Ezra Levant critiques Canada’s 2018 Summer Jobs Grant program, where 1,400+ applicants—including Christian soup kitchens and a non-religious irrigation firm—were denied funding for refusing to pledge support for abortion and transgender rights, despite grants going to groups like the Canadian Arab Federation (previously defunded in 2009) and Ontario’s 71 Muslim-funded organizations with anti-gay or anti-Semitic ties. The lawsuit by John Carpe challenges Charter Section 2B, comparing it to historical government overreach, while Trudeau’s $3M Rideau House upgrades and $550M NAFTA investor losses highlight fiscal and ethical concerns. Levant warns this precedent risks eroding free speech under liberal policies, fueling public distrust amid rising Conservative support. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, nearly 2,000 Christian groups were banned from getting summer jobs grants.
But wait till you see the Muslim ones that got them.
It's May 4th and you're watching The Ezra LeVance 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.
Justin Trudeau doesn't like Christians, or at least Christians who mean it.
Here he is prior to the last federal election announcing that he's banning any pro-life Christians from running as liberal candidates, just banning them.
All that talk about diversity, of course he doesn't mean it.
It's just virtue signaling, politically correct fashion preening.
Now there's an obvious point to make.
Of course he does have pro-life MPs, even cabinet ministers.
The vast majority of practicing Sikhs and Muslims in Canada are pro-life.
Trudeau doesn't ban them, just pro-life Christians.
Well now comes news from our own friend Candace Malcolm about the summer jobs grants that Trudeau tampered with this year.
Here's the 2018 Summer Jobs Application and Agreement form.
It's a jobs program to help hire young people across the country for things that are sort of social worky.
If you look at section 14, you can see some of the work that Trudeau will subsidize.
Youth work, seniors work, the homeless, and then a lot of identity politics, affirmative action too, for Trudeau's favorite groups.
And there's one line in there, cultural development.
Anyways, so in the past, summer camps and charities have signed up to get some help employing summer job students.
And a lot of do-gooders in Canada are, of course, linked to churches.
That's what motivates many people to be altruistic, their religious belief.
And in Canada, that has historically meant Christianity.
But this year, Trudeau started demanding that these religiously motivated do-gooders, whether it's a soup kitchen or a summer camp or a homeless shelter or a seniors' home, the kind of thing supported by the summer jobs grant, well they had to renounce their views if they contradicted Trudeau's own personal preferences.
This is a jobs grant to hire students for the summer.
But employers had to swear, a test is the word they used, that they agree with our dear leader on these very personal private faith matters unrelated to the jobs.
Here's the wording of the attestation.
Both the job and my organization's core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as other rights.
These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national, or ethnic origin, color, mental or physical disability, or sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.
Now, what's that got to do with the soup kitchen?
Some of the most altruistic charities in the world are motivated by Christian belief, even though the manifestation of that work looks like, I don't know, giving sleeping bags to homeless people.
Why would you require someone who has such a charity, why would you require them to swear an oath that they agree with Justin Trudeau on his particular values about, say, transgender issues or abortion before giving them a summer jobs grant to help house the homeless?
What on earth does that have to do with it?
And since when did our rights to access government programs require that we have to publicly and positively agree with the Prime Minister on personal matters?
And since when did private citizens have to publicly renounce themselves in some Maoist exercise of self-crimination?
And sorry to be a stickler, but I've read and reread the Charter of Rights and there's nothing in there about reproductive rights.
I'm sorry.
And that's a vague euphemism anyways.
If you're saying that one pro you know, pro-abortion people, only pro-abortion people can now get government grants.
If you're only saying pro-abortion people can get government grants, then just come out and say it.
Don't use a euphemism.
And don't pretend that's in the charter.
The charter does the opposite.
It protects each of us for our freedom of thought and belief in religion and expression, freedom against the government bullying us about those matters, invoking the charter while persecuting people for a religious point of view.
That's repugnant.
That's contrary to the charter.
Anyways, you know all that.
And you know that more than 1,400 applications have been rejected because of this religious ban.
But look at this news.
This is from Candace Malcolm today.
Controversial Islamic groups receive Canada summer jobs grants.
Let me quote to you from her story in the sun today.
The Trudeau government has used the controversial Canada Summer Jobs Grant to fund an Islamic group with terror ties and another with a history of anti-gay rhetoric.
The Sun has learned.
According to a government database listing recipients of the Canada Summer Jobs Grant, both the Canadian Arab Federation and the Anatolia Islamic Center have been approved for federal funding in 2018.
Do you think those groups swore an attestation that they support Trudeau's personal views on abortion and transgenderism?
Do you really think they did?
And if they did, do you think they meant it in any way?
Well, Candace's story is pretty clear in the sun today.
If they actually did sign that attestation, it was an act of takiyah.
