CBC’s News Kids uses child actors—like nine-year-old Serafina Bennett—to push fear-based climate propaganda, scripting lines like "if you’re dead... your job doesn’t matter," while Justin Trudeau’s office files a legally dubious defamation lawsuit against Andrew Scheer over SNC-Lavalin claims, ignoring warnings from experts like Manny Montenegrino. The move risks backfiring amid 47% of Canadians reportedly "hating" him and his government’s history of ethics violations, including five unethical conduct findings. Meanwhile, Canada’s energy sector stagnates—losing jobs while the U.S. creates nearly 200,000—due to Trudeau’s anti-business policies, despite holding more oil than America, contrasting sharply with pro-energy nations like Britain and Scandinavia. [Automatically generated summary]
Oh, I got a show for you today and you're going to get a lot out of it from the podcast.
But really, I think you guys got to watch the video because I've got some vids from this new CBC propaganda channel called CBC News Kids.
And you've got to see the vids because you've got to see these nine-year-old and 11-year-old kids saying these things.
So yeah, I think you're going to love the podcast, if I may say so.
I think it's a fun one.
And there's some crazy stuff.
But you really, can you do me a favor and can you, can you go to the rebel.media slash shows and can you assign them to be a premium member?
It's eight bucks a month.
I know that's not nothing, but it's not a ton.
The rebel.media slash shows, eight bucks a month.
And you not only get the podcast, obviously, which is free, but you get the video.
Every day I do a show.
Sheila has a show.
David Menzies has a show.
You get it on video.
And you help us keep the company going here.
But you get the video.
And I think today's video, you got to see these kids.
This is one kid from, I think, Holland or something.
And you got to see her eyes.
You got to see the eyes.
All right.
I'll stop beating a dead horse.
Here is my podcast about climate kamikaze kids.
Take a look.
You're listening to a Rebel Media Podcast.
Tonight, CBC hires child actors to tell other kids they're all going to die from global warming.
It's April 8th, 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.
The SNC-Lavalin scandal is spinning even further out of control for Justin Trudeau.
Now they're just shooting pucks into their own net.
Yesterday, Andrew Scheer, the conservative leader, revealed that he received this letter from Justin Trudeau's lawyer threatening to sue Shear for his comments about Trudeau's corruption, as in a defamation suit, as in to have the truth of the whole matter determined in a court of law that Trudeau doesn't control like he controls parliamentary committees, where Trudeau will have to answer real questions under oath,
and he won't be able to skip them as he often does with question period or give non-answers or give untrue answers.
Not just that, but Trudeau would have to provide all of his records on the matter.
Any emails, texts, memos, notes, minutes of meetings, and those of his staff that touch on the SNC Lavaland matter, and they could be subpoenaed to testify to his staff.
Why would Trudeau do that?
Well, he wouldn't do that.
So why would he threaten to do that?
I just don't get it.
I don't get it.
Andrew Scheer had a press conference about it and sent his own letter back by lawyer saying he stands by every word he said.
And that if Trudeau really does want to sue him, well, he should get on with the lawsuit as soon as possible, given that the matter is of great public interest.
Now what's Trudeau going to do?
If he goes ahead with the lawsuit, it's just nuts.
Do you really think Trudeau knows how to answer direct questions under oath, being cross-examined by an experienced lawyer, where he can't give just some trite cliché where the judge will say, order the question, Mr. Trudeau?
I mean, the kind of answer that the CBC accepts is a bit different from the kind that a judge will require.
Each of these interactions was a conversation among colleagues about how to tackle a challenging issue.
Each came at a time when my staff and I believed that the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General was open to considering other aspects of the public interest.
However, I now understand that she saw it differently.
Yeah, there's no way he's going to sue.
So he's got to back down, which as Scheer noted in his lawyer's letter, can reasonably be taken to mean that he does indeed accept that what Shear and the rest of the country believe happened is actually true.
If you threaten to sue a guy and then don't go ahead, that's what you're saying.
So weird to make a threat like that and then back down.
Just really, really bad decision-making over there in the PMO these days.
Here's Trudeau's director of communications, just furious with how this whole thing, how this whole threat was taken by the public.
Kate Purchase said, funny how the Conservative Party of Canada has had the libel letter outlining their over-the-top language for a week, but chose to release it today.
Takes a while to figure out how to use your own bad behavior as a media strategy, I guess.
What?
I don't even get it.
So you receive a libel threat from a fancy lawyer.
So you call your lawyer.
You send him a copy of the letter.
He considers it.
He looks at it.
Then he calls you up.
He consults with you.
Maybe he meets with you.
He drafts a reply.
You have a press conference.
You do all of that in a week.
That's pretty quick.
But even if it weren't, what did her tweet even mean?
Does it mean, how dare the opposition oppose?
How dare they try and embarrass my boss?
How dare they object publicly to a legal threat to be sued by the prime minister?
I don't even understand it.
