Juno News - Trudeau's team doing damage control on online censorship bill

00:00:00.000 Transcription by CastingWords

00:00:30.000 Thank you.

00:01:00.000 welcome to canada's most irreverent talk show this is the andrew lawton show brought to you by true

00:01:19.640 north hello and welcome to you all canada's most irreverent talk show here at the andrew

00:01:29.580 lawton show on true north on this thursday march 28th the day before good friday and this is

00:01:37.200 obviously a very solemn and somber occasion for christians a category in which i count myself a

00:01:43.740 very proud member. But it is followed by a very celebratory and joyous day on the weekend. So

00:01:50.860 if Easter is your jam, as the kids say these days, I actually don't know if the kids say that.

00:01:55.740 Actually, I don't know if anyone says that. But at some point, I believe people used to say that.

00:01:59.880 Then I wish you a very happy and blessed Easter this weekend. But alternatively, if you are in

00:02:06.760 the Jewish tradition, it's not quite Passover time. So I will wish you a blessed Passover.

00:02:12.520 in I think it's about a month from now.

00:02:15.200 No, about three or four weeks.

00:02:16.660 Anyway, nevertheless, my calendar on my computer

00:02:20.200 always reminds me of holidays

00:02:21.980 that I like don't even know exist necessarily.

00:02:24.860 Like it's apparently Tartan Day on April 6th

00:02:29.340 and it's in my calendar.

00:02:30.520 And then Vimy Ridge Day, I knew about that one.

00:02:32.740 I probably always forget what day it is,

00:02:34.140 but that's on April 9th.

00:02:35.200 And then as we all know, Louis Real Day,

00:02:38.060 it was trying to get me to celebrate a few weeks back

00:02:39.840 and I wasn't having any of that.

00:02:41.500 But we will never, Easter is a lot more important than Louis Rial Day, I will tell you, despite what Louis Rial maybe thought of himself as being some sort of prophetic figure.

00:02:51.000 But I'm offending all the Manitobans again. Okay, I got to stop doing that. 1.00

00:02:55.120 Welcome to the show. We're going to be talking a little bit later on with our good friend Franco Terrazzano on the eve of the Great Tax Hike Day, April 1st.

00:03:03.760 Not just the carbon tax is going up, but the alcohol tax is going up. Member of Parliament's salaries are going up.

00:03:10.080 April 1st is proving to be a bit of a momentous day and not one that is treating taxpayers all

00:03:17.560 that well. I also want to speak a little bit more about the Online Harms Act. Now this is

00:03:22.600 Bill C-63. This is the piece of legislation the Liberal governments have done that they purport

00:03:27.800 to be a panacea for all that ails internet users. They want to with just one big broad brush deal

00:03:35.200 with child sexual exploitation, revenge porn, the terrorist content that we know is pervasive

00:03:42.840 on the internet, and also online hate.

00:03:47.080 One of these things is not like the other.

00:03:51.520 The online hate provisions are incredibly dangerous.

00:03:54.880 They're also doing criminal code reforms, which I believe are incredibly dangerous.

00:03:59.720 And one of those has become front and center in a little bit of damage control slash political

00:04:04.960 spin being done by the Toronto Star. The Toronto Star ran an op-ed from Sabria DeVetti, who

00:04:12.100 is a longtime media figure in Canada. She says, have you heard the one about Justin Trudeau

00:04:17.760 attacking your free speech online? Trust me, that's just rage farming. Now, Sabria DeVetti,

00:04:25.800 I have known for many years. I have always gotten along with her. Even today, I asked her,

00:04:30.120 because I said I was going to be doing this on the show today. I asked her if she wanted to come on.

00:04:33.800 She said she was tied up in meetings, so couldn't join.

00:04:36.260 I've got a good relationship with her.

00:04:37.880 We were colleagues back when I worked in traditional media at Global.

00:04:42.720 I would occasionally guest host for her on 640 Toronto.

00:04:46.640 So I get along with Supriya, even though I disagree with her on a lot of things.

00:04:50.460 This is not, in my view, however, a case of disagreeing with her opinion.

00:04:55.240 This is a case of her being flat out wrong, in my view.

00:04:58.720 But we'll get to that in a moment.

00:05:00.980 Let's talk about that Toronto Star P.

00:05:02.620 Let's put that up again, Sean.

00:05:03.800 Have you heard the one about Justin Trudeau attacking your free speech online?

00:05:07.140 Trust me, that's just Rage Farming by Supriya DeVetti, contributor.

00:05:12.760 Okay, now what's unique about Supriya DeVetti?

00:05:15.640 She's a lawyer, she's a former talk radio host,

00:05:19.160 but you scroll way down in the bottom of the article there,

00:05:23.320 you get the key part here.

00:05:25.440 Supriya DeVetti is a senior advisor to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

00:05:29.620 and was a former columnist for the Toronto Star.