That's the Arabic word for the Islamic deception of infidels for tactical advantage.
In 2019, the Canadian Arab Federation, I'm reading on some more here from the article, in 2009, excuse me, CAF was defunded over the group's extremism and support for terrorist groups, a decision made by the previous Harper Conservative government and backed up by a federal judge.
So that's the group that's in sync with Trudeau's values, but not, say, I don't know, the Salvation Army or a Christian summer camp.
Here's some more from the story.
The Anatolia Islamic Center also has a history of controversy.
The center's imam made headlines in 2013 for anti-gay comments caught on tape.
Yeah, I remember that tape.
Here it is.
Take a look.
Homosexual is against everything.
It's against akhlaq.
It's against even nature or the way we are created.
Then all of a sudden he started talking about abuse and discrimination against homosexuals.
And he said, I personally, I'm gay, and people abuse me all the time.
And I was sitting next to the guy I was just like, that's the guy.
He's teaching kids.
He's getting them to laugh that if you're next to someone who's gay, literally move your chair away.
So a Salvation Army food bank or a Christian summer camp is banned from getting summer jobs by Justin Trudeau because they're quietly pro-life and they won't lie about it on a form.
But anti-Semitic groups, groups that positively teach mockery of gays, they get Trudeau's money.
Your money, really.
But it's not just these groups that Candace Malcolm mentioned.
I went to the database that Candace referred to and I typed the word Islam into the list of summer grants recipients.
In Ontario alone, 30 groups got money.
I typed in the word Muslim too.
In Ontario alone, 41 more groups.
71 groups just with the words Muslim or Islam in their names, and that's just in Ontario.
I know some of these groups.
I know the Islamic Circle of North America.
They're the Muslim extremists who went to court for the right to wear a full face-obscuring niqab in citizenship court.
That's their organizer, Zunera Ishak, the one who went to court.
Do you really think she's a pro-transgender believer?
She doesn't even believe in her own gender.
She believes women should be obscured, have their faces hidden.
Do you really believe these 71 groups in Ontario alone?
I haven't added them up for the other provinces too, but it's surely hundreds.
Do you think they actually agree with Justin Trudeau's pro-abortion, pro-trans views?
Of course they don't.
But that rule and that attestation was never meant for Muslims.
Just like Trudeau's ban on pro-life candidates was never meant for Muslims, just for Christians.
My friends, the war on Christianity is a lot worse than just people saying seasons greetings instead of Merry Christmas.
Stay with us for more on this subject.
Welcome back.
Well, there might be 71 Muslim groups in Ontario, explicitly anti-gay and pro-life Muslim groups that got summer jobs grants, but not groups in other provinces that have any Christian beliefs, even if their work is completely unrelated to the issues of abortion and transgenderism.
And joining us now via Skype from Brooks, Alberta, is one such company that made an application.
I'm talking about a company that specializes in eco-friendly irrigation.
There's really nothing transgenderish or pro-choice or pro-life-ish about it.
But because the owners of the company would not swear an oath that they support Justin Trudeau's political views, they were denied their summer jobs grant.
Joining us now is Rhea Lee Anderson and her husband, Bill.
Welcome to the show.
Thanks for taking the time to be with us.
Thanks for having us.
Now tell me a little bit about your business.
It's completely non-political, non-partisan, other than I suppose you have a bit of an ecological approach, right?
You're an irrigation company.
Tell me what you do.
We work in agriculture irrigation.
So our primary business is setting up pivot irrigation equipment for farmers so they can grow food and grow feed for cattle and pigs and other things like that.
So I mean, would you agree with my assessment that you are not a political company?
You're not proselytizing pro-life views.
I mean, even if you were, I think that would be completely your right under the charter.
But what you do has got nothing to do with politics.
Am I correct?
No, nothing we do has anything to do with politics.
We are Bible-believing Christians, and we do some outreach work, you know, both through our business and personally, but we're not politically minded, I guess, or politically driven at our business.
And what was the position you were looking to hire?
Just a student to help you install the irrigation or drive around?
Or who are you looking to hire?
Well, previously, we had an engineering summer student, and when he was with us, he came in and he learned how to use hand tools, install equipment, help with maintenance and repairs.
And with his background going into engineering, we actually had him in our design department so he could learn some of the design aspects and take some of that value forward as he went back to engineering school.
So you applied for the summer jobs grant this year and you saw the religious attestation.
Un-Canadian Values Requirement00:15:13
And did you write anything?
Did you mark an X or a check?
Did you strike a line through it?
How did you handle that demand that you submit to Justin Trudeau's personal views?
Well, I guess I can speak to that.
I was the one that filled in the application.
And, you know, when I read the attestation, there's portions of it that I didn't disagree with, but there was the inner voice that said, a lot of this, the government really shouldn't be asking you these questions.
