jolieVan

Most of us have moved on this issue. I know I have. I don't care if I'm on a plane next to an unvaccinated person now. I don't care if an unvaccinated nurse is treating me in an emergency room. I just want to be in the emergency room and be treated. But have you moved on that as well? If I said that, are your views different than 14, 15，20 months ago? Are they on these things? I think so, because my views were largely based upon, okay, let's give the government the benefit of the doubt, even though a lot of what they were saying didn't make sense, because let's ask for the public good and be safe. So that's where my views were. But when I outright caught the government lying, and when I outright know that Trudeau knew at the time that he was telling people, do not sit beside vaccinated people, he knew that the vaccine did not stop the transmission or the acquisition of the virus, that it mainly dealt with symptoms. He stated that publicly to drum up hatred, and then days later called an election. That's mental manipulation. So when I see that type of manipulation, then I start to question everything. And the most egregious thing about the app is that there in the privacy declaration, It tells you that your information can be shared with global organization, and we have signed an agreement with the WEF known as the known Traveler Digital ID program (KTDI), which Justin Trudeau hid behind the backs of Canadians. That program is enforced. We do not have disclosure on whether or not this app is going to be linked with the known Traveler digital ID program and which organizations they're giving Canadian citizens private information to. These things need to be disclosed, not just in a privacy statement saying, oh, by the way, we can do that. I want to know how it's done.

