Australia’s 2019–20 wildfires—burning 14.7 million acres and killing 24—sparked 200 arson arrests, including minors like a Queensland teen linked to 14 destroyed homes and NSW girls who lit 13 grass fires; 87% of fires (1997–2009) were human-caused. Critics like Barnaby Joyce blame conservation policies for canceling hazard reduction burns, while Catherine McKenna and Justin Trudeau push climate change narratives despite historical precedents like China’s 1988 Black Dragon fire (18M acres) or Indonesia’s 1997 peat fires (3Gt CO₂). Canada’s $300,000 Conservative leadership fee risks excluding bold candidates, echoing past failures like the Dairy Cartel’s role in Scheer’s win. Skepticism grows as politicians prioritize climate blame over arson evidence, undermining accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
I take you through some of the 200 cases of arson that police have arrested people for in Australia in the last few months.
Did you know those wildfires are from arson?
I'll prove it to you.
But before I do, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of this podcast plus Sheila Gunread's show, plus David Menzie's show, plus the satisfaction of knowing you're helping the rebel stay strong.
That's premium.rebelnews.com.
Okay, here's the podcast.
Tonight, did global warming cause the fires in Australia or did 200 different arsonists?
It's January 7th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
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.
Big brush fires in Australia, huge, and people have died.
That happens with big fires.
It used to happen a lot more in history, though.
50, 100 years ago, we didn't have live international 24-hour TV news channels, let alone the internet and everyone with a cell phone with a camera.
The world was less economically developed, so while human disasters were far more painful and caused many more deaths, there was less GDP carnage.
Here's a graph produced by Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg, who calls himself the skeptical environmentalist.
Deaths from climate events were half a million people a year a century ago.
Now they're one-tenth that, mainly in the third world, of course.
There are certain deaths that have nothing to do with the climate, earthquakes, volcanoes, but the climate stuff, it's usually solved by technology and industry.
Try fighting brush fires before the age of the automobile, before pumper trucks and pipelines with water, let alone water bombers, before evacuations could be done en masse and speedily and safely.
I was reading the shock jock coverage by CNN, and it sure did sound bad, and it is.
But really, huge fires and 24 people dead altogether.
That's 24 tragedies, of course, 14.7 million acres burnt.
That's a lot of brush.
But by comparison, I mean, just 30 years ago in China, there was a bigger fire.
It was so big, they called it the Black Dragon.
Hundreds of people killed, hundreds more burnt.
It was on both sides of the Russia-China border.
Let me read a few lines from the New York Times back in 1988.
The Soviet decision not to fight the huge fires east of the city of Chita was utilitarian.
There was no thought of ecological consequence.
The Russians possess such vast forests, they do not plan to cut in the Amur region for 100 years.
By then, they think the forest will regenerate.
Why waste men and money?
Let it burn.
The Chinese thought differently.
The Black Dragon constitutes China's last large timber reserve, half the commercial timber in the country.
The fire cost one-third of that reserve.
The Chinese had no water dumping helicopters and not many bulldozers, but they put 60,000 men on the fire lines to beat back the blaze with swaters.
Swatters.
Now that fire was officially 18 million acres, so bigger than the Australian fire.
And it was mainly a fully treed forest, as you heard, not just scrub and brush.
And of course, neither the Soviet Union nor Communist China is really known for being accurate and honest in public about how big the problems are.
We know that from Chernobyl, they lie because any bad news is regarded as a political embarrassment for the communists.
So I'd say double the actual size of the fire.
But if you care about the environment, nothing touches the massive fire in Indonesia just a few years back, not that long ago, from 1997.
So in our lifetimes.
Nothing ancient here.
20 million acres.
Largest fire in recorded history, apparently.
It wasn't just trees.
It was the peat bog underneath, that mossy, muddy stuff that burned and burned and burned and released nearly three gigatons of carbon dioxide.
That's equivalent, they say, to half of all fossil fuels burned on purpose by people in a year.
Just one fire.
I bet you hadn't even heard about that fire because it couldn't be blamed on the West or Donald Trump, really, could it?
So the Australian fires are smaller than these other ones I've listed by every measure.
Less loss of life, thank God.
Fewer trees burned.
Fewer emissions, though, of course, CO2 is the stuff of life.
