Ezra Levant examines Canada’s failure to prosecute ISIS returnees like Abu Husaifa, despite confessions and laws like 83.18(1) (10-year max for terrorism). He contrasts this with Project Veritas’s legal battles against teachers’ unions shielding abusers, while media ignores foreign-funded eco-terrorism targeting Western energy—like Gazprom-backed NGOs opposing fracking. Levant argues "ethical oil" from North America is safer than OPEC or Russian gas, yet pipeline protests (e.g., Kinder Morgan’s May deadline) are often misrepresented as grassroots, not foreign-influenced. Trudeau’s weak stance on eco-terrorists and $60K city spending to protect them highlight perceived double standards, making energy independence a critical pro-growth and security priority. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, the New York Times finds an ISIS murderer living in Oakville, Ontario, while the CBC and Justin Trudeau cover for him.
It's May 14th, 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.
Why haven't the dozens of ISIS terrorists returning to Canada from Syria and Iraq, why haven't they been prosecuted?
First of all, why are they being let back into Canada at all?
Second, why are we not arresting them and prosecuting them?
I mean, I know that the criminal law and courts and procedures and evidence and lawyers and witnesses, those systems are not well suited to wars or terrorist wars.
Unlike a normal crime scene, it's not practical to get physical evidence or eyewitnesses, that sort of thing from a battleground, which is why we so rarely prosecute soldiers for crimes.
In general, whenever an enemy soldier is captured, he's just put in a prisoner war camp and detained until the war is over.
Did you know that tens of thousands of German soldiers captured in the Second World War were sent by ship to Canada and then put on the rail to a lot of them in Alberta where they served out the war in camps?
Now, to be clear, these were regular soldiers.
They're not Nazi killers or concentration camp guards or anything.
But they were soldiers, so they weren't charged with crimes.
It wasn't even a prison, really.
They weren't being punished.
They were just being held until hostilities were over and then they were allowed to go home.
Believe it or not, many chose to stay.
They preferred Canada to their bombed-out homeland.
So when the Great Terrorist War against the West began in earnest on 9-11, the U.S. government set up a kind of POW camp for captured terrorists at the U.S. military base on Guantanamo Bay.
Those terrorists did not have the same legal rights as law-abiding soldiers of a foreign country.
I mean, they're not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention because they're not soldiers.
They're actually much more akin to murderers, pirates.
And in the case of Omar Cotter, he actually was charged and convicted of murder, not just being a terrorist.
The rest of the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay are technically not criminals, even though most of them surely are.
They're not in prison.
They're just being kept out of the field of battle until the war is over, which could be forever until al-Qaeda and its offshoot ISIS surrender, which could be wild.
Which is why it's all so bizarre that George W. Bush and Barack Obama after him released so many Guantanamo Bay terrorists.
They did exactly what you'd expect them to do, go back to war against the West.
We've got to hold them until the war is over.
Anyways, my point is, why is Canada allowing ISIS terrorists just to come back to Canada from Syria and Iraq and just live a normal life as if they were only away on some holiday that went bad or something?
Why have they not been arrested and prosecuted?
Or even, like I say, if the legal requirements for a prosecution for crimes would be hard to find, why are they just not put in a POW-style camp, POW-style camp, until the war is over, like Guantanamo Bay?
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled not once but twice that Guantanamo Bay is perfectly legal.
Both Republican and Democrat presidents have said so and used it.
If it's good enough for Barack Obama, it's certainly good enough for me.
So why haven't we done that?
My point is you don't even have to meet the evidentiary case against a terrorist actually committing a crime.
You don't even need to have a confession of a crime like with Omar Cotter or the al-Qaeda propaganda videos of Omar Cotter assembling IEDs that he then used against Canadian and U.S. forces.
You don't need to prosecute a terrorist to hold them.
34,000 German POWs held in Canada until the Second World War was over were not prosecuted.
They were just kept in a prison war camp until the fighting was done.
Why not do that?
Or why not actually prosecute them for the crime of joining a terrorist group itself?
As in, you don't need to prove that they did a murder in Syria or Iraq, as was proven in Omar Cotter's conviction.
