Trudeau government started paying ongoing subsidies to newspapers. It was a trip

00:01:26.320 into the unknown. How did government decide which papers to bail out and which to let die? What about

00:01:31.760 independence of the press? Big questions. Now there are two years of answers threads. So this is a

00:01:37.500 thread that Jesse put together back on April 4th. So he continues. He writes, meet the five people who

00:01:42.860 decide which news orgs are qualified Canadian journalism outlets, which are known as QCJOs. It's a

00:01:50.160 board of news experts, academics and retired journalists paid by government to read articles

00:01:55.320 from every news organization that applied and decide which are up to the snuff. So here we see the five

00:02:01.160 people who are appointed to this Trudeau government board. And as you can see from this map, we have

00:02:06.600 four people from eastern Canada. Looks like two from Quebec, one from Ottawa, which is almost basically

00:02:12.440 Quebec, and one from the Maritimes. You have no one from the entire center of the country, no one from

00:02:17.940 the from the prairies, no one from the west, one person from Vancouver. So really not a very balanced

00:02:24.880 organization here regionally, if you ask me. But these are the people who determine whether or not

00:02:30.640 you are qualified. So Jesse continues, he says, in year one of the media bailout, the board passed

00:02:36.200 judgment on 159 news organizations. In June, they released their first annual report. So how many news

00:02:43.080 orgs from the 159 got in? Which ones? How much money did they get? Also, who got rejected and why? And so he

00:02:51.060 shows a screenshot from the annual report shows the statistics. So between March 2020 and March 2021,

00:02:57.060 the board has received and returned to the CRA, a total of 159 requests for recommendation. Of those 157

00:03:04.860 recommendations were QCJO designated applications, and two were rejected. Okay, so so two were rejected, 157 were

00:03:14.300 approved. But as Jesse continues, he says they aren't telling. The names of the news organizations currently

00:03:19.360 funded by taxpayers is a secret. The amounts they receive are a secret. The names of those rejected are a secret. And

00:03:25.740 the reasons why they were rejected are a secret. The board meets in secret. There are no videos online of their

00:03:31.940 meetings. No minutes can be read. Canadian newspapers said that they would die without government aid.

00:03:37.060 This board decides which ones qualify for it. Their rulings could mean life or death for a news org. And

00:03:41.960 it's all kept a secret. And he says, don't blame the board. It wasn't their choice. Governments chose to

00:03:46.360 put this under the CRA, where tax laws conceal the names of the beneficiaries. This broke an explicit promise

00:03:52.920 of transparency that Minister Pablo Rodriguez made to Evan Solomon. So here is a clip from CTV with Evan

00:04:00.920 Solomon, the journalist, asking the heritage minister, whether it be secret. And you can see Minister Rigo's response

00:04:06.920 right here. Here is that clip. Will you promise to make every decision this advisory group makes and the next group

00:04:14.160 makes transparent in terms of how your government decides who is what your government calls a qualified

00:04:20.760 journalistic organization and why they got the money? Will all that be transparent and no secrecy?

00:04:27.720 Absolutely. Absolutely. All the recommendations. And so they'll be making recommendations on a lot of

00:04:33.240 things. And some, some will maybe, anyways, 100% of the recommendations, as you were asking, will be, will be public.

00:04:42.120 It is because it's the whole intent of our action, making, making sure that this is done on an arm's

00:04:49.480 length basis, respecting the experts that sit on those panels. You know, the groups are consulting to

00:04:55.800 name experts, can name people in their organization, can name people outside of their own organization.

00:05:02.680 So we'll listen to them, we'll listen to what they say, and we'll definitely make it public. It's really

00:05:07.720 important that we do so and we will. And again, he says 100% transparency, the minister promised 100%

00:05:13.480 transparency. And yet, we know nothing. The only thing we know, as Brown later points out in his

00:05:19.720 Twitter thread, is that the only people who we know what funding they receive are publicly traded news

00:05:25.000 companies who have to disclose their funding. So Post Media got $6.9 million in tax credits. In 2020,

00:05:31.320 the Toronto Star got $6.8 million. But we don't know for other newspapers that were privately held,