It's what trees breathe in through photosynthesis.
Nothing grows back faster than a burnt forest.
Rich nutrients return to the soil.
Lots of CO2 in the air.
Forests grow back fast and green, which is why smart forest management often includes controlled burns.
Here, listen to an Australian political leader, Barnaby Joyce is his name, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.
Listen to this for a bit.
I'm going to let this run for three solid minutes, but listen to him and you tell me what you think.
Well, it's an area that you know better than most.
How does it compare to fire seasons in years gone by?
Okay, well, this is something I think is really important, Kieran.
I don't have a problem with people who vote greens, and I certainly don't want to go sort of argument and ad hominem against green voters because it's nothing to do with that.
What it is, is certain, let's call them conservation policies or green policies that I think have exacerbated this fire.
And I'll name three.
One is the lack of control burns, fire reduction burns, because as you know, if you keep on piling vegetation, dry vegetation on top of dry vegetation, which was never burnt as the Aboriginals did when they were here, they were very aware of the dangers this caused.
Then when a fire does come, and they always do come, they are horrific.
They are like a holocaust.
And that policy needs to be changed so we can get those controls burnt.
Now, speaking to people from the Environment Department, and they say, well, they won't go on the record.
They say it's just so bureaucratic.
It's bureaucratic for the purpose of not letting you do it.
And of course.
But this morning we spoke to the RFS incident controller at Warhope, Jason McKiller, spoke to us, and my colleague Peter Stefanovic asked him, are you able to hazard reduce as much as you'd like?
He said, we do.
Yes, we do as much as we can.
We can't turn the place into a wasteland.
There's got to be a medium between burning and the asset protection zones.
What do you say to that?
I have a difference of view to them.
And as much as they can is probably the crucial word there, because if the regulations have changed, they could do more.
Now, I'm taking that on the basis of other people who work in the forest, work for the department, who said quite clearly, we need more hazard reduction burns.
And I've also taken it from people who would definitely be green voters.
They've said to me, one of the biggest problems was the fuel buildup.
And they quote, you know, the history of Aboriginal management of the land.
And so we have two different views.
And I have the reality and the fact that the fire is absolutely hellish.
So I'm looking at something that is burning.
And it's not burning because they burnt off.
It's burning because they didn't burn off.
And that's just a fact.
The next two things is they've got to have central watering points.
They decommissioned dams as they call them, so they push them in.
So we don't have central watering points in the state forests and the national parks with the helicopters can collect the water from.
And the next one is the Labour Party, their policy was to get rid of or to let run into disrepair the fire trails, the fire breaks, so we get access to it.
These are facts, Kieran, and these are facts that need to be changed.
Well, look, it's just a fact.
Fewer controlled burns, fewer fire breaks, fewer dams with water.
That's what's going on in Australia, but that's pretty boring when the enemy could be global warming.
I mean, take it from Jennifer Anniston at the Golden Globe Awards.
Make no mistake, the tragedy unfolding in Australia is climate change-based.
We need to act based on science, move our global workforce to renewable energy, and respect our planet for the unique and amazing place it is.
That way, we all have a future.
Well, a Hollywood actress just settled the question.
The only person dumber than Jennifer Anniston when it comes to science is Catherine McKenna, who was demoted from the Global Warming Ministry last month by Trudeau, but she just won't stop talking about it.
Here she is.
Climate politics are changing fast.
It's becoming even more clear that the cost of inaction is much greater than the cost of grappling with the challenge.
Leaders who refuse to pay attention and take action could pay a political price.
So they should.
Yeah, and right after she tweeted that, the liberal repeaters embedded at the CBC chimed in, sucking up as they always do.
Here's Aaron Warry.
It was not long ago that some Canadian politicians were touting the fact that Australia had repealed its carbon tax.
I suspect that won't be touted again.
Yeah.
I mean, Australia did have a carbon tax and then they repealed it.
It was so hated.
Is that what caused the fire that they repealed the carbon tax?
Or was it the lack of a controlled burn policy, the lack of firewalls, the lack of dams?
Would paying more taxes to politicians have somehow stopped the fires?
Is that how fires work?
Would that have worked in Indonesia and China and Russia or just Australia?
Canada's worst fires in recent years were all started by arson, says the RCMP.