So because there's so much built into the attestation, there's a lot of aspects to it.
So we sat on it a little bit.
We talked about it.
We decided to mail in our application without checking it.
And the government responded and said that the application was incomplete.
They gave us 10 days to fill it in.
And I responded with an email informing them that we wouldn't be checking it because it was unconstitutional for them to ask us.
And I take it they just rejected you after that and moved on and rejected 1,400, 1,500 others in the same way.
So that's sort of the end of the story, I presume, is that you wouldn't check that box.
And that was the only flaw in your application, I take it.
They didn't object to anything else.
No.
Not that we're aware of.
So now I'm very pleased to hear that you've teamed up with the man I believe to be Canada's leading civil liberties lawyer, John Carpe of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
Tell me about the lawsuit in layman's terms.
We'll be talking to John in a moment.
But you connected with him, and what exactly are you demanding the government do?
Well, we're asking that we're going to bat to get this wrong right.
I mean, it's not constitutional to do this.
You know, we're just disgusted by this situation.
I mean, our freedoms were built on people's backs that, you know, went to war and died for our country.
And our freedoms have just been being whittled away both by federal and provincial governments.
And enough is enough.
So it's not a matter of not getting that funding.
That's not a make or break for us, as it is some people that weren't granted it.
It's a matter of fighting for our freedoms.
Enough is enough.
Right.
I don't know if you saw the Toronto Sun today.
Candace Malcolm had a story about various Muslim extremist groups that received grants.
And I did some poking around, and I can count 71 Islamic groups in Ontario.
And I know some of them.
They certainly do not share Justin Trudeau's views on transgenderism and abortion.
Why do you think they got the grant money and you guys didn't?
I mean, you're an irrigation company.
You're not an Islamic group.
I mean, these are explicitly Islamic evangelist groups.
I mean, with names like the Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Society of North America, there's mosques, there's propaganda institutes.
So their only business was spreading the Quran.
Your business is spreading irrigation.
Why do you think they got it?
I mean, I guess I'm asking you to speculate, but how can it happen?
It's not just one or two of these Muslim groups that snuck through.
Dozens and dozens and dozens.
Do you have any theories on that?
I mean, you're speculating like I am, but what do you make of that?
I would assume they checked the box.
We didn't feel we could check the box.
You know, when you talk about an attestation, it's you're agreeing to these conditions.
You know, a testimony of what you agree to.
We're not saying that people shouldn't have human rights.
You know, we are, as a business, we are bound to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
We're not going to argue that, but we don't have to agree with everything.
We have to follow it by law.
And they don't have the right to ask.
And I guess if you just check the box and move on and not worry about it, then maybe you get funding.
But what's under the checkbox next?
Yeah.
Good point.
I think you're probably right.
I think they thought if these fools will give us money and all we have to do is check a box, we'll take it and we'll take the money for our Islamic evangelism.
I think you're right.
I think they were not as conscientious.
We'll have to find out.
I simply don't know.
It's just shocking to see.
Well, listen, I wish you guys good luck, Re Lynn and Bill, and we'll keep a close eye on your case.
I'm going to sign off with you now, and I'm going to talk to your lawyer, an old friend of ours, John Carpe.
But thank you for taking the time.
I'm glad you stood on principle here, and hopefully your litigation will be a win for religious freedom for all Canadians.
So thanks for doing it.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Nice to meet you.
That's Ray Lynn and Bill Anderson.
They have an A1 irrigation and technical services company in Brooks, Alberta, that was refused summer jobs funding because they would not sign an attestation that we read you in full earlier today.
All right.
Up next is John Carpe.
And here he is now.
John, it's great to see you again.
When I heard there was a legal challenge to this attestation, I knew it had to be you because quite simply, there is no other civil liberties lawyer in Canada worth his salt on this issue.
First of all, congratulations and thank you for taking the case of the Andersons.
Well, it's a real honor to have people that are willing to come forward because it's not easy to be a client or an applicant in court action.
Yeah.
Well, I just spoke to them for about five minutes, not much more.
They seem like severely normal people, so to speak.
I mean, they're not troublemakers.
They're in the irrigation business, for heaven's sakes.
And the idea that they would have to bend the knee to Justin Trudeau's own interpretation of abortion rights or transgenderism is so absurd.
And that they couldn't hire a summer student to work on their irrigation projects because they wouldn't say, yeah, boss, we're pro-choice.
It's un-Canadian.
That is an un-Canadian thing that they were forced to do.
Well, and people forget that, you know, even if Justin Trudeau is correct in saying that abortion is a charter right, and of course he's not correct.
Anybody that's read the Supreme Court of Canada decision 1988, Morgentholer, will understand that even the Supreme Court said that Parliament has authority to protect unborn human life.
But here's the thing.
Even if Trudeau was correct and there is a charter right to abortion, even there in a free country, you do not have to agree with your own country's constitution.
You can be free to say, you know, I think that there's parts of the Constitution that are wrong.
And that should not prevent you from getting your Canada pension check or EI benefits or access to any government program.
Yeah.
And that's what's so incredible.
And another layer here is, I mean, put the shoe on the other foot.
Let's say Stephen Harper had required Canadians to say, I agree with Stephen Harper's interpretation, and we should have a three-strikes year-out rule for serious crimes.
I mean, that was the law of the land under Stephen Harper.
It absolutely was.
It would have been so bizarre to the world that you would have had to agree with Stephen Harper and nod your head to get a grant for an irrigation company summer job.
And I can only imagine the shrieking and the constitutional crisis.
It really would have been a constitutional crisis.
This is a coup.
This is a theocratic coup or something.
But I see extremely little pushback from the media party, from the political media establishment.
I haven't seen, I could probably count on one hand's fingers the lawyers and law professors who have spoken out against this.
If this were on the other side, you would see entire faculties of law not only speaking out against it in the media, but they would be suing.
You would have a dozen lawsuits.
Every law school in the country would have professors volunteering to sue.
Where the heck are they, John?
Where are the so-called civil libertarians?
Well, it's always hard to separate politics from basic fundamental freedoms under the Constitution, and yet this has to be done.
And, you know, there's something fundamentally wrong with the government requiring that you declare something or pretend to agree to certain values and to have that as a condition for accessing a government program.
You know, this is, if we don't stop this trend, you know, what we're heading towards is ultimately, and we're not close to it, but ultimately, this is the kind of thing that would go on in places like North Korea or theocratic Iran or Maoist China or Stalinist Russia or so on and so forth.
So we have to really nip this in the bud and cut it off at the roots before it grows any further.
Just this whole concept that a citizen has to agree with certain values in order to access a government program.
Yeah, you're so right.
Your example of will you still get CPP?
Will you still get unemployment insurance?
Those are excellent examples because those are as much your right if you meet the eligibility criteria.
You know, did you pay in?
Are you unemployed?
Did you pay in?
Are you of a certain age?
To add another layer that you must make some sort of political declaration that really is a big brother style thing.
That really is, I mean, you mentioned some of these totalitarian regimes where they took notes who would be the first to stop clapping.
You know, that really happened.
And in Canada, we believe dissent is so important that we give the biggest complainer in the country a job called the leader of the opposition.
We love opposition.
We love debate.
We love dispute.
That's how we learn and improve.
And the idea that certain things are no longer debatable and that you must echo the prime minister's views, I say again, it's un-Canadian, John.
Tell me, give me one minute on the legalities itself.
What's the nature of the lawsuit you filed on behalf of the Anderson family?
What court did you file it in?
And what do you think the timeline is?
Are we talking about months or years?
So give me a little bit of a legal briefing.
Sure.
So the biggest concern is this violates the Charter Section 2B.
Freedom of expression.
To be forced or compelled or pressured to say something is a violation of your free expression rights, just as much as it would be to say that you're not allowed to say what your opinion is.
They are two sides of the same coin.
So the government can attack freedom of expression by saying, well, you're not allowed to say that opinion, or by saying, well, you must say a certain opinion.
So that's the core argument.
Secondarily, we've also put into the same court application freedom of conscience and religion.
For anybody that doesn't agree with Trudeau's opinions about abortion, there's a religious freedom there violation as well.
But primarily, it's the freedom of expression that concerns us most.
We filed the statement of claim in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.
It's posted on our website, www.jccf.ca.
And unfortunately, it'll probably be a year and two months before we get a substantive hearing on the merits.
It's going to take some time that way.
But it's an important case.
Yeah.
Now, what are you asking for?
I'm sure you're asking for a declaration that this was unconstitutional.
Are you asking for any damages?
I mean, the Andersons probably would have had some hundreds or thousands of dollars from this program.
Are you asking for any monetary compensation?
We have to look at that a bit.
If we've put that into the court documents, it's something that's of secondary importance.
I mean, the important thing is to get the declaration from the court to say that no government has any right or authority to do this.
I wonder if this is something that there could even be a class action, because from what I read in the media reports, up to 1,500 families, companies, businesses, churches, whatever have been denied this.
I mean, that's a lot of people, and you don't need 1,500 lawyers.
It sounds like a class action lawsuit.
I wonder if that's possible.
I mean, I know you've got your hands full.
You've just filed this one, but I hope that some enterprising lawyer does that.
But you mentioned it's going to take a year plus.
That means that the Liberals could well do this in 2019 as well before your matter is even heard by judges.
Yes.
Now, it is open to us to also apply for an interim injunction, and we will consider that.
If that application was made, we could get a hearing on it sooner, like maybe get a hearing on it by sometime this fall.
And that would be good to make sure that this garbage doesn't continue next year.
Yeah, you're right.
I want to ask you one last thing.
Sui, go ahead.
Sure.
No, there will be other court actions forthcoming.
I'm aware of a number of lawyers that I'm in touch with that have clients in just about every province in Canada.
So don't be surprised if you see some more court actions being filed in the weeks and months ahead.
There will be quite a few, I would expect.
Well, I'm glad to hear that.
And my favorite part of what you've just said is that there's other lawyers doing it too.
Because, John, so often you're the one carrying all the weight on your shoulders here.
And I know you have some allies and some staff of the JCCF.
But, you know, it's like Atlas.
You're carrying the whole world on your shoulders.
The fact that there are other lawyers out there is the most encouraging thing you've said to me today.
I have one last question, and it's more speculative than anything.
And I put it to your clients a moment ago.
I see in the Toronto Sunday, Candice Malcolm reports that a variety of Muslim groups in Canada, including some that are known for their intolerance, their anti-gay extremism, including some that even support terrorism, have received these grants.
And I went online and I Googled, so I went to the government search engine, and I found in 30 seconds 71 different Muslim and Islamic groups in Ontario alone, some of which are extremist, some of which are reactionary to the extreme, outwardly anti-gay, anti-Semitic, frankly, some of them.
Lacking Integrity: Ticking Boxes00:02:10
They all got grants.
And I asked your clients, what do you think about that?
They said, well, they probably just checked the box just to get the dough.
I mean, I don't know how an irrigation company like your clients is blackballed, but explicitly evangelistic groups promoting the religious doctrine of Islam, which is anti-gay and anti-frankly anti-women's rights.
How they got the dough, but an irrigation company that's owned by Christians didn't.
I just can't square that circle.
Well, that's one of the sad things about the attestation is that it's the people with integrity are honoring their conscience in not ticking off the box.
So you've got people that read it and they say, you know, I'm being asked to check off a box.
And by doing so, I'm saying that I agree with abortion being legal.
I agree with Trudeau's entirely incorrect claim that abortion is a charter right.
And I cannot in good conscience tick off the box.
So they're not ticking off the box.
They're not getting the money.
It's the people with less integrity that would be the ones that would just tick off the box.
I'm not saying everybody who ticked off the box is lacking in integrity.
I mean, there are probably people who agree with abortion being legal and they agree with Justin Trudeau.
So they're not lacking in integrity when they check off the box.
But there could be people, you know, as far as I know, Islam is not in favor of abortion or transgenderism.
So I don't know what these Muslim groups are doing if they're ticking off the box to get the money.
But this is very, very sad commentary as well, that when the government starts pressuring people to agree with certain sets of values, you get into that problem of people maybe being less than honest just because they want the money or good people of conscience being blocked from a government program.
So the whole thing is just rotten to the core.
Ron Corelli Case00:02:08
You know, I'm thinking back to my law school days.
One of the cases I remember, just because I thought the name of the two parties was so interesting, was called Ron Corelli versus Duplessis.
And there was a restaurateur in Quebec named Ron Corelli, and there was a premier named Duplessis.
And Ron Corelli kept on bailing out Jehovah's Witnesses who would get in trouble for this or that.
And this guy, Ron Corelli, just kept on paying their bail.
And Duplessis hated the Jehovah's Witnesses so bad, and he was so angry at this guy, Ron Corelli, for bailing him out that he refused to give Ron Corelli his liquor license, which basically put him out of business.
And that case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said you cannot use a government tool, like in this case, a liquor license.
You can't use that for collateral reasons to, in this case, a religious battle.
And it just, you know, that was, what, 50 plus years ago?
And here we are again, another bully from Quebec, Justin Trudeau, is trying to punish people whose religion he disagrees with, his religious views.
This time, it's Christians or other people who honestly say they disagree with him.
I'm sure that Ron Corelli case will be part of your legal case.
The parallels are striking.
In both cases, you have an abuse of authority, and you have people that are using their government power just to punish or penalize their political opponents.
And don't be surprised if that Ron Corelli versus Duplessis case, and I remember it well from law school, and we often have it in our materials at the Justice Center.
We often use that case.
So don't be surprised to see it in this irrigation company's challenge to the attestation.
Yeah.
Well, John, it's great to talk with you again.
I just knew in my bones when I heard this lawsuit, I thought, I bet John's the lawyer.
We're so proud to be your friend and ally.
Folks, you heard John's website.
It's jccf.ca.
Go support him.
Occasionally, we raise some funds for you, too, through the show.
We'll have to do that again in the future.
In fact, I got a check.
Meals and Daydreams00:15:38
I think we have some dough for you that we should send on over.
It was for another case that was for another freedom.
Kate, you're always fighting for freedom, and we admire you, and we wish you strength, and we send you our moral support.
I know our viewers are so grateful for what you do.
And maybe we can keep in touch with this one.
If you do get the expedited hearing, maybe we can have you back on the show to give us an update.
Would love that.
Thank you so much, and thanks to all your viewers and listeners.
All right.
Well, you bet.
We're on your side.
There you go.
John Carpe.
I call him Canada's leading civil liberties lawyer.
I regret that's a very short list that he leads, but it sounds like he has some other allies in other provinces.
I look forward to meeting those lawyers too.
And wouldn't it be wonderful if there were a lot of John Carpets, if we had just five more guys like him?
I think we could really turn the tide.
It was interesting also to meet his clients, very salt-of-the-earth people who it's really normal to use an old phrase, and they were being bullied because they wouldn't check a box.
We'll certainly keep in touch with this story.
All right, stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
I think the Prime Minister doesn't get it either, Mr. Speaker, and I'll tell you why.
Because the Prime Minister just indicated that raising the price is going to make people take better choices.
Now, imagine my surprise when I read today that the Prime Minister has his food prepared at 24 Sussex and then driven across the street 700 meters to his residence.
How nice.
Leadership starts at the top.
Is it acceptable, Mr. Speaker, that while he tells families they have to make better choices, he chooses to have his food driven across the street?
Is this just do as I say, not as I believe it?
Right on as a Prime Minister.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we're seeing the same old, same old from these Conservatives.
They look for any way to attack politically, but when it actually comes to the issues that matter to Canadians, they do not act.
For 10 years, they did nothing on protecting the environment.
And what that actually led to is not only did we not protect the environment, but we didn't grow the economy in ways that are sustainable for the future.
The lowest growth rate in almost 70 or 80 years, Mr. Speaker, from the Great Depression.
That's what the legacy of that government was.
I'm not sure if that's an answer to the question of why Justin Trudeau's family has its meals prepared in 24 Sussex Drive, the traditional home given to the first family, as we would call it in Prime Minister.
He doesn't live there.
He lives almost a kilometer away at a property that generally belongs to the Governor General, but Trudeau, for some reason, wants to stay there.
So all the meals are made at 24 Sussex, put in a car, and driven 700 meters to the Trudeau's.
And then the car drives back.
So I guess there's breakfast, and then there's lunch, and then there's dinner.
And it's basically a full-time job driving.
And both residences are in full-time operation.
So by living in this other residence that was not officially meant for the Prime Minister, not only was there $2 million put in for new security upgrades, but $827,000 for other improvements that are being kept secret.
I don't know.
Are those fashionable improvements?
Who knows?
Joining us now via Skype to talk about this is our friend Manny Mona Negrino, who's the principal with Think Sharp.
Manny, great to see you.
Manny, I assume that as a former conservative activist and a colleague of Stephen Harper's, I think you were the party lawyer for a while.
Have you ever visited 24 Sussex Drive yourself?
Sure, I have.
And it's not a bad place.
It's a great place to live.
And Stephen lived in there for nine and a half years.
Didn't have problems with it.
You know, I want to say that I was there in 2014.
That was the last time I was there.
And I want to tell you my take on what the house looked like.
Some of the floorboards were a little creaky.
I suppose the carpet could have been changed and a few things freshened up.
But it was a gorgeous old home.
The grounds were meticulous.
The most gorgeous view in the city.
It's awesome.
And I have no doubt that it could be spruced up and modernized and everything made slick and fancy.
And I've seen various plans to renovate it, some of which are in the tens of millions of dollars.
But that is a house that 99.99% of Canadians would think, oh my God, this is the most amazing house I've ever been in in my life.
And yeah, does a stair creak?
Sure.
But it is, I don't know if luxury is the word, but it is a fine house, but not good enough for Trudeau.
No, but Ezra, here's the real question.
Trudeau made a decision saying it must be repaired.
Let's accept that at base value.
And Canadians want their premises repaired, especially the home of the Prime Minister.
So let's accept that as a starting point.
He made that decision.
There was an 18-month plan to do something.
It's now 30 months and nothing has been done.
In fact, we're continuing the upkeep of about $300,000 per year.
And that includes maintaining the pool.
There's a pool being maintained for a family that doesn't live there.
Maybe the chef goes into the pool from day to day after he makes his, you know, it's hard when you're cooking and you're slaving over these meticulous meals.
Maybe he needs the pool.
But the great irony is we're getting it two ways.
He goes to Rita Hall.
We spend $800,000 for improvements.
They don't put in the kitchen there.
I don't know.
When you do improvements, the first thing you do is you start with the kitchen.
But I guess they don't put in the kitchen in his home at Rideau House.
But they maintain the same costs.
$100,000 a year for heat, hydro, and just keeping the place going, and $300,000 repairs, maintenance, as you say, just for the chef.
So what was not good enough for the prime minister is good enough for the chef of the prime minister.
So we're paying $400,000 a year, and it's been 30 months and still nothing done.
And he continues to maintain his living on Rito's grounds.
There's so many weird questions here.
Like, we know that the Trudeau's hired not one, but two nannies.
We know this, even though it's a personal matter, because they put those nannies on the government payroll as if that's suddenly a public cost.
And I mean, I know one of the jobs typically that a nanny has is, you know, making lunch for the kids, but I guess that's not the job for these nannies.
It's because they've got a driver.
If you're just driving three meals a day and snacks, I'm not going to call that a full-time job, but you're not going to do an awful lot of other things if you're doing three meals a day and snacks for a family of five plus two nannies.
There's a level of luxury and entitlement here that's just so weird.
Like, you're right.
And he's not in a cheaper house.
He's in a second house that's an additional house.
Nothing here is cheaper.
Lisa Raid's point is this isn't exactly a carbon-friendly lifestyle, a low-carbon choice that the Prime Minister's hectoring us all to make.
And yeah, that's a good point.
But I think the bigger point is, is there no one in the government who says, yeah, boss, having a courier just for your food, that's a bit aristocratic, don't you think?
Like, there's no one in the government who says that.
You know, if we just think about the cost of the food delivery to the prime minister, we're keeping up a house for $400,000 a year, a chef well over $100,000, the driver probably around $100,000.
We're talking about just for the maintaining of the meals, it's costing $6,000 to $700,000 a year.
That's just for the meals.
The meals don't have to be cooked at 24 Sussex.
They can be cooked where he lives.
Now, I'm thinking, I did, you did mention that I had trials where I helped the Prime Minister, Harper.
One was Chefgate.
You might remember that.
And that was when the chef sued the Prime Minister, and he had some details about their day-to-day living.
Maybe that's what Justin Trudeau is trying to avoid, not having the chef on premises to see what's going on in the home.
Well, I don't know, but if you keep him in one home, your chef in one home, and you keep yourself in another home, you avoid that problem.
So it is a luxury that's not afforded to any prime minister.
And we're talking about $6,000, $7,000, $800,000 a year just to deliver his meals or create and deliver his meals from one of the most prestigious properties in Canada.
Isn't that an interesting theory?
Yeah.
You know what?
It doesn't make sense in any other way.
I mean, of course, their second home has a kitchen.
And if it didn't originally, it's been 30 months, as you point out.
Of course, it's absurd to have someone driving back and forth all day.
But to keep someone out of that family so that they have no other eyes on what they're saying and doing in there, who comes and goes, anything, that's what that is, Manny.
I think you're hyped for the purpose of the people.
It's a hypothesis.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
It's a stab in the dark, but I have a second one.
And that is, I was around as a young lawyer when the Trudeau family lived at 24 Sussex.
And it probably wasn't a happy place for Justin for what I read back in the day.
And I don't think Justin wants to live at 24 Sussex for the reasons that those that at my age and read reports of how the family lived and how the family interacted at that building.
It's probably not a friendly place for Justin.
So keep the chef there, keep the food being cooked, spend $700,000 and live in another government home.
So there's a couple of theories because it makes no sense.
No reasonable Canadian would be spending that kind of money on two properties.
And this third property, Harrington Lake, that he doesn't visit.
I don't know what's happening there, but he has three big homes, one to cook his meals, one to live in.
It doesn't make sense unless you ask questions.
Yeah, you were so right.
Harrington Lake, it's a beautiful place.
It's across the river on the Quebec side.
I've seen it from, actually, I visited there once, again, under Stephen Harper's administration.
Again, I mean, it's not an absolutely modern place.
I don't know what is done with that facility.
I've heard rumors that Margaret Trudeau herself lives there.
I have no corroboration of that.
And of course, there's silence on official Ottawa.
I wonder what that third Trudeau house is up to.
Well, that's exactly the question that should be asked.
And if you want to tag that with the environmental concerns, the prime minister finds himself jetting around the world, staying in private islands that are owned by lobbyists.
And when you jet around the world, you bring everybody with you, your RCMP detail.
It's a very carbon-intensive vacation.
Stephen Harper drove to Harrington Lake, the home the Canadians provided to him, and that's where he holidayed.
His carbon footprint for vacations were probably one one thousandths or one one millionth of Justin Trudeau because the Canadians have provided a home for him to vacation.
He doesn't go to it.
I haven't seen a report that he's gone to Harrington Lake.
And that makes you think that maybe someone else is in it.
Yeah, that's a great point.
He sure loves going to Billionaires Island in the Bahamas, and you're so right that he brings everyone along.
And we don't even know because they don't disclose the full passenger manifest on those government jets.
We do know, and I think it was your Twitter feed from which I saw this, that Justin Trudeau is taking, what, 55, 54, 50?
55, yeah, sure.
Foreign trips.
Just a staggering number.
I was going to say I wish he'd taken that many trips to, say, the province of Alberta, but on second thought, I hope he doesn't visit Alberta because all that will happen is new carbon taxes will be invented.
Manny, it's great to talk to you.
You always not only an insight on the news of the day, but you bring back historical references and remind us of things.
You're now being mean.
You're telling me that I'm old.
No, I'm saying you've got a great memory and you remember things that connect.
And you said so many powerful things today that I had not thought of.
And I'm grateful for your time, my friend.
Thank you.
You take care of it.
Keep up the good work.
You too.
There's our friend Manny Montenegrino, who of course was a former senior advisor to Stephen Harper and is a very keen observer of the new administration.
I encourage you to follow him on Twitter.
We'll put his Twitter handle on the screen in case you're a Twitter follower and you can look him up.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back.
On my monologue yesterday about a NAFTA ruling that will cost Canadian taxpayers up to a half a billion dollars because of social license gobbledygook.
Merrill writes, yeah, Canada is looking better every day for foreign investors.
Future projects are basically a nada based on current social license because social justice, federal, and provincial governments could care less.
Add to that, numerous projects that are being pulled out or in this one case fought back because our provincial and federal governments have simply ripped them off.
The current credo, Canada last.
Well, and that's the thing.
Do you think that Canada, in this place, Digby Neck in Nova Scotia, is the only place in the world to get stone from a quarry?
I mean, they were after a certain kind of stone called basalt.
It's a volcanic rock.
And yeah, it's great that, I mean, it's sort of amazing someone would pay money for just rocks, but they were putting millions in.
Yeah, it's too bad, but they will get their rocks from somewhere else.
And it's too bad that Canada won't be pumping oil.
It's very too bad that it'll come from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq instead.
It's too bad that New Brunswick, Nova Scotia will not frack the gas under their very feet.
Quebec, too.
Good news for Pennsylvania, which is fracking up a storm.
So when you say it's the opposite of Canada first, it's Canada last, you're not just kidding.
How bizarre is it that oil and natural gas for Atlantic Canada is now coming in from the United States?
How sad is that?
Andy writes, since Digby Neck is a financially strapped area, except for those that hold a lobster license, as is most of rural Nova Scotia, this was a bizarre choice by some vocal locals who prevailed against common sense and NAFTA.
Foreign Funding Fears00:02:42
Yeah, I think so.
Vocal locals, I like the rhyme there.
I don't know if they were all locals or if there was some fancy environmental lobbyists jetting in as they often do to whip up the locals and provide political muscle.
It could well be that some vocal locals didn't want a stone quarry, but listen, mining has been part of Nova Scotia's heritage for centuries.
I haven't looked into it, but it would not surprise me one bit if folks flew in from Halifax, Toronto, even New York City with the Sierra Club or some other group.
It's the Sierra Club that whipped up the riot in Rexton against the fracking.
So vocal locals or professional protesters, maybe a combination.
On my interview with Catherine Swift about union-sponsored ad against Doug Ford, Robert writes, no big surprise the public sector unions are up to their old tricks, running commercials with earnest female voiceovers, telling listeners that the civilized world, as we know, will end unless the liberals are re-elected.
Wynn has enriched the unions immensely.
Now they're returning the favor.
Yeah, you're right.
I wonder if this will work this time.
I think that the anger and fatigue with Kathleen Wynne in particular and the Liberals is so high.
And judging by, I mean, it's hard to judge, right?
Polls are one thing.
They suggest a Doug Ford majority.
Looking at the organic turnout at grassroots events, especially outside Toronto, Doug Ford is packing them in at his meetings.
And then, of course, there's the donations, and Doug Ford and the Conservatives are way ahead.
Those are three pretty real measures, I think.
Let me throw one more thing in about that ad.
We played it yesterday.
It was a very short ad, about 30 seconds.
It's on Facebook, and it's a bald-faced lie.
Stephen Harper did not actually cut health spending in any of his years of prime minister.
It increased every single year.
Maybe it didn't increase as much as some had wanted or had hoped.
But to actually say that, what, $36 billion was cut, or whatever the ad lied, it's just factually false.
There's no wiggle room for opinion there.
The amount spent by Stephen Harper on healthcare went up every year.
Full stop.
Here's a question for you.
Facebook's cracking down on fake news?
Are they going to crack down on that pro-liberal left-wing fake news?
Yeah.
Oh, and by the way, do we know who funded that?
Was it funded by Americans?
Foreign funding of fake news to alter an election.
Yeah, don't kid yourself.
Those are fake attacks only used against conservatives.
If it's done in the spirit of a liberal attack against a conservative, oh, don't you worry.
That's just fine with Facebook.
That's our show for today and for the week.
We'll have stuff on YouTube all weekend, of course.