00:05:33.800 ah she is a Trudeau staffer she left her career she was working I believe at McGill University

00:05:41.000 in one of their uh digital media centers but she left that to go and work for Justin Trudeau okay

00:05:45.800 that's fine I don't know why that's like boarding the Titanic when you're about three quarters over

00:05:51.640 the Atlantic it's already hit the iceberg but hasn't gone down yet and you're like well that

00:05:55.100 the food on that ship looks great so let me get on board but nevertheless Supriya decided she

00:05:59.840 wanted to go on to Justin Trudeau's team. She wanted to be a part of the Prime Minister's

00:06:03.660 office. She is a senior advisor. Nothing wrong with that. Our system relies on people advising

00:06:09.620 the government. But she is also now the spin doctor of this piece of legislation, which I find

00:06:15.740 very, very strange. Political staffers are typically not the ones putting their bylines

00:06:21.140 on columns. Political staffers are not typically the ones doing interviews to sell or champion

00:06:26.560 legislation. I mean, my thinking, and I mean no disrespect to Supriya on this, was there no

00:06:31.300 Liberal member of Parliament that wanted to put their name on a defense of the Online Harms Act

00:06:36.840 in the Toronto Star? Was the Justice Minister who is selling this bill perhaps unavailable or

00:06:42.020 uninterested in doing this? But she talks about criticism of this bill being rage farming. Rage 0.96

00:06:50.760 farming. That's the term she uses. Rage farming, which is basically just trying to gin up hatred 1.00

00:06:55.580 online. She talks about this as though there are no legitimate critiques or criticisms of the bill

00:07:02.640 because she's defending, I mean, she's appealing to authority here. She's defending the bill. When

00:07:07.360 we talk about the hate speech stuff, it prohibits speech, which is fomenting or likely to foment

00:07:12.840 detestation or vilification. The language comes from a Supreme Court decision, but that is not

00:07:19.680 the defense that she and other defenders of this bill seem to think because the Supreme Court

00:07:23.940 left a very confusing decision there

00:07:26.640 that doesn't actually give much in the way of clarity

00:07:29.280 when you want to see how a human rights tribunal

00:07:31.700 is going to adapt that decision

00:07:33.700 to individual expressions of speech.

00:07:36.600 But let's get into where I believe she is factually wrong.

00:07:40.880 Again, I am not a lawyer.

00:07:43.380 I cover legal issues.

00:07:45.320 I interview a lot of lawyers, but I am not a lawyer.

00:07:48.240 So I was fully prepared to admit

00:07:50.140 that I might have been misreading something

00:07:52.200 or I might have been getting something wrong.

00:07:54.200 The more feedback has come from other sources,

00:07:56.480 the more I am convinced that is not, in fact, the case.

00:08:00.340 Because Supriya said this on Twitter.

00:08:03.680 After one user said the bill threatens life in jail

00:08:07.020 over nasty comments to politicians,

00:08:09.360 DiBetti responded by saying,

00:08:10.860 that's not what the bill does.

00:08:13.300 A max of life imprisonment for hate

00:08:15.160 has to accompany an underlying act

00:08:17.800 that is also punishable by max life imprisonment.

00:08:20.360 so if you attempted to murder someone on the basis of their race religion sexual orientation etc

00:08:24.860 so what is at stake here is the amendment to the criminal code that the online harms act puts

00:08:30.020 forward which says if a criminal offense is motivated by hate that criminal offense could

00:08:37.260 carry oh oh you gave it away sean you gave it away no no take that away take that away yeah okay i i

00:08:42.980 that was i was gonna like just bombard people with that at the end to make the point dramatically

00:08:46.620 it's a little less dramatic now, but we'll work on it. The bill says that, you know, if you add

00:08:51.440 an offense, it, or if you add hate motivation to an offense, it carries a life sentence. Now,

00:08:56.800 Supriya was very clear that no, no, no, this will only apply to things that already have a life

00:09:04.500 sentence. Now, she also criticized Andrew Coyne, making the same argument I've made on this on the

00:09:09.720 show. He made it in a Globe and Mail column. Supriya said this about Andrew Coyne's contributions

00:09:14.460 to the matter. Probably unhelpful to the discourse when our national newspaper let's columnists just

00:09:20.220 make all sorts of stuff up about the bill. Coyne is demonstrably wrong here. So that is again her

00:09:28.700 saying that if you make the claim that this bill could theoretically put a life sentence on someone

00:09:35.140 who vandalizes the side of a mosque or the side of a synagogue, again wrong, I'm not defending the

00:09:40.700 act, that that could carry a life sentence. Now, we've talked about this on the show. Judges are

00:09:45.380 unlikely to give a life sentence to someone who does that. But the point is that the criminal

00:09:50.400 code will, if this bill passes, make that possible. Critics have said, including me,

00:09:56.260 that is my reading of the bill. Supriya says in her point, that is just wrong. Now is time,

00:10:03.380 Sean, for the dramatic reveal. Let's consult with the legislation. Everyone who commits

00:10:09.320 an offense under this act, this act refers to the criminal code, or any other act of parliament,

00:10:16.000 if the commission of the offense is motivated by hatred based on race, national, or ethnic origin,

00:10:22.060 language, color, religion, sex, age, mental, or physical disability, sexual orientation,

00:10:25.820 or gender identity, or expression, is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment

00:10:31.780 for life. If you commit an offense that carries theoretically a sentence of less than two years

00:10:38.580 or not even a jail sentence, this bill says that that will be, if motivated by hate, an indictable

00:10:46.340 offense, which means you're talking about a prison term of two years or more, up to life in prison.