But you still saw McKenna and Justin Trudeau himself claiming that those BC fires were the result of global warming.
29 arson fires in BC in four years.
So what about Australia?
Well, Australia's Spectator magazine meticulously went through the news reports town by town in Australia and added up all the arrests for arson.
And there are 200 of them, 200 cases of arson in Australia since the fall.
Let me read a little bit of the list.
According to my calculations and estimates, the number of individuals around Australia whose arson has contributed to the current bushfire crisis has now passed 200.
Now the author here is not a global warming skeptic.
He just likes accuracy.
Let me read some more from him.
Australia has a fire bug crisis.
It will no doubt be up to a future Royal Commission's and inquiries to calculate exactly what proportion of the current loss and destruction can be attributed to human action, but I suspect it will be a significant one.
Mankind may be causing climate change, but man is most definitely making fires start.
Where's the proof, you ask?
Below is a sample of news reports from around the country over recent months.
All right, let's just scroll down the page.
I'm not going to read all 200 examples.
I'll just read some of them.
Three teenage girls have been arrested for arson over 13 grass fires, police allege, were deliberately lit on the New South Wales mid-north coast.
New South Wales police believe 12 bushfires may have been deliberately lit by arsonists during Tuesday's catastrophic fire conditions.
A suspected arsonist was arrested after a chase through the Royal National Park, south of Sydney, by an Army Blackhawk helicopter.
The crew of the 6th Aviation Regiment unit in the Blackhawks spotted a man acting suspiciously in the northern area of the park, the Daily Telegraph reported.
Here's another one.
Police allege a teenager started a central Queensland bushfire that has destroyed 14 homes.
Police say the 16-year-old boy has not been charged with arson, but will be dealt with under the state's Youth Justice Act.
Here's another.
Last week we learned that the Binnaborough fire, which destroyed the historic Binnaborough Large Lodge in southeast Queensland, was started by a carelessly discarded skeet cigarette.
And the Gold Coast hinterland bushfires the week before may have been started by Army live firing exercises at the Kokoda barracks, a spokesman for the Australian Defence Force has conceded.
I'll just read a couple more.
More than half of the 18 people who have been dealt with by police over recent Queensland bushfires are children.
Police have revealed, since the state of emergency was declared in Queensland on November 9th, police said they have taken action against 18 people for deliberately lighting fires.
Now I'm not going to read it all, but this journalist in each case is citing and linking to other published reports in reputable newspapers of record.
He's just adding them all up.
He's just putting them all on one big list.
This is one of the craziest here.
A volunteer firefighter in Australia has been charged with deliberately lighting blazes during the nation's bushfire crisis.
Police arrested the man 19 for seven counts of alleged arson in an area south of Sydney, New South Wales.
A fireman charged with arson.
72 people charged in New South Wales alone.
As firefighters remain on high alert, police revealed 103 of the destructive fires that have lashed Queensland since September were deliberately lit.
Figures obtained by AAP reveal 98 people, 31 adults and 67 juveniles, have been dealt with by Queensland police for deliberately setting fires.
So that's another 98 in Queensland.
Okay, so who are these people?
Are they psychopaths?
Are they murderers?
Well, some of them may be.
Are they environmentalists trying to get a narrative going?
Don't rule that out.
These wildfires are political gold for opportunists like Catherine McKenna and Aaron Warry.
Here's what the author of this piece says in The Spectator.
There are no conspiracies here.
Though arson has been tried and called for before as a tool of terror, the Australian fires seem to result from the actions of unconnected individuals who were either disturbed or reckless.
This is nothing new, as ecological criminologist Paul Reed wrote back in November.
A 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997 to 2009 confirmed what we had known for some time.
40% of fires are deliberately lit.
Another 47% are accidental.
That's 87%, by the way.
This generally matches previous data published a decade earlier that about half of all fires were suspected of deliberate arson and 37% accidental.
Combined, they reached the same conclusion.
87% are man-made.
It looks bad on TV, and it is bad.
And 24 people have died.
But it's been much, much worse before.
Far worse before for people.
Today, fossil fuels are the tool to fight fire trucks, water bombers just plain evacuating people.
Conservative Party Rules Controversy00:14:53
We now have insurance to cover catastrophic losses.
Most people, thank God, will be okay.