00:05:36.120 such as the Globe and Mail. We do know about one organization that was rejected because they

00:05:41.640 themselves made it public. I'm talking about Rebel News. You may have heard the news last week that

00:05:46.120 Ezra Levant, Rebel Commander and Rebel News is suing the government after their outlet was denied to be

00:05:52.760 covered under this qualified Canadian journalism organization status. And so Levant tweeted this out,

00:05:59.640 he said that the board reviewed his content, they looked at a total of 276 news stories, it took them

00:06:07.400 over a year to do that. And the board, this is a quote from Ezra, they declared to get this, that quote,

00:06:13.800 less than 1% of the content meets the criteria for original news. So what a strange world we live in,

00:06:20.360 where the government is the one that gets to determine whether or not you're a journalist,

00:06:25.640 a qualified journalism organization, whether you qualify for funding, and there's a whole bunch of

00:06:30.360 other consequences that come with that. So joining me today on the podcast, I'm really pleased to

00:06:35.480 welcome my friend and colleague, Andrew Lawton. Andrew is a senior journalist here with True North,

00:06:40.920 and he is the host of The Andrew Lawton Show. Andrew, thank you so much for joining us today.

00:06:45.240 Andrew Lawton Hey, always a pleasure. Thanks for having me on.

00:06:47.800 Andrew Lawton So I mean, I don't think that you

00:06:50.520 will be a very big fan of this regime that's being brought in when it comes to the mix of

00:06:55.800 journalism and government. What do you think of this whole secret panel, and a government

00:07:01.320 appointed panel in the first place getting to determine who is and who isn't a journalist?

00:07:05.480 Andrew Lawton You know, I remember when the Global

00:07:09.080 Conference for Media Freedom took place back in July of I think 2019. And the government of Canada

00:07:16.840 was in the UK talking a big game about media freedom in Congo and media freedom in Venezuela

00:07:22.760 and media freedom in Iran without looking in the mirror and talking about its own very dismal record

00:07:27.720 to media freedom. And this isn't just the Liberal Party banning independent journalists from covering

00:07:32.520 its campaign events. But as we see here, it's the government getting into the business of deciding

00:07:38.520 what a journalist is. And this is something that is quite significant because it also means the

00:07:43.960 government is, as in the case of Rebel, also saying what isn't a journalist and that the idea of a

00:07:50.040 government designation, something that doesn't exist in Canada in the form of a license, is now

00:07:55.800 effectively coming in through the back door through this. Because if you're someone that is, let's just

00:08:00.600 look at the convoy as a great example, when you had police questioning people as to why they were

00:08:05.000 walking down the streets of Ottawa, and you could say, I'm a journalist, and they say, well, prove it.

00:08:09.560 And the response that I'd give is, well, there is no national license to be a journalist in Canada.

00:08:15.080 If you want to be a journalist, you just work as a journalist. But now when government is doing this,

00:08:19.880 that they're actually making themselves the gatekeepers. And it's very, very dangerous.

00:08:25.000 Well, I remember you telling the stories about how they were asking for like an official piece

00:08:28.360 of government ID. And to me, that's so Ottawa, that's such an Ottawa mentality that if you're something

00:08:32.920 official, you have some kind of an ID card. And basically what they were asking for was a

00:08:37.720 parliamentary press pass, which True North doesn't have. I mean, we can apply for temporary ones.

00:08:43.960 But this is really formalizing it. So what else? So if you become a qualified outlet, I know you

00:08:51.320 can apply for government funding. True North has chosen not to, because we don't want government

00:08:56.040 funding. We're not interested. So we haven't even bothered putting an application in. What else

00:09:01.160 is this qualification? What does it do? Aside from just government funding, does it have any other

00:09:08.360 powers? Does it have any other ability to, you know, prevent or enable journalists from practicing

00:09:15.080 in Canada? Well, not directly, but you have to look at the broader package of what the government is

00:09:21.480 trying to do here. And in the last parliament, there were three bills that significantly regulated

00:09:27.400 the internet. And a couple of those have come back already. Bill C-10 has come back as C-11.