I don't get it.
Other than it must truly, truly be a difficult time in the prime minister's office for the first time ever, and they don't know how to handle it.
And it looks so good on them, doesn't it?
So that's a legal threat, and it has backfired huge.
It has only ensured that the story will continue more and longer, and journalists will be curious when Trudeau doesn't sue.
And it's just given this thing a little bit more life, and we still don't know what the next move is from Jodi Wilson-Raybold herself.
Here's a story in the Toronto Star about a couple of opinion polls in Vancouver, where Wilson-Raybold is from.
According to the April 4-5 survey, 33% of her writings voters would cast their ballot for her as an independent, trailed by the Liberals 24% support, the NDP's 21%, and Tories 15%.
So that's in Vancouver-Granville, Wilson-Raybold's own riding.
And look at this.
The larger 514 voter sample of the city found that Wilson Raybold enjoys 68% support among Vancouverites, more than double the 28% who side with Trudeau.
Wow.
I absolutely believe that, by the way, it rings true.
Here's a tweet by John Nunziato.
Remember him?
He was a liberal who was kicked out of the party a couple decades ago for opposing the GST.
He's tweeting the front page.
You see there, he's tweeting the front page of the newspaper when he was turfed, Cretchen expels MP, and then the front page when Wilson Raybold was turfed.
And he says, his commentary is, I went on to win as an independent in 1997, forcing Jean-Cretchen to eat Crowe.
Jody Wilson-Raybold and Jane Philpott should run as independents and force pseudo-feminist Justin Trudeau to eat Crowe.
I bet there's a lot of that support out there.
This lawsuit threat by Trudeau is so funny, I just can't believe they did it.
I'm frankly surprised that Julian Porter, the senior lawyer Trudeau hired to write the letter, didn't try harder to convince Trudeau not to do it.
I mean, just because your client wants you to do something and offers to pay you to do something doesn't mean you should do it as a lawyer if you actually care about your client and giving him the best advice.
When you have so much of the government run through one guy, though, and I'm talking about Gerald Butts, the master, the power behind the throne, the de facto government, the guy with all the phone numbers, and then he's forced out, you really have decapitated the whole regime.
Butz is a smart guy, to be sure.
But there's no one human being smart enough to run everything.
No one person has enough hours in the day to run everything.
I think the concentration of the whole government in Gerald Butts' hands, even though he was intimately involved in everything important, he had a veto over everything.
He was up to his eyeballs in the NAFTA deal and the China schlamazzle and the carbon tax and all important appointments.
I think that Butts is a competent man.
I disagree with him on everything, but he's a competent man.
He's not a genius per se, but he's smart and he's hardworking.
But no one human being can run a government of a country of 35 million people with hundreds of projects and moving parts.
There are 200,000 civil servants for a reason.
But Butts had to control everything and he's blown himself up and the whole government is adrift now.
And it's so weird and pitiful and it's so good that it happened before the election, not after, don't you think?
Anyways, that's the big, big problem for Trudeau.
So what does Trudeau do?
Well, normally when he's in trouble, like after his India fiasco, he goes to his safe space, which is high school kids, who are dazzled that a politician would visit them.
And, you know, he doesn't use big words.
That's great.
He talks about a lot of clichés.
It's why he and his family are so closely associated with the Kielberger brothers and their youth indoctrination sessions called We Day.
Here's Trudeau's mom at the last We Day in Toronto.
I'm so proud to be part of We as well.
Now, We, I love it the most because it is neither a political movement nor a religious one.
We encompasses all politicians, all political parties, all faiths, all beliefs, because we feel that together we can change the world.
And we know we can.
Jeez.
Yeah, normally kids love Trudeau.
But that didn't happen last week.
Remember when the so-called Daughters of the Vote attended Parliament?
338 of them, well, 50 of them stood up and turned their backs on Trudeau when he was speaking.
That's never happened to Trudeau before.
He doesn't know what to do.
So he's gone even grosser.
Look at this story in the state broadcaster.
Trudeau brings son on Toronto Charm Offensive amid slumping poll numbers.
This is them really starting to campaign, says University of Windsor professor.
So he's taking his 11-year-old boy and using him as a campaign prop, as political fodder.
Trudeau, Justin Trudeau, is hated.
Seriously, he's hated.
If you look at the latest Angus Reed poll, look at this.
People who like Trudeau, they like him enough.
They moderately approve.
But the people who dislike Trudeau, they don't just casually dislike him.
Look at that.
47% of Canadians hate him.
Trudeau was using his 11-year-old boy as a sort of political human shield.
Now, Trudeau's wife, Sophie, doesn't really show her face in public that much anymore.
When Melania Trump steps out of the spotlight for a few days, the media goes insane.
They went on this weird speculative tear that she was divorcing Trump.
Yeah, no, she was in the hospital, you macabra freaks.
Sophie Trudeau isn't seen with Trudeau in months, is seen without her wedding ring.
Well, oh, it's not polite to report on family business like that.
So Trudeau has gone to his safe place, kids.
And if other people's kids turn their back on him, he can always parade out his own 11-year-old.
Well, what have the rest of the Liberals been talking about these past few disastrous months without Gerald Butts to guide them?
Panic Buying Fridges00:15:06
They haven't been talking about foreign affairs, not the renegotiated NAFTA that has not been ratified.
It's not going well.
Not the economy.
I showed you on Friday how Canada lost thousands of jobs last month while America gained 200,000.
Liberals don't like to talk about industry or pipelines, not the military where Trudeau is trying to scapegoat an admiral, and the admiral's fighting back and winning.
Trudeau's team is not talking about China that still holds hostages of ours.
Trudeau's team is not really talking about anything real that I can think of.
I mean, what's the good news politically in Canada?
Can you think of anything?
Even the carbon tax, they've sort of dropped mentioning the carbon tax.
They know it's a political disaster.
So they've all just started talking about global warming, or as they call it now that the globe just hasn't actually warmed in two decades, combating climate change, fighting climate change.
So you see bizarre things like this.
So really thrilled to be here.
A great example of how we can work together to tackle climate change, to save money, to make life more affordable, and really practical solutions.
I didn't think I would be so excited to be talking about replacements of chillers, but it's a great, great opportunity, and thank you very much.
So that's Catherine McKenna giving your tax dollars to Loblaws.
Here, let me read from her press release.
The government is investing up to $12 million, subject to a funding agreement, to help the company convert the refrigeration systems in approximately 370 stores across Canada over the next three years.
Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
Investing, they've got a lot of investors.
The stock market, you can invest in.
Why is the government investing in Loblaws?
We're buying 370 new fridges for Loblaws?
You know, they're a big company, right?
Have you heard of Loblaws?
You know they're owned by billionaires, Canada's second richest family, right?
The Westons.
I checked the stock market capitalization for Loblaws today.
It is worth more than $25 billion on the stock market.
They buy fridges all the time.
It's sort of their business selling groceries.
They can afford to buy their own damn fridges.
Why are we buying fridges for a billionaire company?
Why would we buy fridges for anyone, other than maybe for a bona fide charity?
I don't know, like maybe for a food bank or something.
I could understand the government buying a fridge for a food bank.
Speaking of food banks, speaking of which, Loblaws is pretty much the opposite of a food bank.
They actually steal bread from the mouths of the poor.
I don't know if you remember, because the media party doesn't like to talk about it, but Loblaws confessed to engaging in a criminal price-fixing scheme to jack up the price of bread for more than a decade.
Billions of dollars stolen from the poor.
You're rich, you spend an extra buck for a loaf of bread.
It's no skin off your nose.
That was stealing money from the poor.
And Catherine McKenna is giving those bread stealers free money to buy bloody fridges because global warming, guys.
Well, now I think that's just sad.
And I think she knows it.
I mean, I just can't get this shouty moment out of my mind.
This is someone flailing around just as bad as Trudeau is, just as desperate.
You know what I'm talking about.
So let's talk about climate change for a second.
Who believes it's real?
Who believes in science?
We got a report last year that said we have 12 years to take serious climate action.
We are all in this together.
We need to act.
So because there was a fire caused by arson in British Columbia last summer, I'm going to give $12 million to buy a new fridge for the billionaire Weston family that confessed to stealing bread from the poor.
And if you don't like it, you're a climate criminal.
Yeah, now I'm used to that.
And the media is pumping out propaganda stories, as you might expect.
Here's Trudeau tweeting out a panicky story about global warming from the Toronto Star here with a terrible picture of a forest fire.
Doesn't that look bad?
And he says, this is why we need climate action now.
Caps, just in case you didn't know when you needed it.
And a price on pollution is a key part of that.
Our kids and grandkids are counting on us.
Yeah, well, that fire they showed there wasn't caused by global warming.
It was caused by accident when construction workers accidentally caused a fire.
Construction workers, by the way, they were building wind turbines.
I know that's so, you won't even believe the coincidence that that's what they were building.
It doesn't matter what they were building.
Obviously, it was accidental.
So yeah, it wasn't global warming.
It was an industrial accident.
Now, I don't think any of this weird stuff is clicking.
I can't imagine anyone saying, yeah, woo, you gave my money to buy fridges to the country's second richest family.
Woo!
I'm forgetting about that Jody Wilson-Raywold stuff.
I think the reason Kate Purchase, the communications director, is so mad that Andrew Scheer had a press conference is because none of this is working.
People aren't going back to their normal, submissive, cult-like following of Justin Trudeau.
And most of all, the media itself is deeply disillusioned because they realize they've been played for chumps.
Better late than never.
But let me show you something new.
Something new and bizarre.
Speaking of kids, look at this.
Today, this is from CBC.
Today, many kids in Toronto skipped school for yet another school strike for climate.
Check out what nine-year-old Serafina Bennett had to say at Toronto's first Fridays for Future protest from March 15th.
What do you think?
Climate change, climate strike.
So this is from a new propaganda department of the CBC.
I've talked to you about it before.
It's called CBC Kids News.
They have adults write political commentary in simple language, and they have child actors read the lines.
And it's targeting your children.
Their main issues, I've been following this site fairly closely, are child sexuality, they're for it, marijuana legalization, they are obsessed with it, and global warming.
So they've been in full damage control mode for Trudeau for a while now.
And Seraphina Bennett, she's a child actor.
She's an actor reading lines.
That's what she does.
She's nine.
She's been served up as, well, I don't quite know what.
She's nine years old.
When she's done doing this little video for the CBC, I'm guessing she'll go for ice cream if she's being a good girl, and then maybe a birthday party, and then maybe some drawing and homework stuff, and then in bed by 8.30.
But the CBC is putting her forward as some moral leader and spokesman.
Now, that obviously could not happen with the cooperation and permission of her parents, who obviously are using her as a political battering ram.
She's nine.
Do you think the nine-year-olds go out on strike from school on their own?
Or like her reading scripts on TV that grown-ups write for her?
Do you know that it's being manipulated by adults by teachers' unions, by the CBC itself, and by her parents too, whoever they are?
We're never told.
But listen to what she says.
Listen to this clip that actually is being viewed more than one million times on Twitter.
Take a listen.
A lot of people are like, oh, what about the people in the oil industries and the electronic industries and the paper industries?
Well, it doesn't really matter what job you have if you're dead.
So.
We're all going to die.
Ha ha.
We're all going to die.
Who told her that?
Is that science?
Well, another CBC kids propaganda show tells you, look at this cult.
You say you love your children above all else, and yet you're stealing their future in front of their very eyes.
A 15-year-old in Sweden has missed class every Friday since August to sit outside her country's parliament.
And she's been calling on others around the world to do the same.
Adults keep saying, we owe it to the young people to give them hope.
But I don't want your hope.
I don't want you to be hopeful.
I want you to panic.
I want you to feel the fear I feel every day.
And then I want you to act.
What a little cultish monster.
It's like that Stephen King movie, Carrie.
But I don't blame her.
I mean, she's a young girl with thousand-yard stare eyes.
But do you really think she made any of the decisions in her life to skip school on her own?
Do you think that happens?
To write those bizarre, psychologically trippy comments about fear and panic on her own?
Do you think she wrote any of that on her own?
She is actually a victim here.
Maybe a perpetrator too, but a victim primarily.
I don't know who her victimizers are in particular.
Her parents, probably.
School extremists, teachers' unions, probably.
Politicians, surely.
And of course, the CBC is trying to spread that child abuse here.
Of course, it's child abuse.
Children deserve a childhood.
You don't tell children of tender years that the world is going to end and that you need to panic.
That's crazy.
That's maybe how Catherine McKenna talks, but she's just a politician just doing it to get votes.
You don't raise an actual child that way.
It is fake news, of course.
Of course it is.
But it's worse.
This is deliberately using children, child actors, reading lines written by adults to cause panic in your children.
Look at this insanity.
People and animals have died, are dying, and will die because of the climate crisis.
No more coal!
No more oil!
Keep your permanent in the soil!
No more coal!
No more oil!
So time to panic.
Did you see that?
You're going to die like dinosaurs.
Did you see that?
People are dying.
We have 12 years to stand up to the grown-ups.
We have to do something.
I want you to panic.
These kids are 9, 10, 11 years old.
Mainly girls, it seems.
Who knows?
Maybe they're more eager to please their manipulative parents and teachers, whereas boys just say, yeah, whatever.
Can I go outside and kick a ball now?
I don't know.
Or maybe this is some gender action thing, too.
Who knows?
But this is what I do know.
These kids are being abused psychologically, including at the instruction of Justin Trudeau's state broadcaster.
And they're trying hard to recruit your own children into the abuse.
Stay with us for more.
One week ago, I received a letter from a lawyer representing Justin Trudeau threatening to sue me for my criticisms of his actions in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal.
Upon receiving Mr. Trudeau's letter, I immediately consulted with my legal team, and after careful consideration, I was advised that Mr. Trudeau's complaints were without merit.
I stand by every single criticism I have made of Mr. Trudeau's conduct in regards to the scandal, including those Mr. Trudeau's lawyer cites in his letter.
Well, that is a clip from Andrew Scheer's press conference yesterday where he surprised a lot of people, I think maybe even surprised a lot of liberals, that Justin Trudeau had hired a lawyer to try and shut up the leader of the opposition.
Is that a normal thing for a prime minister to do to file a lawsuit in defamation against the leader of the opposition?
It sounds unusual to me, especially when the subject matter in question is something that is in a genuine public debate that the entire country is gripped by.
Joining us now is a lawyer who once represented a prime minister, namely Stephen Harper.
I'm talking about our friend Manny Montenegrino, the head of Think Sharp, and he joins us now via Skype.
Hey, Manny, it's great to see you again.
Welcome back.
Nice seeing you, Ezra.
Manny, I know that you carefully read the demand letter, the libel notice, I think it's styled as, by Julian Porter, who is a fairly accomplished defamation lawyer.
And I know you've read the reply, which is more succinct from Andrew Scheer's lawyer.
What's your take on both documents?
Why don't we start with the threat letter sent by Julian Porter?
Well, I'll start even before that.
I can't see how any lawyer would take that file on.
You have incredible facts.
This is a defamation case that is taken on by a prime minister who has been cited by his own attorney general as some form of pressure towards obstruction of justice.
This is a prime minister who has had five attorney generals write to the RCMP to investigate for obstruction of justice.
You have an ex-attorney general of Ontario, Michael Bryant, who said it's clear obstruction of justice.
You have a prime minister who is let go indirectly over a period of time the attorney general that was trying to protect him.
And, you know, if that person came into my office, the last thing I would do is say, let's start a defamation case.
You know, particularly, Ezra, when you've gone through all the trouble of keeping people quiet.
You've silenced the Attorney General Jody.
You silenced Jane Philipot.
You silenced the committees.
Lawyers And Obstruction00:16:07
There are two committees that are looking into.
So you're trying to silence everybody, yet you want to commence an action where you can no longer seek any silence.
It is absurd.
Ezra, you asked me a long time ago, what advice would you give to the prime minister?
And my advice at that time was, whatever you're thinking of doing, do the opposite.
Well, he's not taking my advice.
I would have, if he came to my office, I would have said, you are not sending a libel or a libel or defamation letter to the official opposition when so much has happened in the last five, six months.
Right.
It's absurd.
Well, and that's the thing.
Julian Porter is a fairly well-known defamation lawyer.
It's really his specialty.
I know, for example, I watched him work with Maclean's magazine on some very important defamation.
He's sort of famous for that.
I think he's been practicing probably 50 years.
So surely he knows how this is going to end.
If it would go to court, Trudeau would have to give real answers under oath.
He couldn't bob and weave like he does in question period.
He'd have to give his records unredacted.
He couldn't just unilaterally deny them.
He would really be putting himself through a colonoscopy, to use a medical term.
Where was Julian Porter to say, whoa, boss, I know you're mad, but we're not going to say that.
Well, I think that's what he should have done.
I have done that with the Prime Minister on one occasion, a long time ago.
Julian Porter, I believe, is 83 years old right now.
I do understand that he's got a great reputation in his field.
And sometimes lawyers do that.
Sometimes it's about the lawyers and not necessarily about the client.
I would have instructed, I would have certainly, given the evidence, and then who comes into my office?
You know, that's one thing I used to do.
And I used to sit there.
Now, I have a prime minister who has been found guilty five times of ethics breaches.
I have a prime minister who refused to recuse himself when he gave millions of dollars to a lobbyist.
I have a prime minister who accepted a gift from a lobbyist equating to somewhere around $100,000 to $200,000 these occasions.
He's been cited five times for unethical practice.
He's been found guilty by the ethics commissioner.
I have a prime minister who, the ethics commissioner, said you are not credible in your assertion that the lobbyist or the Aga Khan is a family friend.
When you have a judge, as Prime Minister Trudeau calls the ethics commissioner, a judge, when a judge says you're not credible in your claim that the person is a friend and makes that as a finding in her report, and you have basically all lawyers, I mean, you have Warren Kinsello, who's also a lawyer, saying this is obstruction of justice.
And he worked in the war room with the Liberals.
You have basically a lot of attorney generals saying this is obstruction of justice.
What are you doing putting the case forward?
That's the last thing that he should be doing.
You have a McLean's article that basically calls him an imposter.
So I think this is probably the, well, you can't say the biggest mistakes because he said, it's just one of the many mistakes that he's doing.
He's got a very, very weak legal team.
When the Attorney General said, I'm protecting you, Mr. Prime Minister, there were lawyers in the PMO's office that failed to protect the prime minister under rule of law.
And they are, and in my opinion, these people should step forward and say no.
And the problem, Ezra, in my opinion, is nobody has ever said no to Justin Trudeau.
Well, that's such a key observation.
His whole life, I mean, I remember, I don't know if you remember in the 2015 campaign, Justin Trudeau was telling a little family anecdote about one of his brothers who marijuana joints were found on him by accident.
And his dad just picked up the phone and called some friends and made the problem go away.
So Justin Trudeau was boasting about how connected his dad was.
Now he was trying to say, I don't think anyone should be criminalized for having a joint.
But he accidentally told about how life is growing up as a Trudeau.
Nothing stings.
Nothing connects.
And I think he thought he could just pull this one out of the bag, too.
Yeah, no, I think the problem is he's not listening to great legal advice or he's not getting great legal advice.
He had the best lawyer in the world, in the world in Canada, advising him.
Jody Wilson Raybold understood what was happening and tried to protect the prime minister from himself.
She actually stood up and said, no, this is not good for you.
You should not be interfering, obstructing, or doing anything with respect to my decision.
And she stood up.
And what's happened to her?
She's gone.
She's out of the caucus.
So you don't say no to Justin Trudeau.
And he needs more people around him to say no.
This was an insane.
Now, I love, I read the letter from Andrew Scheer's lawyer.
I don't know who this lawyer is.
I have never read such a great reply.
Just brilliant.
If you can put up as the last paragraph.
And I mean, what a way to respond by saying, if you don't bring this case forward, we will deem and assume that every statement made by Andrew Scheer is correct and you are accepting that.
I mean, that is just exact, that is now another test that Trudeau has to jump over.
Now, what does he do?
Does he drop the claim?
If he drops the claim, he's deemed to admit what was said.
If he continues the claim, he's going to be cross-examined by very sharp lawyers.
And it will probably lead to criminal charges if he gets examined.
He's been doing a good job of trying to avoid, and I will say this, they've done a pretty good job of trying to avoid criminal charges because of their hide and seek.
But I tell you, they better be very, very careful in this civil claim.
You know, they'd be very, very careful that they don't invite that into their world as well.
Yeah.
Now, you said something a few minutes ago, and I just was imagining what it looked like when you said, you know, when someone would come in and ask me for advice.
Do you think in this case, Justin Trudeau personally met with Julian Porter and said, I want to see him?
No.
No, not at all.
Not at all.
I mean, and let me just add one more layer to the question, and then I'd love to hear your answer, because Gerald Butts was not a lawyer.
I don't think Chief of Staff Katie Telford's a lawyer, don't think so.
No, no.
And Kate Purchase, the communications director, I don't think she's a lawyer.
And like you say, Jody Wilson Raybold was sort of sacked for giving advice he didn't want to hear.
So I'm wondering who around Trudeau would have said, this is a really good idea.
Hey, Julian Porter, will you do this for us?
Because do you think Trudeau himself was actually warned?
How do you think this went down?
I know this is speculation.
No, I'm just curious.
Well, yeah, no, I think the same people that are making the same mistakes as they did with the Instruction of Justice that spent four months did the same mistake by calling Julian Porter and saying we want to begin that.
Now, Julian Porter didn't sit there and say, well, wait a minute, I don't know what he said, but I certainly would have said no.
I have said no to Prime Minister Harper on certain occasions.
And he takes the answers.
I mean, he's a very smart man that's guided by good advice.
You can't say no to Justin Trudeau.
I'm surprised that they didn't call, and according to the testimony, their friend, quote, Bev McLaughlin, to give an opinion.
I mean, they don't respect the law.
They do not respect what it means or the risks related to it.
And it's evident.
You have a back-to-back case.
There's two tests in a definition.
You know this in a defamation case.
The defense could be truth or the defense could be fair comment.
I mean, clearly, to find truth, you'd have to get the prime minister under cross-examination to get exactly what he said and what he said.
And it could be proven to be true.
We don't know that.
But certainly fair comment when you see all the commentary by attorney generals, by lawyers, by the attorney general herself, Jody Wilson Rollo.
She's already said it.
You have everyone that's part of it saying it.
So that's where the defense is.
And then you go to damages is the next test.
I mean, you have to go through the whole case.
What can the prime minister get in form of damages when his reputation worldwide is already sullied?
When you have McLean's calling him an imposter, when you have two senior ministers, the best ministers quit because they don't have trust in him.
So why are you beginning the claim?
It's certainly not for damages.
It's certainly not for, and it's trying to stop them from talking, but that just backfired on them.
Yeah, I think so.
Now, of course, whatever is said in parliament itself has an immunity to defamation suits.
It's called part of parliamentary privilege.
You can really say, you could even theoretically call someone a murderer.
Now, of course, the Speaker of the House is going to weigh in and say, please withdraw that.
Yeah, right.
Defamation suits can't stop a leader of the opposition from raising things in the House.
So I don't even know how this could even possibly work.
Maybe it was to scare other people, like other journalists, but I mean, that's the thing, because everything Andrew Scheer said has been said by columnists in a variety of publications.
Absolutely.
And the idea of suing, I don't know, it just looks like they're scared.
It doesn't look prime ministerial when you're confident, when you're on the march, you laugh off critics.
You say, oh, yeah, you could just shout into the wind, buddy.
But when you stop, hire a fancy lawyer and threaten someone, you're all of a sudden feeling a little smaller.
That's how I feel about it.
Well, yeah, there are cases where you should and can use a defamation lawsuit.
And either for the prime minister or the leader of opposition, I handled three in those circumstances.
There are cases, and it makes sense.
But in this case, when the facts are just overwhelmingly against you, when you have a prime minister who has been found unethical five times, when you have a prime minister who've been found not credible once by a quasi judge, when you have three months of attorney generals and lawyers of both stripes, liberals and conservatives, saying this is obstruction of justice, this is borderline criminal, this meets the test of one section,
section 139.1 of the criminal code.
When you have all that happening, I mean, you certainly don't say, hey, let's test this.
I mean, you know, every case that's happened before, and I do recall Prime Minister Harper used it because it was a credible time to use it.
It was the right time to stop allegations that were untrue.
And he was successful in it.
And there was times when the Prime Minister or Prime Minister Harper was in opposition.
But in this case here, you have to be somewhat delusional to think that the facts support a defamation case.
Particularly when every pretty well, every lawyer, you have a law society, you have the law societies are commenting on this when pretty well everyone in the legal field is not on your side.
It's not a smart thing to begin a libel or slander suit.
Let me ask you one last question because of course we think about censorship a lot over here.
We've been the target of censorship many times even before the rebel started when I was at the Sun News Network at the Western Standard.
And what I've seen, Manny, is that government censors who used to come at you with the human rights complaint or a hate speech complaint or even a defamation complaint, I think a lot of them are moving to behind the scenes, talking directly to a Facebook or a YouTube or a Twitter and whispering, can you shut this guy down?
And I see Facebook and other groups are talking about cracking down on fake news in the run-up to the election.
And I'm worried, Manny, and I'd like your thought on this.
It's obvious that this is backfiring.
This is blowing up in Trudeau's face this legal threat letter.
But if Trudeau is able to whisper in the ear of his friend Kevin Chan, who runs public policy at Facebook or whoever runs Twitter or YouTube in Canada, and get them to throttle criticisms of him, remember Trudeau's first remarks when this whole Jordan Wilson-Raybold scandal came out, he said it was completely false.
So his first answer was it was false.
Basically, he was saying it was fake news.
If he could have got Facebook, Twitter, YouTube to shut it down, we wouldn't have known about it and we wouldn't see what he's trying to do ham-fistedly through a lawyer.
So my question to you, I'm sorry I'm rambling a bit, is I think this defamation threat is a laugh, and I think most people do.
But what's not funny is that there's probably 10 other attempts to squelch criticism of Trudeau that we don't even know about that will never be put through the rule of law.
That'll just be him talking to friends in Silicon Valley.
That's what I'm worried about, but it's hard to have evidence because it's behind the scenes.
Well, it's already starting, Ezra.
That's a very good point.
I trust the courts.
I like, because when you take a process to the court, as the Prime Minister tried with this defamation lawsuit, you are going to get incredible scrutiny.
You are going to be cross-examined and the truth will come out.
And that's why this was a very foolish move by the Prime Minister to commence a defamation lawsuit, especially when you're on the brink of probably a criminal charge.
But with respect to the underhanded, it's already started.
You had, and Ezra, it's good of you to point that out.
And I think your listeners and your viewers should know what's happening.
You had the clerk send the first shot across to Bao when he said, you know, there's some terrible media out there, some, you know, he called it some interference, and we are going to look into that to get rid of the fake news.
Then you had Christopher Freeland just say, there's going to be interference into our election.
They're setting up the premise to stop legitimate contest of this government, any legitimate rebuttal.
So it's already happening.
And that's the best way for liberals to do it.
Away from the scrutiny of a court or the objectivity, but through their underhanded channels, you can stop any form of debate, any form of criticism, and you only have your message going forward.
Acceleration of Underhanded Tactics00:04:26
And you're right, Ezra.
I think it's going to accelerate.
We saw two examples right now.
We're going to see maybe some legislation or we're going to see some action.
And of course, this is all in the good of Canada because we want to stop the negative discourse.
I mean, I heard on CBC Rosemary Barton say that this defamation suit is, and the response is not in the proper discourse of Canada, which was the leader of opposition's response.
No, that's just wrong.
We need to have a healthy debate by the opposition, by people on Twitter, by people, by Canadians.
We just can't have the government tell us what we need to hear or what we need to, what's available to be heard.
But you're bang on point, and it's very scary.
I think the next six months are going to see more censorship initiatives than we have in the last 60 years.
And I'm not exaggerating when I tell you that's my prediction.
Manny, great to see you again.
Thanks for your time and your smarts.
Good to see you again.
No problem.
Take care, Ezra.
All right.
That's our friend Manny Montenegrino.
He's the CEO of Think Sharp, based in Ottawa.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue Friday about America creating almost 200,000 new jobs.
Last month, while Canada lost almost 10,000 jobs, Bruce writes, what a stark contrast between free market America and Canada.
Yeah, yeah, you know what?
And the biggest contrast to me is on the energy sector.
And maybe that's because I'm an Alberta boy and I wrote those books about oil sands or fracking and I follow it.
But, you know, we have so much more oil in Canada than America.
And they're now a net exporter.
How did we let that happen?
It did such good jobs.
I don't know how we let that happen.
That's not even that we're socialist.
I think we are to a degree.
It's just that we blocked everything through politics and through protests and through regulation and gender analysis and carbon analysis.
I don't know.
I just feel like they came in.
You know, there's an old Jewish proverb, two argue and the third grabs the hat.
Yeah.
You know, well, two, I want the hat, I want the hat, and the third just reaches in and grabs it.
While we're quarreling in Canada, America just grabbed 4 million barrels a day worth of oil exports.
You know how much money that is a year?
And the jobs?
I'm jealous.
What can I say?
I'm jealous.
That should have been us.
John writes, so frustrated that we can't prosper from our natural resources because of Trudeau's anti-business, gender-analyzed, fake feminist, eco-hysteriopolitics.
It's like we are sitting on a million gold bars but refuse to sell any of it.
You are right.
And I can't think of another country in the world that would be that way.
I just, what country does not unlock the riches at its feet?
I can't think of any other place that would do that.
And by the way, you know, the Scandinavians and the Brits and all these folks who are so the North Sea, they pump oil like crazy.
I don't know.
I can't think of any other country that's so self-destructive.
My interview with Bernard the Roughneck Hancock, Liza writes, Bernard Hancock has more intelligence and integrity than the entire NDP government.
He will make a very effective politician.
Canada needs more like him.
I like Bernard and I like how real he is.
I like that he's actually worked on a rig.
I like that he's not afraid to stand up to the left.
And he's sort of got that hipster look to him.
He's got the big hair, sort of a signature look.
I like him.
And I noticed that there's not a single anybody with any ties to oil and gas in the entire NDP government of Alberta.
And I think it shows.
And I don't think that mathematically Renard is going to win in his riding.
I like the guy, and it would be great to have him in his MLA.
I just don't think being a member of the Freedom Conservative Party is going to punch through.
That's just my prediction.
But sure, I'm glad he's running, and I look forward to seeing what he does next because I hope he continues to speak out.
And by the way, I'm quite convinced Jason Kenny is going to win the Alberta election coming up on the 16th.
Some new polls out show it's going to be huge.
I think I predicted earlier it was going to be maybe 20 seats for the NDP.
There's 87 seats in the province.
I think I said 20 for the NDP.
Spicy Rebel Reporting00:02:19
I'm going to lower that.
I'm going to say maybe 17, maybe even less than that.
So it's going to be important to have critics keeping the conservatives conservative, don't you think?
Margaret writes, I'm noticing too much fluff and fuss coming out of you guys.
Last month it was David, and this week, Kian.
The focus is turning away good directed reporting to creating a rebel-focused issue altercation.
It may not look like this to you, but from our side, it's getting tiresome.
Please put more effort into clean, concise reporting.
No more self-focusing events in the process, please.
And a little more respect when interviewing will go a long way to elevate the rebel to the respect it also deserves.
Margaret, I thought about your letter very much because I know it came from a good place, and I know that you are someone who cares about the rebel.
So I thank you for being so honest and constructive in your criticism.
That said, I'm going to disagree with you at least in part, because there are some times when a confrontation is necessary.
And I think that if you're referring to Kian going toe-to-toe with that actual real-life communist who's running for the NDP in Alberta, Anne McGrath, and asking her if she regrets being a communist, I think you've got to have that confrontation.
I think so.
And her reaction, calling 911, yes, it was particular to Kian, and yes, he became part of the story.
But don't you think it's an important story to know that after maybe 90 seconds worth of questioning on a public street, she calls police and not just like the non-emergency number, she called 911.
Don't you think that smoked out real, interesting news?
It was entertaining too, I grant you that.
But it's also real news, I thought.
And I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to from David because he's always got a sense of humor.
Look, David, I mean, his nickname gives it away, the menzoid.
He's always had a great sense of humor to him.
And so you didn't mention it in your email what you're talking about.
Yeah, sometimes David becomes fun.
If you're talking about the altercation a few months ago, where he went on the hotel in Toronto that's being used as a refugee camp, and the manager came up and pushed him and his cameraman, again, David didn't stimulate that.
The hotel manager didn't, as you may know, we're suing them for assault.
So unless there's another David's story, I'm no mean.
Step Into Habaniero Territory00:00:39
So I think, yeah, listen, the rebel's going to be spicier.
Look at our name, the rebel.
We're going to be a little spicier.
And I acknowledge once in a while, maybe we cross the line into too spicy.
We go habaniero pepper instead of just Tabasco.
But I tell you, there's so much vanilla out there, occasionally to step into habaniero territory.
You know, I'd rather do that than be vanilla all the time.
You let me know what you think of that, Margaret.
Anyways, yeah, maybe you're thinking about the lawn signs, our stopnote lawn signs, but that's just plain fun.
All right, folks, until tomorrow, on behalf of all Secret Rebel World Headquarters.