Accidents are accidental.
Arsonists are criminals.
We have to fight both.
And maybe we can listen to the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia who cited Aboriginal fire practices of controlled burns.
But that's all too boring for the carbon tax set, even in Hollywood and even here in Canada, isn't it?
Stay with us for more.
Well, as you know, Andrew Scheer has announced his intentions to resign, future tense, as the leader of the Conservative Party.
He said he was going to resign, but then that seems to be delayed.
He's still enforcing discipline, hiring and firing staff.
He's still living in Stornoway, taking the salary top up.
But the Conservative Party directors, the trustees, the governors, have decided that there will be a leadership race in June.
That's when it's going to be, with a whopping entry fee and the other rules, here to give us the update is our friend Andrew Lawton with TNC.news.
That's the True North folks.
And we'll talk to Andrew in a moment about his new show there.
Andrew, great to see you.
Happy New Year.
Bring us up to speed with the Conservative leadership race.
It'll be here in about six and a half, about six months, am I right?
Yeah, it's going to be coming in June, and we have a significant field of potential candidates, a few people who have said definitively they are in fact running, and a growing number of people saying, maybe it's time to sit this one out.
But I think you touched on something important with the entry fee.
The party is going to have a $300,000 entry fee, which means even if you raise, let's say, $500,000, you only really have to run a campaign $200,000 left because $300 is going to the party.
And this is done very deliberately to keep outsiders out of the field, to keep people that don't have a hope at winning and aren't able to fundraise nationally out of the field.
And the other thing that's distinct this time from the leadership race when Andrew Scheer won is that we're only dealing with about a six-month field of runway here rather than the year and a half long campaign that had 1.15 candidates in the field.
So there are some changes.
It's going to be a much smaller field this time around.
And I think that is going to be very determining to who is in it.
And also Lisa Raitt, who's the co-chair, has said that people have 10 days to make up their mind.
So it is really a snap judgment we're going to see here.
Yeah, I got to tell you, I think that there needed to be earlier winnowing last time around.
But this, in my own reaction, is this is much too high a hurdle.
I mean, $300,000, if I recall, it was $100,000 last time.
And that, I think to raise $100,000 is a sign you're serious.
That's a real amount of money.
But 300 to triple it, that seems so conspicuous, Andrew, that I'm going to call that the Peter McKay-Jean Chara rules.
That if you're a plugged-in insider who's got lots of money, then you like these rules because it keeps out a more grassrootsy populist opponent.
I mean, 300 grand would be nothing for Peter McKay or Jean-Charé, but some grassrootsy Reform Party style or even PPC style MP or outsider, that's probably insuperable in the short period of time they have.
That's my own reflex.
What do you think?
Well, I think there's a truth to that.
And one of the things that you'd know, Ezra, I mean, you've been in this political scene for quite a while, is that the conservative fundraising strategy as a party has always been those little $20 donations at a time.
And in fact, everyone has this image of conservatives of being the deep-pocketed wealthy types.
But when it comes to election financing, conservatives have always relied on grassroots donations.
So it is interesting that this leadership model in many ways is skewed towards the alternative to that, which is, okay, you know, someone like Jean-Cheré, call up 300 of your friends, get them each to give you $1,000, and then you're off to the races, which is basically a single cocktail party for a lot of those people.
But at the same time, I'm not convinced that it's a bad idea to have rules that constrict the field.
I would much rather have it where you're out if you don't have a certain support level or something like that.
And I don't know what that would look like, but base it on support and not money, because you could raise, to go to the old rules, $100,000.
You could raise that in one riding.
If you were a popular MP that had no hope of leadership, you could get that because that's how you much you spend on an MP campaign.
So the $300,000 forces you to look nationally.
It forces you to look outside of your immediate comfort zone.
But I'm more interested in the timeframe they've set to make up your mind because one of, I think, the most motivating factors to getting into a leadership race is if you're not happy with the field of candidates.
And if they're saying you've got, you know, with basically less than two weeks to get in, well, that says to me, you can't wait and see.
And then if there's no one there, then get in the race.
It means that they're really picking from a field that's already determined, which is the people that everyone thinks are going to run.
Yeah.
And I mean, I haven't seen the details of the rules, but I have to imagine even making those 300 phone calls that you talked about, that takes days and days and days to make those phone calls.
I don't know if someone could chip in like 10 grand.
I don't know what the limits are.
Well, no, but this is an important point, though, because in April, Kevin O'Leary is actually taking the elections Canada, taking Elections Canada to court, and there's going to be a trial over that very question because Kevin O'Leary incurred a lot of leadership debt, and he thinks he should be able to just pay it off with a personal check, but he can't because of that.
I think it's $1,600 limit.
Well, you know what?
Even that, saying, well, you got two weeks or 10 days to raise 300 grand, but you have to do it in small chunks.
It just seems like a strange way to vet.
I do think there has to be some vetting.
My big quarrel with the way it was done last time, and Andrew, you correct me if my memory is wrong, is that there was really no way to know the various strength of a candidate until it was over.
As we can see in the U.S. Democratic presidential primaries, every week or so someone drops out because they just can't sustain it.
There's polls all the time.
There's spending.
So the field is narrowing.
It was that way four years ago with Donald Trump and the Republicans.
The problem, one of the problems I think that there was last time in the Conservative Party leadership race is that there was really no vetting, no way to know who was ahead or not until the very end.
So there was no way to sharpen the focus.
So there was 14 candidates right until the last day.
And that resulted in a lot of strange first choice, second choice balloting.
I don't know.
I just, I think that the rules last time elected everybody's second choice, Andrew Scheer.
I know that's what happened.
And that's not enough to convince Canadians to make him the first choice.
I think the rules this time look like they're just going to give us some red Tory retread from the 80s.
I don't know.
That's just how I feel.
And I feel like these rules have been gamed already by insiders.
I'm pessimistic.
I don't want to be, but I feel pessimistic based on these rules.
One of the big problems with ranked balloting is that it rewards mediocrity in a way, because ranked balloting suggests that you have to be the consensus choice or you have to just blow everyone out of the water on the first ballot.
And if you look at Stephen Harper 2003, that was what he did.
He had more than 50% of the vote on the first ballot, but it was also a very small field of candidates.
I think three at the time.
And if you look now with a field of 14 candidates, the ranked balloting is actually a bit of a farce for the first nine or 10 rounds, or I guess seven or eight, because the first one, it's okay, we now apportion 0.6% of the vote.
And then now we reapportion 0.8% of the vote.
And it was revealing that the entire Conservative leadership system is based on who's the least offensive, who's the most palatable to the most number of people.
And that's not really how elections are run.
We don't have ranked balloting in ridings.
We don't have ranked balloting nationally.
So I do think there is a concern with that.
The Conservatives also weight very heavily ridings nationally so that there's regional representation.
Whereas people in the Quebec Conservative Party, for example, get a huge say in who becomes the Conservative Party of Canada leader, even if the leadership strategy is not really rooted in Quebec's support.
So there are a lot of question marks about whether the leadership system is really producing the best candidate for the Conservatives or the most viable candidate.
And I'm not sure that it does.
At the same time, I also don't think no one wants to uproot that system right now because it's the only one the party has ever known.
Yeah.
Well, you're referring to the Dairy Cartel, of course, that helped put Andrew Scheer ahead of Maxime Bernier.
We'll never know what would have happened had that not been the case.
Let me ask you this, and then you've got a little bit of news I'd like you to share with our viewers.
Just your opinion, if you had to choose your ideal leader for the Conservatives, put aside the rules, put aside the details, just I'm talking about your dream team here, fantasy football style.
Who would you choose that you think has the right combination of conservative chops and winnability?
Of the people who are contenders, there isn't anyone that's really lighting a fire under me.
I do think, though, that stylistically, there needs to be someone who's very high energy.
You know, one of the things that I learned covering the campaign is that Trudeau is, for all his faults, very high energy.
He is very electrifying to his crowd and certainly to the media.
There are a number of reasons for that.
But I think conservatives need to not beat him on the substance or beat him on style rather.
But conservatives need to have someone that can at least compete in that arena, someone that has energy, someone that has a bit of fire, and someone who isn't just really just posting along and hoping that the policy is going to sell.
And I was a fan of Maxime Bernier in the 2017 leadership.
I know he's not in the Conservative Party now, but I do think someone like him is what the party needs.
Yeah.
I think you're right.
Donald Trump has incredible energy.
I mean, it's hard to believe that he's in his 70s, if I'm not mistaken.
He does, I mean, Justin Trudeau just got back from a 16-day vacation, and he's taking two more private days.
I don't think Trump has taken more than one day off since he's been president.
He works at all hours.
I mean, sure, he has visits at his own golf club and maybe plays the odd round, but he's a high-energy president.
But I think that I think the issues, I think it's not enough just to be high energy.
I mean, in his own way, Jagmeet Singh, he danced around and he had some energy.
I think high energy, yes, for sure.
But you got to be unafraid to tackle the issues that so many conservatives are afraid of because the media tells them not to.
You guys at True North specialize in immigration.
And that's, in my view, one of the number one issues.
But oh my God, was Andrew Scheer afraid of that?
I think high energy is great.
But you talk about that issue, you're going to get a lot of conservatives revved up no matter what your style is.
What do you think of that?
Well, I think you raise an important point there.
And part of that energy and that fire I'm talking about is pushing back against the media, which conservatives are often afraid to do.
But going along with them never wins their love, never wins their affection.
I mean, a great example just from today is that there was when the Conservative Convention entertained a motion on birthright citizenship in Canada and whether to do away with it, the media just went nuts saying, oh, this is racist and how dare the conservatives and how dare the conservative members.
And just today, CBC is running a feature on birthright tourism or birth tourism in Canada and how it's this terrible thing.
So now all of a sudden the media has come around to what it was maligning people for being.
And the nature of immigration and a lot of other issues is that the truth will ultimately come out as people see the truth of reckless immigration policies, as people see the truth of all of these areas of the government or the media saying you can't talk about this.
And people will eventually come around.
You've got to have a politician that's prepared to be a leader on those instead of a follower.
Yeah, I think anyone who studies Quebec politics and the shocking breakthrough of the brand new party, Francois Legaud's CAC party, he's now the premier there, would see that far from being electoral kryptonite, it's electoral gold.
At least that's my view.
And there's a reason why Justin Trudeau and no other party is willing to really take on Quebec for its immigration policies, its Burkaban, because they know that's extremely popular no matter what the CBC says.
That's my view.
Andrew, you are starting your own TV show in Canada at TNC.news.
Tell me a little bit about it.
Yeah, so many people may know I actually did for a long period of time, a daily talk radio show, and I've always loved that medium.
I've always loved that format.
So I'm bringing back the Andrew Lawton show.
Really, it's going to be, I shouldn't even say bringing back, because it's going to be a new show with the same name where we're going to talk about these issues, be irreverent.
We're going to promote free speech.
We're going to really be a voice on the issues that the mainstream media is not covering.
And the Andrew Lawton show is going to be launching within the next couple of weeks.
So looking forward to getting that going as a podcast.
Well, that's great.
Will it be video as well or just audio?
Well, it's going to be a podcast on video rather than a TV show.
So there are going to be visual elements, but I'm really going to take the inspiration of format from my talk radio days.
Bringing Back Irreverent Speech00:01:33
Got it.
Great.
Well, I tell you, sign me up.
I think I'm already a minor donor to TNC.news, but if there's a subscription fee or whatever, I look forward to it.
We're always grateful when you come on our show.
And I can hardly wait to see you in your own natural habitat, which I'm looking forward to.
So good luck to you, my friend.
Thank you very much.
All right, there you have it, our friend Andrew Lawton.
You heard it here.
He's having his own video podcast.
And he tells me that'll be at tnc.news.
Stay with us.
more ahead on the rubble hey what do you think about my monologue about the 200 cases of arson in australia Look, I mean, I'm not downplaying how bad the fires are.
They're shocking.
They remind me of the wildfire in Fort McMurray that was also to blame on a lack of controlled burns.
And in that case, Rachel Notley had canceled all the water bottom contracts just a week or so before the fires.
Terrible to look at.
Great tragedy, great loss of property.
Thank God no one lost their life in Fort McMurray.
But oh my God, did all the pagan global warming worshipers blame Mother Earth?
Actually, they blamed mankind, didn't they?
No, that's not what started the fires there.
And that's not what started the fires in Australia.
But boy, Catherine McKenna wants to get her politics out of it and Greenpeace will get their fundraising out of it.