00:10:51.700 That is what the legislation says. Now, I very politely pointed this out to Supriya. And again,

00:10:57.220 I loaded my tweet up with caveats because I said, I am not a lawyer here. I could be wrong.

00:11:04.680 If I'm wrong, show me.

00:11:06.240 And I just said, please provide a citation.

00:11:08.980 This was her response to me.

00:11:11.580 She says, it's a more than fair question.

00:11:13.660 The answer is that you and others are reading the legislation

00:11:16.100 in complete isolation from the binding principles of common law

00:11:20.460 that apply to sentencing and bind sentencing judges.

00:11:23.660 Not to mention section 718 of the criminal code,

00:11:26.100 which she shared a screenshot to,

00:11:27.700 which basically says sentences must be proportionate.

00:11:30.700 But no one is talking here about proportionality.

00:11:33.840 we're talking about, does this bill fundamentally alter the maximum permissible sentence based on

00:11:39.720 motivation? The legislation says, yes, Supriya is saying no. She says that we are actually not

00:11:48.640 allowing this to change anything that doesn't already have a life sentence. Now that raises

00:11:53.900 the obvious question, which I put to her because we were having a very civil exchange on X. And I

00:11:58.300 said, okay, well, what's the point of it then? What's the point? This was her response. She says

00:12:03.980 here, the honest answer is that it explicitly denounces hateful conduct. The standalone hate

00:12:09.620 crime provision will make it much easier for law enforcement to track hate crimes across jurisdictions

00:12:14.440 because right now when it's only considered an aggravating factor at sentencing, it's very

00:12:18.860 inefficient. I've never heard this argument champion before. It may or may not be correct.

00:12:23.500 I don't know. But it doesn't fundamentally change that this law is being misrepresented

00:12:28.880 by the prime minister. Well, again, I don't know if the PMO sent her out to write that op-ed,

00:12:34.000 but by someone who works for the PMO and has written an op-ed trying to defend this bill.

00:12:39.140 It's just fundamentally wrong. Now, other people who are far more learned, who are themselves

00:12:43.560 lawyers, have weighed in and mercifully have agreed with the plain text reading that I had

00:12:49.140 of the bill here. Howard Anglin wrote that Andrew Coyne was right. It's exactly what it does and he

00:12:55.880 just says your response is trust judges. Yeah and that's basically the PMO's response here. They're

00:13:01.100 just saying well judges aren't going to give a life sentence for something minor. The point is

00:13:04.720 that this will override the current provisions on this and will give them that option. I want to

00:13:12.540 welcome into the show Christine Van Gein who is the litigation director of the Canadian Constitution

00:13:17.060 Foundation. We've talked about some of these concerns on the show in the past. Always good

00:13:22.080 to talk to you, Christine. All right. Who's right here, Supriya or yours truly? You're right,

00:13:28.600 Andrew. And so are all of the lawyers who are on Twitter with Supriya, I guess, explaining

00:13:36.420 the law to lawyers. As far as I know, is she a lawyer? I don't know. I don't know if she's a

00:13:42.140 member of the bar. I believe she was a lawyer at some point or at least went to law school. I don't

00:13:46.520 know for sure, though. Okay, so I take that back. But I have something that I think will entertain

00:13:54.020 you, which is, I mean, I read this this morning and was quite irritated. I wrote to the Toronto

00:14:00.960 Star saying that if they're going to publish Supriya, who is a government mouthpiece, I mean, 0.89

00:14:07.820 she's... Yeah, literally. I don't even mean that in the way that we often talk about some left-wing 0.98

00:14:11.600 columnist like she's literally yes she works for the the prime minister um if they're going to

00:14:16.960 publish that then they should and allow the critics of this bill who are careful and thoughtful in

00:14:22.320 their criticism then they should allow a rebuttal uh and and they've agreed and they're gonna they're

00:14:26.800 running my rebuttal today i've written one uh and and all credit to the star for agreeing to run a

00:14:32.400 rebuttal to supriya's piece so uh i'm excited that they're gonna run it but i'm a little worried that

00:14:37.680 she's gonna her meltdown will continue and i will now be part of the meltdown but i mean i think

00:14:44.540 someone needs to set the record straight that criticism of this bill is not rage farming it

00:14:51.580 is not bad faith i think the government would do well to remember that freedom of expression in

00:14:57.380 canada and is a fundamental right it is actually a precursor to peace and security and democracy

00:15:06.700 it is not a threat to our society, it's what makes our society possible. And the government

00:15:12.040 should, instead of attacking critics of the bill, which include academics from across the political

00:15:18.280 spectrum, the more than 6,000 people who have written to their members of parliament through

00:15:25.440 the Canadian Constitution Foundation's online platform, expressing their concerns with the bill,

00:15:30.840 The Canadian icons like Margaret Atwood, who have expressed concerns with this piece of legislation, as well as lawyers and academics who actually will be the ones engaged with applying this law.

00:15:45.420 All of that criticism is something that the government should be listening to, not attacking and saying we're rage farming.

00:15:52.840 I mean, no farming is necessary.

00:15:54.920 People are angry and it kind of springs up naturally.

00:15:58.940 like I don't need any fertilizer for this. Sean, can you put up tweet four for a second again?

00:16:06.200 This is the common law, the principles of common law one from Supriya. I want to get your take on

00:16:12.660 this, Christine, because one of the points that Supriya raises here, she said, no, no, it's the

00:16:16.840 other one. The principles of common law one. She says here, no, no, we'll keep going. We'll get

00:16:23.200 there eventually. There we go. The honest answer is, no, no, sorry. Go back to the other one.

00:16:28.940 this is the great thing about live media. So she says here that basically that you can't look at

00:16:36.200 the legislation as a standalone or a separate from principles of common law is basically the

00:16:42.700 thing. We don't have the tweet, but that's fine. You can't look at it separate from common law

00:16:46.200 principles. And as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, because as I've,

00:16:50.360 you know, caveated up the wazoo, I'm not a lawyer, but statute kind of overrides common law, does it

00:16:55.060 not? So I do think that Supriya has a point here in saying that judges will apply principles of

00:17:04.680 proportionality that are already in the criminal code. Section 718.1 of the criminal code deals

00:17:13.000 with sentencing and there's proportionality sentences. There's also common law application

00:17:18.060 of sentencing, that you wouldn't have a disproportionate sentence. But I think that

00:17:24.840 that's true. The legislation does make the things that we're all saying possible. So it certainly

00:17:33.060 would be possible that if you peg on a hate as the motivation to any of these offenses,

00:17:41.700 that the government, the crown, the prosecution can argue for life. They're unlikely to get it.

00:17:47.840 it will relate to the underlying offense, but it's certainly possible for them to argue it.

00:17:54.640 And I think that that's a really important point because what we're not talking, the risk isn't

00:18:01.840 just in whether a court will sentence someone who engages in, for example, mischief motivated by

00:18:09.500 hate or vandalism motivated by hate, it seems unlikely that the courts would give them life

00:18:18.360 imprisonment. But what this legislation does is it allows the Crown to add the hate motivation

00:18:28.240 onto any offense, including a minor offense like mischief or vandalism. And that gives the

00:18:35.960 prosecution the power to threaten far, far, far higher penalties for minor offenses that they can

00:18:43.260 then use to pressure a defendant to plead out, including in cases where a defendant shouldn't

00:18:49.280 plead out because perhaps they are poorly represented. The hate threshold isn't met.

00:18:56.320 This is most likely actually to happen to people who are marginalized in our society who are less

00:19:04.000 able to afford a judge. So it's actually going to end up hurting the most marginalized people

00:19:09.800 in society. And look, I'm not saying that vandalism or mischief, if it's motivated by

00:19:15.740 hatred, and I think some classic examples are the desecration of cemeteries or spray painting

00:19:22.360 offensive symbols onto religious places of worship. I mean, those things, the people who

00:19:28.620 commit those offenses should have an intervention. And a criminal prosecution could be a part of

00:19:33.920 that. But allowing the Crown, the prosecution, to hold this threat of huge penalties by tying

00:19:43.680 the prosecution to a hate offense, really, that's the on-the-ground application of this law.

00:19:51.180 that's really dangerous someone on twitter also pointed out to me that by tying uh adding a hate

00:19:59.320 offense if the person is uh has a is an immigrant has immigrants um some type of uh permanent 1.00

00:20:08.240 residency if it could be used against them in a deportation proceeding even if the charges are

00:20:13.580 not made out but by um having a minor offense moved into a more serious offense category so

00:20:20.340 So there's all kinds of spillover effects that Supriya is frankly ignoring that good 1.00

00:20:25.500 faith critics of this piece of legislation are pointing out.

00:20:28.820 So I'm glad the star is running my rebuttal because I have a lot to say about it.

00:20:32.020 No, so am I.

00:20:33.320 And yeah, I think your point about the, it's easy to focus on judges.

00:20:37.560 And again, an argument that hinges on trust judges is not, in my view, the most compelling

00:20:41.940 one.

00:20:42.940 But even if you do-

00:20:43.940 I mean, the headline of Supriya's article is trust me, trust the government.

00:20:46.940 Trust the government.

00:20:47.940 Trust the PMO.

00:20:48.940 Oh, that's the, but you are right too.

00:20:51.520 I mean, when you talk about that categorization of offenses,

00:20:55.100 it isn't just about the possibility of a life sentence.

00:20:58.020 It's also about taking things

00:20:59.280 that would normally be dispatched with a fine

00:21:01.340 and putting them into indictable offense territory.

00:21:05.140 Yeah, and it's the threat.

00:21:06.780 It's the threat, even if the person,

00:21:10.500 perhaps they have not made out the threshold for hate speech,

00:21:14.440 that they have the threat now to plead out because there's this thing hanging over their head that

00:21:23.260 there's a much more dangerous offense that they could be convicted of that comes with a much more

00:21:28.940 serious penalty. So, I mean, Supriya's article makes a huge number. A lot of these are just

00:21:34.360 straw man arguments, right? Throughout her article, one of the big things that she focuses on

00:21:39.920 is this criticism a lot of us have of peace bonds and she says that uh you know peace bonds the

00:21:48.400 critics of the peace bond provision is that members of the public with the consent of the

00:21:53.400 attorney general can seek a peace bond to put restraints on people for future speech so if

00:22:00.280 there's reasonable grounds to believe that a person will commit a hate engage in hate speech

00:22:06.180 in the future, a court can order all kinds of restraints on speech, including things related

00:22:14.180 to access to the internet. They can even impose house arrest or electronic monitoring, like an

00:22:20.440 ankle bracelet. And people have raised a lot of concerns about this for obvious reasons. And

00:22:27.260 And Supriya says that critics of the peace bonds are misguided, that we're rage farming because peace bonds are not a normal mindset.

00:22:38.300 She blames the right-wing online ecosystem, first and foremost.

00:22:42.340 I think that's you.

00:22:43.380 I think that's me.

00:22:44.240 I think that's me.

00:22:45.120 I believe I'm part of that because she mentions people invoke minority report.

00:22:49.920 And I literally did that like three days ago.

00:22:51.620 So I think I might be obliquely or directly in the crosshairs on this one.

00:22:55.720 I mean, the reality is that no one is no serious critic of this bill is suggesting that the liberal government invented peace bonds in this piece of legislation.

00:23:06.440 We know that they exist. The critics, including us, are saying that the problem is a peace bond for future speech because that in itself is inherently speculative.

00:23:17.540 And in her article, she compares these peace bonds for future hate speech with peace bonds for shocking or terrorism.

00:23:28.020 And I just don't think that this helps her argument at all, because terrorism, you know, courts can be a lot more certain about the risks involved.

00:23:37.340 It's really obvious if someone has bought materials to buy a bomb or build a bomb.

00:23:42.620 And there's also a lot more certainty about what terrorism looks like, whereas with hate speech, the court needs to speculate and get into the mind of a person about what they may say in the future and whether it meets the threshold for hate speech.

00:24:00.040 And that threshold, which comes from a Supreme Court decision in Whatcott, is a really squishy, speculative, and subjective definition. So hate is defined as detestation and vilification. And I mean, frankly, these are synonyms for hate. So hate is defined by reference to itself. It's not especially hate helpful.

00:24:24.460 And I think when you've empowered the public to seek peace bonds against fellow citizens, using a definition they're unlikely to understand, you really are creating a chill on speech. And this is what the critics of the bill are saying. We are not saying that a peace bond is a new creation by Justin Trudeau. We're saying this is a bad application of a peace bond, and there are serious risks associated with it.

00:24:52.400 We're going to attempt to do a tweet again.

00:24:55.460 Maybe we should just avoid it here.

00:24:57.380 But this is a Supriya tweet starts with the honest answer is that it explicitly denounces.

00:25:02.540 So this is in response to me saying, if your claim, there we go, if your claim is that this will only apply to things that already have a life sentence, what's the point of it?

00:25:12.300 She says that it will make it easier for law enforcement to track hate crimes across jurisdictions because it's inefficient when it's only considered an aggravating factor.

00:25:21.180 I'm having trouble following the argument here, but I was wondering if you could weigh in on this

00:25:25.180 at all. I have no idea what she's talking about. I think the goal that the government has

00:25:32.560 is they want more prosecutions for hate offenses, and this is the way to achieve it.

00:25:39.100 So right now it is treated as an aggravating factor, but there also are stand-alone hate

00:25:45.300 offenses already in the criminal code, right? There's provisions about public incitement of

00:25:52.120 hatred and willfully promoting hatred. And they're not, especially on the public incitement,

00:25:58.420 there have not been a lot of prosecutions because the threshold is really high. And it's supposed to

00:26:03.940 be high. I mean, we're talking about criminalizing speech here, which is something that's fundamental

00:26:08.220 to our functioning as a democracy uh so i don't really i think what she what the government wants

00:26:15.940 is more prosecutions for hate offenses this is their way of attempting it but i don't understand

00:26:20.340 her her justification here um i i just don't know what she's referring okay no that that helps me i

00:26:26.700 wanted i thought i was the moron for not being able to figure it out but uh let me just ask you 0.57

00:26:31.160 about the problems with this because the the government you know they always do the oh yes 0.87

00:26:35.980 well we'll talk about this in committee but for the most part they aren't really admitting that

00:26:40.020 they've got anything wrong here they've had years this was first put forward or a version of it in

00:26:45.280 2021 shortly before the election they've been promising it uh basically since that election

00:26:50.080 they were first promising it within the first hundred days uh it's now uh four years well

00:26:54.980 three years after it was first tabled so do you think this is sloppy or do you think everything

00:27:00.180 in there is very deliberate and that's exactly what they wanted. I think that there is zero

00:27:06.540 consideration for how this will actually be applied on the ground. And I think, Andrew,

00:27:13.680 you should interview some criminal defense lawyers to talk about their concerns with the law,

00:27:18.680 because they're the ones who are going to actually be representing people who are now going to be

00:27:24.120 facing this sledgehammer from prosecutors to increase the severity or the potential range of

00:27:32.740 sentences for otherwise minor offenses. Supriya says this is something that we don't need to worry

00:27:38.440 about. Perhaps the government hadn't thought about how this law would be applied on the ground

00:27:44.520 because bureaucrats, including in justice, in the Justice Department, they're not the ones who 0.52

00:27:50.220 actually work and engage with you know people who get charged with crimes so they might not

00:27:58.380 really understand how this could play out if you give the prosecutors this massive tool yeah very

00:28:04.980 well said look forward to your response op-ed in the toronto star not written by someone from the

00:28:10.940 prime minister's office blissfully uh christine van gein litigation director at the canadian

00:28:15.260 constitution foundation always a pleasure have a great easter weekend thank you all right

00:28:20.080 Thank you, Christine. Well, it is on April 1st, the big, great tax hike day. The carbon tax revolt,

00:28:28.180 as I've been calling it, has been underway now for several, I mean, really years, but in particular

00:28:33.620 several weeks. We have seven of 10 premiers who have joined the call with Manitoba Premier Wob

00:28:40.000 Canu, kind of just, you know, figuring out where the wind is blowing before he says anything

00:28:43.680 publicly. But I think we can say his silence is speaking volumes here. But we also had a few

00:28:49.560 premiers testifying before committee this week premier scott moe of saskatchewan had a great

00:28:56.320 interjection that i wanted to share with you here this is a one of the policies and they are stacking

00:29:02.960 that is making life more unaffordable for not only saskatchewan residents but all canadians

00:29:07.620 as a whole it's making industries less competitive those are industries that

00:29:11.160 employ people in my community and and quite likely in yours as well and it is really showing no

00:29:16.440 measurable impact when it comes to reducing emissions. And I would just point to the

00:29:21.240 inflationary aspect of the carbon tax specifically today. And that was when the latest consumer

00:29:26.980 price index came out. Saskatchewan today is at 1.7%, down under the 2% projected target

00:29:33.240 that the Bank of Canada had hit, one full point lower than the Canadian average. And

00:29:39.240 Statistics Canada had said specifically that was due to a decision that the Saskatchewan

00:29:44.100 government made to remove the carbon tax from home heating. And so you can imagine what would

00:29:48.160 happen to our CPI nationwide if we were to pause, first of all, and then remove the consumer carbon

00:29:53.500 tax on Canadians. That was, again, a very dispassionate, fact-based approach to this.

00:30:01.800 Scott Moe has taken a very heavy hand. He had the benefit of having a tool in his toolbox that other

00:30:07.300 provinces didn't have, and that he could just stop remitting the carbon tax on home heating,

00:30:12.400 on gas to the government. Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, also appeared before committee.

00:30:18.820 Very similar, took a fact-based approach to this. I'm here on behalf of Albertans and Canadians who

00:30:25.380 are struggling with severe financial pressures. They're increasingly desperate because they're

00:30:29.380 facing a cost-of-living crisis not seen in decades. Over the last two years, inflation and high

00:30:34.360 interest rates have driven up prices on everything from food to gas to housing, things that Albertans

00:30:39.100 rely on every single day. Families are being forced to make tough choices just to put food

00:30:44.180 on the table. Businesses are having to make sacrifices to keep the lights on. Social services

00:30:49.180 are under intense strain as more and more people reach out for help, many for the first time in

00:30:54.000 their lives. Albertans and all Canadians need common sense, compassion and responsible government

00:30:59.260 to prevail. That's why I'm urging you today to heed the calls of Canadians across the country

00:31:04.600 and suspend the increase in the carbon tax on april 1st the carbon tax has contributed to and

00:31:10.040 worsen canadian stress and financial pain despite the federal government's claims that canadians

00:31:15.480 benefit from rebates the carbon tax on a net basis will cost albertans more than 900 this year if the

00:31:22.680 tax is implemented the federal government's own parliamentary budget officer has also said that

00:31:27.960 that the cost to each Albertan will more than triple in the next six years

00:31:32.000 to a staggering expense of $2,700 net by 2030-2031.

00:31:38.080 This isn't just reckless, it's immoral and it's inhumane.

00:31:41.800 And the added pressure will ruin countless lives, futures and dreams.

00:31:44.780 It's a weight that Canadians can't bear.

00:31:47.920 A weight that Canadians can't bear.

00:31:50.600 Truer words have not been spoken by anyone at the federal level.

00:31:55.400 but as we have talked about time and time again, Justin Trudeau has put the blame back on the

00:32:00.340 Premier saying, well, you guys didn't come up with any ideas. Now, incidentally, some tried to

00:32:04.720 but the government said, no, no, no, that's not a high enough tax. It's not a high enough tax. No,

00:32:09.580 no, no, that doesn't count. Go back to the drawing board. Blaine Higgs in New Brunswick,

00:32:14.500 he was also a Premier who testified and was able to get a hearing from him. Now, what was interesting

00:32:19.620 in the case of Blaine Higgs and Scott Moe faced this as well is that the Liberal MPs really didn't

00:32:24.680 want them to be able to speak. These are premiers. Whatever you think of them, they are elected heads

00:32:29.220 of government in their respective provinces. And my goodness, Liberal MPs did not like that Canadians

00:32:34.540 were getting a chance to hear from them. This was what happened when Blaine Higgs was giving his

00:32:39.740 testimony. So my plea here is across party lines to say, let's think bigger. Let's look at Canada

00:32:48.980 as a solution to world environmental impact and changes.

00:32:52.640 Point of order, Chair.

00:32:53.820 As opposed to us being exactly focused on our internal affordability

00:32:58.800 and the cost every day of our living.

00:33:00.960 I apologize, Premier Higgs.

00:33:02.960 I just have a point of order.

00:33:03.920 Mr. Long, please make it brief.

00:33:09.600 Thank you, Chair.

00:33:11.600 I'm just, again, Chair, I'm confused on relevance.

00:33:14.780 This is an opening statement Mr. Long, please show respect for the Premier.

00:33:21.060 You may have disagreements with us, but please show respect for the Premier of your province.

00:33:25.600 Chair, I certainly do respect the Premier of the province, but again I'm just wondering

00:33:31.620 the relevance and I'm also wondering Chair if you can explain again which of the votable

00:33:38.560 items referred to in the committee contains the Canada Carbon Rebate.

00:33:42.560 I'm confused.

00:33:43.560 you able to let us know that explained that yesterday mr long mr premier higgs go ahead

00:33:49.960 that's not a point of order mr higgs go ahead thank you mr chair

00:33:53.100 that was rather interesting uh it's irrelevant to hear from the premier of new brunswick about what

00:34:01.900 people in his province are dealing with and again similar criticisms of danielle smith and scott

00:34:07.120 mo being there but even if the federal government is not listening that doesn't mean canadians

00:34:11.520 aren't. Pierre Polyev was in Edmonton yesterday. Again, you think Alberta equals conservative,

00:34:16.640 but that's not really the case in Edmonton. He still had over 3,000 people out. We had one of

00:34:21.760 our reporters, Isaac Lamoureux there, and Danielle Smith was one of those 3,000. She actually took

00:34:26.800 the stage as well, and I don't have the video of it, but I believe got her own

00:34:30.480 Axe the Tax t-shirt that she sported while she was on stage with Pierre Polyev. But let's talk

00:34:37.560 about really what's all happening here specifically on monday franco terrazano federal director for

00:34:43.100 the canadian taxpayers federation uh joins us once again april 1st is a big day not a good one for

00:34:49.460 taxpayers though is it franco what what's happening that day first off because it's hard to keep track

00:34:53.640 of it all well april fool's day hey and like so many other times taxpayers are the punch line

00:35:00.500 in ottawa okay you've got carbon tax going up alcohol taxes going up and member of parliament

00:35:06.860 pay going up. So you're going to pay higher prices at the pumps. You're going to pay higher

00:35:11.120 prices when you go to the bar and restaurant and your tax bill is going up to fund even more

00:35:17.140 bloated salaries of our members of parliament. So a bad day to be a taxpayer. Let me tell you.

00:35:23.220 Yeah. And I wanted to ask a little bit about the momentum here. I know there are some rallies.

00:35:28.480 Well, not some, I mean, quite a large number of rallies and these mini convoys that are being

00:35:32.240 planned for Monday. Pierre Polyev himself has been bringing out thousands to his

00:35:37.040 Axe the Tax, Spike the Hike events and whatnot. I know your colleague, Chris Sims, I think actually

00:35:43.020 right now or in like 30 minutes is doing a press conference in Alberta. So there is a groundswell

00:35:47.920 here. It's just not translating into action at the one level of government that can do something

00:35:52.200 about this. Well, and that's at their own peril, right? If liberal MPs and NDP MPs want to keep

00:35:58.020 voting to raise people's carbon taxes, that's at their own peril. Because here's the thing,

00:36:02.840 Canadians are absolutely united against these carbon tax hikes. Canadians are sick and tired

00:36:08.200 of the federal government not only making our lives more expensive, but making the necessities

00:36:13.560 of our lives more expensive. Canada's a big place. You know, people have to fuel up their car to get

00:36:18.840 to work. Well, the carbon tax makes that more expensive. Canada is a cold place. People have

00:36:24.260 to heat their homes. Well, the carbon tax makes that more expensive. And one more point, right?

00:36:29.640 We all know that the grocery prices are high. Well, let's think about that for a second because

00:36:33.860 the carbon tax will cost Canadian farmers a billion dollars by 2030. So the carbon tax makes

00:36:39.820 it more expensive for farmers to grow food. It makes it more expensive for truckers to deliver

00:36:44.740 the food. And it's also making it more expensive for Canadians to afford food, right? So Canadians 0.82

00:36:50.840 absolutely united against this carbon tax, not only Canadians, but also provincial politicians

00:36:55.680 of all political stripes. So the only ones who are tone deaf and late to the party

00:37:00.060 are Trudeau, his ministers, his liberal MPs, and also NDP MPs.