00:09:32.200 One of the other ones came back as C-18, which is what we're talking about now. And then there was

00:09:36.920 also an online hate speech bill. And all of these combined basically expand the purview of the

00:09:43.720 government to regulate the internet and regulate internet content providers. And one of the things

00:09:49.000 that Minister Stephen Gilboa has said is that, well, we're not going to regulate news providers.

00:09:53.720 But the definition of what a news provider is, is now something that the government gets to decide.

00:09:59.720 So if they say, well, we don't recognize you as a news agency, all of a sudden the government is able

00:10:05.160 to regulate someone. So the government could regulate someone like Rebel News, for example,

00:10:09.880 as a group the government does not recognize as a legitimate journalism organization. And the reason

00:10:16.280 this also is significant is one of the things they're trying to do is force social media companies like

00:10:22.120 Facebook and Google to pay for news. So they want big tech to subsidize news.

00:10:27.480 Now I've got a lot of issues with big tech, but I have to defend the tech companies here

00:10:31.960 because news is a very small subset of what they do. And Facebook has been very transparent or meta

00:10:37.880 rather to its credit about this, as far as the small percentage of their market share

00:10:42.840 that is related to news content. They get a lot more money out of influencers and silly videos and cats and

00:10:49.880 memes and all of that than they do out of news. And what the government is saying that, no, no, no,

00:10:54.120 you need to pay these companies. So it isn't just about the tax credits. It's not just about evading

00:10:58.760 government licensing. It's also about forcing a pipeline of money from big tech companies to subsidize

00:11:05.240 journalism.

00:11:06.360 It's so funny where we're now in the situation where we're defending these tech companies,

00:11:11.320 because usually, you know, we're some of the biggest critics of them. Yeah. But I'm just reading

00:11:15.800 here that Bill C-18, the Online News Act, would ensure that news media and journalists receive

00:11:21.320 fair compensation for their work. So it would require tech giants to make fair deals with outlets

00:11:27.400 for the news and information that is shared on their platform. It just seems, I mean, to me,

00:11:31.240 the idea that somehow the government, the Trudeau government thinks that it is the one that is

00:11:36.200 responsible for ensuring that journalists get fair compensation for their work. Like, I thought that

00:11:42.040 was the job of the market, right? It's like, if you're a competent journalist who is able to get

00:11:47.800 people to pay for your work and encourage people that there's value in your work, that's up to the

00:11:54.040 journalists, that's up to the consumer, that's up to the market. This whole idea that somehow Trudeau is

00:11:59.720 going to like valiantly step in and, you know, be the knight in shining armor to save these media outlets

00:12:06.680 is just sort of, to me, it seems so antiquated and out of touch. Andrew, to your point that most

00:12:12.200 of the people who have huge audiences on social media platforms, it's because they're doing something

00:12:17.560 fun and compelling, not because the government is forcing their hand. I'm just wondering, like,

00:12:27.000 do you think this is going to work? Do you think that somehow this is going to save outlets like

00:12:31.640 Post Media and Toronto Star and Globe and Mail from the fate that they've seen over the last

00:12:36.600 several years of just declining readership and declining profits? I know. I mean, you can,

00:12:42.920 the problem is they need a business model that is going to be modern. And unfortunately, the only

00:12:48.760 alternative that's being offered up by government and also by a lot of these outlets is the subsidy

00:12:54.840 model. That's basically it. I mean, when we say find a new model, we don't mean replace

00:12:59.960 advertising and subscriptions with government subsidy. We mean, be innovative, do what True

00:13:04.760 North is doing, do what Rebel is doing, do what Epoch Times is doing. I mean, there's a whole host

00:13:09.080 of independent media companies that have developed new models, yet newspapers have tremendous overhead.

00:13:15.640 They've got these giant, you know, multi-million dollar buildings and downtown spaces. They've got

00:13:20.440 real estate holding. I mean, all of this stuff, and it isn't viable. It isn't working at all. But the

00:13:25.240 answer to that is not to get government to bankroll it, when even that hasn't exactly stopped layoffs

00:13:31.800 for media companies. And interesting thing here about social media is that we are talking about

00:13:39.320 companies here that are not messing around in some ways, and they're bigger than the countries

00:13:45.000 that are passing these. I remember when Australia moved very aggressively to do a very similar thing

00:13:50.680 to what Minister Gilboa was doing. And there was a time when Facebook, in protest of this,

00:13:55.320 banned you from sharing a link to an Australian news website. And I know, for whatever reason,

00:14:01.240 my website had an Australian server. And there was a time until I got it sorted out where you couldn't

00:14:07.320 share a link to my website because Facebook thought I was an Australian, which may have been a

00:14:12.200 compliment. I don't know. But that was a very chilling thing, when all of a sudden you're trying

00:14:16.680 to share a link and you're getting the old New York Post Hunter Biden laptop treatment of like,

00:14:21.080 just the link will not post because Facebook has decided it's not worth the hassle. And I fear that

00:14:27.080 could happen in Canada. Any companies that are saying we want Facebook to subsidize us, I would say,

00:14:33.640 well, are you not posting your content on Facebook? Are you not using Facebook and Twitter

00:14:39.080 to amass an audience? I mean, you need them more than they need you.

00:14:43.000 Well, it's so funny, because we were talking about this, I remember when this,

00:14:47.160 because the media companies, the newspapers have been advocating for this for a long time. And it's

00:14:51.960 kind of funny, Andrew, I know, in the in the early days, when we were trying to get accredited for the

00:14:56.040 liberal campaign, to have you embedded as a journalist there back at the 2019 election,

00:15:01.080 they were saying, No, you guys can't come because you're not journalists, you're activists, right?

00:15:05.000 And you do advocacy or something like that, which we don't, but that's just sort of code,

00:15:10.200 their way of saying conservatives aren't welcome, basically, or conservative news outlets. But

00:15:14.760 anyway, at the same time, the newspapers were doing a real advocacy campaign to the Trudeau

00:15:19.240 government lobbying for them to get this kind of treatment. And, and, and one of the things was

00:15:23.960 that, you know, Facebook, everyone knows that Facebook and Google have sort of eaten the lunch

00:15:27.720 of the advertising company, you can you can, if you want to buy an ad for a small business,

00:15:31.240 you can target your audience so much better on Facebook and Google, you can reach the exact type of

00:15:36.280 person where that you want. Whereas if you put an ad in a newspaper, you know, it goes to everybody,

00:15:41.000 and most of those people won't even pay any attention to your, to your ad, and you're not

00:15:46.200 going to get good bang for your buck. So Google and Facebook do a much better job with advertising

00:15:51.640 than these newspaper companies. But the idea was, oh, you know, people can share our content for free

00:15:57.000 on Facebook, you go to like almost any link shared by the Toronto Star. And it's like the only

00:16:02.600 ones sharing it are the Toronto Star. So somehow the Toronto Star wants to be compensated for the

00:16:08.360 fact that they're sharing their own news story on Facebook. And then it's wild, because that's

00:16:13.560 basically what this, what this bill does is making sure that Facebook and Google pay these companies

00:16:20.120 for every time their link is shared online, even though they, frankly, they don't get shared that

00:16:25.000 much. A lot of the stuff they put out isn't that interesting, people aren't that, you know,

00:16:29.320 interested in sharing this kind of stuff. I wonder, you mentioned the whole Australia thing,

00:16:33.560 and how in Facebook, Facebook kind of just flex their muscles and said, like, we don't have to do

00:16:37.960 this, because all we have to do is shut you down, you have no recourse. Do you think that the tech

00:16:43.960 companies are going to go along with this? Because all of this legislation says we've modeled after

00:16:48.440 Australia, when I hear that, I kind of laugh, because I think the Australia legislation was a failure,

00:16:53.640 like, they introduced this legislation, Facebook flexed by just completely shutting off all the

00:16:58.920 news stories, like you mentioned. And then Australia had to go in and rejig and rewrite

00:17:03.480 their legislation, so that it wasn't as aggressive, because Facebook slapped it down so hard. So

00:17:08.360 I have a hard time imagining that the big tech companies in Silicon Valley will go along with

00:17:14.040 a government kind of trying to meddle in their business metal with their algorithm,

00:17:17.720 tell them they have to pay. Once they do this, it sets a precedent that they're going to have to do

00:17:21.560 this for all kinds of other governments. What do you think?

