Ezra Levant and Catherine Swift examine how Donald Trump reshaped their views on unions and tariffs, contrasting his 2016 steelworkers ad—where Jack Tippold condemned cheap Chinese imports—with Canada’s coal plant shutdowns (e.g., Nanticoke) and pipeline cancellations ($15.7B Energy East, $7.5B Kinder Morgan), costing $100B in lost jobs for industries like steel and construction. Swift highlights Canada’s 60% government-union dominance, where leaders like Unifor’s Jerry Diaz push climate policies over NAFTA, ignoring rank-and-file needs, while Trump’s tariffs realigned U.S. politics toward private-sector workers. Levant questions why blue-collar Canadians suffer under union-driven job cuts while American counterparts gain under Trump’s protectionist shifts, revealing a stark divide in labor advocacy and economic impact. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, it's Labor Day, but whose side are the union bosses really on?
It's September 3rd, and you're watching The Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
You come here once a year with a sign, and you feel morally superior.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Donald Trump has changed how I think about labor and unions and working men and women and wages.
I think before he came along, I was more of a libertarian purist.
I took the view of the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, who basically was for zero regulations in any commerce.
For example, when it came to tariffs or other trade barriers, he said a country should just unilaterally declare itself to have free trade with every other country.
And he pointed to places like Hong Kong as proof of that theory's success.
He was very effective.
He's a great communicator.
He loved going on TV shows to gently and clearly and friendly debate economics.
And it was necessary and effective, especially during the Cold War when socialism presented itself as a challenge to the Western capitalist free countries.
That's the point of view that certainly held sway in the U.S. Republican Party.
Came to Canada too under both Conservative and Liberal governments.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Deal and NAFTA have made every party in Canada a free trade party.
The corollary to that was the free movement of labor.
That's part of globalism, too.
Not just free movement of goods, but free movement of people.
And that's what the European Union did.
It's amazing to be able to travel around freely in that continent, just as if borders don't exist.
But it brings problems too, as you know, more acutely.
Huge masses of migrants just walking across Europe, taking advantage of one country's open borders to get access to the whole free movement zone called the Schengen Zone.
And the United States too, where at least 13 million Mexicans illegally work.
I mean, yeah, that's a benefit to employers, sure, and to consumers who, I guess, save a few pennies on every head of lettuce or basket of tomatoes, a few pennies.
But what about the larger costs to society that maybe aren't as easily quantified?
Illegal foreign workers lowering wages for citizens, especially competing against low-skilled citizens.
But they drive up housing costs.
That's stretching citizens, especially the working poor, two different ways.
In Canada, we don't have as large a problem with illegals, but we have legalized our cheap foreign worker problem.
We used to call it the Temporary Foreign Workers Program.
It's basically a gift to fast food restaurants and banks who don't want to pay an extra dollar an hour to hire Canadian citizens.
And that's great for people who don't want to pay an extra 10 cents for their Big Mac, I guess, but is it as good for Canadian teens who should be getting that first job?
I've shown you this video before because it really touched me.
It's a 2016 campaign ad by the U.S. steelworkers.
Can I show it to you again?
I know I've shown it to you before.
Take a look.
My name's Jack Tippold, and I've been a steelworker for 24 years.
This election is a little bit different.
And Donald Trump does talk a good game when it comes to China and Mexico.
But let me tell you a little something about Donald Trump.
The Chinese have been illegally dumping steel and aluminum into this country.
The problem is that Donald Trump is buying this steel and aluminum, and he's using it in his projects.
Now, Trump says he's going to rebuild the steel industry.
That steel could have been made here in Indiana, Pennsylvania, or Ohio.
Another thing, Donald Trump says our wages are too high.
Let's see him go into one of our plants with his soft hands and work for a day and then tell us our wages are too high.
Donald Trump says he uses bankruptcy as a tool.
I've seen what bankruptcy does to our brothers and sisters.
I've seen them losing their houses and their cars, unable to provide food to put on their tables, can't pay their bills.
We don't have a father that can give us a million dollars and bail us out.
Look, Donald Trump is nothing more than a boss.
And when you go to pull that lever on November 8th, think of that's who you want as your boss.
Now, the Milton Friedman in me would say, if Trump used cheap Chinese steel in his skyscraper, how is that a problem?
Well, it's a problem for the Jack Tippolds of the world, isn't it?
It's a problem for towns and cities across the Rust Belt.
Now, someone like Justin Trudeau or Catherine McKenna or Rachel Notley, who loves to shut down blue-collar industries run by guys who look and sound like Jack Tippold.
I mean, remember, they shut down the largest coal-fired power plant in North America.
It was operating beautifully here in Ontario in Nanticoke.
They're shutting down perfectly fine coal-fired power plants in Alberta.
It's not just carbon they're eliminating.
They're eliminating thousands of Canadian Jack Tippolds.
Canadians and the Rust Belt Conflict00:16:20
That's not even through foreign trade.
That's just through our own self-destruction at the altar of extreme environmentalism.
But it's a similar hollowing out of our industry, real jobs, industrial jobs, six-figure jobs.
And the fancy people would say, oh, well, Jack Tippold, just retrain and learn how to do coding.
Why don't you design an app for an iPhone?
Just learn how to do that and get a new job that way, the thousand men laid off at your steel factory, because China is subsidizing its steel to dump below-cost into the United States for the strategic goal of killing off America's steel industry.
See, how does that work in a Milton Friedman world?
When Air Canada is forced to compete against Emirates Airlines, you know that airline's a beautiful airline.
It's a luxury airline.
They have those new A380 double-decker jets.
It just happens to be owned by the United Arab Emirates dictatorship, though.
So obviously they get free use of the government airport in Dubai compared that to the extremely expensive Canadian airports Air Canada has to pay for.
Emirates gets super cheap jet fuel as government policy compared to Air Canada, for example.
So Emmett's Airlines is really an arm of the UAE-OPEC dictatorship.
So should we just roll over and let Emirates put Air Canada out of business because the UAE wants to kill it off?
Should Trump let Chinese steel just kill off all the remaining steel mills in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania?
Well, he said no, and so far, it seems to be working because in a way he's forced the other countries of the world to live up to Milton Friedman's ideals.
Here's what I mean.
He's actually saying, if you want free trade with us, then act like it.
We're not going to behave well if you don't behave well.
So if you don't drop all your tariffs, we're going to hammer you until you do with tariffs.
And country after country said, yikes, here's the EU president giving Trump a kiss.
Now, maybe he was drunk there.
He's drunk a lot.
But I think that was a kiss of relief and desperate approval after Trump agreed not to crush the European Union.
But they agreed to lower their tariffs because Trump threatened a trade war against Europe if they didn't.
Mexico agreed to level the playing field because if they didn't, Trump threatened them with huge tariffs too.
That's what Trump is saying to Canada right now.
Remember his joke when he first met Trudeau at the G7?
Justin has agreed to cut all tariffs and all trade barriers between Canada and the United States.
That's not a joke.
That's his position.
Look at the examples I've just shown you.
Trump threatens tariffs, but at the end of the day, he actually doesn't implement them.
He gets the other guys to drop their tariffs.
But if Trudeau doesn't want that deal that Europe's taking, that Mexico's taking, Trump, well, just hammer Trudeau until he does or until he doesn't.
Get ready to pay an extra 20% tariff on autos you sell to the United States.
So far, only the Chinese haven't bent the knee.
And that's because there are bigger arguments afoot with the Chinese, including their control of North Korea.
Donald Trump knows that China is his strategic competitor.
My point is, Donald Trump's embrace of tariffs is only as a weapon.
It's a means to an end, a way to get fairer free trade than the unilateral declaration of free trade that Hong Kong had done, that Milton Friedman would say we should do.
And you know what?
It's realigning American politics.
And it started on his first day in office, right after his inauguration.
Do you remember this?
When the president laid out his plans about how he's going to handle trade, how he's going to invest in our infrastructure, and how he's going to level a playing field for construction workers and all Americans across this country.
And then took the time to take everyone into the Oval Office and show them the seat of power in the world.
The respect that the President of the United States just showed us.
And when he shows it to us, he shows it to 3 million of our members in the United States was nothing short of incredible.
And we will work with him and his administration to help him implement his plans on infrastructure, trade, and energy policy so that we really do put America back to work in the middle-class jobs that our members and all Americans are demanding.
Thank you very much.
Those guys were all Democrats until that day.
Yeah, Donald Trump is doing what no Canadian liberal or NDP and what no U.S. Democrat has done in decades.
He's actually fighting for working men, actually venerating and praising heavy industry.
He likes smokestacks, and he don't care who knows.
In Canada, we're shutting down perfectly fine power plants.
We're banning pipelines.
We're deinvesting from infrastructure, from the oil sands.
In America, they can't build fast enough.
4.2% GDP growth last quarter.
That's staggering.
Who would have thunk it, a billionaire property developer, is the best friend the working man has had in a generation?
Stay with us for more on our special Labor Day show with Catherine Swift.
Welcome back.
Well, on this Labor Day, who better to talk with about the state of labor in Canada and the United States than our friend Catherine Swift.
She's a representative of a group called Working Canadians.
Great to see you again, Catherine.
Nice to be here, Ezra.
I want to talk to you about a few different things about labor, because Donald Trump has changed a little bit of how I think of the labor movement.
He's a billionaire.
I mean, he's a fancy, golden crusted casino and developer tycoon.
But he has a blue-collar sensibility.
And it's my view that one of the reasons he won is because he appealed to those working-class men who used to be the base of the Democrats in the States and the NDP in Canada, but who have been forsaken by the Democrats and the NDP in favor of fancy activists and professor types.
I think Donald Trump is grafting on to the blue-collar working class.
And the new parties to the left are more about extreme identity politics.
That's my theory.
What do you think of that?
Oh, yeah, I think that has a fair bit to be said for it.
There's no doubt his position on a lot of trade issues about jobs having, you know, those traditional jobs having gone elsewhere to the third world, to China, et cetera, was certainly part of his appeal to that constituency.
I do, however, think, and it's interesting, you say the new left, whatever they manage to, whatever they manage to look like these days.
I don't know that the unions have a lot to do with that traditional working class base anymore.
They did back in their inception, you know, 150 or whatever years ago.
But it's very interesting because when you even look at where unions are at these days, they don't seem to represent the average working person.
They represent elites.
They represent government workers who, as we know, make way more money than they should at the expense of the rest of us.
So I think you're absolutely right in terms of that trend.
The question, when we, I guess, look at Labor Day coming up is how do unions fit into all of this?
And I don't think they do, certainly not like they used to.
Yeah, you're right to point out the preponderance of government unions.
I mean, the teachers' unions in both Canada and the United States are very dominant.
They're extremely active in Democratic Party politics and increasingly so in Canadian politics too.
You know, in the last federal election, 2015, there was a registry of all the so-called third-party campaign groups.
In the states, they're called super PACs.
And that's basically any organized campaign entity that spent money on the election.
There were more than 100 of these groups.
All but one were against Stephen Harper, not that that would be a surprise to you.
But so many of them were teachers' unions and other government unions.
So they're very active to shore up their own base.
I saw a statistic from the Fraser Institute that points to Alberta, which the NDP there is boasting has job growth.
It's true, tens of thousands of new jobs, but they're all public sector jobs.
The private sector in Alberta is still shrinking.
That's, I think, the difference is Donald Trump is reaching out to private sector union workers, whether it's the Teamsters or the steel workers or the auto workers.
Whereas in Canada, especially, and the Democrats, they're in love with the government workers' unions.
I'm just trying to come to terms with where unions are in 2018.
Well, you compare Canada to the U.S. too, the situation, the legislative framework and so on, the legal framework, is so, so very different.
In the U.S., the latest statistics I've looked at showed that in the private sector, about 7% of workers are unionized in the U.S. Seven.
In Canada, it's about double that, 14.
Still not huge by any stretch.
And when you consider that that number was about 30% back in the 1970s, it's dropped precipitously.
But even more so in the U.S.
So, I mean, yeah, unions are part of Trump's base.
But I think you've got a lot of non-union working class people that are also very supportive of him.
And of course, that's where the big numbers are from a vote standpoint.
But in Canada, first of all, unions in Canada are basically a license to extort taxpayers and other Canadians.
When we look at, again, talking about statistics, roughly 20 to 22 percent of Canadians work for government.
But when we look at the total number of unionized Canadians, 60% of them work for government.
In other words, the majority of union workers are government, and they have way too much money.
Instead of, I mean, I look at these teachers here in Ontario and they're wacky elsewhere in the country too.
You know, they're all annoyed because their preferred leftist government didn't get elected to continue to give them more of our money.
So they're all up in arms.
Why don't they, meanwhile, half of grade six students are failing math?
Let's focus on some education here, people.
When unions get into these workplaces, particularly government, which has typically no competition, so there's no checks and balances on the unions power, we see an erosion of standards, whether it's a government department, whether it's education, healthcare, or a business, because they're suddenly focusing on political agendas, not the bottom line of that particular company or that particular, say, our education system or whatever.
So something's got to give here.
And yet our courts are, and I'm sure you know this is a lawyer, Ezra, our courts continue to back up the unions against the vast majority of Canadians' interests, which continues to befuddle me.
Yeah, you know, it's funny.
I was just thinking, in the private sector, there's two dynamics at play with unions that aren't there in the public sector.
First of all, it is possible for a union to kill a private sector company.
I'd have to translate facts, but I think the Caterpillar plant in London, Ontario, without going back and briefing myself on the details, I think that that was one of the problems there.
So the union is restrained somewhat because they know that the company is mortal.
And on the other hand, the company, the managers, the owners of the company that's negotiating with the union, they are limited by, again, their own mortality.
Whereas in the government sector, the unions know they can wring out as much as possible from the government and they're not going to kill the host.
And the politicians are spending other people's money.
And really, it comes to the point where they would rather buy political peace to pave the way for, let's say, another election than fight over outlandish wages or other benefits for government sector workers.
So it's sort of what they would call a moral hazard in that there's no natural check on the government in their negotiations.
Of course, the most extreme example of that is when a teachers' union rep runs and becomes elected to the school board.
So you have the same interests on both sides of the bargaining table.
I think that there's a real problem with government unions because of that moral hazard or another way of putting it, a conflict of interest.
Well, no question.
And of course, the thinking a number of decades ago was that there was absolutely no place for unions in government for precisely that reason.
And then in the 1960s, we saw political pressure by unions.
Naturally, they saw how they could manage to extract massive amounts of money from the rest of us.
And they succeeded in convincing it was Pearson in Canada, it was Kennedy in the U.S. in the 60s that permitted widespread unionization of government.
And we know what the ultimate, you know, what the ultimate outcome is.
I always try to look for solutions.
And obviously, one solution is Canadians do not vote for governments that kowtow to unions.
Trudeau was a classic example.
He's got somebody like Jerry Diaz on his negotiating team for NAFTA, which befuddles, you know, that boggles the mind that someone from an auto union would be on the government negotiating team in this kind of situation.
Of course, we've seen the abject failure that's been to date.
So I guess we'll all stay tuned for the next few days.
But the government, I think you have to start with government.
Look at what they did in Wisconsin.
Government Scott Walker came in.
He stopped collecting dues.
As the employer, he stopped collecting dues for government employees.
All of a sudden, their revenues plummeted by about 70%.
So, you know, you've got your solutions here.
Ultimately, though, I think it's public opinion that needs to be influenced.
Your average person has to realize how much more they are paying, how much more their life is negatively affected by the fact that government employees, for example, earn way more money than their counterpart in the private sector, have much richer pensions, goodies, you know, benefits, and so on and so forth.
And this has an impact on every average taxpayer's life, and it's not a good impact.
You mentioned Jerry Diaz.
It's a very curious thing.
I mean, he and so many others within the orbit of Canada's federal liberals, although he's traditionally, I don't think, a liberal, I mean, although the unions have backed the liberals lately.
So many of them are unrestrained Trump derangement syndrome types.
They're part of the resistance.
I find that, I mean, that's a fine position to take.
I disagree with it.
I'm a supporter of Trump, but the extreme expression of personal viciousness towards Trump, and again, that's fair game for a politician, for a private citizen.
But if you're part of a negotiating team, if you're on Justin Trudeau's official NAFTA advisory council and you just can't stop spitting bullets at Trump, that's I think that's been part of the problem here is the animosity directed towards Trump.
Trump ignored Canada for a year, didn't say a word about Canada, while everyone on the Canadian side was disparaging him.
Let me show you some, you know, here's a column by Jerry Diaz.
Why Trudeau Betrays Auto Workers00:10:39
He's the president of Unifor, which has the auto union within it.
This I don't even understand.
I'm just going to read the headline to you, Catherine.
So this is Jerry Diaz.
He's the president of Unifor, which absorbed the Canadian autoworkers.
The headline is, Canada must say no to NAFTA and Donald Trump if the price is too high.
And then the sub-headline is, this renegotiation was supposed to be about addressing what was wrong with the original NAFTA, not perpetuating its shortcomings.
And I think we have one more image from Jerry Diaz.
This is incredible to me.
Canada must stick the social justice principles that have defined this country's approach to the NAFTA negotiation.
I'm in D.C. as the talks resume my column.
So he wrote this just a couple of days ago.
This is the weirdest of them all, Catherine, because the first one was saying only get a good deal.
And I suppose you can't really disagree with that, but here he puts some meat on the bones.
He says, keep to the social justice principles.
That's the feminism.
That's the global warmingism.
That's the aboriginal issues.
Those have been things that have been deal breakers.
What I don't understand, Catherine, and goes back to our very first point in our conversation.
How does that possibly represent grassroots, rank-and-file blue-collar workers, especially those in the Canadian auto industry?
If we don't get a NAFTA deal, Trump says he's going to smash our auto industry like a bowl of eggs.
How can they have the auto workers union say, no, no, no, don't take a deal if we don't get all the feminism we want?
Yeah, I know.
I find it unbelievable because I can't imagine that Diaz's objectives would, you know, presumably would be met by such a position.
I think it's been very well documented that the Canadian government officials building in all of these social justice, whatever you want to call it, objectives into a trade agreement was A poison pill right from the beginning.
And then, of course, a number of it wasn't just Diaz that was saying very objectionable things about the U.S.
I mean, it's one thing to think them.
But when I see somebody like Freeland do, you know, Christia Freeland, the minister involved, doing speeches, disparaging, you know, and yet she's supposed to be a diplomat.
That to me is the antithesis of diplomacy.
And the stakes are so high.
This is not an unimportant issue for Canada.
Let's face it, the stakes are extremely high.
So, yeah, but I mean, Diaz is saying basically things that government ministers are also seemingly saying.
And how you expect to win with that strategy?
Well, that's very mysterious to me.
Well, and that's the thing.
I mean, Christia Freeland, I'm putting more and more credence in Stephen Harper's theory that perhaps the Liberals don't want a deal.
They want a fight so they can campaign against Trump in the 2019 election.
I disagree with that strategy.
I don't rule it out.
I think it's dangerous, but you can understand it.
What I don't understand is how that strategy, which would lead to Trump smashing a 20-25% tariff on our cars.
I mean, he specifically said you add 20% to the cost of a car made in Canada.
You're not selling any in America.
Like that, you may as well just say shut her down.
How on earth does that even make sense for Jerry Diaz?
My theory is maybe Justin Trudeau and Gerald Butts have promised him so many pro-labor regulatory and legal reforms, so many concessions, so many other goodies that he's willing to sacrifice the auto industry.
But even that doesn't make sense because what could possibly be better for his members than having tens of thousands of auto jobs?
I just, that's what boggles my mind, and that's what makes me leads me to my original point.
How can Jerry Diaz be putting feminism ahead of auto industry when he's the auto union boss?
I just don't understand that part.
Can you help me, Catherine?
Well, no, I don't think I can help you, Ezra, because I'm also mystified by it.
Mind you, labor leaders have sold out the rank and file many a time in the past.
So the notion that they will always do the best thing for their members has not been borne out often in history.
But let's not forget, though, unions generally love monopolies.
They hate trade agreements.
They hate it.
I mean, when the FTA first, for free trade agreement in Mulroney's day, first you know, first was even talked about, the left opposed it vociferously.
You know, can't oppose the border, the whole country's going to fall apart.
Of course, nothing of the sort happened.
And all the factual research shows that trade is ultimately a winner for everyone.
Yes, there's transitions and so on, and you can't underestimate them.
But I really wonder whether they would mind.
I mean, mind you, that unwinding, that unscrambling of the omelet in the auto industry would be exceedingly difficult because, as you know, a given vehicle could cross a border several times in its manufacture and has chunks of it coming from various countries around the world, including the three NAFTA partners.
So it would be an awfully, awfully complex situation.
But like you say, why would somebody take such a contrarian position that would seemingly have the end game of hurting their industry badly?
There has to be something else at play here.
I can't believe there's not something we don't know about.
And that's a big worry.
Because again, unions are already, unions have the catbird seat in Canada compared to other developed countries around the world.
Forced dues, rolling in money that they don't even collect.
They don't even have to have the machinery in place to collect those dues and so on.
We really need, if any other group had the power to extort their fellow citizens that unions do, they'd be in the courts or they'd be in jail.
Why do we give that to unions?
It is outrageous and has to end.
Yeah.
I got one more question, and it's in the same vein.
And over the last year or two, Rachel Notley's attacks on the oil industry, combined with Justin Trudeau's attacks on the oil industry, have caused the flight of $100 billion of investment.
And we can name them, $15.7 billion for the Energy East pipeline that was canceled because Justin Trudeau demanded new emissions analysis for the oil that would go through it, like something that has never been done before.
It would be a standard that wouldn't be applied to Saudi oil, for example.
$15.7 billion there.
I think that the Kinder Morgan Transmountain pipeline, which the Court of Appeal is now stalling perhaps permanently, that's $7.5 billion for the new one.
The Northern Gateway pipeline, that was over $10 billion.
You look at some of the oil sands plants fleeing.
You really are up to $100 billion when you add in the LNG that walked away.
Not all of those are union projects.
Some of them have both union and non-union workers.
But to see 100 billion in construction, that's just the construction.
That's not even.
And without a peep from that, like, I think the building trades union spoke out meekly.
But surely anyone who makes steel drives a truck, builds stuff.
How could we have seen $100 billion in construction flee this country without a word from the unions?
In fact, I wish it was without a word.
The words they've been saying are global warming, carbon tax.
And again, it's like Jerry Diaz.
It looks like he's campaigning against his own members' interests.
Where were all the building unions saying, we need this $15 billion shovel-ready jobs project called Energy East?
That boggles my mind.
If they won't even stand up for themselves, maybe it's no surprise that no one else will.
Well, exactly.
And then this disconnect between the actual members, who presumably want jobs, and the union leaders has been happening for some time as the union leaders have become more and more politicized, more and more interested, seemingly, in getting a sympathetic government elected, whether it's federally, provincially, or even municipally for that matter, rather than actually furthering the interests.
And this has to be a problem.
I mean, again, unionization in the private sector, even in good old Canada, which hands over privileges to unions they don't to anybody else, you know, it has dropped so precipitously.
And this is part of the cause too, though, Ezra.
When you have government unions in the ascendancy in the union movement in general, this is also one of the outcomes that you end up getting is that they don't seem to realize, mind you, that if you do demolish the private sector, ultimately government will suffer too.
Maybe not as quickly.
But I mean, we all know what happened.
I like to call it the Grecian formula.
We all know what happened in other countries when the government got too big, too fat, killed the private sector, and ultimately couldn't pay for itself because naturally governments are never self-sustaining.
So I think a real shakeout has yet to happen.
But again, public opinion has to be the first thing that moves and it's starting to move.
But people have to realize that these unions don't represent their interests anymore.
And this is yet one more example.
And we've been lucky in Canada.
I mean, you know, a lot gets forgiven when the economy is not bad.
And right now, the U.S. is doing well.
Some of that, not as much as usual, mind you, but some of that does filter over into Canada.
In general, around the world right now, we're in a growth part of the business cycle.
But in Canada, we've predicated that on huge debt, increases in taxes, and massive, massive run-up of deficits.
And of course, all of this is going to bite really hard when the next recession hits.
And when that happens, and it'll be very interesting timing around next year's election, because if we do see, and we're seeing a slowing now, we're seeing a slowing, but we're not really seeing like massive job loss.
So people are starting to shake their heads and go, whoa, the government isn't helping me.
But whatever timing that may or may not happen is going to be, I think, a huge factor for the next election.
Yeah.
Well, very interesting stuff.
And I just can't get over the fact that blue-collar working-class industrial workers are doing, are thriving under a billionaire Republican president while we're destroying, evaporating, canceling hundreds of billions of dollars in private sector construction.
Catherine Swift's Pleasure00:00:12
It's something I just will never understand.
Catherine Swift, what a pleasure to spend some of our Labor Day special with you today.
Thank you, Ezra.
All right, there you have it.
Well, that's today's show on this special edition.