He murdered a U.S. Army medic named Christopher Spear.
And as you know, rebel viewers have actually raised more than $200,000 for Sergeant Spear's two kids for the college fund.
So no need to prosecute for actual terrorism committed because the Canadian criminal code makes the mere act of joining a terrorist group or going overseas to join a terrorist group or even trying to go overseas to join a terrorist group.
That is a criminal offense in itself.
Here, I'll show you.
There are so many provisions in the criminal code that would apply to an ISIS terrorist who's trying to return to Canada, even one that hadn't committed murder or rape, or that we would have evidentiary trouble proving he committed murder or rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let me read this to you from our criminal code.
It's called Participation in Activity of Terrorist Group.
It's section 83.18 sub 1 of the criminal code.
It's very simple.
Everyone who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
I think that's pretty plain English, right?
That's from our criminal code.
So you can get 10 years in prison just for helping a terrorist group, just for helping.
You don't have to be a murderer yourself.
Here's a provision that's even easier to get because to help a terrorist group, you've got to help them.
But what if you just go to help them?
I mean, that's a degree easier to prove.
It's several degrees easier to prove than a murder, right?
Well, look at this.
It's from our criminal code as well.
Section 83.181.
Leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist group.
That's a crime in itself, did you know?
Let me read it.
Again, fairly plain English.
Everyone who leaves or attempts to leave Canada or goes or attempts to go on board a conveyance with the intent to leave Canada for the purpose of committing an act or a mission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offense under subsection 83.181.
That's what I just read to you.
Is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
So just going to join a terrorist group or trying to go, trying to get on a plane, trying to get on a ship, that's a 10-year prison term.
Just for trying to get on the plane.
You don't have to get on the plane.
Just to try to get on the plane.
You buy tickets.
There's so many laws on our books in addition to normal laws like murder and rape and treason.
I'll just read one more.
There's so many of these.
Trust me.
This one is section 83.221, sub 1.
This is in our criminal code.
Look it up for yourself.
There's a lot of good reading in there.
Simple, plain English.
I'll read it to you now.
Every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offenses in general, other than an offense under this section, while knowing that any of those offenses will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offenses may be committed as a result of such communication, is guilty of an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.
Okay, there's lots of little clauses in there.
Let me sum it up.
Just advocating terrorism is a crime if your comments are likely to have an effect or you're reckless about it.
Five years of prison just for that.
So here's my point.
You see where I'm going here?
We have confessed ISIS terrorists who have come back to Canada and are just hanging out.
And there's one in Oakville, Ontario.
Hangs out at his family restaurant.
He's doing media interviews with the CBC and the New York Times.
And he's just hanging out.
He's just chilling.
No prosecution, no arrest, no 10 years in prison, no five years in prison, let alone a POW-style camp till the war is over.
A few months back, we played you some of the footage of the CBC interviewing one of these terrorists.
This guy admitted in great detail that he was a terrorist, but the CBC hid his identity.
Do you remember this?
He's not a minor child.
There's no court-ordered publication ban or anything.
The CBC just agreed to not disclose his identity.
He's a terrorist out and about in Canada.
But now we learn the ISIS terrorists that the CBC bragged about, he actually confessed to committing murder.
He confessed it to the New York Times.
Here's a clip of that from a New York Times podcast.
So at a certain point, you decide that you want to quit.
Yeah.
Can you, can you, was there one moment or a series of moments?
The second time I did the kill, I killed someone.
She was able to put together that Abu Husaifa is a Canadian, that he had been inside the Islamic State sometime, we believed, in 2014, and that he had returned to Canada and was somehow living in the general population.
So that little ISIS terrorist has been back in Canada for a couple years, since at least 2016, and he has all the rights and privileges of a Canadian.
Free welfare, free health care, freedom of movement.
But he's a murderer.
He says so himself, but the CBC still won't identify him.
Why?
Well, here's a clip from the CBC just over the weekend, still keeping his identity secret from viewers and from the terrorist neighbors.
If you lived in Oakville, wouldn't you want to know if the terrorist was living right next to you?
Maybe if you ran a daycare.
Maybe you'd want to know if he was wandering around.