In politics, now I'm finding that it is just fear. Let's create enough fear and then we can then have this really intrusive policy. And it doesn't matter what the outcome is, whether or not that policy will have the outcome of improving the environment, that just goes out the window. And that's what's really frustrating to me as someone who has an education in environmental studies, that we are not seeing that the policies have a positive outcome on the environment. The idea that we have to accept arbitrary limits to growth, economic growth, which are mostly going to hurt poor people, and higher energy prices and higher food prices, which are mostly going to hurt poor people, and that that's going to help on the environmental sustainability front, that's just not only nonsense and a lie, it's an antitruth. You couldn't say anything farther from the truth than that. Hello, everyone. I'm pleased today to be talking to Dr. Lesley Lewis. Dr. Lewis is a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party in Canada at the federal level. And although this is a podcast with an international audience, the leadership race in Canada on the conservative front turns out to be something of some surprising international significance. Not least, I think, because our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who I'm not a fan of, for those of you who don't know, is a real poster boy for the globalist utopians who are busily attempting to make this planet far worse. And so the best challenge to Trudeau on the political front in Canada will definitely come from the Conservative Party, who have been the historical alternatives to Canada's liberals. And Dr. Lewis is a signal important participant in that conservative leadership process. She's more, I think it's fair to say, on the socially conservative front, but a very interesting person. And so she's agreed to talk to me today, which I also think is a good thing. I've talked to Pierre Poilievre, who's the front runner in the race, and Roman Barber. So that'll be three. Including Doctor Lewis. That'll be three of the five candidates. I reached out to John Sherray, who used to be Premier of Quebec, but his team felt that speaking to a ripper bait such as myself was probably not in his interest. And there's another candidate, Aitchison who I haven't yet talked with and perhaps still might, if time makes that possible. But we'll start with the bio. Leslin Lewis graduated with a Bachelor's degree from the University of Toronto Trinity College, graduating magna cum laude. She has a Master's degree in Environmental Studies from York University with a concentration in Business and Environment from the Schulich School of Business and a Juris Doctor from Osgood Hall Law School. And a PhD in Law from Osgood Hall Law School. She and her family are residents of the town of Dunville, where she serves her community as Member of Parliament for Haldimand-Norfolk. Lesley exploded onto the national political scene when she ran previously for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2020. Despite having no pre established political network and coming from relative obscurity, her vision of a strong, united and prosperous nation resonated with Canadians right across the country. She finished in third place in the race, winning the popular vote ahead of eventual winner Aaron O'Toole and party cofounder Peter McKay. Dr. Lewis is currently running for the second time in the current battle for the Canadian conservative federal leadership. So welcome, Doctor Lewis. Thank you very much for making time. It's quite exciting to have the opportunity to engage in these long form discussions on the political front. I think that's something perhaps revolutionary in Canadian politics to be able to circumvent the legacy media, let's say. So welcome to the podcast. Thank you. It's a great pleasure to be here, and I'm very honored to be here with you today. Yeah. So, people, we might as well start right from the beginning. Let's do a little bit of a biographical discussion to begin with. Tell me a bit about your family, tell me about your background. And then also you're very well educated, and then you made a foray into politics. Let's walk through that a little bit so that we can place you in everyone's imagination before we move to the policy side of things. Well, as you said, I reside in a small community called Dunville. It's in the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, which is in the Niagara area south of Hamilton, for those of you who are familiar with Southern Ontario. And as you said, I've recently just emerged into politics and I felt a calling in my life to really serve, use my skills that I have honed over the last few decades in education, in law, and just practical business experience. Use that to better my country, because right now I see that our country is at a precipice and I'm concerned about the future of our country. I'm concerned about my children and the future that they will have and the dreams that I've had in this country and that I've been able to realize. I'm very concerned that they won't be there for future generations. When we look at the $1.3 trillion that we have in debt and the fact that every day, just to service that debt, we're paying over $140,000,000 a day just in interest payments just to service that debt. And the fact that my children will owe $45,000 is their share of the national debt. And so there are so many things that are happening in this world that are having influences on whether or not we will survive as a sovereign nation. And so I think that my experience, lending my experience to this cause is one of the most noble things that I feel that I've done in my life. So when you were in university, you spend a lot of time in university. Let's walk through your education. How do I get it? Well, maybe that didn't used to be a problem, although it's become one. Let's walk through your university career and then tell me about your developing interest in politics. So your first degree was at the University of Toronto? Yes. It's actually in sociology. African Studies with a minor in Women's Studies and philosophy. So, as you can see, I am well versed in the social sciences, and I understand the language of many things that are transpiring. Now. I went through the education system and throughout my education I often felt that I was in an environment that they were trying to mold me. But in the earlier years at the University of Toronto, I had the ability to at least I knew where the limits were. But I also had the ability to challenge, whereas I found in my later stages that there was more conformity in education and there was less diversity of thought, which was very, very concerning to me. And even in my later days of teaching, I almost felt like an undercover agent because I couldn't really necessarily reveal that I was conservative, although it came out later on because I was asked to help out the party in 2015 at the end of my PhD and to run in an election in a writing that there was a scandal in. And so I had to step in last minute. So at the end it was revealed. But I don't think that many people were really cognizant of how much of a conservative I was, because that's not something that's really celebrated in university. And that sounds like really ironic that one would say that in an institution of higher learning that you would not be able to celebrate diversity of thought, but that's what the end of my university career was like, and that's really unfortunate. What years were you studying? Sociology and women's studies at the University of Toronto. Oh, in the 90s, in the early 90s, I completed my first degree. Okay. So both Sociology and Women's Studies are very left -leaning, certainly now, but they were back in the early 1990s too. There was kind of a little initial peak of political correctness in the universities in the early ninety s. Ninety s. So two questions there. Why did you decide to go into sociology and Women's Studies? And were you conservative in your orientation then? If so, how did you bridge that gap? Well, actually my family came here as immigrants, and the Liberal Party was the party that they felt most at home in. And so although I grew up in an ultra conservative family, religious wise, economically fiscally conservatives, just the traditional immigrant family that comes to Canada and has the foundations of strong family values, believing in strong faith values and a strong faith in your community and contributing to that community. So I would consider myself as growing up in a conservative family, although it was a politically liberal family. And when I went to school, I didn't even think about politics at all. I just wanted to get an education. And I was concerned about some of the social dilemmas because I was very active in my church doing prison ministry, working with at risk youth, and so I was very concerned about the social dilemmas. And sociology was a natural fit, and sociology really was about understanding the theoretical underpinnings of what society was comprised of. So it was a lot of theory. And so I didn't really find that it was left leaning woman studies. Of course, that was my minor, and that was more so left leaning, but it was still very theoretical back then. Now, what I'm finding is a lot of the theories have become dogma and have seeped into the mainstream narrative and have become the norm rather than just a theory. And so that's the difference between when I went to school in the what's studied now, and you could have alternative positions back then, whereas now I find that you're demonized for having critical thought abilities. Okay? So the advantage of that would have been to have gone through that four year initial period would have been that you became very conversant, say, with the progressive views. The downside would have been of the tension that you would have experienced, I presume, between your beliefs and the beliefs that were being promoted. Why weren't you convinced by the more progressive doctrines of the sociologists and the women's studies teachers? And what did that do to you? Or what did experiencing that tension for four years due to the way that you conceptualize your philosophy and your practical approach? Well, it does shape you, even though you have that conservative foundation that education does impact on you, because there are things that I had bought into that I'm just even now recognizing that may not have been all encompassing or may not have been ideally where I would have been had I not had that education. So there was a notion that I had to just my success was really based on what I could materially get from society or my educational pursuits. There was a lot of friction there with also raising a family and having a successful marriage, et cetera. So many of that, I think, may have even undermined some of the traditional values that I had. And I don't know whether that's a good or bad thing because I was able to reconcile it. And even in university, I joined the Reform Party because I saw that Preston Manning, his values were very much in line with what I believed. And there were questions that I had through my education that weren't being adequately answered. And so I just naturally gravitated towards my upbringing. And I found that he, as a leader, was somebody who I believed was a very dignified and upstanding person. And I saw the values that he had for and the desires that he had for this country and so I aligned myself with that party very early on. So do you think, having been educated on the progressive front, do you think that you developed a deeper appreciation for the perspective that's being put forward there? I mean, the Progressive argument is something like people who have authority and status often benefit from unfair privilege and opportunity and capitalize on power, let's say, at the expense of people who are less fortunately situated in the hierarchical structure of society. There's some truth to that, obviously, because power corrupts every human institution and we have to keep an eye out on it. Why do you think you were unconvinced by the more radical stream of the progressive doctrine, especially given that you were immersed in it for four years and subject to a fair bit, I imagine, both of conceptual and peer pressure? Well, as I said, from a theoretical perspective, a lot of it does make sense. The problem that I'm having now is that it's almost being inverse. So we know that privilege is relative. Oftentimes I've walked into a room and people would say to me, oh, you're a lawyer. How they would know that perhaps by the way I speak, by the way I carry myself. So there is relative privilege in different aspects of your social ranking, and that's something that we've always had in society. The reason why I speak about an inversion is because what I'm seeing is that they will often make your identity, your master status. And so that's what I push back on right now, because we were able to critically analyze why that is not good for society. But I even find myself right now, even in the conservative race, as someone who has only the only track record of someone running a conservative leadership race and winning the popular vote. As an outsider, I still will not get media coverage and attention, primarily because I don't fit their narrative. And their narrative is that the Conservative Party is a white racist party. And so to have me potentially highlight me would go against the media and the social narrative so much to the point that in 2020. Kamala Harris was featured over 8800 times more than I was. Even though she was not running in our country. And even though her position was an appointment. And I was running to earn my position as a leadership candidate. As a leader of the Conservative Party. So those things, it shows you largely how the left kind of they've reversed even what their beliefs are, to the point that when you don't fit their narrative, they come after you and they attack you very viciously. So it's very perverse because you're objecting on philosophical grounds to the idea that you should be categorized by, let's say, your race and your sex. And yet the Left insists that that's the cardinal distinction between people and then insists that people like that should be brought to the forefront because they've been marginalized and then insists that that should only be the case. Clarence Thomas is a good case in point, too, who's been pilloried like mad for not fitting the mold. So despite the fact that you have the, let's say, self evident characteristics that the Left is trumpeting, the fact that you aren't conducting yourself in a manner that seems to be ideologically appropriate means that in some real sense, that your persona non grata. And that really is interest. That's the inversion that you're speaking about. That really is a fascinating phenomenon as far as I'm concerned. All right, so after you were at the University of Toronto, your next degree was, what, a masters of Environmental studies? Okay, so that's a bit of a detour. Now you've jumped from one leftist hotbed into an even more leftist hotbed, I would say, because not only are you taking environmental studies, you're taking environmental studies at York, which is definitely one of Canada's. I mean, that place is paralyzed by strikes about every two years. I would say it's fair to say that must be one of Canada's most leftist, higher educational institutions. And so now you've jumped into environmental studies. Why environmental studies and why York? And what was that like? To be honest with you, I don't even know why I decided to choose environmental studies, other than the fact that I had a deep concern about the environment, about our stewardship. And it wasn't something that I thought that I was going to make a lot of money from or that it was on a desired path. It was almost like a honing signal, like something that sent out to you and drawing you to that. But you can't really put your finger on why it is that you did that degree. And that's just the best way I can explain it. I'm very happy that I did do that. And even that program was very different than what the Environmental Studies is now. Even then, I feel that I had a well rounded, all encompassing education in the environment. The notion of climate change and the politicization of climate change wasn't something that I dealt with as a master's student in the environment. That is a recent phenomenon that we've taken climate change, we've politicized it, we've made it ascientific and we've used it as a revenue generating tool to conjure up fear. And that wasn't something that I found in my studies. Okay, so let's go into that a little bit. So what did you learn in your company of years, two years, Masters program, was it? What did you learn about the environment? And tell me how that shaped your thinking now, I'm a big fan people know this. I'm a big fan of Bjorn Lomborg. He's done a pretty comprehensive analysis of sustainability and environmental issues and also a man named Marion Tupi who wrote a great book recently called Superabundance. Both of them are trying very hard to sort out the priorities of the various environmental concerns that do, in fact, beset us. What did you learn at York and what do you think is of stellar importance on the environmental front confronting us now? Well, you'd be surprised what I learned starting from the theoretical perspective of, say, Sustainability Our Common Future, that notorious book. We started from that foundation. But we also learned the role of Big Pharma, and that could be all consuming. We also learned about some of the improprieties that were committed by Big Pharma in Southern nations, whether it's South America or African countries. We also learned about sustainability and the role of farmers and ability to sustain the land, intergenerational ability. We learned about the atmosphere and in a very different way than how we're talking about it right now. We knew that nitrogen made up 78% of the atmosphere, that oxygen made up 21%, and that carbon was 0.4%. So we talked about carbon reduction in a very different way than we have done now, which is more of a politicized way, and it's completely different. I'm not sure what is being taught now in an Environmental Studies program, but it was fascinating because we looked at things like the role of Monsanto and the appropriation of biodiversity and how that will lead to fewer choices for people in the farming sector. So it was something that I was preempted towards, that I was pre warned that these things were coming. And we've looked at even African communities in the role of some of the United Nations food programs, how they have actually destabilized those communities. If you look at, say, Reduce, there's a program called red, reduce emissions for deforestation and degradation. And that program basically encouraged people in certain African communities not to cut down trees because they said it was contributing to a very bad carbon footprint, it was contributing to depletion and carbonization of the environment, etc. And so they encouraged those individuals not to cut down trees and the people were hungry. They began to starve. You saw malnutrition in communities that never had malnutrition before and so they had to go back and say, well, we are encouraging them not to cut down these trees, but they're starving. In other projects, they encourage people not to. They were using corn for ethanol and the people were going hungry. And so we're looking at all of these programs and you have to ask whether or not it's serving humanity. And even if we look at our situation in Canada and we look at even our resource sector, in my Master's program, we were taught that resource development is not mutually exclusive from environmental sustainability. That's what we were taught. And so we looked for ways to solve problems, whether that's through efficient technology, innovative technology, working with corporations to make sure that their impact or their footprint is minimal and that they can remedy some of the damage that's caused to the environment. So we looked for solutions, whereas in politics now I'm finding that it is just fear that's create enough fear and then we can then have this really intrusive policy. And it doesn't matter what the outcome is, whether or not that policy will have the outcome of improving the environment, that just goes out the window. And that's what's really frustrating to me as someone who has an education in environmental studies that we are not seeing that the policies have a positive outcome on the environment. It's just largely revenue generating. Yeah, you brought up a bunch of issues. There one issue I would say is the idea that somehow we have to make life difficult for impoverished people so that the environment will improve. You talked about the injunction to cease deforestation and the consequent generation of hunger. The first thing that I think conservatives and intelligent liberals could agree upon and insist upon is that there's no pathway to environmental sustainability that involves making already poor people more miserable. First of all, because we shouldn't be making them more miserable, that's for sure. And second, because people can't care about broader environmental concerns when they're so desperate, they're worried about tonight's shelter and the next meal. And so the idea that we have to accept arbitrary limits to growth, economic growth which are mostly going to hurt poor people and higher energy prices and higher food prices, which are mostly going to hurt poor people and that's going to help on the environmental sustainability front, it's not only nonsense and a lie, it's an anti truth. You couldn't say anything farther from the truth than that. I completely agree with you, Dr. Peterson in that. And I'll tell you a story that happened to me during my mas... Actually, it was during my PhD. I was unable to publish a paper because I referenced the term environmental imperialism. And the peer reviewed reviewers told me I had to take that word out in order to publish my paper. So I said, absolutely not. I won't do it. So I had to keep shopping it around to different places. I finally got it published. And that's really what you're talking about, is environmental imperialism. Because what the west is doing now is saying, we've developed, and yes, our path of development wasn't good for the environment, and we've learned. And so now we want you to learn, and therefore we don't want you to have all the luxuries that we have because we've destroyed the environment. You stay in your state of worse. Exactly. And we will find a way to protect the environment, not recognizing that you may want to have electricity, have some of the luxuries that we have. And instead of finding a way that we could, for lack of a better word, bring other societies along to the path of development in an environmentally sustainable way, you have this notion of environmental imperialism where you say, no, you can't cut down that tree for food because we want to protect the forest. It's an elitism that is coming into environmental protection. And I'm going to use the word privilege. It is a stance of privilege. I think that's a proper way to use it. That we in this society, we have the privilege of having all these luxuries, and then we have the audacity to tell people that they should not strive for the same things in their lives, not just to tell them to force them under power of law to do so. I mean, we look at what happened to Sri Lanka as a case in point. And, you know, my sense I spent about two years studying issues of environmental sustainability and economic development. And that's when I realized, which was a great delight and shocked to me, that the fastest way forward to true environmental sustainability was to eradicate poverty. I thought, well, that's a good deal. We could eradicate poverty and that'll be good for the planet. And then I also thought, and tell me what you think of this. The pathway forward to the amelioration of poverty and environmental sustainability is, let's say, to make the absolutely poor richer because then they'll start to care about the environment. And so once you get them up to about $5,000 a year in GDP, people start to be concerned about longer term issues because they can afford to. And then there's a pathway of development there that's quite clear, as far as I can tell, that involves cheap energy because energy is work and energy is food. And so the pathway is something like, well, people burn dung or wood. It's better to replace that with coal and then it's better to replace the coal with oil and the oil with natural gas and the natural gas conceivably with nuclear and some judicious mix of renewables and each of those steps is somewhat more expensive using current technology. So generally speaking countries have to pass through that entire developmental sequence. And I know that the developing world is planning to generate something like 170 coal fired plants in the next few years and then I don't know how many nuclear plants China is planning to build but a lot. And so instead of interfering with that and making fossil fuel unconscionably expensive and then driving countries like China to shop for bad sources of coal instead of relatively clean burning coal we're moralizing like mad in our privilege in the west and we're doing all these people to not only privation and want in a very fundamental sense but to an environmentally degraded future. So the bloody leftists on the environmental front are not only putting forward a vision that's contrary to a conservative vision or a true liberal vision but they're putting forward a vision that isn't going to result in what they purport to desire. No, absolutely. And it goes even beyond, say electrifying the south. It goes into sustaining their food source and right now there is a major attack on even their food source. If you take the situation in Sri Lanka the situation in Sri Lanka is not much different than what we will be facing here. Ironically, it started off with lockdowns. The lockdowns really crippled the average person who made their living selling on the streets through tourism vending. And that impact was still there when they imposed even more restrictions on the nitrogen content in the fertilizer. So you had people who were used to making their money by selling tea farming and with the 30% nitrogen content reduction their yields were much less and so they couldn't sustain themselves economically. And then you even had the rice farmers in Sri Lanka also which is a large staple cash crop there and they also had to deal with the nitrogen content reduction and so they weren't making the type of money. So you don't have the money flowing through the system that you ordinarily would and then you have from the lockdown the supply chains were so limited that the cost of everything increased and people have fewer dollars to even purchase these items now. And so that's why you saw them raid the presidential palace because a light goes off. Why should these politicians be living in a palace in luxury while I cannot even put one meal a day on the table for my family? And that's why they said enough is enough. Okay, so let's put that in context. Now we talk about the nitrogen issues. So first thing is that we've seen now a tremendous amount of unhappiness on the Dutch farmer front. So the judicial authorities in Holland accused the Netherlands government of. Failing to live up to its international obligations on the pollution Amelioration front and required immediate action to be taken with regards to nitrogen pollution which admittedly can be a problem. Now, the plan that the Netherlands imposed by compulsion will result in the destruction of a substantial proportion of the Netherlands farming infrastructure. And the people who are promoting this say, well, we think this sector can be resilient enough to manage this. But the farmers know perfectly well that many of them are going to be forced out of business as the politicians themselves have not only admitted but are aiming for. And now there is this approximately 30% reduction in the Dutch herd and the associated farms. And the politicians who are pushing this seem to think that the whole agricultural sector in the Netherlands which is the world's second biggest exporter of agricultural products that the infrastructure there will be able to tolerate this forced and compelled reduction in supply and consequent increases in costs. But my sense is the whole agricultural section will stagger and fall especially under the weight of these postcovid supply chain problems. I can't see how you can take a whole industry that runs on about a three to 5% margin force a 30% reduction in its inputs over an eight year period and expect the whole system to survive. They don't expect it to survive. They don't expect it to survive. Okay, we'll get into that. Now, just to add a little twist to that. Now the Dutch farmers are out protesting. There's 400 of them with their big tractors. And they don't do that lightly because those tractors are expensive and they're very busy. And right in the bloody midst of this, our prime minister did exactly the same thing. He unilaterally announced a mandatory 30% reduction in nitrogen output and he on the farmer side. And he wasn't even willing to tie that to units of nitrogen used per unit of food produced because apparently he doesn't give a damn whether we produce food effectively. And then that means that poor people will go hungry. So what do you make of this? Again, we said this isn't even good environmental policy. It's not going to work. And I don't know what's going to happen in Sri Lanka. But my suspicions are the people are going to be cutting down the forests and eating the animals because what the hell else are they going to do? Exactly. You're absolutely correct. I don't believe that they expect the survival of the system and the policies are created largely because they don't believe that system is worth keeping. And they've said it to the farmers in the Netherlands. They've said that to them. In some places, the nitrogen reduction content is up to 90%. If it's near conservation in the Netherlands, up to 90%. Remember, these farmers, including our farmers they have been approached about this net zero before. This is not the first time. And they were told if you invest in innovative technologies that would bring down your carbon footprint and therefore you would get some credit for that. And so many of those farmers in the Netherlands, they spent millions of dollars investing in innovative technology. And then after that the government said, what? That's not good enough. Then they brought in the nitrogen requirements. So then they imposed the nitrogen requirements upon an already fragile industry. And then the Dutch farmers said, well, we will not be able exactly like in Sri Lanka, to make the yields that it would be worth financially, us continuing this industry. And what did the government say? Well, if your farms can't sustain itself, they're not sustainable, we'll buy them or a corporation will buy them from you, but we cannot continue to invest in an unsustainable business. And when the Dutch farmers come out and say, well, we are one of the largest exporters of cash crops, certain cash crops, what does the government say? Oh no, you're not. You import a lot of the things that you need to produce that. And so when you minus that from the equation, you're actually negligible in the world scheme of the food supply chain. So they have an answer for everything. And not only that, when the Dutch farmers said, OK, let's look at if this is really about the environment and the Canadian farmers are saying the same thing. Let's look at our contribution and the contribution that we make to carbon sequestration when we plant crops, carbon is in the soil. And so do we get in Canada the questions asked, do we get a reduction from our carbon tax that we're paying to dry the crops? Can we get a reduction on that carbon tax? And the question, the answer is no. In the Netherlands, what was the answer? The government basically said, well no, you don't get to do the calculations. We are the ones who set the calculations. So the metrics, they don't even want to negotiate on the metrics. Which tells you how dictatorial this whole process is, when you cannot even have people who have tended to the land for generations, who are probably some of the most experienced farmers in the world, where you say their input is not valid. It tells you that there is an agenda beyond just protecting the environment. Because if it were just protecting the environment, you would want all of these viable inputs and you would want to say, okay, this practice, if it can be done in a sustainable manner, let's do it. No, you impose a restriction that you know will kill the industry. Okay, so I'm going to walk through a bunch of that. Let's lay out the argument here on the progressive side and take it apart. The first argument is, oh no, the environmental apocalypse is coming. Okay, so now let's think about that. Is an apocalypse coming? Well, we've heard about various apocalypse for the last 40 years, and many of them needed to be taken seriously. And so we could say there's some threat, but let's walk through that little bit more. It's like, okay, we can see bad things coming in the future. Now, my question would be, well, who's qualified to deal with those hypothetical emergencies? Now, here's a psychological answer. You tell me what you think about this because I've just been formulating it. So one of the things you do as a therapist when people are afraid of something is you teach them how to confront it voluntarily. And maybe someone's afraid of other people, they're socially anxious, so they don't like going to parties. And so you might say, well, your assignment for this week is to go to a party. And the person says, well, that makes me too afraid. I don't think I can do it. I'll get irritable and it isn't going to work. And so you say, okay, well, let's scale it back to find something you can do that doesn't paralyze you and make you irritable. And so maybe you say, well, you go say hello to the person who runs your corner store and introduce yourself. That's your assignment for the week. And then they go out and see if they can do that. You don't want to confront people with a monster that's so big that it terrifies them into paralysis or turns them into a tyrant, let's say. So now you're an environmentalist and you're facing the apocalypse, and you say, oh my God, I'm so terrified of this that I'm virtually paralyzed. And then you say, not only that, it's such an emergency that I'm 100% justified in using compulsion on others, not bringing them along voluntarily, not developing a shared vision, not talking in detail to the Dutch or the Canadian farmers who are among the most efficient utilizers of resources per unit of food grown in the world. None of that. It's top down. And so then I would say, look, if your vision of the future is so apocalyptic that you're paralyzed into paralysis or you're terrified into paralysis and you've become a tyrant, then you're not the right person for the job. Your own psychological reaction is showing that instead, you should be out there talking to people, the farmers in particular, let's say, and maybe we could throw in the truckers for good measure, who actually have to deal with these things on a day to day basis to find a shared vision. It's not like the bloody farmers want to spend any more money on fertilizer than they have to and get people to come along voluntarily. And so here's the moral hazard, all right? It's the apocalypse. That's the claim. We need net zero, because that means we don't have to think about all the painful details. This is terrifying us because it's such an emergency and therefore conveniently for us. We need all the decision making power, and we need it now. And so the problem here is that the apocalypse justifies the emergence of a tyrant and that's what we're seeing play out. Now, I'll add one more detail to that. You said we both discussed the idea that even by the measures that the environmentalists use, these policies appear to be counterproductive. They're going to destroy the industries, they're going to throw people into poverty, they're going to produce social chaos. And so then you think, well, OK, if they know, if they don't know this, then that's unforgivable ignorance. If they do know it, then it's unforgivable malevolence. And you might say, well, what's driving that? How about if we had to choose between destroying capitalism and saving the environment, we would choose destroying capitalism. Well, you've packed a lot into that. And what I do want to do is just turn back to this whole climate change narrative. So we know climate change is both manmade and it is natural. The problem is that our solutions, of course, they're only focused on the manmade component and they want you to believe that it's only man made, which that's not true, but that's all we could do is affect that man made component. The hypocrisy that we see in the policies is what I have a problem with. Every day we're importing 555,000 barrels of oil a day into Canada, 555,000 miles. And yet we're importing them from often dictatorship regimes with poorer environmental records than ours. So we're rewarding bad behavior and yet we are saying that we cannot develop our natural resources. But we're admittingly, stating that we have not moved past the point where we can live without those natural resources. So that's one sense of the hypocrisy that I see. Another sense is yes, you're right. It is a deliberate attempt to kill certain industries. For example, they have been programming us for years that eating beef is selfish and that if you continue to eat meat, you're a selfish person. They've been programming us to want to eat bugs and to not want to eat especially beef. And so you see this predictive programming coming out and when you juxtapose that with something that they say is one of their saviors, like electric cars and you say, okay, we're going to do a net zero analysis of beef. And they like to do that and they will say that state that you ate Dr. Peterson last night. Well, you have to take into consideration the entire life cycle of that cattle that you ate. And so they start from the farm, they look at all of the feces and the dung excreted from that cattle over its lifetime, its impact on runoff into the water. They look at how much grass that cattle has eaten and then they look at the transportation costs to get that piece of nice beef on your plate that you ate last night. And they say, well, when you do the net zero calculation, that piece of beef is not sustainable. But let's take an electric car. They do not start from in a cobalt mine in Africa or even for a computer in a lithium mine in Africa with a poor five year old child that if you look at just the abuse that that child had to endure, your heart would melt. It's just such egregious, outrageous circumstances that those children are put under. And yet these are the minors of the components that we need in order to go in that electric car so they don't start there. Then you look at the battery, right? And no, let's look at the fact that the battery has to be charged. What is it charged with? It's charged with carbon, but yet that's not included in the carbon footprint. And then you look at the battery, the disposal of that battery at the end of the life cycle of that car, and you know that to decompose that battery will take, I think, by one calculation don't quote me. I think I heard 75 years. So when you look at the life cycle of that and you do a net zero calculation on that, you will see that it is not as green as we are told that it is. And many of the green products are not as green. Well, didn't the EU a month ago redefine green to include natural gas and nuclear? Which begs a major question, which is, well, why weren't they defined that way to begin with? And what's the grounds for the reclassification? And, well, on the nuclear front that's been bothering me for years, it's like, well, France has done a pretty good job providing a stable power grid for a number of decades now, and that's about as green as it gets. There's the problem of disposal of nuclear waste, but that's a manageable problem. There's always a problem with energy solutions. I just can't help but see that. And I've watched the environmentalist leftists do this internal battle of ethics because the left, at least in principle, let's say they have two broad concerns. Well, three. One is amelioration of absolute poverty. Another is amelioration of relative poverty. That's the inequality argument. And the third is something like environmental sustainability. And so then you might say, well, what happens when those goals run into paradoxical juxtaposition? And so then you have to decide if you're going to save the planet or you're going to save the poor. And the answer on the environmental front, as far as I can tell, continually has been, oh, to hell with the poor. We're going to save the planet. And then the catastrophe of that is, well, if you don't save the poor along with the planet, then you doom the planet and the poor. And that seems like a really bad solution to me. that the net zero calculation now is basically an attempt to really transition us from one economic mode of production to a new one. And it's been very clearly stated. It's been very clearly stated by Claus Schwab in his book The Great Reset. This is not a conspiracy. You can find it on Amazon. And that's not a pitch for him. It's also a terrible book. It's a terrible book. I read that book. It is full of platitudes. It's full of platitudes, that book. And there's not a lot of substantiating the grand theories in the book, but it is a grand theory of where they see our entire society going. And one of the big champions of this grand theory is Justin Trudeau. He wants to remake our society in a postnationalist image of what he considers to be an Egalitarian Flat society. But there are still a lot of inequities. If you look at the recent conference that they had in Davos, they basically put limousines on jets in order to get them over there so that they could be driven around in luxury. But yet they want to limit the travel of average Canadians. And so you see this dichotomy and this two tiered society being created, one where they're going after the food supply chain to control your consumption. And the only way they can do that is through the farmers. Then the second thing is to go after your consumption and daily purchasing, which will come through environmental Social governance. And the Environmental Social Governance Program is a completely new international accounting program that requires small and medium sized businesses to allocate the carbon footprint of every single product that they sell. To quantify that, different users will have different products. You may use your camera once a year on vacation, and another person may use it every day to film. So the carbon footprint, it's almost impossible to measure, but yet they're coming up with this system which can only be implemented by lawyers, accountants, consultants. So you have the lawyers, the accountants and contractors getting wealthy, while small businesses will be struggling under more red tape than they have now to be able to meet these standards of this environmental social governance. And the ironic thing about this, Dr. Peterson, is that if these same companies are operating, say, in China or overseas, the same Canadian companies do not have to subject those citizens and that country purchasers to that same level of tracking the carbon footprint. Right? Well, so this is a crucial issue here because one of the things we really have to understand is that if we don't develop our ability to generate and disseminate cheap energy in the developed countries where we have not only high standards of environmental stewardship on the legal front, but an ethos of environmental stewardship among the distributed business class, it's already there. They're already aiming at that. All that's going to happen is that worst providers elsewhere are going to be brought aboard. As you said, we're buying oil from, let's say Canada isn't. I don't think we import oil from Russia, but obviously the Europeans import fossil fuels from Russia like mad. All we're doing is enabling the Chinese and the dictatorial Gulf states to fill in the gaps, let's say. Absolutely, I cannot see in any possible way how that's going to be good for poor people or good for the environment in any sense whatsoever. And I think your comments about Trudeau being a poster boy for the cloud schwab and the WEF types. And also your comments on ESG. Which everyone should know about the ESG mandates that are coming in at the corporate level. If we get snookered into a digital currency. Which seems to me to be highly probable. Then not only are corporate expenses going to have to be accounted for in terms of their hypothetical carbon footprint. But every bloody purchase that individuals make is going to be subject to exactly the same kind of analysis and taxation and nudging and pressure. And so every consumer decision we make is going to be weighed up in terms of our environmental impact for no good outcome. Let's make that clear. To make everything more expensive, to make energy more expensive, to make food more inaccessible, to hurt the planet, to make it more difficult for people to conduct their business and for poor people to starve. That's the bloody vision that's being put forth by the half wit cliche mongers like Claude Schwab. Well, let me first speak about the first point that you made about bad actors. So we have the third largest accessible oil reserves on the planet in Canada, which we leave largely untapped. And right now in Europe, 40% of their supply is coming from Russia. If we were able to develop our natural resources, even get our LNG to tide water, get it over to Europe, we could actually offset dependency on Russian oil. And so you're absolutely right that the need is still there. And the fact that our government has implemented industry killing policies like Bill C 48 and Bill C 69, that is basically just a stymie our production. It is the same thing that when we implement these policies on our farmers, it's really affecting our global supply chain. When we have these social governance rules that are imposed on Canadian businesses, it means that we will not be producing at the level that we should be producing. We are actually being dependent on foreign countries to produce and import it. And that's why we will continue to have such large trade deficits and trade deficits. Some people will say, well, that tells you that you have a rich nation and you don't have to produce everything. But we see what dependency can cause. Jerry Covette, Basic PPEs we had to import where we had the capacity to produce those here. And so we have to make sure that we're optimizing our capacity. I also want to touch on the digital ID and this whole digitization of our economy. Yes, it is a transition to a new economy. The plan is for everything. Even the way our GDP would be calculated would be based on a new means of calculation that would have ingrained in it the carbon footprint. And so the carbon footprint is almost going to replace what we know as our dollar. And when we see centralized digital banking currencies, when we see that emerging that is creating the infrastructure and arguably you could even argue that things such as digital currencies, we're a test ground for creation of that infrastructure of the new economy. That's why I think that my inclusion in the leadership race and in the future of Canada is so important because I've spent years studying what it is that we've been embarked upon. Many people do not understand what is happening, how every calculation, everything that you do, will be logged on that blockchain. The blockchain could see every single transaction and it's going to be recorded. And our entire lives are going to be equated on how much carbon footprint we contribute to society or how good we are at reducing our carbon footprint. Right? So that'll be the hallmark by which all ethical conduct will be evaluated. And we're setting up an infrastructure where there can be complete tracking of everything in relationship to that. And you might say, well, the planet is in terrible shape and the first thing we need to do is to reduce our carbon footprint. But then I think, well, wait a second. This goes back to your discussion about the depth of analysis, let's say on the electric car front. It's like, well, wait a second, are you so sure, like 100% to the bottom of your soul that the most important thing we could possibly embark upon is carbon output reduction and nothing else? So let me offer some other alternatives. If we're going to look at this in a broader sense, and I got a fair bit of this from people like Mary and Tupi and Bjorn Lawnberg. It's like well, Lamberg has put together teams of economists to analyze where we get the biggest return per dollar spent which isn't a bad metric unless you have a better one. And he rank ordered the UN sustainability goals in terms of economic viability. And so let's make that clear. There are important things to pursue. They are important things to pursue internationally and nationally. One of the ways we determine what's most important and should be funded is by looking at something like return on investment. If we spend a dollar, how much money does that generate in return? And Lomberg, who put together ten teams of economists who worked independently on this and then aggregated across their findings showed that climate remediation spending doesn't even enter the top 20. That if we really wanted to put the planet together in some long term sense over the next few decades we'd be funneling a lot more money into such things as absolute poverty reduction for poor children in the developing world because the return on investment for early childhood nutrition, for example, is about $250 to one. And I can think of other environmental issues that are more pressing. So, for example, I worked on the UN committee that set up some of the sustainability goals. So I looked at this for a long time and I do think there are environmental problems and climate change is one of them. But where it should be placed on the list is not exactly clear. Certainly I would say the problem of oceanic mismanagement is much more not only pressing and vital but also remediable for we actually know how to remediate it and trying to generate any public discussion on that front is virtually impossible. And so the environmentalists themselves, they jump on one issue it's climate change. They say oh, it's going to be a catastrophe. And Bjorn Laumberg has done these calculations. He said look, by the year 2100 given current economic projections we're going to be about four times richer than we are now but that's going to be decreased to some degree because of the additional costs associated with climate change but will only be 3.5 times richer. And then we can remediate most of that. He's also done a death calculation showing that fewer people are likely to die in the future when it's warmer than die now because it's cold and more people freeze to death then get overheated. And so in terms of human catastrophe it's not obvious at all. At least at the present time. That even if you accept the IPCC climate change prognostications which you might as well. For the sake of argument it is not clear at all that bending and twisting our entire infrastructure by compulsion and force immediately in an emergency reaction that feeds all the power to the elite is actually going to solve any of these problems and not make them a lot worse. That is a very good point. And therein lies the problem. That is not their solution. Their solution is really one to transform our impact on the environment. And they believe that we are overpopulated. We have too many people, and so we are over consuming. And because of our consumption patterns, if we can bring down our consumption patterns, then we will be able to reduce the impact on the environment. So that's essentially what they are trying to do. Well, that argument I put out a YouTube video last week. I wrote an article for the Telegraph about a Deloitte Memo report that was produced in May. And the Deloitte consultants, who are the Davos types, basically said, well, we're facing this environmental catastrophe, and so we got to put the brakes on economic growth. And sure, that's going to cause some disruption in the short term, meaning the next five decades, but it will be worth it at some point in the future. And I think, well, hold on a second here. You put a lot of economic pressure on the world supply chain system, food production, energy. You're going to starve a lot of really poor people, and somehow you think that's okay. It's like, here's the deal. The apocalypse is so nigh that we're going to have to throw a billion or 2 billion people into absolute poverty again to make things better. It's like, what's your evidence that's going to make things better is Sri Lanka. Your evidence? Their aim is more behavior modification and behavior modification of largely industrialized Western nations. And so they can track that. If everything is digitized, if we all have digital IDs, if our digital IDs, then are used to facilitate and navigate us through society. So whether it is financial, whether it's a purchase, whether it's healthcare. So your digital ID will be tied into the system, and then you can monitor your consumption based on that. Even in the United States right now, you could go into, I think it's Walgreens, and they have free coolers with products inside with locks on it. In the future, it's predicted that those locks you will be able to put in your digital ID. If you've had too much sugar, that ice cream fridge won't open for you. And so it's a way to monitor your behavior. And that's what people are not looking at. They're not looking at all of the promises that have come out of the World Economic Forum, and they're not taking it very seriously because we've had Claus Schwab clearly state that he has penetrated Canada's cabinet. And to me, that's a very serious thing for a global businessman to say about an independent democracy. And we have even our finance minister that's sitting on the board, one of the boards of the World Economic Forum. Many Canadians are very, very concerned about that. And I think as a strong opposition, we need to ask questions about that. Because if these are concerns for Canadians, why. Are we afraid to delve into these issues of someone who has shown such an utter disrespect for our democracy to say that he's penetrated our cabinet? Well, you know, I talked to some people who went to these Davos conferences a while back who stopped going because of the twist that it took. And I said, well, I asked them, very credible people, by the way. I asked them, who is Claude Schwab anyways? And the answer was, well, he's a conference organizer. I said, well, how did he develop such a position of undue influence? And they said, well, he was very good at bringing, what would you say, influential people together and helping them network. And that elevated them into a position of, well, unparalleled authority. In some sense it's like, yeah, fine, but we're going to sacrifice our national sovereignty to this international cabal of misinformed. What would you call it? Misinformed, low rates, utopia who are willing to sacrifice the world's poor. That's the plan. That seems like a really bad plan. Let me push back at you on something here. So now people who are listening to this, especially critics of the way that you're thinking, are going to say, well, there's Doctor Lewis getting all conspiratorial and isn't that just typical of a social conservative type? So you talked about the danger of ESGS and everyone listening should know what those are. ESG. That's worse than diversity, inclusivity and equity, by the way, by a large margin. And so there's the ESG problem, there's the digital ID problem, there's the globalist utopian centralizing problem. Why shouldn't you just be dismissed as a socially conservative conspiracy theorist? What makes you think, and this is really a serious question because the world is pretty weird right now and it's not that easy to protect yourself against becoming conspiratorial, let's say, or seeing conspiracies. What makes you think that your analysis of this situation is balanced and reasonable and that Canadians could rely on you for your judicious wisdom? Well, you've earned a PhD, so you know the grit and the rigor that you go through to earn a PhD. So I respect knowledge. Any information that I put out there, it's well researched. If I'm quoting somebody, it's from their own words. The problem is that the term conspiracy theory has been used in order to absolve politicians of their responsibility to answer questions. It's a psycho term that has been used to gaslight. Even right now, the United Nations has a program that they put out on conspiracy theories on how to deal with a conspiracy theory. What they tell you is that if you see something that you don't agree with, that you believe is a conspiracy theory, report the person write to their editor. This is all a form of bullying. Labeling something as a conspiracy theory is an easy way for you not to deal with the issue at hand by just dismissing it. Me, someone with a PhD I respect knowledge. And I have taken a lot of time to write to the members of the Conservative Party. And everything I write, I documented. At one point when I was telling people that our government enrolled in a program called the Known Traveler Digital ID Program, which is a World Economic Forum program, people said, no, that cannot be. Why would our government enroll in the Known Traveler Digital ID Program with the World Economic Forum when I sent them the link and they can go directly to the government of Canada's website, they could see that we actually have done these things, so many things. What the government does is that they put people in a place of wilful blindness to make them feel that embarrassed somehow for actually listening to the things that they tell them that they're going to do. Justin Trudeau, after Covet said, this is an opportunity for us to reset and reimagine our future, he said that he used those words. Then when people said, oh, this is what you're planning to do, then he says, oh, no, it's a conspiracy. They're gaslighting you. And to be honest with you, I'm a very educated person, and I do not care if somebody labels me a conspiracy theorist, because it just means that they're not intelligent enough to argue with me. That's all it means. And so I really don't care. My goal is I'm going to save my country. I'm going to do everything that I can to save my country. I'm going to invest every single ounce of my skill set to making sure that I remain a Canadian citizen and not a global citizen. And I am going to continue to inform people. So there's no shame. You can call me anything you want. I'm going to continue to speak. I'm going to continue to get my message out there, and I'm going to continue to send Canadians information and substantiate what I say with information so Canadians can be informed about what their government is planning for them. All right, so you're in this race with Poilievre Charest, Baber and Aitchison, and Poilievre is the front runner at the moment by quite a substantial margin. You keep saying that, but you haven't provided me with any documentation to substantiate that. In fact, the media will want you to believe that. Okay, well, let me ask you this. Let me ask you this then. So my understanding is that Poilievre was ahead of the rest of the candidates on the Conservative Front in terms of number of memberships sold in the Conservative Party. Is that correct? That's what he said. I have seen no proof of that. That's what he said. He revealed those numbers. I can tell you that many of the people that signed up on his website were my supporters because he sent messages to everybody's supporters telling them to sign up on their website. So even a few days before the membership ended, people who had already signed up with me, got a message from his campaign saying that they weren't members, so they went and resigned. So there were a lot of duplicates in there. So we do not have the accurate numbers on who sold what. Where do you see the relative how do you conceptualize the relative standing of the current candidates within the Conservative membership? So just so that everyone's listing is clear, so what happens when a new party leader is chosen is that only party members can vote. And so the first vote in Canada will be for the leader of the Conservative Party. And there's a number of candidates who are running, and that vote is in September, in mid September. And so how do you see the relative standing of the current crop of candidates within the Conservative Party? So I sold substantially more memberships this time than the last time when I won the popular vote. I do not want to get into the numbers, because when you add up what Mr. Pauli have said, what Mr. Brown said, the existing numbers, it's impossible. So I know that there are untruths there, and I don't think that there's any benefit from me in weighing in that way. What I can tell you is that we now have the membership list, and we've reached out to the membership list. I can tell you Mr. Poilievre is very strong, but Mr. Charest is not ahead of me. The media will want you to believe that Mr. Charest is ahead of me, they have been promoting him. In fact, I've done phenomenally well with almost no media attention. And the media will try to push as much as they can the candidate that they prefer. Of course, they don't prefer me because I speak a lot of truths that they just do not want to engage in at this time. But Canadians are listening. Canadians are doing their research. There's lots of information out there. And the membership is very, very interested in a number of issues that people are not talking about, such as the impact of global organizations upon our sovereignty. Right, which seems to be a particular, pointed concern of yours. Let me ask you, then, what distinguishes you apart from your concern about the influence, undue influence of these international organizations, what distinguishes you from the other candidates? Why should Canadians vote for you compared to them

The Federal Conservatives are choosing their new leader. On September 10, around 5000 CPC Party memberships were sold by the six candidates vying to become the new conservative leader. Pierre Polyvskamp said they led the the way with around 312,000 membership sold. Leslin Lewis group also sold a number of memberships and Dr. Leslie Lewis joins us now Welcome to Bridge City News, Doctor Lewis. Thank you. I'm happy to be here with you today. So where did you receive the biggest response when it came to membership sold by your team? Was it here in Western Canada? Where you are in Central Canada? Well, I think it was more based on issues and so it was more focused on issues that related to freedom and sovereignty and our economy and prolife issues. So we found that people were gravitating around these issues that they felt that governments were dealing with effectively and so they gravitated to our camp. Were those a lot of the potential voters? More so in Western Canada. Where did you sell more of the memberships or in Central Canada? I would say that they were spread out all over the country and as you know, I did very well in Western Canada. But we found that this election cycle that people were more focused not really on regional issues per se, but more on issues that pertain to the unity of the country and the prosperity of the nation. Now, a number of political experts say this race is really Pierre Poilievre's to lose. How do you respond to that? Well, I think it's the members' race. It's who the members are going to rally behind. And I know that a number of camps have put out their numbers, but really and truly, if everybody who put out their number was accurate, our membership would have to be around 900,000 because we also sold very strong numbers and our numbers are even stronger than in 2020. I just don't want to weigh into that number's game because I don't think it's productive because it really rests on who the members think will bring this party forward, will unite this party, unite this country, and bring in new conservatives into the fold. And I believe I'm the best person to do that. Now, you were born in Jamaica, immigrated to Canada at the tender age of five, and you grew up in East York, in Ontario. You have a law degree, a PhD in international law, and you're a Bible-believing Christian, correct? I think isn't that the only type of Christian that there is? I don't know that a Christian could not believe in the Bible and then consider themselves a Christian, so I would agree with you on that. So how has your faith really played a role in defining who Dr. Leslyn Lewis really is？ I think that my faith has enabled me to be more compassionate and to recognize that we were all part of the same family, the human family, and that no matter who we are, we deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and love. And so I look at even government policies as making sure that we are there for the most vulnerable, being there for the people who are in need, and making sure that our policies not only uplift our nation and prosper our nation, but that the social fabric of our society is also held together. Now, how would you really stick up for social Conservatives should you become leader? Well, I think it's important to stick up for all Conservatives, for all Canadians. And as I said, I think the social fabric of our nation is very important. It's one thing to have a vibrant economic nation. But if we see that parents are losing their rights to raise their children in accordance with their values. If we see that families are being strained. If we see that young people have no desire to. Or just losing hope in being able to even move out of their parents' home and own a home. If we see that families are breaking up. If we see that drug addiction is just rampant within our society， and if we look at the brokenness in our society and we don't find ways to work together to fixing that， then I don't think that we have a really vibrant. productive society. We need to ensure that the most vulnerable those are in need, whether it's a pregnant woman who may decide that she wants to keep her child, she may not want to keep her child, she may want to give it up for adoption, and she needs help getting through that pregnancy to support pregnancy care centers. So I think that we have to ensure that all aspects of our society are strong. So if you were to become leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, would you reopen the abortion debate? I don't believe that debate has ever been closed. I believe in a democracy where we can debate any issues. And I believe in a democracy where not everybody has to agree with me, but I should be free to be able to discuss my perspective without being demonized and without being labeled, without being ostracized. So I think it's very important that we move away from this woke cancel culture narrative where we say we're closing off discussions on any topics, because what happens then is you create fringe movements that are outside of society. And we want to be able to bring people into the fold and have conversations about how we progress as a society and as a nation. So, Doctor Lewis, where do you stand on euthanasia? I'm very concerned, and years ago we spoke about the slippery slope and many people said that we were exaggerating. And now I'm very concerned. A few weeks ago, there was a woman, relatively young woman, who was unable to get housing because she had a disability and she felt that because she couldn't get subsidized housing that she was going to seek to end her life. And our government helped her to do that. And I think that is wrong that we could provide for a person to end their life, but we can't provide housing. And so this is where we have taken Euthanasia and are made legislation to the point where even our most vulnerable are at risk because now it's potentially going to be extended to individuals such as teenagers who have mental health issues. And those are people that are in need of love and protection. And yet we're saying that what we are willing to do for them is to take their life rather than give them the help and the resources that they need to have a vibrant life. A number of government restrictions are finally coming to an end. Why do you think it took the Trudeau Liberals so long to act when so many other countries around the world loosened their restrictions months ago? I think that they got used to being able to rule by decree and mandate and that somehow they forgot that we have a constitution and a Charter of Rights and that some of the things that they were doing were abridging that charter. We're infringing upon Canadians right, the right to peaceful assembly, the right of the freedom of expression and freedom of mobility when a government when we can see that a government can invoke an act like the Emergency Act to freeze people's property during a protest and to confiscate people's property. We know that this is a government that has gone too far, that believes that they have the power to control Canadians and that they are not answerable to Canadians. They forgot that they work for the people. And I think that that was the problem, that they were so entrenched and that they just kept holding on to that power and finally they realized that they were on the fringe and that people would no longer tolerate that. And all the other countries had moved along. And I think that they were ashamed into making that decision and I'm glad that they eventually did so. Dr. Lewis, as we slowly make our way out of the pandemic, what would you like to see the government do to help our economy get back on track? Well, I think that we have realized that some of our policies were very short sighted. Right now we are importing 555,000 barrels of oil a day, largely from dictatorship regimes. Yet we have the third largest accessible oil reserves on the planet. If we had built pipelines to transport our products through, the most environmentally efficient way of doing so is through pipelines rather than through trucks and on trains. We would have been able to get our products to tide water, even sell some of our products abroad. In Europe right now, 40% of the oil comes from Russia and we would have been able to offset that through our liquefied natural gas. We would have been able to sell our products abroad to offset even some of the countries that rely on coal. And we have been very short sighted because those revenues could have been repatriated back to our country to invest in our infrastructure and to pay down our debt. Right now we have a $1.3 trillion debt which we are spending millions a day just to service that debt. Each Canadian owes $40,000. Even before they start school, they owe a $40,000 share of that debt. We need to pay down our debt and we need to bring our fiscal balance in order to the point where we are no longer relying on deficit spending. And that means investing in our natural resource sector. It means bringing our supply chains home, producing more within our country than we're consuming. So the traditional liberals will have made life very difficult for many here in our energy sector. If you were to become CPC leader and the potentially Prime Minister, what would you do to help more of Alberta's oil and gas get to market? May be cancel Bill C-69. Yes, absolutely. That would need to be canceled along with the recent C-48, because we cannot have a nation, the nation with the third largest accessible oil reserves on the planet that has legislation that favors foreign oil production over local oil production. We need to ensure that we can develop our natural resources. It not only benefits Canada as a whole, we have First Nations communities that are engaged in resource sharing agreements with our government that will enrich those reserves, that will take those reserves out of poverty and create wealth within those reserves. Many of those First Nations communities have said that they don't want to hand out. They want to be able to enrich their own communities and to develop infrastructure on their communities. And Canadians also want that too. We want to be able to uplift ourselves and rebound out of COVID. And one way of doing that is to start developing our natural resources. Because for every resource job that's created, there are several splinter jobs created all around the country. Whether they're in the steel industry, whether they're in the banking industry, the transportation industry, in the resource development industry. These industries all benefit from our oil and gas sector. Now, here in southwestern Alberta, we rely heavily on the agriculture sector. What help would you like to see for our farmers and ranchers who many would argue are their bread and butter to our economy? I think it's very important that we recognize that our policies do directly affect the food that gets on our table. And when we have farmers who ordered fertilizer from last year and had their fixed budget for this year based upon those fertilizer costs. And our government imposed a 35% tariffs on the fertilizer that was ordered from last year. It really offsets the balance and the budget that they have set to produce the crops for this year is completely off and they're going to pass those costs on to consumers. So we need to recognize that our policies do have an impact on the cost of food that gets on our table. We also need to invest in those industries and make sure that even our environmental policies, that they're not negatively impacting on those industries. For example, in the agricultural sector, they have to pay carbon tax to dry their crops, but yet they don't get credit for carbon sequestration that they produce while producing their crops. So we need to ensure that our policies, especially in the area of the environment, also recognize the contributions of our agricultural sector. Many Albertans are simply frustrated with Ottawa and the federal liberals. And there's more and more talk of separation has been growing here in the west. How would you approach the Alberta separatists? A number of Albertans feel quite isolated from Ottawa. Well, I would let them know that we want to work with them and that we have a mutual goal of keeping this country together, uniting this country and making sure that every region's voice is heard. We understand that the west has unique issues that are pertinent to them. And I recognize, I recognize that our centralized government has taken the west for granted. I recognize in issues and in regulations like bill C 48 and Bill C 69 that those regulations penalize the west and actually put handcuffs on them to develop their natural resources. And so I would work together with the separatist and make sure that we have policies that will ensure that the west thrives. Because when the west thrives, so does the rest of of Canada. Amen to that. Dr. Leslyn Lewis, CPC leadership Candidate, thanks so much for joining us today from Ontario. Thank you. It was a pleasure.

Well, the WEF strikes again, but this time it's farmers who are the target. You may not have heard about the protests in the Netherlands yet, because so far mainstream media has kept very, very quiet about the situation. So farmers there are protesting the WEF backed net Zero environmental policy, which their government, like ours, is forcing on them. Now, one of the requirements in the policy is for cattle farmers to reduce production by 30% so they can hit their mandated nitrogen reduction emissions. This ensures the demise of thousands of farms. So in response, dairy farmers are dumping their milk rather than send it to market. Food distribution centers are blocked by tractors and store shelves are going empty. It's a very tense situation there right now, and Canadians cannot afford to ignore what's happening there. It's important to understand that farming is more than just an industry. It's a way of life. And especially in Holland. For generations, food production has been at the heart of Dutch culture. They are the drivers of agricultural innovation and new green standards in farming around the world. In their culture, they eat, sleep and breathe the science and art of farming. So this current attack on their way of life is like an attempt at cultural genocide. It's being pushed by the usual culprits like the WEF and environmental activists from around the globe. The current government in Canada is not far behind on this very same project of eliminating farmers. Our government has also announced a Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which demands that farmers reduce their use of nitrogen fertilizers by 30%. Think about that. That means with less nitrogen in our crops, future harvests of things like canola, corn and wheat will be reduced dramatically. Now, unless the Prime Minister plans to legislate that, all Canadians reduce their food intake by 30%, which under the current Liberal NDP regime isn't completely far fetched, production will shift to nondemocratic nations like Russia and China who laugh@our.net zero policies. We will then have to rely on them for food, which is a food security nightmare, or we just blindly march ourselves straight into the next global food crisis. We desperately need a leader in our country who understands that our capacity to continue to feed our own citizens must be protected from these global elites who have been pushing these dangerous programs for years. What help would you like to see for our farmers and ranchers who many would argue are their bread and butter to our economy? I think it's very important that we recognize that our policies do directly affect the food that gets on our table. And when we have farmers who ordered fertilizer from last year and had their fixed budget for this year based upon those fertilizer costs. And our government imposed a 35% tariffs on the fertilizer that was ordered from last year. It really offsets the balance and the budget that they have set to produce the crops for this year is completely off and they're going to pass those costs on to consumers. So we need to recognize that our policies do have an impact on the cost of food that gets on our table. We also need to invest in those industries and make sure that even our environmental policies that they're not negatively impacting on those industries. For example, in the agricultural sector they have to pay carbon tax to dry their crops, but yet they don't get credit for carbon secrecy that they produced while producing their crops. So we need to ensure that our policies, especially in the area of the environment, also recognize the contributions of our agricultural sector.

Yeah, hi, this is Dr. Zelenko and I'm making this video from my hospital bed. I just want to give a quick update. Many, many people have expressed their love and prayers, and I'm very grateful. Thank you. Unfortunately, I had an MRI and trans-esophageal echo cardiogram called the ... and I found a tumor in my right ventricle. That's the lower right chamber of the heart. And on top of that tumor is a blood clot. That's not pretty good news. It's not good news. And the treatment would be to go on blood thinners, which I'm on, to try to dissolve the clot. And then we have to figure out what to do with that tumor. To be frank, if that clot breaks off, that's a ticket to the next world. Also, there are more tumors around my lower left lobe and my lung. So I'm in a precarious situation. However, as King David writes, even though I walk in the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for God is with me. And I do really feel that way. And those words resonate in my soul more now than ever in my life. And there is a Tulmudic teaching that even if the sword is on your neck, a person should never give up hope. And so I'm in a very good state of mind, and as I frequently said, they're going to have to carry my body off the battlefield because my resolve to help humanity, the vulnerable, the innocent, decent people overcome this terrible darkness and plague that is upon us has never been stronger. And if I have to leave the world, I accept God's will. But I encourage and plead with everyone else to up your game and stand up and resist first within yourselves against giving into fear and then resist publicly against the policies of attorney, which are coming again because it's pretty obvious what's going to happen right now. The World Health Organization, which is essentially funded by the sociopath Gates, is gaining more and more power over sovereign nations. Gates I think five or six months ago that smallpox is a big threat and then supposedly was eradicated in 1980. And it was only found in two labs in America and in Russia and DSL level four labs, the highest maximum security labs. And yet five days after the sociopath criminal Gates said his prophetic words, a few vials of smallpox were found in an unsecured refrigerator in a Merck laboratory in Philadelphia. And so it's not surprising to me now that we're seeing monkey pox. I anticipate global panic about it. This will be the next media or narrative that will continue the fear campaign and lockdown campaign and mass campaign to create anxiety, isolate you from people you love, and dehumanize you with these face diapers. This is their playbook, and they're going to keep on sending wave after wave of their evil agenda until we make internal resolutions to kick the evil out from within us. We should. My opinion denounce the worship of false gods, the god of technology, god of science, god of corrupt governments, money, power, fame and reconcile our hearts with our Creator, who's making us anew every instant in time. Basically, the world has now chosen sides. Those that will worship the machinations of men and those that will bow down to the Creator. Let the calling begin. The world needs a cleaning. And when the process is done, the world will be filled with the knowledge of God. Just like the waters cover the seas. And the sociopaths have a big thing coming for them. They think they're gods. They think that they're ruling the world. We'll see. So let the games begin. And I have no problem falling in battle, because this is a hill that we need to die for. Because otherwise our progeny will have nowhere to breathe free.

Why are you on Parliament Hill? Why wouldn't I be? This is democracy. This is what democracy is all about. People believe that the government has overstepped with mandate, and they're here to exercise their democratic right. We give, people give the government the power to act in accordance with their values. The government does not have any independent power. It is us that confer the power on the government. And where they overstep, the people have a right to voice their opinions. What we've seen in the last year with demonization of people, turning people against each other, the hatred that has been spewed from the highest levels is completely unacceptable. And the people have had enough. And so they're here to voice their opinions. And I support any PEACEFUL act of democracy. And all I've seen here is loving, law- abiding Canadians, expressing their voice, which they're entitled to do so. So why wouldn't I be here, Andrew. Do you feel like the Conservatives have done an adequate job at representing these people throughout the pandemic in the last couple of years or even in the time that you've been in office the last few months? Well, I've always spoken out. You've seen that? I've always spoken out from the very beginning about things that concerned my constituents. I will always be a voice for my constituents, and I will never be silent. So I believe that MPs have said and acted in accordance with the voices of their constituents. Yes. For a lot of people, this is not about whether you're pro or anti vaccination. It's about a more fundamental message, which is about government overreach. Is that resonating with what you're hearing from your constituents on the ground? Absolutely. Whether you're vaccinated or not vaccinated, it's about the mandates and whether or not these mandates are fair, whether they adhere to a public health principle, because that's what we're concerned about. We want everybody to be safe. We want people who are able to be vaccinated to exercise informed consent. That's what we're concerned about. So it's not about whether you're vaccinated or not vaccinated. It's about government overreach. But thank you for your time, Andrew. Pleasure. Thank you so much. Bye.

So, Dr. Lewis, where do you stand on Euthanasia? I'm very concerned. And years ago we spoke about the slippery slope and many people said that we were exaggerating. And now I'm very, very concerned. A few weeks ago, there was a relatively young woman who was unable to get housing because she had a disability. And she felt that because she couldn't get subsidized housing that she was going to seek to end her life. And our government helped her to do that. And I think that is wrong, that we could provide for a person to end their life, but we can't provide housing. And so this is where we have taken Euthanasia and are made legislation to the point where even our most vulnerable are at risk, because now it's potentially going to be extended to individuals such as teenagers who have mental health issues. And those are people that are in need of love and protection. And yet we're saying that what we are willing to do for them is to take their life rather than give them the help and the resources that they need to have a vibrant life.

Dr. Leslyn Lewis is vying to lead the Conservative Party of Canada and become the next prime minister. She is also the only pro-life candidate vying for the leadership. True North’s Elie Cantin-Nantel attended a campaign event Lewis held at Ottawa’s Greenbelt Church and asked attendees why they were supporting her. He also asked them what conservatives can do differently to win the next election and if they think it is possible for the party to win with a pro-life platform and leader. True North also interviewed Lewis to find out what her vision of the Conservative party is. The Conservative Party of Canada leadership race is well underway with over 600,000 members signed up and six candidates vying for their support. One of these candidates is Dr. Leslyn Lewis, who ran in the 2020 leadership race and has since become a member of Parliament. Now, the legacy media often likes to ignore Lewis, but we don't. So I went to an event she held at Ottawa's Greenbelt Church to ask attendees some questions, starting with why they are supporting Leslyn Lewis for leader. I've liked Dr. Leslyn since she first appeared on the scene for the first leadership race. I like that she's a woman of integrity, that she honestly answers all questions, that she's not scared and she doesn't run away from things that some people can consider political taboo right now. So, yes, I appreciate her honesty and integrity. I think she's a good, strong candidate. I was happy to come see her two years ago when she ran for the leadership, and I'm a political junkie, so I like these events. But I really wanted to hear her message tonight and I wanted to see how she presented to the crowd and how the crowd received her and how she handled the questions and answers. I think she did really well tonight. She's a strong candidate, she has grown a lot as an MP and I think that she's going to do very well in the leadership vote in September. I'm really excited to endorse Dr. Leslyn Lewis. She brings an enthusiasm and it's the value set that I think is really needed in Canada. She's poised to take on Justin Trudeau in the general election and I can't wait to see her stacked up against Justin Trudeau. She brings a humility and a desire to lead this country in a good way. I've been following her quite a bit and so I came on a couple of weeks after she announced her candidacy because I believe she's principled, I believe she's honest, I believe she's compassionate. And then I believe she has a vision for Canada, to restore Canada to at least what it was, and even I think she'll take it to the next level. Conservatives have lost to Justin Trudeau three times, allowing him to stay in power and put in place policies which some have deemed harmful and divisive. So I wanted to ask the attendees what they think the party needs to do differently in order to win the next election. I think the most important thing is that Conservatives need to be proud about their values and speak out confidently and not just try to appease the left. I think that was what was done last time and it didn't really work out that well. I want a Conservative who's going to speak up for what I believe in, which is a lot of just Canadian values that I think a lot of Canadians share. I guess they have to stay on message, they have to let the public know exactly what they stand for. Don't make the message too complicated. Make it very simple and understandable and speak to the basic issues that people are concerned about, like inflation, which is affecting everybody right now. So those bread and butter issues I think, are going to win people over. A number of things is just to remain true to who we are as Conservatives bring forward policies that will make life more affordable for Canadians, and bring forward policies that make Canada the freest country in the world. Well, I think we as Conservatives need to make sure that we're united as a caucus and as a party, and that we're firing on all cylinders, that we get our message across clearly of hope, love, and compassion. Exactly what Leslyn's campaign is all about hope, unity, and compassion. And I think that's going to be a huge thing if we can communicate that vision to Canadians, I think they're ready for it because I think they're tired of Justin Trudeau and all of his cronies. Lester Lewis is the only pro life candidate in this leadership race, and legacy media pundits often like to say that the Conservative Party could never win an election with a pro-life platform or a leader. So I wanted to ask these attendees how they see Conservatives winning with a pro life message. I like the way Lesson talked about it tonight. Dr. Lesson in that she talked about the fact that we just need to be able to talk about it honestly and openly, that we can find common ground to talk about. I thought that was a brilliant answer. And as she said, there's a lot of Canadians that are willing to talk about the fact that we don't want sex selective abortion. A lot of Canadians don't worry that you can that Canadians are going to the States because they can't find a doctor here that will abort six months, seven months, eight month old baby, and so they go to the States for a doctor who will do it there. Many Canadians don't realize that. So I think we can have those conversations. And it's okay, I think, if it's presented the right way. And as Dr. Lewis said today, it starts with a conversation. So if they can convince Canadians to have the conversation and to talk about legislation and talk about the issue in an intelligent and kind and respectful way, I think anything is possible. But you have to start somewhere, and starting with the conversation is probably the best way. Well, we've never tried it before, so I would say that we look to other countries, look to the United States. The Republicans are winning running on a pro life platform extensively. We look to the UK. Even the UK. Conservatives are reducing abortion from 22 weeks down to 20 weeks. So these are things that are winning issues around the world. Conservatives are motivated by these issues and would come out to vote in support of an explicitly pro life candidate. I think it's a matter of education. I think by far and large, Canadians believe that there is protection for Canada's pre born. And I think when they find out that there's no protection, I think they're actually appalled, and they'd be very willing to have an open and honest dialogue about those issues. I also had the opportunity to interview Dr. Leslyn Lewis, and I asked her some of the questions I had asked the attendees, including what she thinks the Conservatives need to do differently in order to win the next election, as well as how she would convey her pro-life message in light of potential attacks and distortions from the left and the media. Conservatives have failed three times to beat Justin Trudeau. What do you think they have to do differently to make sure that he does not get a fourth mandate? I think Conservatives just need to be Conservatives and not be afraid of the issues. Be courageous and put forth issues that are going to advance our country and prosper the nation right. The Legacy media says that there's no way that Conservatives can win on a pro life platform. You are the only pro life candidate in this race. If you were to win, you would likely face a string of attacks from Liberals and the media claiming that you want to take away a woman's right to choose. How would you combat that and how would you be effective in sharing your vision without being twisted and interpreted the wrong way? I think it's important that you always find common ground between Canadians. And so that's what I look for. I look for policies that unify Canadian. And so all of my policies have encouraged people to have conversations and to find policies that we can all agree on. And there are a number of life policies that the majority of Canadians agree on, and I think that is where we should be as a nation. And that concludes our report on Leslyn Lewis's campaign event.

Canadians are being forced into a conversation about the sensitive topic of abortion and not because of anything that's happening in our own country. We're being forced into this because of what's happening in the United States where the supreme in Court has overturned Roe v. Wade and Canadians because of how much American media we consume, how much attention we pay to American politics. We're kind of being forced to have this debate to some degree in our country, too. I think we got to ask ourselves, what type of conversation do we want to have? Is it one where we respect the fact that people are going to come from different perspectives and try to overcome divisions so that we might find some common ground on something that is so deeply personal for so many, or do we find a lack of balance and start to mirror the rhetoric of the United States? Unfortunately, our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is having the opposite of the impact I think most Canadians would like. He wants to import the American culture wars and treat those who disagree with him as if they are bad people, as if they are enemies, as if they are opponents that he must vilify. It's unfortunate, but he is bringing this approach to even his policymaking. Prime Minister Trudeau has pledged to take away the charitable status of organizations that disagree with him on abortion. Crisis pregnancy centers and other groups that he deems to be antiabortion may lose their charitable status, their ability to issue a tax receipt when receiving a donation, which will, in effect, destroy many of these organizations. And he's got to be really careful about this. There's a part of the American culture wars that is having a real ugly side right now, and he risks inciting the same type of harassment, vandalism, and arson against crisis pregnancy centers in Canada that we're seeing in the United States. By vilifying these organizations, he is putting people at risk in the United States right now. The Wall Street Journal has documented dozens of examples where over the last few weeks alone, crisis pregnancy centers have been attacked. One of the most notable instances was in Buffalo, New York, very close to the Canadian border, where a crisis pregnancy center was lit on fire. It's difficult stuff. It's scary for many people who work in these organizations, and that is why vilifying them in the way that Trudeau has is concerning to many. We've seen, even just since Friday when the decision was made public by the Supreme Court. The New York Post is also reporting attacks over the weekend in Colorado. There's one particular group called Jane's Revenge that is going after these organizations and spray painting a slogan that says, if abortion isn't safe, neither are you. That's a threat. Now, the other part of Trudeau's framing on this issue is to behave as though all women perceive abortion in the exact same way. He treats women as a monolith as if this diverse group of people who make up over half of the human population couldn't possibly have different points of view than him. And we know that's not true. It's not true in the United States, where 60% of women, according to Gallup polling data, believe abortion should be illegal in some or in all circumstances. It's not true in Canada either, where we literally just saw a few days ago, over 300 prominent women sign a letter saying that they oppose abortion and would support the overturning of Roe v. Wade. These are prominent Canadian women in public life with important jobs and critical roles in our democracy. And we've seen even Canadian conservative leadership candidate, Leslyn Lewis, the first black woman to run to be leader of a political party at the federal level, is saying the Prime Minister's approach is wrong and she's asking for an adult conversation. Well, I agree with her. I don't come into this with a judgmental attitude toward people who view this issue one way or the other, to be honest with you. I've seen personally, I've seen professionally how complicated this is. And that's why it really bothers me when people vilify those on the other side of what is such an important and sensitive debate, an important and sensitive dialogue. It deserves better. It deserves an adult conversation. And we cannot follow the example of Prime Minister Trudeau.

And Dr. Lewis joins us on the program now. Dr. Lewis, thank you for taking the time. How did you assess that debate? Well, I assessed it from my perspective, which I thought that I did very well. I executed my position, and I was able to call out people that I didn't feel were being forthright with their position. Okay. So there are clear differences, clear among candidates, and that became very evident. There was much challenging going on, and you certainly challenged the perceived front runner, Pierre Poilievre. Where does Mr. Poilievre fail as far as you're concerned? Well, I think it's very important that people... that candidates are upfront with what their positions are. If you're going to lead this country, you have to lead for everyone. You have to be able to engage all different perspectives and hiding who you are hiding what you believe in is not going to go over with your opponents and with delivery, they are going to be able to extract from you what your positions are. So it doesn't really matter what your viewpoint is on a certain issue. You just need to be confident and courageous enough to articulate it. Not everybody is going to agree with you on the position, but Canadians need to know where you stand. It's about honesty. It's about understanding. It's about believing the candidate, whether it's at the constituency level or the national level. you have to believe what the candidate is saying in order for the candidate to earn your vote. Why should Canadians consider Dr. Leslie Lewis to be the best candidate for Prime Minister of candidate? Because I will give our party the best chance to win. Not only that, I believe that it's very important that the next leader is able to build bridges, bring people together. Our country is in trouble, and many people are crying out for hope and for opportunity. We need somebody with not only parliamentary experience, but real life experience that can relate to the average Canadian that understands what it means to build a business, understand what it means to create wealth, understand what it means to maybe not be able to know where their next meal is coming from, standing in a grocery line and not knowing if your debit card is going to go through, not someone who's had a paycheck their whole life, someone who struggled and made it from the bottom up and can relate to Canadians and then help build this country back. Right now, our country is being run by a minority of WOKE politicians. The minor WOKE population is ruling over the majority, the silent majority. And we need to turn things around and give people back their power and their freedom. Dr. Lewis, there is a perceived divide, probably a real divide among Conservatives within the Conservative Party, social Conservatives, others who define themselves as not being social Conservatives, Conservatives. There's a divide on abortion and gay marriage. As we watch the party evolve. would you speak to that, please? How do Canadians ... and you talk about needing to understand that you're the person who can bring the country together. Can you bring the party together? Well, I think it's important that, first of all, we recognize that every voice is important, and our party is a microcosm of society. So we have divergent voices. We're not a groupthink party. And so when we celebrate the various voices and we allow them to shine. I think it will build a very strong, united party. With respect to the divergent perspective, yes, I'm defined as a social conservative in my life as a lawyer, I represented the LGBTQ+ community who were persecuted in their country and came to Canada fleeing persecution as refugees. Many of those people landed in Canada with my phone number in their pocket because I believe in the inherent dignity of all human beings. And so it's very important that Canadians know what you believe, what policies you will form, where you stand on issues. And when we run away from that, it's basically saying... I don't doubt that. Can you bring this party together? Look, we've seen two leaders now that weren't able to deliver the party in such a way to Canadians to have to form government. And like Jean Charest was talking about, needing to satisfy the Greater Toronto Area. Maybe you have some comment on that, But you have two leaders now. They were elected by the party who said they would pull the party together. They weren't able to do it to the satisfaction of Canadian voters. Can you do that? I absolutely can, because I think it's important that we focus on what our strengths are on our unified voice. When we begin from the premise that some voices need to be silent, that some perspectives need to be hidden, and we buy into this wokeism that is when our party will continue to be divided. I have been very vocal in telling people who I am and also by saying I will formulate policies that will uplift the entire Canadian population. Everybody will prosper under my leadership. And so that's the type of voice... Justin Trudeau's policies. I'm sorry to rush you, but we started a little late. Which of Justin Trudeau's policies would you immediately address and which of Mr. Trudeau's policies would you judge to be most harmful to Canada and Canadians? Any policy that infringes our Charter. Canadiannever again should feel that a government can freeze their bank accounts and confiscate their property without a court order. Canadians now are facing mandates and they cannot travel because they're unvaccinated. I would immediately get rid of that. I would immediately restore Canadians to their jobs who have been discriminated against because of their vaccination status. We have ways to reasonably accommodate. I believe that we should do that. All right. Now energy exports. Let's talk about that before we talk about energy exports, let me just draw the attention to what Canadians are seeing today. You're seeing it as well. If you're out there, you're seeing the price of gasoline just spiking. Mr. Trudeau has increased the carbon tax and intends to increase it three-fold by 2030. What would you do about the carbon tax, about the cost of energy and our inability as a nation to export the actual fuels. we have, the energy supplies we have in abundance, but we can't get them overseas. What would you do? I would get rid of the carbon tax. There are more efficient ways to protect our environment without burdening average Canadians, heating their homes, filling up their gas tanks. I would repeal Bill C-48, Bill C-69, and allow Canadian energy to thrive. We have the third largest accessible oil reserves on the planet. We have the most ethical and environmentally-friendly standards. We should be able to get our LNG to market, offset the 40% dependency of Europe on Russian oil and enrich our country. We need to bring our supply chains home, not only in the area of oil and gas, but in food, in industries. We need to start producing more in Canada and bring down the cost of living for everyone. Okay, very much so. The truth. Let me ask you one more question. In the time that we have left, Mr. Charest pointed several times to the Greater Toronto Area, the GTA, and pointed to the failure of the Conservative Party of Canada to gain even a nominal number of seats in last year's election. I think it was four seats out of what, 54, 55. And he talked about needing to be able to generate that kind of return from the GTA. When Canadians across the country here GTA, they hear, oh, my God, Toronto again. How do you reconcile the power of Toronto just by just numerically with number of seats in Parliament with the national desire to be represented? Because you know what the feeling is, in some parts of the country, Toronto gets everything first, and then we get what's left. What do you say to that? Well, I think there are areas of the country like the west, the east to some extent, and other areas that have been completely overlooked and disrespected by Ottawa. We need to change that. We need to make sure that every Canadian feels valuable and every region feels valuable. But there is a real problem in the large urban centers for the conservatives. And those areas have large immigrant population. We need to find ways to reach out to those populations. I believe that my success story as coming here at five years old, achieving the heights of the PhD, running for the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, that success story resonates with the average immigrant family who came here, left everything behind, has strong faith values, strong family values. So I believe that I'm in a unique position to reach out to those centers and to win those areas for our party and in the general election.

Welcome to another episode of Boom and Bust. I'm your host, Tony Clement. I'm here at the News Forum, where all voices matter. Boom and Bust. Welcomes back to the program. Dr. Leslyn Lewis, who is a member of Parliament for Haldiman-Norfolk and a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. We'll talk about her policies and plans as this leadership race heats up. Welcome back to the program, Leslyn. Thank you for having me again, Tony. Well, you're running again for leaders, so maybe you could just give our viewers a little bit of an introduction to yourself and why you've decided to run again. Well, as you know, I ran in 2020 and I did well. I was able to get the popular vote on the second ballot and that was really as a relative unknown. And so I decided to focus on a lot of the issues that I focused on in 2020. And that was basically uniting the country and starting from the perspective of uniting the party, making sure that every sector of our party has a voice, whether you're a social conservative, a progressive conservative, a libertarian, or a fiscal conservative. We need to unite because we represent a microcosm of what Canadian society looks like. And I think if we can unite and form strong policies, we can lead the country. Can you tell us a little bit more about some of the themes that you're communicating as a leadership candidate? Sure. So the economy is something that's very big. I think that we need to get our economy in order. We need to deal with the carbon tax, which I would eliminate the carbon tax. We also need to do this while we're maintaining an environmentally sustainable practices. And so I don't see the environment as mutually exclusive from economic development. And so I'd like to have policies that highlight both those strengths, protecting the environment while growing our economy. So let's talk a little bit more about, I guess, the woes that Canadians are suffering through right now. I'm sure on the campaign trail you've heard stories from people who are going through some tough times, whether it's inflation, cost of living, housing prices, all of these things are impacting. So tell us a little bit more about your thoughts on these kinds of issues. Well, all of the above the average person is complaining about, even if they own their own home, there are things that are impacting on them, such as cost of increase in heat, hydro, food costs. This is extremely exacerbated for people who are on fixed incomes, like people who are on disability and pensioners. So housing affordability, not just housing, is a really important issue. As I said, again, the carbon tax is also an important issue. There are also people who were let off of work because of their medical choice. And so with the announcement yesterday eliminating the mandate and returning a lot of federal workers to their source, of employment that will also alleviate some of the pressures that those sectors specifically felt. So there are many people who were laid off because of choices that they made and also with the economy, because of COVID, with many companies closed down. I spoken to people all over the country, for example, business owners, small business owners who had a very difficult time, restaurants who had a difficult time finding people to work. And some of them even had to do the drastic thing, Tony, of shutting down a few days a week. Not because they didn't have it's the clientele, they had the clientele, but they didn't have the workforce in order to get the work done. And that is I've seen that in restaurants, I've seen that in industries and manufacturing sector. And so we need to make sure that we have the ability to get people back to work, to retrain them, to have retraining programs and to fill that void that we have within the workplace. Is the federal government doing anything in these areas right now? Well, there is talk about bringing in skill trade workers and meeting with employers to find out what these needs are. I personally, my immigration policies are more focused on making sure that we meet the needs of Canadians. I think it's very important that we craft policies around that and so we have to look to fill those voice. Even in the writing that I live in, COVID was really catastrophic and many of the policies altered how they could bring in seasonal farm workers and seasonal agricultural workers. Welcome back to Boom and Bust. I'm your host Tony Clement, here with Dr. Leslin Lewis. She is a member of Parliament and also a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. Leslyn, it appears that a lot in this country just isn't working. Whether it's pipelines getting pipelines built or Pearson Airport, it's a little bit of a mess, quite frankly. And I would say that probably a lot of the criticism is being directed to the federal liberal government right now because of their inability to get anything done. Is this something that you've heard in your tour around the country as a leadership candidate? And if so, what have you been saying about this? Absolutely. People are very concerned that our economic policies were very short sighted and especially when it comes to the natural resource sector. When we look at the fact that we have the third largest accessible oil reserves on this planet and yet we leave that unpacked. We also import over 500,000 barrels of oil every single day. We know that in Europe 40% of their oil is acquired from Russia. We have the capacity to supply the world with our liquefied natural gas. If we had had the foresight to build, to construct pipelines, to get our products to tide water, to be able to sell our products abroad, not only would we be repatriating those revenues back to our country. But we would also be helping with diminishing our impact on the environment by selling clean products like liquefied natural gas to countries that have high coal production. So the fact that we weren't able to do that affects not only the environment, but it affects our bottom line, it affects our revenue. And I think it was very, very short-sighted for the liberals not to consider optimizing one of our greatest strengths like that. And Pearson Airport, any comments on the chaos there? Well, a lot of the chaos was due to the fact that people who were vaccinated were being treated like criminals coming into their own countries. They still had to take tests and the unvaccinated couldn't fly at all. And so we needed to make sure that especially now in the summertime, people are coming here as tourists and they are jumping through hoops in order to meet the demand of our country's travel mandates. And these mandates are not anywhere else in the world. So I do have to say that I'm glad that the liberals finally were able to change this policy and to do something about the backlog that we see, the clock that we see at the airport. But also there's concern about the ArriveCanada app that's also slowing things down. Many seniors have complained that they are just not smart phone savvy and that there needs to be an alternate mechanism for them to be able to comply with the ArriveCan app without having it on their phone, which many of them don't have. Just returning to pipelines for a moment and you talk about liquefied natural gas as well. A lot of these will be of economic boom for our First Nations, our indigenous peoples, and yet again, not a lot of action from the federal liberals. Is this something you're concerned about? It is, because resource sharing agreements is something that in speaking with First Nations communities, they see this as a way to really address on reserve poverty and to uplift themselves. They don't want handouts. They want to be able to be partners in development and in resource development. And this is a good opportunity for them to change the dynamics on reserves by eliminating unreserved poverty. And the fact that the liberals are not seeing this opportunity means that these reserves are kept stagnant and it's something that the chiefs on the reserves are very interested in engaging it. And do you think that there could be appropriate partnerships with a lot of these indigenous reserves? Oh, there has been and there will continue to be if the political will is there to do that. And these reserves want to be able to address some of the problems that are keeping them stagnant, such as having clean water. These resource sharing agreements would be able to address that. Internet. Even young people on the reserves are not able to engage in educational programs and vocational programs because of poor Internet connectivity. These are things that could be addressed through infrastructural development which would come from these types of resource sharing agreements. Leslyn, obviously, one of the areas where conservatives seek to do better is in certain urban ridings. I think of Toronto, I think of Montreal, I think of Vancouver, where conservatives haven't had that historic success in the last three election cycles anyway. Do you have plans to sort of tackle urban issues and that disconnect that the party has currently? I think that what we need to do, Tony, is we actually need to physically get into those areas and to let the people understand that their values are reflected in our party. Many people that live in the urban areas, a lot of them are from immigrant backgrounds. And inherently they share our values, they share conservative values. But we haven't been able to connect with them on a values level to let them know that there is a place within our party for them. And that's some of the work that I intend to do do, that I intend to continue to do because it is a very important part of winning the next election. Are there kind of policy areas I guess housing would be one of them. That springs to mind immediately because that's an issue everywhere, of course, but particularly in our urban areas. Or are these the kinds of things that we would be talking about or the conservatives would be talking about, rather, when they are seeking to campaign under your leadership? Absolutely. Housing affordability is something that is very pressing for urban areas. It's pressing for all over the country, but specifically in urban areas where the cost of housing has just skyrocketed and it is an issue of supply. We just do not have enough supply. And although the liberals said that they intend to build 100,000 homes, I think when you look at the stress on the urban areas, the number needs to probably be closer to 1 million homes. And what we have to do is start looking at the infills. We have a lot of urban spaces, too, that we just have not developed. In addition, we have a lot of crown lands that is just sitting there that are close to urban areas that we also have not developed. I think we need to incentivize builders to purchase that land. And perhaps what we could do is we could reduce some of the costs for, say, the development cost that would be passed on to the purchasers so that we can make housing more affordable. We also have to look at making sure that we are optimizing housing, that we have the densities to be able to deal with the high density capacity within the city. So that's a major issue. Housing affordability actually great points. And connected to that, of course, is the Conservative Party's failure over the last against three election cycles to connect with millennial voters and now Generation Z, millennial voters. Do you have any thoughts on your candidacy and how you can connect with those voters as well? Affordability is big for them. When you speak to them, that's the first thing that comes out of their mouth, that they don't want to continue to live in their parents basement. They want to have the dream of being able to own a home. They want to be able to fill up their gas tank. And if they don't have a car, they want to be able to have affordable, accessible transportation. And so to transfer payments from the government, from the federal government to provincial government, we can deal with things like infrastructural development that will affect the areas such as transportation, which is big for the Millennials. And another issue that's big for them is the environment. And as you know, I have a masters of environmental studies so I take that area very seriously. And I believe that there are ways that we can improve the environment without a carbon tax. And my policies focus on doing that largely through enhanced green technology and innovative technology. Are you getting a sense that these voters, these younger voters are starting to look for alternatives to the true to liberals now many of them are because they don't like the approach of government knows best. Government will tell you what you can watch on the Internet. Government will dictate your algorithms. They are more free spirited. And when they see the liberal government moving into that type of leadership, that type of dogmatic leadership, many of them are questioning whether this is the party that they could align themselves with and they're finding that they're not. And so they're looking for places that they could call their home. Leslyn, in the past you've called government, quote, overbearing and maybe this is on the Internet bill and some other things too. But what needs to be done to start dialing back government's role in all of our lives? Well, government needs to start listening. Government needs to respect the people that elect them and one perfect example is what we witnessed with the Convoy protest earlier on this year. People came from all over the country because they were frustrated, they were alienated, and instead of being listened to it, they were called names like racist and misogynist and bigots and Nazis. And it's just inappropriate for a government to respond to citizens in that manner. And it's an arrogance that politicians that we have acquired in thinking that we know best, people have elected us and we need to listen to the people that elect us because we are their voice. And I have not been seeing that in the last few months. And even the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act, where we had a government confiscate people's property and feed people's bank accounts because of the protest, and this was done without a court order, that is an overreach. That is an overstep. If we have to return to upholding our Constitution and respecting the constitutional rights of Canadians yeah, that's been certainly that issue about the Emergencies Act and its implementation has been starting to be covered nationally, but has been a focus on Parliament Hill. Do you think that people are starting to come to the conclusion that the Emergencies Act wasn't necessary in the first place? Well, the Liberals are saying that the police did not tell them to invoke the Emergencies Act. That's what we're hearing now. We've also seen numerous media outlets backtrack and say that the coverage that they gave during the protest was inaccurate, that there were not access sedition, that the Russians were not involved. These are things that were put out there to conjure up fear in Canadians and so that an extreme type of approach would be adopted. And we saw this extreme approach, and it's going to go down in our history, in our Canadian history, as one of the worst encroachments on civil liberties. When a government has cracked down on largely peaceful protesters and used a measure like the Emergencies Act in order to crack down on dissent. It's something that really, really shows utter disrespect for our Constitution, our freedom of assembly, our freedom of expression, or freedom of mobility. These rights were encroached upon by the use of the Emergencies Act. Yes, I suppose yourself, as a Parliamentarian and also as a lawyer, you're seeing in real time on Parliament Hill, the degrading of the rights of citizenry. Is that one of the things that really compelled you to run it is. Because what I'm seeing is that many citizens have a lack of trust in institutions, in the institution of government, in the institution of the media. And this erosion of trust is causing people to become disconnected. Even in our provincial election, 40% turnout rate shows a lack of involvement. And we're seeing that the participation, even in our elections, is decreasing because there is a lack of trust. And so we need to restore faith and confidence in our institutions and the only way that we can do that is by having mutual respect and upholding the laws and the foundations of this society. We've got about 30 seconds left. And are you optimistic about your chances and the Conservative Party's chances? Yes, I am very optimistic because our efforts this time have far exceeded what I did in 2020. And so I'm very optimistic about my future in the party. I'm optimistic about this race. And I look forward to working with the other candidates. I think that we have strong candidates. I think, of course, my background coming from industry and academia and having experience outside of politics is the strongest background. But I look forward to working with all of the the other candidate. Dr. Leslyn Lewis, thanks for joining us on Boom and Bust, and we wish you every success. Thank you so much for having me today. Thank you.

Many of you won't recognize me or my real name. It's Norma McCorvey. I'm also known as Jane Roe, the plaintiff in the supreme court case Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion in America and changed our nation in an unprecedented way. Back in 1973, I was a very confused 21-year-old with one child and facing an unplanned pregnancy. At the time, I fought to obtain a legal abortion. But the truth be told, I have three daughters and have never had an abortion. However, upon knowing God, I realized that my case, which legalized abortion on demand, was the biggest mistake of my life. You see, abortion has eliminated 50 million innocent babies in the US alone since 1973. Abortion scars an untold number of post abortive mothers, fathers and families, too. You read about me in history books, but now I'm dedicated to spreading the truth about preserving the dignity of all human life, from natural conception to natural death.

Dr Leslyn Lewis is one of at least eleven people The Haldimand-Norfolk MP was the first leadership candidate to give onto the ballot, just ahead of frontrunner Pierre Poilievre. Lewis made a stop in Lethbridge on Tuesday evening, and BCN's Naveen Day was there and filed this report. It was close to a full house at Third Day Church in Lethbridge as Dr. Leslyn Lewis came to share her vision for the future of the Conservative Party. Following her twelve minutes speech, Lewis stayed for an additional 2 hours to answer questions and hear concerns from the community. One attendee said she was frustrated that she cannot travel and visit family in other countries because of current health measures that are in place. What's your plan of action for removing those in our country? We need health policies that are based on health policies, not on political policies. We don't need political science, we need real science. And so we need our government to implement policies that are not just based on punishing people that are really meant to keep us safe. Attendees young and old came to ask Lewis questions. One young adult was concerned about the affordability of buying a home. What are some of the policies you would enact to deal with the housing crisis in this country that makes many young people, such as myself, very nervous when it comes, when we eventually want to own a home or a piece of property. When the average home in this country is a million dollars, it seems just so insurmountable, and many young people cannot conceive of how they're going to save for that. And so we do need some policies to be put in place. One, we need to build more homes. We need to incentivize builders to build these homes. We need to create incentives in the marketplace so that we could have more supply out there. And then we also need to create opportunities for young people to get there. Many of them have student loans. We need to extend the time for them to pay off their student loans without charging that additional interest on it. Conservative candidates have until April 19 to enter the race and until April 29 to submit their nomination papers. 500 signatures from members of the party, as well as a registration fee and compliance deposit. Totalling $300,000. For Bridge City News, I'm Naveen Day.

Albertans share a vision, the same vision as I do for Canada. The idea that if you want that, you don't have to wait for government in order to give you a handout. If you want something, you wake up early, early and you work hard at it. So when Justin Trudeau and the liberals attack the Albertan way, I take that very, very personally. That attack is everything. It's an attack on everything that I believe in personally. Legislations like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 are direct attack on Alberta's livelihood. I know that many people in Alberta feel abandoned by Ottawa, but I'm here to tell you this although Justin Trudeau has tried to divide us, he has tried to pick east against west, regions against regions, city against rural. He has and he will continue to fail to divide us.

Leslyn Lewis says NO to Critical Race Theory (CRT) at a Meet & Greet in Ottawa on June 23. She doesn't want kids to be taught as victims, neither does she think some kids should feel guilty for their skin colour and face trauma when they grow older.

Social media platforms and Internet search engines are the main source of news and information for the majority of Canadians. Canadians rely on online sources not just for information, but to share their unfiltered stories and their creative expressions. The Internet is a powerful resource. It has made presidents, prime ministers and even celebrities. The immense power of the Internet can be used as a shield or as a sword. As a shield, it is an opportunity for the average person to participate in the media and to be able to showcase their talents without going through big broadcasting networks. As a sword, it can be used as a form of control and a limitation on free speech. Woe unto you if the Internet falls under the control and the force of a government that will use it to divide, demonize and control. We have seen that authoritarian governments have gone so far as to systemically censor and limit thought, free speech, and freedom of press by using the Internet. While we want to trust our governments, unfortunately, we have seen that this Liberal government has a not so subtle agenda of controlling and overreaching as lawmakers. We must resist and the desire to distrust and unduly control Canadians in a free and democratic society. We must also resist any government initiatives to try to mold Canadians opinions and preferences by limiting their online options and opportunities. Neither the Liberals nor any government, regardless of your political stripe, can be trusted to be neutral referees of what is preferred speech and preferred content. The Prime Minister's response to one of the biggest protests of our time is evidence of this. We saw that our Prime Minister refused to listen to legitimate concerns of fellow Canadians, even when those who trucked from clear across the country came to just have a conversation, choosing instead to label people as racist, misogynist, antiscience people with unacceptable views. And this was done in order to silence and cancel their voices. A Prime Minister who can hardly tolerate differences of opinions within his own cabinet and party cannot be trusted to respect the different opinions and preferences of Canadians. Freedom and the opportunity to share information and content must be protected. And primarily, it must be protected from governmental interference. Bill C Eleven, the Online Streaming Act, opens the doors to government control of Canadians through their Internet activity and speech. We've heard these concerns about this government in the last iteration of this bill. Unfortunately, the same concerns remain with this bill. The Honorable Minister has stated that the intent is to level the playing field for Canadian creators and producers. It is argued that Bill C Eleven will make it easier for Canadians to access Canadian content. And while this objective is noble, unfortunately this legislation continues to be fundamentally flawed, just as the previous bill. Primarily, it gives the Canadian Radio, Television and Communications Commission the power to control what Canadians can and cannot access and view. As a result, the government inevitably can begin to drift into the authoritarian territory tempted to block, hide and promote certain content. Under this new bill, as you scroll through the latest videos on YouTube or Google searches, the government's algorithms will decide what pops up in your search. This is an attempt to control and censor any content they find inconvenient or uncanadian. In effect, this government would control what you see when you search for a video on YouTube or conduct a search on Google. By so doing, the government would be picking winners and losers by predetermining which content creators are worthy of viewing and hiding content the government thinks Canadians should not see. More nefariously. This legislation could be used to control and limit speech and opinions that differ from those in power, believing the far reaching impact of this bill is potentially more dangerous than we can ever imagine. You see, Madam Speaker, when it comes down to it, the problem with this legislation is that it leaves the impression that Canadians cannot be trusted with their online choices. And the Liberals don't think that Canadian creators can thrive without their meddling. The reality is that Canada has produced a tremendous amount of art and talent to share with the world, and they do extremely well when compared to their global counterparts and on platforms such as YouTube. Madam speaker, this means that before the Liberals started meddling with regulating the Internet, many Canadians had already had successful media careers online without government oversight. Also very problematic with this bill is a lack of clarity around the definition of what constitutes Canadian content. In addition, because of this stringent Canadian content requirements, many new emerging artists will not be considered Canadian enough to be protected and promoted under Bill C Eleven. These requirements will also adversely impact on minority communities in Canada who rely on cultural content from their home country. Canadians may be blocked from accessing ethnic streaming service providers who will choose rather to opt out of Canadian market rather than pay the high cost and enter into the red tape. As Parliamentarians, we need to know exactly how this bill will be applied before it is enacted, and the regulatory decisions should not be left up to the CRTC. Madame Speaker, I want to raise another point that is related to this topic, and one that many Canadians are greatly disturbed by. Last year, MPs of all parties were horrified to learn of the abuse being facilitated by mine geek, which has a corporate presence right here in Canada. We were encouraged to see members of Parliament from all parties, including many of our colleagues across the aisle, question why a company should make billions off of broadcasting the abuse of others. But here we are now talking about making the Internet safer, more friendly for Canadians, better for children. And our focus is on whether someone is generating revenue from tick tock and how the CRTC can make them pay into the system. Is this bill all about money and controlling what Canadians think and manufacturing group think. Where is the decisive action to address the broadcasting of sexual violence? Where is the urgency to protect vulnerable girls, women, boys, men in society? If we're talking about making the Internet safer for our kids, maybe worry a little less about what Netflix is airing and more about why a giant company has been profiting from broadcasting sex traffic girls. What is the priority of this bill? Shouldn't we be more worried about the access of our children to sexual violence, instead of worrying about whether the content is made in Canada? In closing, Madame Speaker, it is in many ways, this bill is an attack on free speech. It is an attempt to control what Canadians say and watch online. And it's shows that this government has its priorities all wrong. I would call upon my colleagues to rethink this bill and to work together to truly make Canada a safer and freer country. Thank you.

The Honourable Member for Haldimand Norfolk. Thank you. Social media platforms and Internet search engines are the main source of news and information for the majority of Canadians. Canadians rely on online sources not just for information, but to share their unfiltered stories and their creative expressions. The Internet is a powerful resource. It has made presidents, prime ministers, and even celebrities. The immense power of the Internet can be used as a shield or as a sword. As a shield, it is an opportunity for the average person to participate in the media and to be able to showcase their talents without going through big broadcasting networks. As a sword, it can be used as a form of control and a limitation on free speech. Woe unto you if the Internet falls under the control and the force of a government that will use it to divide, demonize and control. We have seen that authoritarian governments have gone so far as to systemically censor and limit thought, free speech and freedom of press by using the Internet. While we want to trust our governments, unfortunately, we have seen that this Liberal government has not so subtle agenda of controlling and overreaching. As law-makers, we must resist the desire to distrust and unduly control Canadians in a free and Democratic society. We must also resist any government initiatives to try to mold Canadians opinions and preferences by limiting their online options and opportunities. Neither the Liberals nor any government, regardless of your political stripe, can be trusted to be neutral referees of what is preferred speech and preferred content. The Prime Minister's response to one of the biggest protests of our time is evidence of this. We saw that our Prime Minister refused to listen to legitimate concerns of fellow Canadians, even when those who trucked from clear across the country came to just have a conversation, choosing instead to label people as racist, misogynist, anti science people with unacceptable views. And this was done in order to silence and cancel their voices. A Prime Minister who can hardly tolerate differences of opinions within his own cabinet and party cannot be trusted to respect the different opinions and preferences of Canadians. Freedom and the opportunity to share information and content must be protected, and primarily, it must be protected from governmental interference. Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, opens the doors to government control of Canadians through their Internet activity and speech. We've heard these concerns about this government in the last iteration of this bill. Unfortunately, the same concerns remain with this bill. The Honorable Minister has stated that the intent is to level the playing field for Canadian creators and producers. It is argued that Bill C-11 will make it easier for Canadians to access Canadian content. And while this objective is noble, unfortunately this legislation continues to be fundamentally flawed, just as the previous bill. Primarily it gives the Canadian Radio, Television and Communications Commission the power to control what Canadians can and cannot access and view. As a result, the government inevitably can begin to drift into the authoritarian territory, tempted to block, hide, and promote certain content. Under this new bill, as you scroll through the latest videos on YouTube or Google searches, the government's algorithms will decide what pops up in your search. This is an attempt to control and censor any content they find inconvenient or un-Canadian. In effect, this government would control what you see when you search for a video on YouTube or conduct a search on Google. By so doing, the government would be picking winners and losers. By predetermining which content creators are worthy of viewing and hiding content, the government thinks Canadians should not see. More nefariously, this legislation could be used to control and limit speech and opinions that differ from those in power. Believing the far reaching impact of this bill is potentially more dangerous than we can ever imagine. You see, Madam Speaker, when it comes down to it, the problem with this legislation is that it leaves the impression that Canadians cannot be trusted with their online choices. And the Liberals don't think that Canadian creators can thrive without their meddling. The reality is that Canada has produced a tremendous amount of art and talent to share with the world, and they do extremely well when compared to their global counterparts and on platforms such as YouTube. Madam speaker, this means that before the Liberals started meddling with regulating the Internet, many Canadians had already had successful media careers online without government oversight. Also very problematic with this bill is a lack of clarity around the definition of what constitutes Canadian content. In addition, because of this stringent Canadian content requirements, many new emerging artists will not be considered Canadian enough to be protected and promoted under Bill C-11. These requirements will also adversely impact on minority communities in Canada who rely on cultural content from their home country. Canadians may be blocked from accessing ethnic streaming service providers who will choose rather to opt out of Canadian market rather than pay the high cost and enter into the red tape. As Parliamentarians, we need to know exactly how this bill will be applied before it is enacted, and the regulatory decisions should not be left up to the CRTC. Madam Speaker, I want to raise another point that is related to this topic and one that many Canadians are greatly disturbed by. Last year, MPs of all parties were horrified to learn of the abuse being facilitated by MyGIG, which has a corporate presence right here in Canada. We were encouraged to see Members of Parliament from all parties, including many of our colleagues across the aisle question why a company should make billions off of broadcasting the abuse of others. But here we are now talking about making the Internet safer, more friendly for Canadians, better for children. And our focus is on whether someone is generating revenue from TikTok and how the CRTC can make them pay into the system? Is this bill all about money and controlling what Canadians think and manufacturing group-think? Where is the decisive action to address the broadcasting of sexual violence? Where is the urgency to protect vulnerable girls, women, boys, men in society? If we're talking about making the Internet safer for our kids, maybe worry a little less about what Netflix is airing and more about why a giant company has been profiting from broadcasting sex traffic girls. What is the priority of this bill? Shouldn't we be more worried about the access of our children to sexual violence instead of worrying about whether the content is made in Canada? In closing, Madam Speaker, it is in many ways, this bill is an attack on free speech. It is an attempt to control what Canadians say and watch online, and it shows that this government has its priorities all wrong. I would call upon my colleagues to rethink this bill and to work together to truly make Canada a safer and freer country. Thank you. Questions and Comments Secretary of the Government House Leader. Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. My question to the member is with respect to the importance of Canadian culture and why it is that the Conservative Party has made the determination that it's not worthwhile for us to protect and encourage, promote and provide additional support for our arts community from coast to coast to coast, which is from my perspective and I believe the vast majority of Canadians perspective, a positive thing. Recognizing it's not only important to recognize it, but there is a need to protect it. Does the Member of the Conservative Party not recognize the need to protect our culture and heritage and our arts industry? The Honorable for Haldimand-Norfolk thank you for the question. Absolutely. Canadian content is very important. The problem is that this bill cannot define what Canadian content is. We have Canadian producers who would not be considered in the category of Canadian content. So until this bill can properly define Canadian content, it is hard to say that the Liberals are attempting to protect it because they have not defined it. Questions and Comments Honorable Member ... I'd like to thank the member for her speech, and I have a question with regard to the algorithms. The Department said that it wanted to focus on results in terms of discoverability, but I'm wondering how it would be possible to have the same results if we're not using the algorithms. And that is something that is common on the platforms and on social media. So shouldn't that be added to the bill? The Member for Haldimand-Norfolk. Thank you, the Honorable Member for her question. In fact, we are actually using algorithms, currently. What this bill proposes is that they will choose which content, which speech, what Canadians must view. In the current system, The algorithms are driven by an individual's choice of what they want. What this bill proposes is that they should usurp that choice and they should impose the government's choice upon the people and that is what we're opposing. Thank you. Questions and Comments. The Honourable Member for Edmonton-Griesbach. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I want to thank my honorable colleague for their impassionate speech and some of the issues that are really present to that member. But one area in particular, given the COVID-19 pandemic, artists have been hit hard, not only across the country but in my district of Edmonton-Griesbach. This legislation would find ways to ensure that small content creators ensure that they actually get the surplus and funding they need. I have a community member organization called Arts on the Ave and they're suffering right now, and they needed this bill. They need to show that Canadian content matters with a member comment on supporting small businesses, particularly arts businesses in Canada. The Honorable Member for Haldimand-Norfolk. I thank the Honorable Member for his question. And yes, the support of small businesses is very important, and that's why I would encourage small business funds to be created to assist in that capacity. But to limit Canadians choice and what they can see and for a government to dictate and pick winners and losers is not the Canadian way. Thank you. For another question. A brief question. The Honourable Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Thank you. The Honourable Member for Haldimand-Norfolk. Is she aware that the bill consistently says that it's within the meaning of the protections of freedom of expression and the Charter both in the original broadcasting act and in these amendments? I don't see, although I'm very suspicious of government, anyway that the government is trying to control what we think or say under Bill C-11. Brief answer from the Member for Haldimand-Norfolk. I would vehemently disagree with the Honorable Member. In fact, the proposition is that the government will use algorithms and decide to pick winners and losers, decide which content should show up above others. And it would create a lot of problems, especially in smaller rural communities, in ethnic communities. Many communities actually get their Canadian content from outside Canada, from producers that are producing content outside Canada. And this would not be included in this bill. Thank you.

This would be a change. This would be a very nice change. I heard a guy say today and I told him that's not a nice thing to say. But he said, I found out why we have an oil crisis in the country and we've got oil in Western Canada, oil in Atlanta, Canada, oil in Newfoundland, oil in the north. He said, I know why we've got a crisis. And I said, Why? He said, "Because of the ditch sticks in Ottawa." Now, I will never tell that joke because I can't repeat it, but it underlines the truth. You want a Prime Minister who knows what they're talking about? Leslie Lewis has degrees in everything from energy policy, environmental policy, business administration, a doctorate in law. Folks, she is the most learned person on this tour in this race, and more so than the Prime Minister. And she doesn't brag about it. She just takes what she's learned and puts it to work. And we like that about her talk about putting things to work. Again, I don't begrudge the fact that our Prime Minister lives in luxury and never really had to work for it. We really worked hard for it. Here we have a woman who knows what it is to build a business from the start, knows what it is to have to meet payroll for families who will go hungry if the business isn't successful, to get up early every morning and go to bed late at night wanting to make that payroll. Folks, when we talk, when you hear a Prime Minister who says that business people, especially small business people, are just in it so they can hide their taxes? Unfortunately, we can't hide our taxes. He takes most of them. But here's a woman who's paid her taxes and paid her dues and did it the hard and honest way. Isn't that what you'd like to see in the Prime Minister's office? Some people have even said, is she tough enough? Is she tough enough? Leslie, I think you've been running that law firm for just under 20 years. I think, folks, picture this. How would you like to get up every morning and go to work and work with a bunch of hungry lawyers every single day? That builds toughness. We've got a woman here who understands that. We also have a woman here who is a woman of faith and is not afraid, when she's asked about that faith, to speak about it. Don't you want somebody like that in Ottawa? She respects all faiths, but she also says that your faith should be respected, too. Ladies and gentlemen, it's officially MP Dr. Leslin Lewis. But she tells us we can call her Leslyn. Ladies and gentlemen, would you give a hand with your help for the next Prime Minister of Canada? Dr. MP Leslyn Lewis! I had to get that offered. You'd say I wasn't tough enough, so I made sure I pulled it off. This is great. What an introduction! With an introduction like that, I don't even need to really say much about myself. So I'm just going to delve right into it. And I'm going to leave some time for questions because I want to hear what's on your heart and I'm going to do what politicians don't do. I'm going to answer your questions. So I've been traveling around the country, and the question that I'm asked all the time is, why are you going to do this again? You entered the race in 2020, and here you are doing it again. And the truth is the reason why I entered the race in 2020, so many of those reasons are still there, but now they are magnified. The fabric of our nation is being torn apart. Provinces like Alberta are still threatening to leave our great Confederation. Debt is piling up to the tune of $1.2 trillion every single day. We pay interest payments, interest payments of $140,000,000 a day. How many of you have watched Oprah? Do you know about Oprah? Do you remember that mean that she has when she gives a car to everybody? Well, I'm telling you, you owe 31,000, you owe 31,000, you owe 31,000, you owe 31,000. And all of your children have their share of debt of 31,000. And this is before they even enter the workforce. Think of what we have done to future generations. We have saddled future generations with debt. We need to turn things around. We need to create hope for future generations. And I believe that I'm the person that can restore hope and prosperity to this nation. The social divides have been so wide in the last two years. I am speaking to people, and when I hear their stories, you can see the trauma that Canadians have endured. And the biggest manifestation of that was seen through the Trucker Convoy. Now, I don't know where you stand on that issue, and it doesn't matter. What we saw happen is symbolic of a fracture in our democracy. I lived one block away from where the truckers parked in front of Parliament. And watching the news, I can tell you that the first day I had to walk through, I didn't know what I was going to expect because the news, the coverage was like our country was under siege. There were acts of sedition being committed. These people were. And so when I walked through, I said, no, I'm going to stop and I'm going to listen and I'm going to talk to these Canadians because they are paying my salary. And it felt good to have a salary that someone else would pay. Usually I would say my own salary as a lawyer. So these Canadians are paying my salary and I am not going to listen to them. I said no, and I stopped and I had conversations with them. And I believe that that was a missed opportunity on behalf of our Prime Minister. These were hardworking Canadians who were labeled as misogynist, racist, demonized. And this is what we have done with Cancel Culture. We have erased what makes us truly Canadian. When I was growing up in this country, you were taught to be proud of your country. You were taught that your Canadian identity is something that is envied around the world. We were once the beacon of hope, of opportunity for everyone around the world. And now in our schools, our children are taught to erase their history. I'm not saying that we have a perfect country. We don't, and we've made mistakes, but we can learn from our mistakes and we can build on that. And if we erase our history, if we erase our heroes, we are doomed to make the same mistakes in the future. Now I'm going to talk to you a little bit about the 2020 leadership race. Sometimes I would walk in a room and people would laugh. At the beginning, people thought, who does she think she is? She's not even going to get any votes. And I said to myself, I knew that I had a calling to enter politics. And I knew when I saw Andrew Scheer running from reporters because he didn't want to talk about being prolife, I said, there's a role and I'm going to enter politics. And I'm going to let everybody know I'm a person of faith and I am pro-life. And that I can tell you courage becomes contagious. People were starting to say that's okay, even if someone is pro-choice, we can have conversations. When I entered politics, when I ran for the leadership, it was always: that debate was over. And I would say, no. Any debate in the democracy should be open. That's what a democracy is. It's a plurality of voices. And we can each have our own opinion on something and still find something that we agree to. So I eventually won the popular vote. I got more votes than all of the other politicians. And I wasn't even an MP at that time. And I did that by building bridges, even something like pro-life. I said, what do we agree on? Do we agree that pregnancy care centers should be there for women who make choices, that they may find themselves in a situation where they have an unwanted pregnancy and they may do something so compassionate is saying, I'm going to give this child up for adoption to a loving family. When our adoptions list are so long in this country, should we not be there for women who make those choices? And guess what? The majority of Canadians agree with that. So here we have some commonality. And I believe that the next leader of this country should be a bridge builder, and I am that person that can build those bridges. I think it's so important that we aspire to make sure that our children have a future. I am running to be that hope. When I think of the fact that the average home in this country is $1.1 million. I think of the young people who have their future. They may never own a home because of out of control inflation and the un-affordability of ever being able to secure that down payment. I want to bring back hope to them. I want to make sure that when they graduate, they're not competing with their fathers and their uncles and their aunts for their jobs, that we have a system of creating wealth, that we incentivize businesses to one day take a chance again so that those small businesses who employ over 80% of all Canadians will take a chance and employ our youth and create opportunities for them. I'm here for the nurse who told me that she worked throughout COVID without any vaccine, and she got Covid. And even she had to rent a trailer on her lawn to make sure that her family was protected. And she worked double shifts and she slept out in that trailer. And then after the vaccines came out, they fired her. They told her that she could not have a job anymore. And she told me that when she looked in the mirror in the evening after her shifts, she had indentations in her face from the mask. And these are the sacrifices that some people have made. And we have to make sure that when we put policies in place, these health policies are there to protect people. They're not based on political science. They're based on real science and make sure that people are protected and that we do not create a system of segregation based on vaccine status. I'm here for people of faith to make them recognize that they have a right to practice their faith, and that faith is entrenched in our Constitution, in our Charter of Rights. I want to make sure that every parent in this room knows that they have a right to raise their children in accordance with their values without government interference. As I said before, I don't know where you stand on the Trucker Convoy, but what I can tell you is that the coverage of it erodes our trust in the media. When we heard about acts of sedition, and later on, we saw that only charges of mischief were laid that undermines the trust in our institutions. When the Emergencies Act was enacted, was utilized to confiscate people's property, to freeze bank accounts, it erodes our trust in the institution of government, and we must work to restore that trust. I had a young woman in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, which for those of you who don't know, it's a rural community right beside Niagara Falls. And this young single mother had bought a trucker T-shirt for her daughter because she really wanted one, and her bank account was frozen. She couldn't pay her bills. She had no food. And this was a $20 T-shirt. When our government acts in such a manner, it really erodes our confidence. And I've had people report to me that they are thinking about even leaving our country, this beautiful country, because of the lack of trust in our democracy. We need to make sure that the next leader rebuilds that trust in our institution. And one way of doing that is to make sure that our media is no longer an arm of the Liberal government and to make sure that our media is no longer used as a propaganda tool, because that is what happens in dictatorship regimes. As you can see, I'm not your usual politician. I come from industry. I've taught at university. I've taught at Osgood Hall Law School. And I've owned my own business. So I know what it means to sign the front of a paycheck rather than the back of a paycheck. I know what it means to create wealth. I know what it means to look at that two week period and say, how am I going to make payroll? I know what it means in 2009 when the recession was coming and I had to make sure that my employees got paid before me. And I had to make sure that I use the line of credit on my home to keep their jobs alive because I knew that they had families that were dependent on me, making sure that I give them a paycheck. So I know the realities of what it takes to create wealth, to create prosperity in this country. And right now, I see international pressures being put on this country that will change the face of what we are as Canadians. It will change the face of our meritorious society to become a socialist nation state that Justin Trudeau envisions. I'm here to fight against that. So I made the tough decision that I thought actually I could have both. I thought I could have my law practice and be a politician because I trained lawyers. There were lawyers in my law firm. But as many of you know who have or if you know somebody who is a small business owner, your business becomes your brand. And many people, they still wanted to hear from me. They still wanted me to work on their case. And so I had to make a decision to sell my firm and even the building that my law firm was in. I owned the units in that building and I sold it because I did not want to be double minded in doing this. I wanted to give every fiber of my being to saving my country because I know that my country is in peril. My dream for Canada is that we can bring back a Canada where we could have a diversity of opinions, where we are not afraid to show that we are people of faith or someone. If you're not of faith, that you have the equal right to raise your children in accordance with your values and practice your faith where we can have a dream of prospering developing our natural resources while protecting the environment. Every day we import over 500,000 barrels of oil a day. Yet we have the third largest accessible oil reserves on the planet. We have the capacity to be self-sufficient During Covid, we should not have had to depend on foreign countries to send us masks and gloves. We have the capacity to produce those products ourselves. We need to bring our supply chains home. We need to start producing more than we're consuming, and we need to become an independent and self sustaining and free nation. Thank you. Very good. Thank you very much. Dr. Lewis. We now want to enter a session of questions and answers. I'm sure a lot of you have burning questions on your heart that you'd like to ask Dr. Lewis, and I'm sure she'd be happy to answer them. So I know a lot of you probably have questions, so I will be moderating this Q and A. Please just raise your hand. Hopefully you'll have a chance to get your question asked. And if you don't get a chance, then you will have an opportunity to meet her afterwards and hopefully be able to ask her question in person. So without further Ado, we'll just start with this individual right here. Happy two. Doctor Lewis, we're so excited you're running again. In the current world and procedures for the leadership race. As every electoral district will be allocated 100 points. At that stage, whichever is less. I think this change is really going to help you. Can you comment on that? Yes, that's a great question. So I'm just going to repeat the question. Every electoral district is allocated 100 points or one point per vote. In the last leadership race, it didn't work like that. So if there were 5000 people in a riding and 20 people in another, even if I won the riding with 5000 people, I would only get 100 votes and the person who won with 20 people would still get 100 votes. Now things will change. The 5000 member riding will get 100 votes, but the one with 20 will only get 20 votes. So what happened is in the last leadership rate, I won the popular vote, but I didn't win the leadership because of that allocation. So this gentleman is right that the new rules will benefit me more. But are you running to be the leader of the opposition with this attendant perks or the PM? One entails preaching to the choir, and I'm one of the members and a few other members are here. The other involves going out to a nation waiting for the good news. Now, I believe, and I'm one of them as well, like yourself, an immigrant, I think there are a lot of unreached natural Conservatives. So unless you or whoever is going to be the leader of the party reaches them and not just the choir, and I understand you need to reach the choir to be the nominee but unless we reach them, you will be comfortably sitting in a seat of the opposition. And this isn't perhaps the right venue, but I would like to hear your plan, not your vision, not your dream, because that's a what I'm interested in the how. And maybe that's a little too broad here, but perhaps you could touch on it. Thank you. No offense taken. It's a great question, actually, a very real and relevant question. I didn't come here for a comfortable job. I had a very comfortable, successful life as a lawyer with my own firm. I didn't want for anything. So this is really not something that I'm doing for comfort. Absolutely not. And I am prepared to do what it takes to be the next Prime Minister. And what you have stated is exactly what needs to be done. We do not need a leader to be in Parliament and make fancy speeches and watch themselves afterwards on question period. No, we need a leader to go into the grassroots, to go into those large urban centers that we have not made inroads in to reach out to people like yourself. Like myself, like many people in this room whose families immigrated here, who took chances, who took risks, and who have those conservative values, they have faith values, they have family values. And our party has not done a good enough job in reaching those individuals in those urban centers. I'm going to be out talking to those people, meeting them, having coffees, knocking on doors, and making sure that we make inroads in those centers that will win it and will make me the next Prime Minister. Hi. Thank you for coming. I'm just like the previous guy. I'm immigrant and coming to this country and really enjoy the liberty that I enjoyed the past eight years here. I'm also voted conservative all the way until the last election. I reside in the Langley area, and the MP was... I can't remember her name. The reason was that. Sorry about it. I have to tell you that in the last election I didn't vote for you. Yeah. You lost about a thousand votes, and one of them who mo from Conservative to PPC. I'm a member of PPC as well. And one of the reason I'm here, I just want to see how the next leader of the conservative can win us back, because I think that is a big part. And another reason I'm asking this question is that in the Truck Convoy, one of the things they ask is a platform to debate the vaccine and everything about this pandemic. I want to ask a question. Is that when you have a chance, can you provide this platform so the science can be openly debated? Absolutely. Great question. To be honest with you, Maxime Bernie is a friend of mine, and we have a lot in common. So I don't have anything bad to say about him. I do find him to be a courageous person. And I have spoken out against unfair mandates from the very beginning. I'm one of the few in the party that really took the chance, and I paid a price for it. I wasn't given a shadow cabinet position, and it was largely because of the things that I saw. And one specific thing is when they were contemplating vaccinating six year olds, and I believe that's a parental choice. And I think that they were talking about make it mandatory to go to school. And I said, you know, with all With all due respect, I believe in science. I respect science, but this is a parental decision. And I came out and I spoke out against that. And because of that, people were upset with me. And it was a very courageous thing to do. And I've always believed in the fact that any kind of procedure that you endure and that you take into your body, it should be a free volition. It should be free choice to do that. Science requires debates, thesis, synthesis, antithesis. That's the scientific the dialectic order. Without that, it is propaganda. it is dictatorship. It is not science. And so when we do not have an open debate for science, that is problematic. I believe that all the data should be there. All of the information about the vaccines, everything should be open so that people can make a free and informed consent about their decisions. And that's what I stand for. Leslyn, I really appreciate what you've been saying. I've been a fan of yours for a long time. There's a couple of issues. Even though everything you said is really important, there's a couple of issues that I think perhaps are more important. And I'm very concerned about. And I'm sorry, I don't remember the exact number, but the bill to sort of put control on the Internet, I think it's Bill C-11. C-11. Okay. That really troubles me because really it looks well, I spent a lot of time studying this, and there's a lot of people that seem to think that it's really a way of controlling us and taking away our freedoms. The other one I'm really concerned about is the vaccine passport. The vaccine mandates have been taken away, but the passport hasn't. And again, the passport. The end of that, as I'm sure you probably know, is really control to be able to know where we're going, what we do, and they're not going to let that go. There's going to be a real battle there. I'd like to hear your thoughts on those two things. Yes. So the first issue remind me what the first issue was. Vaccine passport. C-11. Great. So, C-11. Have you seen my speech on C eleven? I did a speech in Parliament on C-11. And I concur with everything that you're saying. When the government tells us what we can see in the media, it is a form of control. When you are punching in algorithms you're punching in search engine search codes and words and algorithms are popping up that the government dictates what you can see, what pops up. That is a form of control. And that is not freedom of the press. Even your Charter Rights, freedom of speech, which is entrenched in the Charter, freedom of association, all of those things, they're controlling what you can see. And it's very, very dangerous. I do not support Bill C-11. With respect to the vaccine mandate, I always use the example: sitting in this room, we don't know who's vaccinated and who's not vaccinated, but if we went to an airport, the same group of people, some would be able to get on a plane and some would not be able to get on a plane. And so it is not based on science. It's based on political science. And we cannot have public policy that's based on political science and not science. Passports. You're absolutely right, because that's tied into they at some point in time will be advancing a universal identity. Right? And that is tied into the digital identity and even the universal basic income. It is something that once you have young, able bodied people that are sitting at home and collecting a universal basic income, it's going to be a lot easier to control what they do. And all of this is tied in together. I can't stand here and deny what you're saying is not true, because it is true. The only way that we can oppose all of this movement towards this global system is by making sure that you vote for the next leader, making sure that that next leader has the capacity to win a majority government so that we can turn things around. Hi. Okay. My question is also about the vaccination. Also, I'm again, I'm from South America. They try the three kind of vaccinations, like Johnson Moderna, and whatever. My country is to be the most country being vaccinated. And my question is that now, I don't agree with that because it's like Africa and Chile. There are those two countries that are most important and they are doing big clients in them. Like part of my family. They are already having t side effects of the vaccinations. Some of them. My grandma passed away from that vaccination. My cousin, she's three years old and she was isolated when she was ill with vaccines And now, like I heard, like they want to give the vaccine to kids in school. Like, I'm panicking because it's like you say, we have freedom. We decide if they have to run or not. Well, I believe in personal responsibility. So I think it's important for people to do what they need to do to protect themselves, to protect their neighbors. That's a personal responsibility issue. With respect to the child vaccinations, I don't believe they're going to be mandatory. There are a lot of people who believe that that should be a choice of the parents. And so you'll have a lot of support in that. But as I said, with respect to whether or not you're vaccinated, I believe it should be based on full and informed consent. The second question is, I don't know if you got to be aware. This situation happened in 1918, 100 years ago about the Spanish Flu. What happened at that time? the technology was not like now. People were panicking. at that time, but they say 100 year. And what happens now, 2019 again, when another pandemic is to control and to get rid of people. That's what they were trying to do in the world, in the whole world. Well, let's hope that we get through it. It's been a very traumatizing two years, and I think that we have to be on a path to healing and to hope. I'm a social conservative, and you are, and I really appreciate what you're bringing to this leadership race. You have my vote. Thank you. But I know a lot of other social conservatives who are considering voting for Pierre Polliever because they feel he is more electable in the general population. So my question for you is, what would you say to that person? And maybe you can give me a couple of reasons why you are more electable than Pierre. Thank you. I ask this as your supporter. Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, I remember speaking to Pierre before I decided to put my name in, and I said to him, I just want to hear about your platform. And he was great on the financing aspect, on other issues. He just didn't have a lot of concern about those issues. And I feel that in order for us to win and in order for us to keep our conservative family together, we're going to have to appeal to the fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives, the libertarians, and the PCs. Everybody has to have a voice within the party. And based on what I've seen and Pierre is a good man, but he believes that in order to win, you cannot be a social conservative. I want to prove him wrong. I believe you can win as a social conservative. No only that, we have different life experiences. Pierre has been in Parliament his entire life. I have a history of working my way up, building a business, creating wealth, employing people, teaching at University. I have a diverse education. I have a master's of environmental studies, a PhD in international law. And I only say these things so that you can understand the wealth of experience and education that I will bring to this role. I have had people come up to me and say I'm pro-choice, and I can't believe that I can identify with you even though you say you're pro-life. And that is because I start from the perspective of building bridges and uniting. If you notice the differences in our campaign style, you've never heard me speak ill of any of my colleagues in this race. It is one thing for a conservative to vote for you, but it's another thing to be able to go in the urban centers to speak to Liberals who like my parents, my parents were ultra conservative in their values, but they voted Liberal. And that is the reality. There are many Liberals who have conservative values. What you have to ask yourself about electability, do you see that Liberal person voting for Pierre, or do you see that Liberal person voting for someone like me who is a unifier and a bridge builder and who has the education and the experience that can elicit that level of confidence in that person? One of the aspects of your plank, if I can call it that, really interested me when I first heard of you, was your climate expertise. Now this is a major issue for the population, for the world internationally, particularly bearing in mind the United Nations report that came out just last year on the impact of climate change. Now we're recognizing through the Ukraine war the absolute present need yet of fossil fuels. We have a lot of it. You've talked about it. We know it. We know where it is. We're not using it because we're holding off because of the climate ideology that is out there saying we cannot use it. How can you bridge that gap, which to me is one of the major hurdles between the people not only in this country, but throughout the world? Well, I think it's very important that we speak about the climate and the environment in a manner that it's truthful and not just from the state of virtue signaling and propaganda. Because of my master's in environmental studies, I actually have concrete facts and information. Much of our policy is based on hypocrisy. If we are importing 500,000 barrels of oil a day, then that means that we still have the need to use that resource. If we have the need to use that resource, why is our resource less than a foreign resource? That's the question that we have to ask. Why is our oil inferior? Why do we have legislation to penalize companies in Canada? Bill C. 48, Bill C. 69 actually favors foreign oil and foreign investment over our own. It's illogical. It doesn't make any sense. And if we actually care about the environment and if we're not using fear, because this is what I'm seeing, is that our environmental policy is based on conjuring up fear so that we can impose unjust taxation on people. And that falls on the back of the least able to afford it falls on the back on the average Canadian who has to go to the pump and pump gas, who has to heat their homes. And this is not a sustainable environmental policy. A sustainable environmental policy will have confidence in businesses to incentivize them to find innovative solutions. Many of these businesses, they will discover technologies that will reduce emissions. Many of our farmers are planting crops that sequester carbon, but they don't get credit for it, but yet they still have to pay an increase carbon tax on drying their crops. That cost trickles down to us in food costs. So a lot of what we're doing doesn't make sense. Many of the regimes, many of the jurisdictions that have the highest carbon tax have not seen reduced emissions. Donald Trump came out of the Paris Accord, completely came out of the Paris Accord and met all of the targets, all of the environmental climate targets. We were in the Paris accord, and we did not meet our targets. So a lot of this is virtue signaling. I think the environment is far too important to play partisan politics and to virtue signal and to not have strong concrete policies that allow us to develop our natural resources while protecting the environment. Thank you, Dr. Lewis, for your answers. I've been a pastor in the region for 24 years closer. Okay. I know there's a lot of pastors. Okay. Yeah. As you're aware, many of the rumor where there's been about four or five pastors arrested in the last year and a half, two years now we have legislation criminalizing our beliefs and hindering actually making criminal our faith and what we believe, what we stand for, telling us who we can actually talk to and who we can't talk to and what we can share and what we can't share with our congregations and with people of faith. How would you respond to the new legislation? C-4 and these things that are really making a big impact on the faith community, but in particular Christians? Yes. First, I want to say that with C-4, as legislators, I think our job is to make sure that the best law is passed. And we did not do that, because what you need to do is you actually should take the law through every level, every step to make sure that whether you're for the piece of legislation or you're against it, to me is irrelevant. What we need to do, what we're elected to do, what we're paid to do, is scrutinize that legislation and to make sure that when it's enacted, it is the best law and we did not do that. And for that, I offer my apologies to that. There's a whole process of what transpired. I don't want to go into it right now, but what I can do is look to the future. I have been communicating with pastors. I've had conversations with Stockwell Bay about this, who introduced me, and that was one of the first things that he spoke to me about to clarify what happened and how we're going to make sure that pastors are not targeted and also to make sure that parents don't face a five year jail term if they have conversations, loving conversations with their children. We have to remember that adolescence is one of the toughest times for children and the hallmark one of the most important things to a parent is to be able to usher their children through to that stage of adulthood. And they do not need any deterrence on them. They do not need a law hanging over them that could really bind their hands to the point where they are walking on eggshells and making sure that they're there for their children and they're offering them loving advice to assist them with their problems. So I will let you know that I am committed to making sure that there are no inadvertent consequences and unintended consequences from C-4. And I will work with Pastors to make sure that this law does not limit their ability to pasture over their flock. Hi, Leslyn, it's good to be here and hear you speak. My question is about the CBC and the media. Should you win the leadership of the party, Rosemary Barton and friends will try to torrent feather you, will misrepresent, you, will lie about you, as will most of the mainstream media. So my question to you is one, how will you deal with that? And secondly, will you dare to speak to Rebel Media or will you run away? Well, I think history answers that question. There was some sort of lock between our party speaking to Rebel a few years ago and last year in 2020 when I ran for the leader. To be honest with you, Ezra was the person who came out first for me. And that's where I did my very first interview on Rebel Media. And surprisingly, like I said, courage is contagious. After that, other Conservatives started to do interviews with Rebel Media. So Rebel Media has actually been a friend to me. Rebel Media had the courage to feature me when I was not known in the conservative circles. And I credit that to one of the reasons why I was able to get myself out there and known and with the popular vote. So, yes, I would continue speaking with Rebel Media because they're my friends. And with respect to the CBC, you're right. We're giving them $1 billion a year. And it's not just the CBC. A lot of legacy media is adopting this propaganda narrative and not really covering the news. They're giving their opinions on certain issues. And it's always a radical left opinion. And so, yes, I would defund it. I would defund the CBC. Yes, Dr. Lewis, it is a delight to have hear any politician speak as candidly as you do. I'm a semi retired professor of political science. There's a question and a suggestion. The question is this. As you know, in Canada, the federal government has responsibility for canals, Railways, pipelines that are interprovincial. We do not have a pipeline to Eastern Canada because the Quebec government didn't like it. That's one reason we cannot now supply oil and gas to Europe. So I'd like you to comment on that. Would you be willing to use the federal power and then I have a suggestion. You probably have many slogans. I'll give you another: Trudeau must go. I agree with you. Yes. So I think that we must always look to act in the best interest of our national growth and prosperity. And so if it came down to it, yes, I would do whatever it takes to make sure that I put my country first. And that includes building the pipeline. But we also have another route. We could actually go up through Churchill to Hudson's Bay, and we could get our products to tide water that way. So that's another option instead of going through Quebec that we could entertain. Dr. Lewis, thank you for coming. And good to hear everything. And I would just like to say that I'm also an immigrant. We are all immigrants to Canada. And the thing about that is it wasn't me, it was my parents. But we all came for a new chance at prosperity. And that's why we love this country, at least the country, before 2015. What I'd like to know is, if you become leader and will you push for free votes in Parliament? Because MPs represent their community, in their community, let's say chilliwack or Abbotsford. Those people were put them in that office and they cannot speak what their constituents want because of the party whipping. If they would just get rid of the whip except for financial or fiscal reasons, then they could speak their mind and say what their constituents actually voted them in for locally. Absolutely. That is the cornerstone of our democracy. No MPs should have to vote against their conscience or their constituents. And so, as you said, on politics, for fiscal issues, you vote with your party. But on issues of conscience, there would be absolutely free votes. And even some fiscal issues are borderline because the carbon tax is something that could be deemed a fiscal issue. And I can tell you that in my writing where it's a rural riding with farmers. If I voted for the carbon tax, they would make sure I am out of there. So that would be voting against my constituents. And even though it's a fiscal issue, I wouldn't have been able to do it. Very good. So unfortunately, we do have to wrap it up there because we do want to leave. Sometimes you'll be able to ask her in person. So we want to leave some time for people to be able to meet her in person and take pictures with her. I will be playing a job of bad cop just because generally people swarm her. So we'll try to cycle people through as fast as possible. But before we do so, I do want to make a pitch and encourage everyone here to get a conservative membership. You can do that by scanning this IQ code. They're both becoming a member and donating tours are very expensive. Running a leadership campaign is very expensive. And there's a lot of people here. I'm sure some of you have some extra dollars there to help Dr. Lewis become the next Prime Minister. And with regards to membership, it was told to me recently that it's 0.02% of Canada's population that determines who the leader of a party is and it will logically follow who will be the next Prime Minister. So there's a lot of people in this room, probably close to 600 people, probably not quite 0.02% of Canada's population, but probably quite close. So if you like what you hear today from Dr. Lewis and I think you have and it sounds like you're very concerned with the state of our country as well and you want to affect change. This is the one place you can get involved in politics. You can make a difference. You can go home tonight, sign up five of your friends and family, and we can get this person as leader of the conservative party who can clean up the mess there and then clean up the mess that is our nation right now. So please do your part. Please become a member. We have some lovely people at the back who would be happy to sign you up, but you can also do that just by getting this QR code. You only need to be 14 years of age to be able to become a member and you only need to be a permanent resident. So I see some Gray hairs here. You probably have lots of grandchildren as well. So we really have an opportunity here to change the direction of our nation and we all know we need it. Please do that. And with regards to donations, once again, the maximum you can donate is. 1675 and once again, I would be lying if I would not like each of you to donate Max so that we can win this thing. So thank you very much. And please take a moment to come introduce yourself to Dr. Lewis. But like I said, keep it quick, get your photo and then get out. Thank you.

Canadian farmers have been feeding us for generations. They deserve our thanks, but instead, they keep getting attacked by this Liberal government. The carbon tax was the first blow, punishing farmers and lining government pockets while doing nothing to reduce carbon emissions. Then came the 35% tariffs on Russian fertilizer applied to products purchased well before the war in Ukraine began. Now the government wants to force misleading warning labels on all Canadian ground beef and pork. There's a perfect storm brewing of record high costs, supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, and poor planting conditions. This government needs to wake up, cancel the taxes, and secure our food supply before we plunge into a national food shortage crisis. Time is running out.

Well, most of Parliament has fled. Justin Trudeau is in hiding. Who knows if he's even in the country? He's probably in the Bahamas. But one of the MPs who's here today, walking around, talking to people, is our friend Leslyn Lewis, the Conservative Member of Parliament from Holderman-Norfolk. What a pleasure to have you. Nice to be here. Nice to see you again, Ezra. Well, likewise. Did I say the name of your writing correctly? You sure did. Okay. Well, that's great. The first thing I want to say is, why are you here? Other MPs have chosen to avoid it, even to criticize it. Why did you decide to come? I think any time the people have spoken, that it's our obligation to listen to the people who pay our salaries. So I think it's very important that we're here, that we listen to the concerns, that we meet them, and that we hear what's on their hearts. One of the things that the establishment has said about the convoy is that it's immoral in some way. It's either racist or sexist, extremist or violent. What are your observations? Well, that's what they say to keep good people away, because good people wouldn't want to be associated with those labels. So they throw out those labels so that people will be afraid to stand up for their democratic rights. What I've seen? I've seen family members. I've seen young children. I've seen people picking up garbage so that the city doesn't have to come and do it. I've seen people bringing latrines so that they could have a place to use the washroom. I've seen people by the side of the road, making food for strangers. I've seen brother-and-sisterly love. And I've seen people fight for their democracy. And I've seen people stand up and tell the government that they've gone too far and that is their democratic right to do so. In the background, you can hear the drumming of indigenous drums. There has been a large aboriginal contingent here. Even the organizer of the convoy herself is a Metis woman. You use the word unity. I feel that, too. Do you think there's almost a new political coalition that's being fused here? Because there's people here who have never been political before, who probably would have voted for Justin Trudeau in 2015. Is something new taking shape here? Absolutely. This transcends partisan politics. This is about freedoms. This is about choices. This is about your rights. And when governments use hate to divide, the people start to see through it. And once their eyes are open, it's never closed again. And so people don't care what party you belong to. People don't care whether you're Conservative or Liberal. All they know is that they've done what's right. Many people are double- and triple-vaccinated here, and they're still under lockdowns. Their eyes are opening and they're saying there's something wrong with the mandate. The mandates don't work. We're tired. We want conversation and politicians are running from the same people that they were elected to represent. That is not right. I agree with those things. I feel and I want to be very candid with you. I feel that the Conservative Party federally and in the provinces where it's in power, Ontario and Alberta, come to mind. Eventually those governments have imposed mandates. In fact, in my original province of Alberta, they've even locked up pastors who keep their churches open in the face of lockdown. I have felt like the Conservative Party federally was reluctant to take that head on. But I feel like in the last few days, this convoy has given courage to Conservative MPs, a number of whom have come out. What do you think of my analysis? Well, our leader, Erin O'Toole, has always stood up and said that we believe in reasonable accommodations, and so that's always been a part of our platform. With respect to the provincial side, we don't have any control over provincial mandates. The federal side？ Yes. I've spoken out and I've said it is wrong that a Canadian cannot get on a plane, cannot get on a boat, cannot get on a train that is federally regulated. because Justin Trudeau has spread this rumor that unvaccinated people are bogeymen. Now that we're two years into this pandemic and we know that COVID is now endemic, I bet you there's nobody that doesn't know somebody that hasn't had COVID. And so we're at the point now where we say we have to learn to live with it, and you're not going to get COVID by sitting beside an unvaccinated person who doesn't have COVID. And so that was a lie. And the people have woken up and they've seen that they've been lied to and they want answers, and they deserve those answers. One of the things. it's ironic in a way that we're in front of Parliament Hill or on Parliament Hill, because so many of the decisions of the last two years have not been made by parliamentarians. Many of the particular rules have not been voted on. They've been issued by public health officers, provincially at the city level, and even Teresa Tam federally. Do you think it's time to remove the emergency powers from the public health? I call it the Deep State because no one voted them in. No one heard their names until two years ago, and they become powerful political actors. Is it time to take the democracy back from public health officers and put it into legislatures again? Absolutely. We know it's time because medical officers of health around the country are saying that it's time they're coming out and saying that it's time for us to move on. It's time for us to learn how to be safe and healthy and live with COVID, and it's time to restore the freedoms. And today is indicative of the fact that it's time. I got one last question for you. And by the way, I appreciate it. I know there are so many people here you want to talk to. Thanks for making time for us. Justin Trudeau has announced that he has purchased or signed contracts for hundreds of millions more doses. I think he said 400 million or some enormous figure and I know the government has plans to acquire them for years to come. I suppose he would say, well, that's just better safe than sorry. It's like an insurance policy. Are you worried that two shots and a booster will turn into four, five, six like in Israel? They're on shot number four, starting shot number five. Do you think that we should reassess this endless plan for a series of boosters? Do you feel comfortable taking on that issue? Well, I'm not a medical doctor. My doctorate is in law, so I am comfortable talking about rights and my issue is that I believe that even if the whole world is vaccinated, it should be done on informed consent. I believe in informed consent. So my issue here is not about whether you're vaccinated or you're not vaccinated. because the group of people here are comprised of people who are no longer afraid of each other. They're both vaccinated and unvaccinated. So I'm here because I want to hear from people about the mandates and the mandates that have caused families to be apart, that have caused brothers and sisters not to want to see each other. Parents not want to see their children. Grandparents not want to see their grandchildren. These are the things that we need healing for in this country and I would like to move us forward in a spirit of unity. There you have it. Leslie Lewis, Member of Parliament for Holdimand-Norfolk. Pleasure to talk with you. Thanks for being here. Pleasure！ Right on. Stay warm. Ok, you too.