00:02:41.500But 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.
00:02:51.000But I'm offending all the Manitobans again. Okay, I got to stop doing that.
00:02:55.120Welcome 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.
00:03:03.760Not just the carbon tax is going up, but the alcohol tax is going up. Member of Parliament's salaries are going up.
00:03:10.080April 1st is proving to be a bit of a momentous day and not one that is treating taxpayers all
00:03:17.560that well. I also want to speak a little bit more about the Online Harms Act. Now this is
00:03:22.600Bill C-63. This is the piece of legislation the Liberal governments have done that they purport
00:03:27.800to be a panacea for all that ails internet users. They want to with just one big broad brush deal
00:03:35.200with child sexual exploitation, revenge porn, the terrorist content that we know is pervasive
00:03:42.840on the internet, and also online hate.
00:03:47.080One of these things is not like the other.
00:03:51.520The online hate provisions are incredibly dangerous.
00:03:54.880They're also doing criminal code reforms, which I believe are incredibly dangerous.
00:03:59.720And one of those has become front and center in a little bit of damage control slash political
00:04:04.960spin being done by the Toronto Star. The Toronto Star ran an op-ed from Sabria DeVetti, who
00:04:12.100is a longtime media figure in Canada. She says, have you heard the one about Justin Trudeau
00:04:17.760attacking your free speech online? Trust me, that's just rage farming. Now, Sabria DeVetti,
00:04:25.800I have known for many years. I have always gotten along with her. Even today, I asked her,
00:04:30.120because I said I was going to be doing this on the show today. I asked her if she wanted to come on.
00:04:33.800She said she was tied up in meetings, so couldn't join.
00:04:36.260I've got a good relationship with her.
00:04:37.880We were colleagues back when I worked in traditional media at Global.
00:04:42.720I would occasionally guest host for her on 640 Toronto.
00:04:46.640So I get along with Supriya, even though I disagree with her on a lot of things.
00:04:50.460This is not, in my view, however, a case of disagreeing with her opinion.
00:04:55.240This is a case of her being flat out wrong, in my view.
00:11:27.700which basically says sentences must be proportionate.
00:11:30.700But no one is talking here about proportionality.
00:11:33.840we're talking about, does this bill fundamentally alter the maximum permissible sentence based on
00:11:39.720motivation? The legislation says, yes, Supriya is saying no. She says that we are actually not
00:11:48.640allowing this to change anything that doesn't already have a life sentence. Now that raises
00:11:53.900the obvious question, which I put to her because we were having a very civil exchange on X. And I
00:11:58.300said, okay, well, what's the point of it then? What's the point? This was her response. She says
00:12:03.980here, the honest answer is that it explicitly denounces hateful conduct. The standalone hate
00:12:09.620crime provision will make it much easier for law enforcement to track hate crimes across jurisdictions
00:12:14.440because right now when it's only considered an aggravating factor at sentencing, it's very
00:12:18.860inefficient. I've never heard this argument champion before. It may or may not be correct.
00:12:23.500I don't know. But it doesn't fundamentally change that this law is being misrepresented
00:12:28.880by the prime minister. Well, again, I don't know if the PMO sent her out to write that op-ed,
00:12:34.000but by someone who works for the PMO and has written an op-ed trying to defend this bill.
00:12:39.140It's just fundamentally wrong. Now, other people who are far more learned, who are themselves
00:12:43.560lawyers, have weighed in and mercifully have agreed with the plain text reading that I had
00:12:49.140of the bill here. Howard Anglin wrote that Andrew Coyne was right. It's exactly what it does and he
00:12:55.880just says your response is trust judges. Yeah and that's basically the PMO's response here. They're
00:13:01.100just saying well judges aren't going to give a life sentence for something minor. The point is
00:13:04.720that this will override the current provisions on this and will give them that option. I want to
00:13:12.540welcome into the show Christine Van Gein who is the litigation director of the Canadian Constitution
00:13:17.060Foundation. We've talked about some of these concerns on the show in the past. Always good
00:13:22.080to talk to you, Christine. All right. Who's right here, Supriya or yours truly? You're right,
00:13:28.600Andrew. And so are all of the lawyers who are on Twitter with Supriya, I guess, explaining
00:13:36.420the law to lawyers. As far as I know, is she a lawyer? I don't know. I don't know if she's a
00:13:42.140member of the bar. I believe she was a lawyer at some point or at least went to law school. I don't
00:13:46.520know for sure, though. Okay, so I take that back. But I have something that I think will entertain
00:13:54.020you, which is, I mean, I read this this morning and was quite irritated. I wrote to the Toronto
00:14:00.960Star saying that if they're going to publish Supriya, who is a government mouthpiece, I mean,
00:14:07.820she's... Yeah, literally. I don't even mean that in the way that we often talk about some left-wing
00:14:11.600columnist like she's literally yes she works for the the prime minister um if they're going to
00:14:16.960publish that then they should and allow the critics of this bill who are careful and thoughtful in
00:14:22.320their criticism then they should allow a rebuttal uh and and they've agreed and they're gonna they're
00:14:26.800running my rebuttal today i've written one uh and and all credit to the star for agreeing to run a
00:14:32.400rebuttal to supriya's piece so uh i'm excited that they're gonna run it but i'm a little worried that
00:14:37.680she's gonna her meltdown will continue and i will now be part of the meltdown but i mean i think
00:14:44.540someone needs to set the record straight that criticism of this bill is not rage farming it
00:14:51.580is not bad faith i think the government would do well to remember that freedom of expression in
00:14:57.380canada and is a fundamental right it is actually a precursor to peace and security and democracy
00:15:06.700it is not a threat to our society, it's what makes our society possible. And the government
00:15:12.040should, instead of attacking critics of the bill, which include academics from across the political
00:15:18.280spectrum, the more than 6,000 people who have written to their members of parliament through
00:15:25.440the Canadian Constitution Foundation's online platform, expressing their concerns with the bill,
00:15:30.840The 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.
00:15:45.420All of that criticism is something that the government should be listening to, not attacking and saying we're rage farming.
00:22:45.120I believe I'm part of that because she mentions people invoke minority report.
00:22:49.920And I literally did that like three days ago.
00:22:51.620So I think I might be obliquely or directly in the crosshairs on this one.
00:22:55.720I 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.
00:23:06.440We 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.
00:23:17.540And in her article, she compares these peace bonds for future hate speech with peace bonds for shocking or terrorism.
00:23:28.020And 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.
00:23:37.340It's really obvious if someone has bought materials to buy a bomb or build a bomb.
00:23:42.620And 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.
00:24:00.040And 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.
00:24:24.460And 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.
00:24:52.400We're going to attempt to do a tweet again.
00:24:57.380But this is a Supriya tweet starts with the honest answer is that it explicitly denounces.
00:25:02.540So 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?
00:25:12.300She 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.
00:25:21.180I'm having trouble following the argument here, but I was wondering if you could weigh in on this
00:25:25.180at all. I have no idea what she's talking about. I think the goal that the government has
00:25:32.560is they want more prosecutions for hate offenses, and this is the way to achieve it.
00:25:39.100So right now it is treated as an aggravating factor, but there also are stand-alone hate
00:25:45.300offenses already in the criminal code, right? There's provisions about public incitement of
00:25:52.120hatred and willfully promoting hatred. And they're not, especially on the public incitement,
00:25:58.420there have not been a lot of prosecutions because the threshold is really high. And it's supposed to
00:26:03.940be high. I mean, we're talking about criminalizing speech here, which is something that's fundamental
00:26:08.220to our functioning as a democracy uh so i don't really i think what she what the government wants
00:26:15.940is more prosecutions for hate offenses this is their way of attempting it but i don't understand
00:26:20.340her her justification here um i i just don't know what she's referring okay no that that helps me i
00:26:26.700wanted i thought i was the moron for not being able to figure it out but uh let me just ask you
00:26:31.160about the problems with this because the the government you know they always do the oh yes
00:26:35.980well we'll talk about this in committee but for the most part they aren't really admitting that
00:26:40.020they've got anything wrong here they've had years this was first put forward or a version of it in
00:26:45.2802021 shortly before the election they've been promising it uh basically since that election
00:26:50.080they were first promising it within the first hundred days uh it's now uh four years well
00:26:54.980three years after it was first tabled so do you think this is sloppy or do you think everything
00:27:00.180in there is very deliberate and that's exactly what they wanted. I think that there is zero
00:27:06.540consideration for how this will actually be applied on the ground. And I think, Andrew,
00:27:13.680you should interview some criminal defense lawyers to talk about their concerns with the law,
00:27:18.680because they're the ones who are going to actually be representing people who are now going to be
00:27:24.120facing this sledgehammer from prosecutors to increase the severity or the potential range of
00:27:32.740sentences for otherwise minor offenses. Supriya says this is something that we don't need to worry
00:27:38.440about. Perhaps the government hadn't thought about how this law would be applied on the ground
00:27:44.520because bureaucrats, including in justice, in the Justice Department, they're not the ones who
00:27:50.220actually work and engage with you know people who get charged with crimes so they might not
00:27:58.380really understand how this could play out if you give the prosecutors this massive tool yeah very
00:28:04.980well said look forward to your response op-ed in the toronto star not written by someone from the
00:28:10.940prime minister's office blissfully uh christine van gein litigation director at the canadian
00:28:15.260constitution foundation always a pleasure have a great easter weekend thank you all right
00:28:20.080Thank you, Christine. Well, it is on April 1st, the big, great tax hike day. The carbon tax revolt,
00:28:28.180as I've been calling it, has been underway now for several, I mean, really years, but in particular
00:28:33.620several weeks. We have seven of 10 premiers who have joined the call with Manitoba Premier Wob
00:28:40.000Canu, kind of just, you know, figuring out where the wind is blowing before he says anything
00:28:43.680publicly. But I think we can say his silence is speaking volumes here. But we also had a few
00:28:49.560premiers testifying before committee this week premier scott moe of saskatchewan had a great
00:28:56.320interjection that i wanted to share with you here this is a one of the policies and they are stacking
00:29:02.960that is making life more unaffordable for not only saskatchewan residents but all canadians
00:29:07.620as a whole it's making industries less competitive those are industries that
00:29:11.160employ people in my community and and quite likely in yours as well and it is really showing no
00:29:16.440measurable impact when it comes to reducing emissions. And I would just point to the
00:29:21.240inflationary aspect of the carbon tax specifically today. And that was when the latest consumer
00:29:26.980price index came out. Saskatchewan today is at 1.7%, down under the 2% projected target
00:29:33.240that the Bank of Canada had hit, one full point lower than the Canadian average. And
00:29:39.240Statistics Canada had said specifically that was due to a decision that the Saskatchewan
00:29:44.100government made to remove the carbon tax from home heating. And so you can imagine what would
00:29:48.160happen to our CPI nationwide if we were to pause, first of all, and then remove the consumer carbon
00:29:53.500tax on Canadians. That was, again, a very dispassionate, fact-based approach to this.
00:30:01.800Scott Moe has taken a very heavy hand. He had the benefit of having a tool in his toolbox that other
00:30:07.300provinces didn't have, and that he could just stop remitting the carbon tax on home heating,
00:30:12.400on gas to the government. Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, also appeared before committee.
00:30:18.820Very similar, took a fact-based approach to this. I'm here on behalf of Albertans and Canadians who
00:30:25.380are struggling with severe financial pressures. They're increasingly desperate because they're
00:30:29.380facing a cost-of-living crisis not seen in decades. Over the last two years, inflation and high
00:30:34.360interest rates have driven up prices on everything from food to gas to housing, things that Albertans
00:30:39.100rely on every single day. Families are being forced to make tough choices just to put food
00:30:44.180on the table. Businesses are having to make sacrifices to keep the lights on. Social services
00:30:49.180are under intense strain as more and more people reach out for help, many for the first time in
00:30:54.000their lives. Albertans and all Canadians need common sense, compassion and responsible government
00:30:59.260to prevail. That's why I'm urging you today to heed the calls of Canadians across the country
00:31:04.600and suspend the increase in the carbon tax on april 1st the carbon tax has contributed to and
00:31:10.040worsen canadian stress and financial pain despite the federal government's claims that canadians
00:31:15.480benefit from rebates the carbon tax on a net basis will cost albertans more than 900 this year if the
00:31:22.680tax is implemented the federal government's own parliamentary budget officer has also said that
00:31:27.960that the cost to each Albertan will more than triple in the next six years
00:31:32.000to a staggering expense of $2,700 net by 2030-2031.
00:31:38.080This isn't just reckless, it's immoral and it's inhumane.
00:31:41.800And the added pressure will ruin countless lives, futures and dreams.
00:31:44.780It's a weight that Canadians can't bear.
00:33:43.560you able to let us know that explained that yesterday mr long mr premier higgs go ahead
00:33:49.960that's not a point of order mr higgs go ahead thank you mr chair
00:33:53.100that was rather interesting uh it's irrelevant to hear from the premier of new brunswick about what
00:34:01.900people in his province are dealing with and again similar criticisms of danielle smith and scott
00:34:07.120mo being there but even if the federal government is not listening that doesn't mean canadians
00:34:11.520aren't. Pierre Polyev was in Edmonton yesterday. Again, you think Alberta equals conservative,
00:34:16.640but that's not really the case in Edmonton. He still had over 3,000 people out. We had one of
00:34:21.760our reporters, Isaac Lamoureux there, and Danielle Smith was one of those 3,000. She actually took
00:34:26.800the stage as well, and I don't have the video of it, but I believe got her own
00:34:30.480Axe the Tax t-shirt that she sported while she was on stage with Pierre Polyev. But let's talk
00:34:37.560about really what's all happening here specifically on monday franco terrazano federal director for
00:34:43.100the canadian taxpayers federation uh joins us once again april 1st is a big day not a good one for
00:34:49.460taxpayers though is it franco what what's happening that day first off because it's hard to keep track
00:34:53.640of it all well april fool's day hey and like so many other times taxpayers are the punch line
00:35:00.500in ottawa okay you've got carbon tax going up alcohol taxes going up and member of parliament
00:35:06.860pay going up. So you're going to pay higher prices at the pumps. You're going to pay higher
00:35:11.120prices when you go to the bar and restaurant and your tax bill is going up to fund even more
00:35:17.140bloated salaries of our members of parliament. So a bad day to be a taxpayer. Let me tell you.
00:35:23.220Yeah. And I wanted to ask a little bit about the momentum here. I know there are some rallies.
00:35:28.480Well, not some, I mean, quite a large number of rallies and these mini convoys that are being
00:35:32.240planned for Monday. Pierre Polyev himself has been bringing out thousands to his
00:35:37.040Axe the Tax, Spike the Hike events and whatnot. I know your colleague, Chris Sims, I think actually
00:35:43.020right now or in like 30 minutes is doing a press conference in Alberta. So there is a groundswell
00:35:47.920here. It's just not translating into action at the one level of government that can do something
00:35:52.200about this. Well, and that's at their own peril, right? If liberal MPs and NDP MPs want to keep
00:35:58.020voting to raise people's carbon taxes, that's at their own peril. Because here's the thing,
00:36:02.840Canadians are absolutely united against these carbon tax hikes. Canadians are sick and tired
00:36:08.200of the federal government not only making our lives more expensive, but making the necessities
00:36:13.560of our lives more expensive. Canada's a big place. You know, people have to fuel up their car to get
00:36:18.840to work. Well, the carbon tax makes that more expensive. Canada is a cold place. People have
00:36:24.260to heat their homes. Well, the carbon tax makes that more expensive. And one more point, right?
00:36:29.640We all know that the grocery prices are high. Well, let's think about that for a second because
00:36:33.860the carbon tax will cost Canadian farmers a billion dollars by 2030. So the carbon tax makes
00:36:39.820it more expensive for farmers to grow food. It makes it more expensive for truckers to deliver
00:36:44.740the food. And it's also making it more expensive for Canadians to afford food, right? So Canadians
00:36:50.840absolutely united against this carbon tax, not only Canadians, but also provincial politicians
00:36:55.680of all political stripes. So the only ones who are tone deaf and late to the party
00:37:00.060are Trudeau, his ministers, his liberal MPs, and also NDP MPs.
00:37:07.720Let me ask you here, Franco, about really the two bits of information that the government has
00:37:14.800been giving to sell the tax that I feel are confusing to Canadians, and I'm hoping you
00:37:19.420have the numbers on this number one most canadians are better off with the tax than without it now
00:37:24.440that on the surface sounds ridiculous but the government touts this rebate and says no no no
00:37:28.860most canadians are getting more in the rebate than they're paying so that's claim one uh claim
00:37:33.860two that all of the experts agree the carbon tax is not a significant driver of inflation it's just
00:37:39.580one you know itsy bitsy tiny teeny little fraction of inflation and not a significant driver go
00:37:45.580All 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.
00:38:06.640Because 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.
00:38:22.660Hundreds of dollars more a year than what they get back in rebates.
00:38:26.420Well, let's just set that data aside for a second, okay?