Maybe if you ran a Jewish synagogue or school or, frankly, any church.
Since ISIS mainly killed Christians and Yazidis, there really wasn't a lot of Jews on the ground in Iraq and Syria to murder.
If you had a Christian church in Oakville, let's say you were an Arab Christian who fled there, wouldn't you want to know that a confessed ISIS murderer who believes in murdering Christian men and raping Christian women, wouldn't you want to know who he was, what he looked like, where he was?
I mean, isn't that pretty much the definition of news?
Well, the CBC News is keeping his identity a secret.
He denied the murder.
He said that he had made that up in the podcast to the New York Times, and he claimed that he was projecting.
These are events that he says he witnessed, but he was not the person pulling the trigger.
He says he instead changed a third-person story to a first-person story.
Whose side are the CBC on?
I'm kidding, of course.
After their long campaign for the terrorist, Omar Carter, do you really not know whose side the CBC is on?
But the CBC is just a disgrace propaganda organization.
They're just PR men.
What about the people who actually have the legal and constitutional duty and power to implement the laws?
Well, that would be this guy.
And here he is being asked about ISIS terrorists a few months back in Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, it's this Prime Minister that's de-emphasizing Canadian security and Canadians are tired of it.
It was Conservatives who amended the Criminal Code to make it an offense to leave Canada to fight for ISIS.
It was Conservatives who are focused on giving our law enforcement new tools to prosecute ISIS fighters.
This Prime Minister is using a broad spectrum that includes poetry and podcasts and all kinds of counseling and group hug sessions, Mr. Speaker.
When will the Prime Minister take the security of Canadians seriously and look for ways to put these ISIS fighters in jail?
Honourable Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party learnt nothing from the last election and the lessons Canadians taught them.
They ran an election on snitch lines against Muslims.
They ran an election on Islamophobia and division.
And still, they play the same games trying to scare Canadians.
The fact is, we always focus on the security of Canadians, and we always will.
And they play politics of fear, and Canadians reject that.
Trudeau Shir is passionate when he defends ISIS returnees, isn't he?
So passionate.
And he calls anyone who criticizes a terrorist and Islamophobe.
When news of this murderer was brought up last week, the New York Times revealed he committed a murder.
Here's what Trudeau said in Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, an ISIS terrorist who returned to Canada in the past few years recently gave an interview with the New York Times podcast, the Caliphate.
In the podcast, Abu Hussefa states that he worked for ISIS, enforcing Sharia law in Syria.
He brags about getting splattered with blood while brutally lashing people who broke their laws.
And he proudly admits to murdering ISIS prisoners and having, and he said, the bloody irony smell on his hands.
When is the Prime Minister going to stop allowing these bloodthirsty terrorists to walk on our streets but throw them in jail instead?
Mr. Speaker, once again we see the Conservatives trying to drum up fear as a way of political attack.
We have every reason to be responsible and serious about how we protect the integrity of Canadians and the safety of our communities.
But quite frankly, illustrations like that question, or, for example, the attack ads they put out that featured footage of ISIS executions for political gain are below the norm and shouldn't be acceptable in Canada.
And the Conservatives have a lot to answer for if they're going to keep up that same approach in the upcoming election.
He's passionate for ISIS.
Those aren't non-answers.
I mean, a non-answer is no answer.
That was an answer.
His answer is, stop asking about terrorists or I'll call you a racist.
It's not legitimate to ask about terrorists and murders or he'll smear you and he'll smear anyone who agrees with you.
If you have a worry or a criticism about terrorists and murderers walking through our neighborhoods, you're divisive and your voice should be silenced.
But the terrorists themselves and their voice, well, look at this.
We have security agencies that are engaged on this file very much, but there's also a lot of community outreach going on.
We know that actually someone who has engaged and turned away from that hateful ideology can be an extraordinarily powerful voice for preventing radicalization in future generations and younger people within the community.
If you're worried and you voice your worries, you're divisive.
If a terrorist and a murderer comes back, well, his voice is extraordinarily powerful.
Yeah, Trudeau wants to hear what they have to say.
They'll teach us.
The terrorists will teach us.
Justin Trudeau isn't neutral as between good and evil, which would be bad enough.
He's not neutral between Canada and ISIS.
He's on their side.
Stay with us for more.
Teachers' Union Defends Abusers00:10:41
They're going to call the police and they're going to call parents and all that.
We don't do that.
We don't do that here.
I'm here to defend even the worst people.
God forbid if a child, and I hate to keep using this, was sexually mistreated.
And the person came and said, listen, Dave, I made a mistake.
First of all, I'm going to be pissed off because you don't do that.
But it's my job.
It's almost like being a priest.
It's my job to protect.
So what do you mean by sexual misconduct?
Because he touched her hair.
That's sexual.
Was it right?
No.
So you get it down to the lowest level possible.
Well, there you have it.
A teachers union boss in New Jersey telling undercover journalists from Project Veritas that even if there's an allegation of sexual misconduct, the teacher's job is not to protect the students, or certainly not to advise the parents, but rather to protect the person who engaged in the Harvey Weinstein behavior.
Well, that undercover report landed like a bombshell.
And look at this story.
New Jersey teachers union bosses actually resigned.
And the New Jersey Education Association, that's the name of their union, will face lawmakers over the video.
Another example of Project Veritas doing outstanding journalism and getting real results.
Well, that's not it.
Joining us now via Skype is the boss of Project Veritas, our friend James O'Keefe, who has more news on teachers' unions.
James, first of all, congratulations.
Another scoop.
If you were on the left, you would have more Pulitzer Prizes than any living journalist, but you're on the right, so you have to, unfortunately, merely live off the gratitude of every viewer out there.
Thank you.
Give me the latest, though, on your undercover investigations into teachers' union bosses.
Well, you saw that one.
That president has resigned on Friday.
The Trentonian reported Trenton, New Jersey.
Another Kathleen Valencia, the president of the Union City office, has also resigned.
Two union presidents in New Jersey have resigned.
There's the governor of New Jersey and the state senate president have launched legislating hearings as a result of these videos.
You also have a video dropped this morning in Michigan.
The Michigan executive director of the Education Association, that's one of the largest teachers' unions in the state of Michigan, was caught on a hidden camera.
We released the video this morning.
He said it's your choice whether you want to mandatory report child abuse.
He also said that he does not want the child abuser to be investigated.
He says, we don't want you to be investigated.
So this is an ongoing series.
People have been fired, resigned.
The people in the tapes, you couldn't make up a caricature of a union executive if you had written one.
And Randy Weingarten tried to issue a restraining order against us in federal court.
So a lot of tapes, ongoing series here.
And I'm sure there'll be some fallout from this latest Michigan video.
Well, I would stand here.
Let's play it.
We've got a clip from your Michigan undercover operation.
We'll show that now.
Take a look.
You said there's been similar things.
I mean, I've had where teachers have pushed kids and pushed them down, and it hasn't come out.
I've had it, had it that way.
I've had it.
But it's happened like here.
I'm talking in other school districts.
Nugent is saying he has seen this kind of thing before, and little or nothing is done about it.
I've had it where, like, I had a coach one time, and he's teaching to, you know, push a kid and push him down on the ground.
It was reported, and then he ended up with a six-day suspension.
That's not an accidental.
There you have it.
In Michigan now, James, the way he was talking, it seems like standard operating procedure is defend teachers even if, or especially if they actually did it.
And in terms of reporting to police, to parents, that's sort of the opposite of what they do.
I mean, it couldn't be clearer to me.
Yeah, the whole narrative is that they care about the children.
And if you question the public employee unions, you hate children or you're against the children.
These tapes seem to indicate that they don't like the children, that in fact their job is to protect the worst.
And the fact that this guy, the Michigan Education Association, says it's your choice whether you want to engage in mandatory reporting, that is not a choice.
What are the possible, what possible way could that be a choice if you're aware of sexual abuse of a child?
So this one is a little more subdued.
This guy in Michigan is much more subdued than the man you saw a few minutes ago in New Jersey, but it's the same issue.
They're covering up child abuse, and it's the heart and soul of who these people are.
It's not an isolated incident.
And I guarantee you that in the next 24 hours, we will see a statement.
We'll see a reaction to what this guy has said and done.
Yeah.
You know, the cover-up culture of these teachers' unions, it's not just dealing with the teachers.
It was dealing with your journalism.
Let's put it up on the screen.
I think you alluded to this a moment ago, that the Michigan Teachers' Union, this is an attempt to have the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division, U.S. District Court, to have them put a restraining order on you that you ought not to be able to publish your videos.
And, you know, on what basis did they do this?
I mean, they were denied, but what did they claim?
And what did the judge say in response?
Well, they claim that we are criminals who fake videos, maliciously interfere with videos, and all this sort of thing that you've heard, you know, on Google and my Wikipedia page and by the culture that we're fake and we're hoaxers and we're going to put out fake information.
And the judge, the federal, they did it twice, Ezra, twice.
Two.
Two attempts at a restraining order.
We won the first time, and then they asked the judge to overrule the first decision.
So the second time, the judge was like, this is your First Amendment issue.
Unless it's a matter of national security, you can't stop a journalist from publishing information.
But unfortunately, we reached an era in our society when they want to jail us for exposing facts.
I can't make it up.
It fits with the narrative.
I mean, if they are willing to hide child abuse to begin with, it's no surprise to me that they would take steps to stop you from aiding the whistleblowers.
Can I ask you a question?
We just recently had a lawsuit in Canada here.
An alt-left extremist punched one of our reporters in the face, and we went to court to get a little justice.
We had to pay, obviously, all our own legals.
And when we won the case, we got merely $1,000 in costs from the alt-left violence thug.
When you win a restraining order case like this, when your First Amendment protects you, and boy, it makes me jealous, James, that you've got that First Amendment.
Do you get any cost consequences?
Did the teachers union have to pay for your lawyers in any way?
Not to my knowledge, but that's a good point.
I'll follow up with our general counsel, but not to my knowledge.
I don't think people realize just how expensive our legal bills are.
We're constantly facing these fights in court.
They use the law to bludgeon us.
In any other situation, Ezra, if CBS News or the New York Times had restraining orders against them or issued in federal court, they would never do that.
I mean, that's absurd.
Harvey Weinstein, restraining order, restraining order against the New York Times.
He did try to sue the New York Times, but that went away in like a few hours.
And I think that, you know.
Well, not just that, but I think other organizations would come to their aid.
The ACLU would probably intervene on their behalf.
Probably Reporters Without Borders and others would intervene as a sign of solidarity.
I mean, journalists sometimes travel in a pack when they're protecting each other, and I think that's generally a good thing.
But I just got a question.
I think I know the answer before I put it.
No other journalistic organization has ever intervened to protect your free speech, have they?
Never.
Never.
The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize three weeks ago, Ezra, for investigating Project Veritas.
I know.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my.
Yeah, because that says it all though.
If you read the article on the Washington Post, because they compromised one of our undercover reporters in November who tried to meet with the Washington Post under alias as a source to get a meeting to record conversations about Russia and about their bias.
We got some comments from some other reporters.
So the Washington Post discovered that this was an undercover reporter, and they won the Pulitzer Prize for investigating me.
They really, I mean, they really hate us, Ezra, in a way that most people don't realize.
It is an existential hate because we're doing the things that they maybe should be doing and they're jealous, they're upset.
They can't abide the fact that we break these stories that get consequences and a lot of other reasons.
But no, Ezra, no organization ever comes to our defense.
We don't expect that.
I think that we need to become the media.
We get the results.
We bypass the media and we force the media to report on the results.
So this Teachers Union story has already caught two presidents to be fired, resigned, whatever you want to call it.
They have left their jobs.
Democrat politicians in New Jersey have called for investigations.
And we're just going to keep going, Ezra.
That's the best we can do and deliver the information right to the people.
Outstanding, amazing.
You know, let me close on this, James.
I know you got to go.
You got so many other interviews to do of this amazing story.
I was once sued by George Soros, and I thought that was quite a feather in my cap.
But you're taking on Jeff Bezos and his Washington Post, who's, I think, seven times bigger, tougher, richer.
So you're seven times braver than me, James O'Keefe.
And it's great to have you as an ally.
Tell us the website where people can go and check you out and even give you a few bucks to help with your legal bills.
It's projectveritas.com, V-E-R-I-T-A-S.com.
Make a $10 donation.
Help us fund the salaries of our journalists.
They're not free.
We don't have advertisers.
We don't face boycotts.
And we go after the sacred cows.
More videos coming.
More fallout from today's video.
Follow us on Twitter, Project Veritas.
Stay tuned.
There you have it.
Fracking Fallout00:13:54
James O'Keefe, pound for pound, the most effective journalist in North America.
Great to have you on the show.
Thanks for your time.
Thank you, Ezra.
All right.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engage actively with so-called non-governmental organizations.
environmental organizations working against shale gas, obviously, to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.
That's my interpretation.
Well, that was Anders Fogue-Rasmussen, who was the head of NATO several years ago, when he said, I think what should strike everyone as obvious is that Vladimir Putin, the former KGB agent who is now the president of Russia,
has no compunction in undermining and infiltrating Western environmentalist NGOs for commercial purposes to get them to object to fracking and other sources of energy that would prove rivals in competition to Russia's Gazprom and other energy companies.
Of course, oil and gas represent about 40% of Russia's state income.
And so a modest investment of, oh, what, $100 million in anti-fracking propaganda, there's a high rate of return on that.
Well, I've been talking about this for years, and it was such a pleasure to read a thoughtful summary of Russia's anti-Western energy propaganda.
It's a piece in the Hill Times, sorry, The Hill out of Washington, D.C., headline, Russian trolls are pitting Americans against energy industry.
And the author of that essay, Dr. Meryl Matthews, is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation.
He joins us now via Skype from Dallas, Texas.
Dr. Matthews, what a pleasure to have you on the show.
We're always a little bit skeptical of people who say Russia, Russia, Russia, because for a year we've seen the politicization of Russian collusion.
But in this case, we actually have hard evidence, including that which was described by Anders Fograsmusen four years ago.
Russia really doesn't want the West to be fracking, does it?
It does not want the West to be fracking because as you point out, they receive such a large portion of their government revenues from oil and gas revenue.
And so they have been apparently undermining the fracking movement in the U.S.
And some of this has been revealed by Representative Lamar Alexander, a congressman from Texas, who published a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury last year highlighting some of the ways that Russia was funneling money through money laundering organizations to the environmental movement.
Now, then recently in March, he released another paper where they had gone out to ask some of the social media groups, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, you're saying you have evidence of Russia backing some of the tweets and other things that are going on there.
Can you give us some of those?
And Facebook did.
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, handed that over to the congressman.
And he highlighted, he's got thousands of tweets and other social media things where the Russians are out there doing things, mostly backing the environmental movement against fracking and other types of oil and gas production.
Some of it actually supported, but most of it backed the anti-fracking movement.
Yeah.
Well, we've had reports throughout Europe, especially in places like Poland, where fracking was a real prospect, and other Eastern European countries that agents, provocateurs, who had connections back to the KGB or even pre-Soviet era secret police were behind some of the movements against fracking because there's so many parts of Europe.
I mean, I don't think there's any way to stop fracking in America.
Yeah, you can have moratoriums in certain states, but the genie's out of the bottle, especially in Texas, Pennsylvania, there's so much fracking going on in America and even in Western Canada.
But Europe, it really is still born.
Wouldn't you agree with me, Doctor, that, I mean, whether it's France or Poland, there's so much natural gas there and almost none of it's being produced.
I've actually seen statements from various industry leaders there in the European Union who have said, we're not going to do fracking.
That's just not us.
And so you have to wonder, well, why is it that if you're able to go and access this and increase production, especially with Eastern Europe, which has been so heavily dependent upon Russia for natural gas, if you have that access, why wouldn't you go ahead and do it?
Yeah.
Well, one of the countries in the European Union that buys natural gas from Russia, almost every European country does.
And some of them, I mean, Germany, it's about a third of their energy comes from Russia.
And their former Chancellor Gerhard Schrader was actually an executive on a Gazprom board, which is a troubling post-political life.
But the UK itself buys a fair amount of its energy from Russia, which I find disturbing.
They're such a key part of NATO.
The UK is in a bit of a diplomatic tiff with Russia these days.
Do you see any prospect that they might allow some fracking?
Because they have natural gas prospects there, both offshore and onshore.
Sure, they have companies ready to go, but they've been a real lefty, anti-fracking hotbed.
Does the latest quarrel with Russia maybe give them a chance to get their own energy?
We'll have to see, but one of the developments that's happening is that the U.S. is now exporting natural gas through in a liquefied process, the LNG process.
And President Trump has made the case that he thinks a lot of our Western European allies would love to have an alternative to the Russian source.
And if we are able to produce it for a lot less than the UK and some of the European countries, it may be both good for them politically.
They don't have to do fracking if that's a problem for them politically, but also they may be able to get it cheaper from us and then solve two problems.
Yeah.
Well, you know, Doctor, I'll have to send you a copy of a couple of my old books.
You probably haven't seen them.
One was called Ethical Oil, and another was called Groundswell about fracking.
And I have this theory, don't mind me.
I mean, some of my viewers have heard this from me once or twice before, that ethical energy from the West is morally superior to conflict energy from countries like Russia, Qatar, Iran, which are the three big reserves countries for natural gas.
I got one last question for you.
I'm going to send you a copy of my books just for fun because it sounds like you and I. I'm probably one of your few guests who actually taught ethics at the college level.
And I agree with you completely.
Well, you know, I mean, most people in economics and trade just talk about dollars and cents, and that's legit.
But you talked about political concerns, especially Europeans, they care about the environment, peace, the treatment of workers, and civil rights.
And all four out of four of those measures, United States and Canada produce more ethical energy than Qatar, Iran, and Russia.
But don't mind me, I went on a tangent there.
I've got one last question for you.
Doctor, by the way, I really recommend that.
But could we show that article from The Hill one more time for those who haven't found it there?
It's called Russian Trolls Are Pitting Americans Against Energy Industry.
And there's some links to the study.
The director of national intelligence was writing about this even before the Mueller-Russia collusion story.
So I think it's a legit concern.
Doctor, I have one last question for you.
Here in Canada, we have an awful lot of natural gas and oil.
We have more reserves here than the United States does.
But our LNG, liquefied natural gas, our oil sands pipelines are still born because of foreign-funded foreign-based environmental groups.
And we've seen Petronas pull out of a $36 billion LNG project in Western Canada.
My observation, and I love your reaction to this, my observation are that the groups that are targeting Canadian fracking pipelines, LNG and oil sands, the green pieces of the world, for example, the Sierra clubs of the world, I have never in my life seen them criticize OPEC countries such as Qatar, the world's largest, you know, they're by far the largest on the natural gas side.
Do you think, and even if it's just speculation, do you think that there is a similar infiltration or pressure from OPEC countries to get Western environmental groups to ignore conflict oil and just focus their wrath on Canada and the United States and Western Europe?
I've never seen the Greenpeace press release against Saudi Arabia.
I've never seen the Sierra Club press release against Qatar.
What do you think?
You know, a little while back, James O'Keefe, who does some underground sting things, met with some prominent Hollywood liberals to make a movie.
And they said, we're from the Middle East.
We make all our money on oil, and we would like to fund an anti-oil and gas, pro-environment movie.
Would you be willing to take that money?
And they recorded this and this, and they said, absolutely, we're fine with taking that money to fight the oil and gas production in the U.S.
And it was just funny because they were opposing as Middle Eastern oil barons.
Yeah.
I remember that.
You know, we're good friends with James O'Keeffe.
In fact, he's going to be on the show today talking about some other exploits.
What a coincidence you mentioned that.
Well, listen, Dr. Matthews, it's nice to meet you.
I really enjoyed your article in the Hill.
I'd encourage our viewers to find it.
I am going to send you a courtesy copy of my books just for fun.
You can use them if you have a short leg of the table to prop it up or something.
Be sure you sign it.
I absolutely will.
I think it's important that Canada, the United States, the UK, and as many of our European democracy allies get into the energy business ourselves, because if we're not buying and producing our own energy in an ethical way, we're buying it from a conflict producer.
And I regard America as an ally in this and a role model.
The fact that you're exporting now makes me jealous.
I wish our country had our act together like you do.
Last word to you, Doctor.
This is not only a pro-growth issue anymore.
It is a national security issue.
We need energy independence.
And the U.S. and Canada together can actually get pretty close to energy independence just between the two of us.
Yeah, you're so right.
Well, what a pleasure.
Nice to meet you.
Thanks for taking the time with us today.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it.
Dr. Meryl Matthews.
He's a PhD and a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation.
Boy, I got to tell you, I'm jealous those Americans exporting their oil and gas while we here in Canada delay for yet another decade.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue Friday about the media protecting the identities of professional anti-oral activists.
Peter writes, of course the media is hiding the activists' identity.
The mainstream media always pretends that the pipeline protests are all local grassroots folks concerned about that evil oil coming through that evil pipeline.
So to have a protester that is paid from out of town and even from out of country goes counter to the narrative they have so carefully crafted over the years.
You're so right.
And I say again, I know I've told you this before, that I really didn't get to know these professional protesters until I moved out to Toronto from Calgary, because there's not a lot of professional protesters in Calgary or Edmonton.
There are a few and there's more because of Rachel Notley these days.
But I really didn't get to know them until I moved to Toronto and I went to Occupy Toronto.
And I was there for a good hour and I met a lot of people, I got to know their names.
And then I saw them a few weeks later at an anti-oil protest and I saw them and I saw them at an anti-Barrack Gold.
Like I saw literally the same people.
And I was new to the city and I had only met these people two, three times and I got to know them already.
Don't tell me that lifelong journalists who had been on the reporting beat for five, ten, twenty years, don't tell me they don't know who these people are.
If they don't know who these people are, they're terrible journalists.
And I don't think they're terrible journalists.
I think they know who they are and they're choosing to keep it secret, private, irrelevant, as you say, because the narrative is grassroots Canadians versus big oil as opposed to big foreign anti-oil lobby groups versus ordinary Canadians.
Drew writes, these traders will be the first to whine and complain when the well runs dry and the handouts are no longer there.
Well, Drew, you could be referring to so many things.
If you're talking about the professional protesters in Vancouver, well, Vancouver has been blessed with the most expensive gasoline in North America.
And they're whining about it, including their premier.
Don't you see a disconnect?
Lowest Charges Policy00:01:50
You're complaining about high gas prices, but the NDP wants to block a pipeline, supply and demand.
I don't think they get it.
Tammy writes, professional agitators should be treated like the criminals they are.
Charges are not enough.
Heavy fines should accompany guilty verdicts.
Well, we heard from reports of the RCMP being told to lay the lowest possible charges even when they themselves have been assaulted.
And in that shantytown, that Camp Cloud that's set up on the side of the road there, do you think you'd be able to set up a little shanty town by the side of a busy road with impunity?
Of course not.
And now the city's spending $60,000 to protect them?
Don't tell me that would happen to anyone.
That's just only to a favored political class.
Yeah.
I think that we need to have the rule of law, which is if you're left-wing or right-wing, you're subject to the same punishments.
And I just don't think that's the way it is in Canada.
I don't think we have the rule of law.
And I don't think Trudeau is willing to enforce the rule of law.
The one liberal cabinet minister who briefly knews about it, Jim Carr, the energy minister from Winnipeg, he was immediately frog-marched out by Justin Trudeau to apologize for saying that the police or the army would enforce the law against eco-terrorists.
So yeah, I know who's going to win this battle.
By the way, in case you've forgotten, the end of May is when Kinder Morgan said it's going to have its final drop-down decision on the pipeline.
I'm not saying it's impossible for them to be persuaded to stay.
I suppose if Justin Trudeau cut them a $10 billion check, they would just be, they would say this guy is so stupid and then so much money will stick around.
But failing some insane move like that is just not going to happen.
And by the way, do you really think Justin Trudeau would give Bombardier kind of money to a Texas-based company to stay invested in Amber NBC?