00:17:24.280 Yeah, that's certainly the concern is that all of a sudden, and again, these companies

00:17:28.040 have invested considerably in government relations and lobbying. So they are engaging with government

00:17:33.800 on this. And I know they're probably trying to exact concessions behind the scenes here.

00:17:38.280 And again, how powerfully they're going to be able to do that, we don't know. Governments

00:17:42.120 are committed more to ideology right now. They want to be able to say they're saving local news and saving

00:17:47.640 journalism in all of this. But the result of it is that you have a journalism industry that is

00:17:52.520 entirely dependent on government. And even if, I mean, this is why it's so brilliant, because

00:17:57.640 government can pass a bill that makes Facebook and Google and Twitter and whatever subsidize

00:18:03.720 news outlets, but it's government that's claiming the credit. It's government that's doing it without

00:18:08.600 actually having to shell out the money. And they're saying, no, no, no, we're not subsidizing,

00:18:13.000 we're not paying, but we're saving, we're saving media. And in doing so, that is going to be very

00:18:19.480 difficult for the next government to take away. And we even saw in the last election in September,

00:18:25.560 Aaron O'Toole, and we can have a different discussion about the why, but Aaron O'Toole was

00:18:29.720 very reticent to say, we're going to rip up the $600 million media bailout and CBCD funding, because

00:18:35.800 it becomes very difficult once government has decided to establish some pot of money for something

00:18:41.080 for another government to go in and take that away. Which is why you never see the rollback

00:18:45.720 of government policies and that you're right. I mean, I hate to give Trudeau any credit,

00:18:50.040 but it's the brilliance of his campaign. And you can go back because in 2015, Andrew,

00:18:54.680 the Trudeau government pledged to quadruple the cut that had been made by the Harper government. So,

00:19:01.080 so I think Harper cut 150 million and Trudeau came back with like 500 million or something like that

00:19:08.600 in additional funds. So he basically won that election in part by bribing the CBC saying,

00:19:13.640 if you elect me, you'll get all this money. If you elect the other guy, you won't and you could

00:19:17.640 lose your job, which puts a journalist in a direct conflict of interest where their,

00:19:21.880 their livelihood could potentially be at stake. That was, they were so successful in 2015 doing

00:19:26.840 that. They brought out the same playbook in the 2019 election, but made it much, much broader with

00:19:32.360 the newspaper bailout because Andrew Scheer, the conservative leader was opposed to it. So,

00:19:36.760 so all of a sudden, you know, you have journalists covering an election where their jobs could

00:19:41.800 potentially be at stake. How could anyone be fair in that scenario? How could you provide fair coverage?

00:19:46.680 And, and, and then now we're in a situation where they're all on essentially the government dole. I

00:19:51.240 mean, to me, it's wild. It's such a conflict of interest. There is no free press in Canada when you

00:19:56.760 have the government this entangled in it. I mean, Andrew, you've worked in newsrooms,

00:20:01.560 you've worked in legacy media, uh, in the past. Why is it that so many journalists are just sort

00:20:07.880 of complacent and they barely cover this and they don't think it is seem to think it's a big deal.

00:20:11.640 Um, they're allowing a government takeover of the free press in this country.

00:20:15.800 Yeah. And, and I think a lot of them are, I mean, there are good people I've worked with in mainstream

00:20:21.640 media newsrooms that, that I think, no, well, I'm not affected by this. I'm not going to, uh,

00:20:27.320 subsidize. I'm not going to, you know, write favorably about the government because they've

00:20:30.760 done this. So they don't see the broader implication. I mean, in every other space,

00:20:33.960 the illusion of a conflict of interest is just as dangerous as a genuine conflict of interest.