00:37:07.720 Let me ask you here, Franco, about really the two bits of information that the government has

00:37:14.800 been giving to sell the tax that I feel are confusing to Canadians, and I'm hoping you

00:37:19.420 have the numbers on this number one most canadians are better off with the tax than without it now

00:37:24.440 that on the surface sounds ridiculous but the government touts this rebate and says no no no

00:37:28.860 most canadians are getting more in the rebate than they're paying so that's claim one uh claim

00:37:33.860 two that all of the experts agree the carbon tax is not a significant driver of inflation it's just

00:37:39.580 one you know itsy bitsy tiny teeny little fraction of inflation and not a significant driver go

00:37:45.580 All right. I'm getting the football and I'm going for a run, ladies and gentlemen. So on the rebates, wrong, magic math. Okay. Now I think I heard the prime minister say something along the lines that the premiers are spreading misinformation. Well, there is a bunch of misinformation, but that is coming from prime minister, Justin Trudeau, his cabinet ministers, and his liberal MPs.

00:38:06.640 Because the parliamentary budget officer, the government's own independent nonpartisan budget watchdog, shows that the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family up to $911 more a year than what they get back in rebates.

00:38:22.660 Hundreds of dollars more a year than what they get back in rebates.

00:38:26.420 Well, let's just set that data aside for a second, okay?

00:38:28.640 Let's just think about it logically.

00:38:30.180 They charge a carbon tax, then they charge their sales tax on top of the carbon tax.

00:38:34.880 That tax on tax alone cost Canadians about $500 million this year.

00:38:40.120 And then it cost the government about $200 million to hire the bureaucrats to administer the carbon tax.

00:38:47.780 So there is no way that a government can impose a carbon tax, charge its sales tax on top of the carbon tax,

00:38:54.720 skim a bunch of money off the top to pay for a bunch of bureaucrats, 0.50

00:38:57.800 and somehow make the vast majority of Canadians better off with rebates.

00:39:02.580 That is impossible.

00:39:04.280 But Andrew, only a couple months ago, by his own actions, Trudeau proved that the carbon tax does make life more expensive.

00:39:12.320 Remember, he was surrounded by his Atlantic caucus and he announced relief by taking the carbon tax off of furnace oil.

00:39:20.000 Now, why would he do that?

00:39:21.500 Because he knows that the carbon tax does make life more expensive.

00:39:26.780 Now, Andrew, that's the rebate shenanigans busted.

00:39:30.660 Let's talk about this letter from The Economist.

00:39:32.760 You hear economists talk about efficiency all the time. Well, Andrew, it doesn't sound that

00:39:38.620 efficient to me to make it more expensive for Canadian parents to fuel up their cars to get

00:39:44.040 their kids to soccer practice with a tax that won't solve a global issue. It doesn't sound

00:39:50.140 efficient to me to make it more expensive for Canadian seniors to stay warm during the winter

00:39:55.660 months with a tax that won't solve a global issue. It doesn't sound very efficient to me

00:40:02.700 to make it more expensive for a Canadian single mom to put food on the table with a tax that won't 1.00

00:40:10.040 solve a global issue. And not only that, you know who Trudeau should actually be listening to?

00:40:16.000 The people he's supposed to represent, Canadians. And the vast majority of Canadians do not support

00:40:22.860 his carbon tax hikes. So he should listen to Canadians. And at the very least, he should

00:40:26.980 cancel the carbon tax hike. All right. April 1st. Are you going to be out in the streets as well on

00:40:33.420 Monday? Well, we're going to be so busy. All we're doing is talking carbon tax, alcohol tax,

00:40:40.400 MP pay raise. You know, you talked about Chris Sims doing a press conference today. I did a

00:40:44.440 press conference in Ottawa today. And I know a lot of my colleagues all across Canada are going to

00:40:48.600 continue to bang the drum with press conferences of their own all right well we look forward to

00:40:53.080 that as well have a great long weekend uh and enjoy the little bit more affordability you get

00:40:57.640 between now and monday i guess that's the have a little tax-free rumspringer this weekend uh

00:41:02.500 franco terrizano always good to talk to you sir have a good weekend thanks andrew happy easter

00:41:07.720 all right thank you very much if you are looking to do some easter shopping may i remind you i have

00:41:13.680 a new book coming out in exactly two months, two months to the day. It comes out on May 28th. It is

00:41:19.680 called Pierre Polyev, A Political Life, a biography that I hope is, well, it's certainly not exhaustive

00:41:26.600 in the sense that he's still got some life left in him, but maybe he'll have to do a sequel in a few

00:41:31.240 years time. But that is available for pre-order. And thanks to all of you who have done your part

00:41:36.380 to shoot it up to number one on Amazon the day and to that we announced it. And certainly I hope

00:41:42.120 it'll be a number another number one bestseller when it's released but uh if you want to get your

00:41:46.460 bid in early that is available for pre-order now and you will be here speaking of beating the drum

00:41:51.580 i'll be beating the drum about that one for like three weeks when it comes out so uh please forgive

00:41:55.420 me uh that is it for today we will talk to you all on tuesday with more of canada's most irreverent

00:42:01.640 talk show have a blessed and happy easter everyone thank you god bless and good day to you all

00:42:07.240 Thanks for listening to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:42:09.960 Support the program by donating to True North at www.tnc.news.

00:42:36.520 We'll be right back.

00:43:06.520 We'll be right back.

Juno News - March 28, 2024

Trudeau's team doing damage control on online censorship bill

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript