Connect with us

Alberta

The Chasm Between Pro and Anti Pipeline Debate in Two Opinions

Published

28 minute read

In early January we published an opinion from a reader entitled:

Open letter to Canadians opposing Canadian Pipelines and Oilsands

It generated significant readership and response.  You can click on the graphic to the left to read it now, or you can find it included later in this story. Reviewing it will give context to another opinion, this one from Neville Wells, a resident of British Columbia.

These two differing opinions illustrate the massive idealogical gap that exists in the debate around Canada’s energy industry.  If you’d like to share your opinion we’d like to hear about it.  Send us your thoughts at [email protected]

Open letter to Demian Newman, in response to his article appearing on “Todayville”.

Demian…

Thank you for putting out your thoughts and perspective on the pipeline issues that are on the top of everyone’s mind. I’d like to respond with a few thoughts of my own.

By way of background, I am someone who has, and is, opposing certain pipeline projects in western Canada. I am a native Calgarian who has over 25 years of professional environmental consulting experience and I have worked directly or indirectly for most of the majors on projects like Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, Trans Mountain Jasper National Park Looping, Georgia Straight Crossing, and many, many others. I know the oil and gas industry, its environmental practices, and effects. I have also worked for citizens, mostly farmers, First Nations and ENGOs who found themselves in conflict with the oil and gas industry. I have directly participated in dozens of regulatory hearings in front of the National Energy Board, the Alberta Energy Regulator, Joint Review Panels and other regulatory bodies. In the course of the last three decades I have taken both federal and provincial regulators to their respective courts of appeal on several occasions. Most recently, I challenged the TCPL Prince Rupert LNG pipeline and after being initially denied by the National Energy Board I was successful at the Federal Court of Appeal. As you may know that project did not proceed. I am currently challenging the TCPL Coastal GasLink pipeline in a National Energy Board regulatory proceeding that I initiated and I believe I’m solid legal grounds and that I will likely succeed in that challenge.

So I have a comprehensive understanding of most aspects of the oil and gas industry, in particular pipelines, and a good working knowledge of the rest. I have 25 years of professional environmental experience and am very familiar with the legislative, regulatory and public policy context in which the western Canadian oil and gas industry operates. In summary, I think I understand the industry, pipelines and more specifically its environmental consequences.

Please forgive my long winded preamble but I want to impress upon you that I am not your average tree hugger. My concerns about the oil and gas industry are hard earned over 30 years and are based on experience, facts, reason and good science. So with that said, I have the following to say about your open letter…

First, this is not a comprehensive review; instead I will focus on just a few highlights.

One of your major premises in your open letter is that Canada, and specifically the Oil and Gas industry, has world leading environmental standards and practices. This is simply not true.

For example we do not have an equivalent to the US Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act. Oh sure, we have the federal Species at Risk Act but the consensus is out – it doesn’t work. And why, because of intensive government lobbying by the powerful oil and gas industry to ensure any efforts to address endangered species do not have an adverse economic effect on industry.

I could go on at length about endangered caribou, sage grouse, westslope cutthroat trout and the list goes on and on., but I’ve made my point.

As for regulations, there are many problems with our current regulatory system, most notably that the government so-called “public interest” regulators, for example the National Energy Board, the Alberta Energy Regulator and the BC Oil and Gas Commission are literally and figuratively captive regulators whose credibility with the general public is near zero. We don’t believe anything they say and why should we.

Let’s not forget the weak environmental assessment legislation we have in this country and the efforts by government regulators and industry to block public participation in the environmental review process.

For example, in a recent Alberta Energy Regulator decision a SW Alberta land owner was denied a hearing on a Level 3 sour gas well where his land and residence was within the emergency response zone and where his only access and egress from his residence was by traveling over 7 km of low grade gravel road that was also in the emergency response zone. When the public lives in the emergency response zone of a Level 3 sour gas well and AER will not allow a public hearing, it’s hard to believe we have a world class environmental and regulatory system… I have many other examples as well.

Another point I want to make is this notion that some pro-pipeline advocates, yourself included, have that somehow it’s the industries God-given right to build pipelines regardless of other thoughtful citizens’ concerns. While that arrogance has worked very well for the oil and gas industry for the last 70 years, unfortunately Demian, to misquote Bob Dylan, “… the times they are a changing…”. And in my view it can’t happen quickly enough.

And don’t get me started on global warming… that an entire conversation on its own… Do you really think that the momentum around reducing global carbon emissions can be stopped or reversed? Sure you can fight a rear-guard action, like the lead, asbestos, and Tobacco industries did, but like them, the oil and gas industry will ultimately lose. Tell you what… let’s make a wager around the issue… lets touch base in 12 years and see who was right. You in?

You indicated in your open letter that you “…I desperately want to have a conversation with…” people who oppose pipelines. Well here is your chance.

I would like to invite you to meet with me to have an open, frank and respectful discussion about the nature of the problems facing us all with a view to finding common ground so that we can identify and work towards a solution that will serve all Canadian’s interest.  That will certainly be an entertaining and sometime difficult discussion, but I will make myself available to meet with you at your convenience to start towards finding a solution. Your call…

Best regards,

Mike Sawyer

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Todayville published the following story on January 5th, 2019, with permission from Demian Newman, President of Newman Sales an Marketing in Calgary.

January 5, 2019

Dear fellow Canadians,

I’m writing this as an open letter to every Canadian who has protested the Canadian oil and gas industry. I’m writing this to ask – what if you win? What if you succeed and completely shut down Canada’s oil and gas industry? What happens next?

Obviously, if you’ve ever marched, protested or argued against Canadian pipelines or Oilsands, you must believe that you are financially insulated from the hundreds of billions this industry puts into the Canadian economy. Or you are OK with the crushing blow to the Canadian economy, because your heartfelt belief is that the Canadian oil and gas industry is so environmentally bad for the planet.

These are the people I desperately want to have a conversation with.

I write this letter, not as a Calgarian, Albertan, or even as a Canadian. But I write this as a human being. A human being with two young children, and one who doesn’t go a day without being concerned about how we’re leaving this planet.

So, let’s say that all the anti-Canadian pipeline and oilsands campaigns finally crippled this industry, to a point it can’t rebound. Which feels like a real possibility these days. But what is not just a possibility, but a reality, is that Canadians without their own oil and gas industry would still consume the same amount of energy.

And as Canadians continue to consume 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, the amount we need to import from foreign countries would rise from the current 56%, to 100%. And as completely confused as I already am that we currently import 850,000+ barrels of oil per day, while having the 4th largest reserves in the world. I have absolutely no idea how anyone can think importing an additional 650,000 barrels a day is better for Canada or the environment?

Let’s start with where it’s coming from, with Canada importing 61% from the US, 12% from Saudi Arabia, 6% from Azerbaijan, 5% from Norway, and 4% from Nigeria. I’m going to skip past each of these countries environmental, safety, employee and human rights track records, as there’s no point defacing them when Canada’s oil and gas industry is the world leader in all of these. And I’ll expand on this later, but I thought for arguments sake, we can pretend all these countries have the same standards as Canada.

How could it possibly be more environmentally positive to drill oil in the Middle East, pipeline it to their ports, tanker it 10,000+kms across the ocean, and then deliver it to Canada? Remembering that we have it right here.

So, you’ve won, and there’s no more of what you believe is “dirty oil”. And now we’re importing an additional 650,000 barrels a day into Canada. Let’s not forget, that the 5% of the world’s oil production which Canada currently produces daily, would need to be replaced, or prices would inflate and everyone across the globe would have to pay more at the pumps. And more for the 1,000’s of items manufactured from oil.

But don’t worry about the extra cost, as no other country has an anti oil industry campaign against them, that has stopped or slowed them down like Canada has. And with technology getting better every day, Canada’s 5% worldwide production amounts will be easily replaced.

And let’s go full circle to the Canadian’s protesting new Canadian pipeline projects. If we eliminate our own industry, and we’re importing 650,000 extra barrels of oil daily, we’ll have no other choice but to build new pipelines and facilities to bring this additional oil from the US pipelines and foreign tankers.

So, wouldn’t that be an ironic punch in the face. Where Canadians protesting Canadian owned and operated pipelines, end up shutting down all the investment it takes to move Canadian resources through Canadian pipelines. Just so we are forced to build pipelines and facilities to move more foreign oil into Canada.

And I mentioned that we’d pretend all countries have the same environmental requirements and standards when exploring and developing their natural resources. But it isn’t even close.

You can Google articles with examples of Canada’s environmental standards in this industry, versus any other country. But instead, do yourself a favour and ask someone who’s worked in Canada’s oilpatch, and around the world. Every one of them has countless stories of horrendous environmental issues abroad, which haven’t been allowed in Canada in 30+years (or ever).

So, let’s look at what Canada’s environmental standards are for this industry. And by that, I mean you should go look it up. Don’t take my word for it, but find some reputable publications and factual documents, and not someone’s rambling blog.

Look it up, and please let me know if I’m wrong. Because as much as I needed to write this letter, to get a few things off my chest. I also wrote it, as I believe everyone needs to do better at having a conversation about climate change, the environment, and our responsibility to all do better.

So, I welcome the opposing opinion, as I don’t know why this topic has become a name calling divisive shouting match, where no one will listen to the other side.

But while I have you here, I did want to throw out a couple specific projects, and how protesting them doesn’t make any environmental sense to me. One is Energy East, and the other is BC LNG. The first one is dead, but my fingers are crossed that it can be revived. The second is still approved, for now.

If you look at a map of Canadian pipelines, there is no major pipeline going from Alberta to the east coast of Canada. This means that almost every drop of gas in every vehicle east of Winnipeg is from refined foreign oil. The amount of oil that would’ve travelled on the Energy East pipeline is almost the same amount of oil that we import from Saudi Arabia every day (roughly 100,000 barrels a day).

But what if we didn’t protest Energy East, and instead told the Premier of Quebec that he cannot block a national pipeline. Eastern Canadians would’ve paid (at a minimum) $10-$15 less per barrel than they are currently paying for Canadian oil versus foreign oil. But there was also the billions (not millions, but billions) in revenue that each province would receive from this pipeline running oil through their province.

And I know we’re focusing on the environment, and not the financial benefits of Canada’s oil and gas industry. But, the trick with clean energy and technology, is that it takes money to develop and get to market. So I could be wrong, but I’m almost certain that not one oil company would’ve been upset if Quebec hadn’t killed this pipeline, but instead, took their multi billions a year in revenue from it, and invested all of it into new clean energy technology.

Another thing I encourage you to Google, is the amount of new clean energy technology that has been developed by, and for, Canada’s oil and gas industry.

So, Energy East would’ve taken the amount of Canadian oil, which they are already buying from foreign countries, while generating a ton of money for Canada/Canadians. And then that money could’ve been invested into renewable green energy development. But, Climate Change is a world wide problem, not just a Canadian one. So, as crazy as this might sound, I do believe that BC building facilities to ship Canadian liquid natural gas (LNG) to the world, could have an incredibly positive carbon emissions net benefit.

Currently, China alone has over 700 super coal plants. Just one of them emitting almost as much CO2 as the entire Canadian Oilsands (this is easy to look up). So, what if we could help China get their energy from Natural Gas instead of Coal, as it’s WAY better for the environment. (Side note – also look up Natural Gas and its carbon footprint, as I find very few people realize that it has been unfairly lumped in as a dirty fossil fuel).

And very quickly, I would like to address how we got here in the first place. Why is the perception of Canada’s oil and gas industry so bad across the rest of Canada?

The industry really must start by looking inward, as it has done a very poor job of promoting itself and the strides it’s made over the years. And it can still improve. As can all of us individually.

Because who outside of the industry knows that the Oilsands greenhouse gas emissions have dropped 29% since 2000. Or that a barrel of oil sent from the Oilsands to a refinery on the US Golf Coast has a smaller carbon foot print than a barrel of oil traveling from an oil well in California (it’s small difference, but it’s still better).

And to understand why it’s tough for this industry to promote itself – it is Canadian after all, which explains a lot about its uncomfortable feelings towards self-promotion. And I’ve met a ton of extremely intelligent and thoughtful engineers, geologists, accountants, and tradespeople in this industry, but I’ve never met a Public Relations person – and if there is one, they are very underfunded.

Who is not underfunded, are the groups who make an extraordinary amount of money from Canada not being able to get its natural resources to other customers (the US is our biggest customer at 99%, which is a percentage no business can survive with). And you can’t blame these people for making money off Canada’s inability to build pipelines. But, how they’ve done it, by spending hundreds of millions on PR campaigns to smear Canada’s industry, and pitting us against each other, is beyond is infuriating.

If you only look up one item, please do some research on how openly organizations have been about making donations in the name of the environment, which only target one country’s oil industry. This has made a lot of headlines lately, but I’ve read national Canadian media articles investigating this as far back as 2010.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that I tried my best to use as few statistics as possible, as I’ve seen arguments get derailed with debates on stats. As if the $80 million that Canada losses every day due to no pipeline capacity, is any different if its $40 million or $100 million. It’s a lot of millions, that have turned into billions. And it’s costing hundreds of thousands of good hardworking Canadians financial hardship.

And if it saves the environment, and the planet, then there certainly is an argument for it. But if it’s not helping at all, and potentially harming the planet. Then everyone needs to get educated on all the facts and start to talk to each other about a real solution. And get our industries, politicians, and every Canadian on board with a solution that works.

And please, please, please, don’t take your information from this subject off some rogue website, that’s for or against my stance. Take the time to get your facts from vetted and fact checked publications.

No one should get their facts from a nameless person shouting on the internet. So, my name is Demian Newman, and the two kids I’m leaving this planet to are Olivia and Liam. And both of them need to grow up in a country which is thriving as a world leader, both economically and environmentally – as anything less would be un-Canadian.

Sincerely,

Demian Newman

p.s. If you don’t have time to look up information on everything I’ve mentioned above. Here are a few links:

This first one is on personal energy use and personal accountability. Fun fact: If each of us does a better job to minimize our individual carbon footprint, the industries selling it won’t need to produce as much. Scary fact: literally every economist has said we will use more energy each and every year. This article does a good job expanding on that.

https://www.c2cjournal.ca/2018/12/03/we-have-met-the-carbon-enemy-and-he-is-us/

https://energyminute.ca/

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/oil-sands/18091

http://www.ethicaloil.org/news/myth-busting-are-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-the-oilsands-ruining-the-atmosphere/

https://www.aboutpipelines.com/en/blog/what-you-know-about-pipelines-and-the-environment-might-be-wrong/?utm_campaign=CEPA_Social&utm_content=1542042327&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook,linkedin

https://ipolitics.ca/2014/07/18/how-clean-is-our-dirty-oil-youd-be-surprised/

http://www.stockhouse.com/opinion/independent-reports/2018/04/02/following-big-us-money-behind-canadian-pipeline-protests

Newman Sales and Marketing Inc is a full service sales and marketing firm representing independently owned and operated oilfield service companies. 

If you enjoyed this story, you might also like this story from Sheldon Gron.  Click the image below:

Follow Author

Alberta

AMA challenged to debate Alberta COVID-19 Review

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Justice Centre President sends an open letter to Dr. Shelley Duggan, President of the Alberta Medical Association

Dear Dr. Duggan,

I write in response to the AMA’s Statement regarding the Final Report of the Alberta Covid Pandemic Data Review Task Force. Although you did not sign your name to the AMA Statement, I assume that you approved of it, and that you agree with its contents.

I hereby request your response to my questions about your AMA Statement.

You assert that this Final Report “advances misinformation.” Can you provide me with one or two examples of this “misinformation”?

Why, specifically, do you see this Final Report as “anti–science and anti–evidence”? Can you provide an example or two?

Considering that you denounced the entire 269-page report as “anti­–science and anti–evidence,” it should be very easy for you to choose from among dozens and dozens of examples.

You assert that the Final Report “speaks against the broadest, and most diligent, international scientific collaboration and consensus in history.”

As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware of the “consensus” whereby medical authorities in Canada and around the world approved the use of thalidomide for pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s, resulting in miscarriages and deformed babies. No doubt you are aware that for many centuries the “consensus” amongst scientists was that physicians need not wash their hands before delivering babies, resulting in high death rates among women after giving birth. This “international scientific consensus” was disrupted in the 1850s by a true scientist, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who advocated for hand-washing.

As a medical doctor, you should know that science is not consensus, and that consensus is not science.

It is unfortunate that your AMA Statement appeals to consensus rather than to science. In fact, your AMA Statement is devoid of science, and appeals to nothing other than consensus. A scientific Statement from the AMA would challenge specific assertions in the Final Report, point to inadequate evidence, debunk flawed methodologies, and expose incorrect conclusions. Your Statement does none of the foregoing.

You assert that “science and evidence brought us through [Covid] and saved millions of lives.” Considering your use of the word “millions,” I assume this statement refers to the lockdowns and vaccine mandates imposed by governments and medical establishments around the world, and not the response of the Alberta government alone.

What evidence do you rely on for your assertion that lockdowns saved lives? You are no doubt aware that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading to every city, town, village and hamlet, and that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading into nursing homes (long-term care facilities) where Covid claimed about 80% of its victims. How, then, did lockdowns save lives? If your assertion about “saving millions of lives” is true, it should be very easy for you to explain how lockdowns saved lives, rather than merely asserting that they did.

Seeing as you are confident that the governments’ response to Covid saved “millions” of lives, have you balanced that vague number against the number of people who died as a result of lockdowns? Have you studied or even considered what harms lockdowns inflicted on people?

If you are confident that lockdowns did more good than harm, on what is your confidence based? Can you provide data to support your position?

As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware that the mRNA vaccine, introduced and then made mandatory in 2021, did not stop the transmission of Covid. Nor did the mRNA vaccine prevent people from getting sick with Covid, or dying from Covid. Why would it not have sufficed in 2021 to let each individual make her or his own choice about getting injected with the mRNA vaccine? Do you still believe today that mandatory vaccination policies had an actual scientific basis? If yes, what was that basis?

You assert that the Final Report “sows distrust” and “criticizes proven preventive public health measures while advancing fringe approaches.”

When the AMA Statement mentions “proven preventive public health measures,” I assume you are referring to lockdowns. If my assumption is correct, can you explain when, where and how lockdowns were “proven” to be effective, prior to 2020? Or would you agree with me that locking down billions of healthy people across the globe in 2020 was a brand new experiment, never tried before in human history? If it was a brand new experiment, how could it have been previously “proven” effective prior to 2020? Alternatively, if you are asserting that lockdowns and vaccine passports were “proven” effective in the years 2020-2022, what is your evidentiary basis for that assertion?

Your reference to “fringe approaches” is particularly troubling, because it suggests that the majority must be right just because it’s the majority, which is the antithesis of science.

Remember that the first doctors to advocate against the use of thalidomide by pregnant women, along with Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis advocating for hand-washing, were also viewed as “advancing fringe approaches” by those in authority. It would not be difficult to provide dozens, and likely hundreds, of other examples showing that true science is a process of open-minded discovery and honest debate, not a process of dismissing as “fringe” the individuals who challenge the reigning consensus.”

The AMA Statement asserts that the Final Report “makes recommendations for the future that have real potential to cause harm.” Specifically, which of the Final Report’s recommendations have a real potential to cause harm? Can you provide even one example of such a recommendation, and explain the nature of the harm you have in mind?

The AMA Statement asserts that “many colleagues and experts have commented eloquently on the deficiencies and biases [the Final Report] presents.” Could you provide some examples of these eloquent comments? Did any of your colleagues and “experts” point to specific deficiencies in the Final Report, or provide specific examples of bias? Or were these “eloquent” comments limited to innuendo and generalized assertions like those contained in the AMA Statement?

In closing, I invite you to a public, livestreamed debate on the merits of Alberta’s lockdowns and vaccine passports. I would argue for the following: “Be it resolved that lockdowns and vaccine passports imposed on Albertans from 2020 to 2022 did more harm than good,” and you would argue against this resolution.

Seeing as you are a medical doctor who has a much greater knowledge and a much deeper understanding of these issues than I do, I’m sure you will have an easy time defending the Alberta government’s response to Covid.

If you are not available, I would be happy to debate one of your colleagues, or any AMA member.

I request your answers to the questions I have asked of you in this letter.

Further, please let me know if you are willing to debate publicly the merits of lockdowns and vaccine passports, or if one of your colleagues is available to do so.

Yours sincerely,

John Carpay, B.A., LL.B.
President
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Continue Reading

Alberta

When America attacks

Published on

Paul Wells interviews Alberta Premier Danielle Smith

It’s beginning to look a lot like statehood: Danielle Smith and more on the pod

Here’s Justin Trudeau, urging Pierre Poilievre to declare whether he stands with Canada or with “Danielle Smith, Kevin O’Leary, and ultimately, Donald Trump.” The great thing about a wedge is it can always do more wedging. Meanwhile Danielle Smith is still the premier of Alberta and she’s my first guest this week.

At one point in our interview — which makes Smith the third consecutive Alberta premier to appear on this podcast, so don’t be shy, François Legault — Smith says she asked Trump at Mar-a-Lago whether he’d like to buy more Alberta oil. We’re coming off a truly weird couple of weeks when people were falling over themselves to call Smith a traitor or sellout for that kind of talk. Which is odd for several reasons, including this: as my guest from two weeks ago, former US ambassador David L. Cohen, pointed out, Alberta already sells immense amounts of oil into the American market. So it’s not some deranged fantasy to imagine it might sell more.

I never liked the “Team Canada” talk that swept through this country like a bad fashion trend after Trump tweeted his threat of 25% blanket tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports. I kind of don’t care who’s offside that sort of coerced and silly unanimity, or for what reasons: it will always be somebody, and the social capital you burn up in a futile attempt to enforce the party line will be a terrible, stupid waste. Kids, ask your parents about the Charlottetown Accord referendum. That it turned out this time to be the premier of the province with by far the most to lose from some counter-tariffs or, especially, from an oil export ban should not have been a big shocker. The party-line approach is also a strange response. There’s no Team America. Donald Trump will be challenged in court for everything he does for the rest of his time in office, often by state governors, and encouraging those natural divisions among our American friends makes more sense than forbidding natural divisions at home.

This may have something to do with why Louis St. Laurent, in his 1947 Gray Lecture, named national unity as the paramount value in Canadian foreign policy, ahead of liberty and the rule of law. “No policy can be regarded as wise which divides the people whose effort and resources must put it into effect,” he said, in one of the most enthusiastically ignored lessons in Canadian political history.

As it turns out, I think the air was already going out of the Team Canada balloon before Smith joined me on a Zoom call. Voices have been piping up, including economist Trevor Tombe on David Herle’s podcast, warning about substantial permanent economic cost in exchange for not much political gain.

I think I’ve made it pretty clear where I stand on all this. Smith makes herself pretty clear too.

 

When America attacks by Paul Wells

It’s beginning to look a lot like statehood: Danielle Smith and more on the pod

Read on Substack

Subscribe to Paul Wells.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

I added a second guest because I knew my time with Smith would be finite, and because we have so much to talk about these days. My second guest is Amy Greenberg, who’s one of the leading historians of the antebellum United States (1800-1860, the period leading up to the Civil War.)

She’s a former Guggenheim Fellow, an award-winning teacher, and the author of five books, many of which grapple with the notion of manifest destiny — the idea that the United States, as a historic vanguard of liberty, must keep growing until it filled a continent.

Manifest destiny is a founding American myth, a uniquely powerful intersection of messianism and acreage. You know who’d have a feeling for that sort of thing? A real estate man from Queen’s. But Greenberg, understandably, was reluctant to analyze anything Trump might be up to. She’s happy to stick to what she knows, but that’s fascinating enough: American expansionism as a project of zealots, but also of scoundrels eager for a distraction. The idea of annexing Texas, which became the Mexican-American War and thus the topic of Greenberg’s most prominent book, occurred to the hapless accidental President John Tyler while he was facing impeachment and after the Whigs’ congressional wing had kicked him out of the party. And as she points out in an earlier book with the intriguing title Manifest Manhood, the expansionist impulse is also an expression of a certain idea of robust and aggressive masculinity. Just remember, she’s not talking about Donald Trump.

Share

You can listen to this episode on Apple Podcasts and a bunch of other platforms via the “Listen On” button that you can see at the top of this post when you view it on your desktop browser. If you listen on a podcast platform, hit “Like” and “Subscribe” buttons, and leave a good review, to help spread the word.

You can read a (machine-generated) transcript of this week’s episode via the “Transcript” button at the top of this page when you view it on your desktop browser.

I am grateful to be the Max Bell Foundation Senior Fellow at McGill University, the principal patron of this podcast. Antica Productions turns these interviews into a podcast every week. Kevin Breit wrote and performed the theme music. Andy Milne plays it on piano at the end of each episode. Thanks to all of them and to you. Please tell your friends to subscribe to The Paul Wells Show on their favourite podcast app, or here on the newsletter.

Subscribe to Paul Wells.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X