00:20:39.400 And, and I think there's a challenge in, in how the newsrooms themselves are. I mean,

00:20:43.080 when the national news media council or whatever it's called has advocated for this,

00:20:47.400 they have had coordinated campaigns where the front pages, literally the front pages of all

00:20:52.520 mainstream media newspapers are instead a letter to the government saying, do this,

00:20:57.560 implement this policy. And again, if, if you were to have to go back to our previous exchange about

00:21:03.640 a party wanting to roll that back, if you were to have a party in you, let's say 2025 or 2029 or

00:21:09.880 whatever saying we're campaigning on, on rolling this back. Well, how are those newspapers going to

00:21:14.520 respond during the election? Is there going to be a, a big letter on the front page of newspapers

00:21:20.200 telling people why this policy is wrong? So the, the newspapers themselves have become the advocates,

00:21:27.000 even if the individual journalists aren't, and that can't not, uh, filter down to the coverage that

00:21:32.360 people are reading. Well, that's why I find it so funny and amusing that they would call us,

00:21:37.000 you know, activists. And they would say that we engage in advocacy when they literally,

00:21:41.080 you know, that they're pushing for specific legislation. True North would never do that

00:21:45.800 kind of stuff. And for sure. I mean, who knows what kinds of stories are buried or killed or,

00:21:51.320 or what, you know, I mean, just as an example, uh, it was a U S publication,

00:21:56.840 Time magazine that first reported that Justin Trudeau was wearing blackface and almost immediately

00:22:01.480 a bunch of Canadian outlets put out follow-up stories that they had other pictures. So they were just

00:22:05.560 holding, it was like the middle of an election. I think it was CTV and maybe the global mail or

00:22:09.720 something. Global had another one that they had not done anything with. Global. Yeah. They were,

00:22:14.200 and they were just holding it. And so it's like, okay, well, we might as well release this now to

00:22:17.960 someone. It's like, what, what else do you have that you're not reporting? Because for whatever reason,

00:22:23.240 you've justified to yourself that it's not in the public interest. Again, I think we're, we're heading

00:22:27.640 down a pretty, I mean, we're already there. We're already in this weird dystopian world where independent

00:22:32.760 journalists are deemed to be activists like the rebel, like true north. Um, whereas the actual

00:22:39.320 legacy media outlets are doing advocacy, successfully lobbying the government, getting

00:22:44.120 money from it. And then they create this club where they, they lock themselves out. So I guess,

00:22:48.760 final question here, Andrew, uh, what does this mean for all that's like true north? What does this

00:22:52.760 mean for organizations like the independent press gallery? I think it means, well, I mean, for the

00:22:58.120 independent press gallery, I think it means there needs to be a counterbalance to this. And I've

00:23:02.200 always been very, very impressed, not just as a counterbalance to the parliamentary press gallery,

00:23:07.000 but even to the national news media council and to these institutions that are advocating for more

00:23:12.440 of a relationship between government and the press and more of a financial relationship. And I think

00:23:18.040 for outlets like true north, it means that we have to be able to just continue doing what we're doing.

00:23:23.240 I mean, what government is trying to do is, as you mentioned earlier, Candace, manipulate the market.

00:23:27.960 They're trying to create a business model to keep these things going, but they're only doing that

00:23:32.920 because these outlets are, are in a very bad place otherwise. And I think the fact that we are growing

00:23:39.000 and hiring an independent journalist, I mean, the Western standard has been on a hiring spree in the

00:23:43.800 last couple of months. And while they are a competitor in some way, I'm actually quite pleased to see

00:23:48.440 growth in independent media in general. So I think eventually it may take some time,

00:23:52.680 but the audience is going to have the final say on this.

00:23:55.400 Well, you're right. And, and the idea that during an election, you know, if, if the conservative

00:24:00.120 leader comes out and says, we're not going to renew this. And all of a sudden you have front page

00:24:03.800 ads in newspapers. I just think that that, you know, further drives people away from legacy media.

00:24:09.000 It'll drive people to independent media. Cause it's like, how can you trust these guys are not

00:24:12.840 even pretending to be objective anymore? Well, Andrew, I always appreciate your perspective and your

00:24:18.360 opinion. Thank you so much for joining the show.

00:24:20.280 Thank you.

00:24:21.320 All right. That's Andrew Lawton host of the Andrew Lawton show here on true north.

00:24:24.680 I'm Candice Malcolm, and this is the Candice Malcolm show.

Juno News - May 02, 2022

The Trudeau government wants to decide what you see on the news

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript