Justin Trudeau’s 2019 bills—C-69 (carbon-heavy project regulations) and C-48 (BC-only tanker bans)—ignored provincial warnings from premiers like Jason Kenney (Alberta) and Doug Ford (Ontario), costing $136B in canceled LNG and construction projects while favoring U.S. oil imports. His dismissive "national unity" rhetoric echoes Pierre Trudeau’s alleged 1980 "screw the West" stance, alienating regions with 63% of Canada’s GDP to boost urban environmentalist support. Arrogance over expertise—seen in his handling of Jody Wilson-Raybould and the Aga Khan ethics scandal—suggests he’ll push policies through despite warnings, risking minority governance propped up by NDP or Greens, deepening political division. [Automatically generated summary]
Folks, I want to show you the letter from six Canadian premiers, including the premier of the Northwest Territories, a great guy named Bob McLeod.
To Justin Trudeau, I want to read to you a few paragraphs from him.
It's a good letter.
And I want to show you Trudeau's response to it.
And I want to answer the question: is Western separatism a real thing?
So I hope you find that interesting.
Before I get out of the way, can you please go to the rebel.media slash shows?
I know you're listening to this as a podcast, and I'm glad you are.
But if you become a premium subscriber, it's eight bucks a month or 80 bucks a year, you get access to the video version, and I want you to see some of the things I'm showing.
You know, these days I think visually, because I'm in the video business, and I'd like to show you, I call them proof points or evidence.
As I talk, I show evidence on the screen.
I quote from documents.
I show pictures.
I show video, and I want you to see that.
You can get that for eight bucks a month at the rebel.media slash shows.
You get access to Sheila Gunread's show, David Menzies' show, and of course, we use the money to produce this content.
All right, thanks.
Here's the podcast.
You're listening to a Rebel Media podcast.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau plans to make bashing Western Canada part of his re-election plan.
It's June 13th, and this is 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.
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.
Hey, did you see the letter from six premiers, five provincial premiers, and Bob McLeod, the premier of the Northwest Territories?
He's one of my favorite guys, by the way, pro-development, solid guy, Aboriginal, too, by the way.
With Justin Trudeau sacking Jody Wilson-Raybould, I think it's fair to say that he's the most prominent elected Aboriginal leader in Canada, the most senior, probably.
So you'd think we'd hear a lot more about him, except for what I just mentioned.
So the media, which normally searches, goes an extra mile for an Aboriginal angle on anything, in the name of affirmative action or whatever.
Well, they deliberately unreport anything Premier McLeod does because he's not on their left-wing narrative.
He loves oil and gas and mining.
Oh, do they hate him now even more for writing a mean letter to the precious, Justin Trudeau?
Here's a letter.
I'll read some of it to you.
I like the first few lines.
We are writing on behalf of the governments of Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
Collectively, our five provinces and territory represent 59% of the Canadian population and 63% of Canada's GDP.
We are central to Canada's economy and prosperity, and it is of the utmost importance that you consider our concerns with bills C-69 and C-48.
I wonder what percentage of the geography they are, too, and that's relevant because those laws limit resource development.
Now, in case you don't know, by their parliamentary numbers, Bill C-69 is the absurd bill championed by the absurd Catherine McKenna.
It's a bill that would kill any large industrial project in Canada, but it would let foreign imports from China or OPEC come into Canada unregulated.
Example, it would force any oil and gas or mining project in Canada to go through a carbon analysis, but not foreign, not imports of foreign oil from Saudi Arabia to Canada.
Yeah, riddle me that.
Oh, and it gets worse.
I've shown this to you before.
I never want to stop showing this because I want to show you how crazy they are.
Here's Catherine McKenna, possibly the worst salesman in the history of salesmen.
Take a look.
Project's decisions will be based on science, evidence, and indigenous traditional knowledge.
We're also taking a bigger picture look at the potential impacts of a proposed project.
Instead of just looking at the environmental impacts, we'll look at how a project could affect our communities and health, jobs and the economy over the long term, and we'll also do a gender-based analysis.
Yeah, yikes.
Now, I know I've shown you this next clip before once or twice too, but seriously, when even Don Martin of CTV thinks you're nuts, you know you're nuts.
Gender impact?
How does that fit into a pipeline approval process?
So I'm really glad you asked that because I think people are like, well, what is this gender thing?
Well, imagine that you have a huge number of people going to a remote community, many men.
What is the impact on the community?
What is the impact on women in the community?
And actually, once again, smart proponents understand this, so they're going to put measures in place.
That's all it is.
It's just taking a smart approach to thinking about, okay, what's going to be the impact of a major development in a particular area?
Yeah, guys, Catherine McKenna's here to say that all the smart companies are really doing gender analysis for their factories because no one knows smart companies like Catherine McKenna, veteran business leader and job creator.
What a laugh.
So that's Bill C-69.
Bill C-48 is the tanker ban off the north coast of BC.
Except it's not really a tanker ban, is it?
It just bans the export of Alberta oil on tankers from the north coast of BC.
There are U.S. oil tankers going up and down the BC coast with oil from Alaska and other tankers too.
And of course there's no tanker ban on Canada's East Coast to stop Saudi tankers bringing OPEC oil to East Coast Canada, is there?
Anyways, let me read a little bit more of the Premier's letter.
Let me give you one full minute of it.
Here, let me read some.
Canadians across the country are unified in their concern about the economic impacts of the legislation such as it was proposed by the House of Commons.
In this form, the damage it would do to the economy, jobs, and investment will echo from one coast to the other.
Provincial and territorial jurisdiction must be respected.
Provinces and territories have clear and sole jurisdiction over the development of their non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources, and the generation and production of electricity.
Bill C-69 upsets the balance struck by the constitutional division of powers by ignoring the exclusive provincial powers over projects relating to these resources.
The federal government must recognize the exclusive role provinces and territories have over the management of our non-renewable natural resource development or risk creating a constitutional crisis.
My only quibble is I think it's a little bit overstated to say that all Canadians are united in their concern about the economic impacts here.
The makers of Canada are concerned, but not the takers, which is pretty dumb given that there's no wealth.
If there's no wealth created by the makers, then there's no wealth to be redistributed by the takers.
But there's a reason why the fable about the man who killed the golden goose that laid the golden eggs, that's a classic because it's human nature.
And maybe one of the reasons why the takers are the takers is because they're not quite so good about planning and all that stuff.
So that's my only quibble with this letter.
There are still parts of Canada, especially in the media, in academia, in politics, in lobby groups, who absolutely do want to destroy Canada's resource sector, which is precisely why they support these bills.
That's precisely why they were written this way.
And Trudeau's inner circle, his key ministers like McKenna, their chiefs of staff, his key advisors, they were actually, in some cases, the senior leaders in the Rockefeller Brothers Fund campaign to fight the oil sands.
This is a slide from their campaign plan, as you know.
Literally the same people who were part of this campaign against the oil sense are now chiefs of staff running Canada's energy ministry, running McKenna's environment ministry, have senior policy positions in Trudeau's office.
So yeah, there are definitely pockets of Canadians who hate Canadian oil and gas and mining and industry, but no one in the real world, no one who can't just, you know, get a grant from Trudeau or McKenna.
We can't all get $12 million for free fridges, you know.
Some of us have to work, you know, and Canada is blessed with oil and gas and minerals, so that's as good a place to work as any.
But it will be impossible under C-69.
The law doesn't even have to be in place for it to do its damage.
As I told you a few months ago, the National Energy Board recorded the first decline in Canadian oil production in about a decade.
Even though global demand for oil and gas has never been higher and is expected to continue to climb, Canada is sitting on the world's third largest reserves of oil in the world.
And we actually have half of all the world's accessible oil, which is what I mean, oil that's open for drilling by any company that's not commanded by some tyrant or king or dictator.
But our production is shrinking.
And please don't tell me it's because of oil prices.
Oil prices are healthy enough in the 50-plus US dollar range, enough to spur record production, for example, right across the border from Saskatchewan, for example, in North Dakota, which is the exact same geological formation called the Bakken Formation as Saskatchewan has.
So North Dakota's never been richer, Texas never been richer, never been busier, and we're shrinking in Canada.
And it's not just oil in the prairies.
British Columbia has liquefied natural gas industry, which is huge.
It's drilling and fracking and pipelines and those massive LNG facilities to put the gas onto ships and send it to places like Japan and Korea.
That was shut down too.
$36 billion project just nuked.
I mean, why waste time in Canada fighting with Trudeau and old Yeller there asking if you're smart enough to do a...
Hey, were you smart enough to do a gender analysis on your LNG?
All the smart LNG companies are.
Yeah, no, you'll just invest in Texas or Louisiana or Australia now.
So we've lost over $100 billion worth of construction projects.
Now, when Trudeau took office in 2015, the country was pretty much with him.
As you can see, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland were pretty much the only conservative places.
Newfoundland quickly flipped liberal.
And here we are four years later.
Look at the map.
Holy moly, most of the country is conservative now, including parts of Atlantic Canada.
And even Quebec is sort of conservative now.
And I think that is undeniably due, at least in part, to a reaction to Trudeau.
I think people are getting a bit sick of him.
The polls say so.
Yeah, of course, provincial politics is provincial politics.
There's a lot of local issues, but Trudeau is the biggest personality in Canadian liberal politics.
And his policies have started to hurt the provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, obviously.
I think you can lump Ontario in there too, especially with Trudeau's carbon tax and the Atlantic.
Well, when you kill a $15.7 billion pipeline project called Energy East that was going to terminate in New Brunswick and all your provincial premiers were liberal and they're turning into Trudeau's doormat, yeah, I think Trudeau really was part of the mix for the results in the Atlantic.
That's my theory at least.
So my point today is the Premier's letter from the six premiers to Trudeau, it's true or true enough.
There is a national unity problem here.
There's a constitutional problem here because the federal government, well, it would be nice if they actually championed jobs for the rest of us, I mean, other than just the corrupt cronies of Bombardier and SNC Lavalan and Loblaws.
But at the very least, perhaps they could stop blocking natural job creation, stop letting BC block pipelines, but they won't.
Trudeau himself personally killed the Northern Gateway pipeline.
This is a national unity problem.
Really is.
Don't take it from me.
Don't take it from the conservative premiers.
Take it from, you know, Canadians themselves.
Here's a poll done by Angus Reid earlier this year.
It asked an unusual question: who would you vote for federally if there were a Western separatist party around?
I'm not surprised that in Alberta, which you can see right in the middle there, 40% of people would mark that X.
But look at that.
It's literally the number one option in every Western province.
It would be in a three-way tie in Manitoba, but a tie for first.
I note that the Conservatives would be the second place choice in every province too.
Just as interesting is this breakdown.
Take a look at this.
The last one was by province.
This is by age group.
So every single age group is pro-separatist, including millennials, by the way.
And I think it's interesting that support for this radical option, I mean, separatism is radical.
It's strongest amongst older Canadians.
I guess that's a reflection.
The people who have been around a while have concluded that we have a systemic problem in Canada.
We had it before under the previous Trudeau.
We had it in various degrees under Mulroney and Cretchin too.
Canada's not really working for the West.
So what did Justin Trudeau have to say about this Western discontent?
Quebecers are better than the rest of Canada because, you know, we're Quebecers.
Yeah, of course.
Come on.
That's right.
I showed you the wrong clip, didn't I?
Or maybe that's exactly perfectly the right clip.
He doesn't care.
He baits and smashes the West to delight his friends at the CBC in Montreal.
To a degree in Toronto and Ottawa, he doesn't care about the West.
Just like his dad.
Here's what he said when he was in Ottawa.
Look at the smirk here.
I want you to look at the smirk and the sideways headbob.
He does that when he's peacocking a bit.
Take a look.
I think it's absolutely irresponsible for conservative premiers to be threatening our national unity if they don't get their way.
The fundamental job of any Canadian prime minister is to hold this country together, to gather us together and move forward in the right way.
And anyone who wants to be prime minister like Andrew Scheer needs to condemn those attacks on national unity.
Look at that.
The premiers are worried about national disunity because Canadians are worried about national disunity.
But Trudeau says that by raising those concerns, the premiers are creating national disunity.
By raising the concerns, by reflecting the will of their constituents, their voters, their industries, by representing their regions, they're creating a problem.
Peter On Trudeau's Approach00:11:13
They should just shut up.
See, Trudeau didn't create the problem.
There's no problem.
Everything's great.
Everything's great.
Anyone who says they're a problem, they're the only problem.
Trudeau isn't very good at solving problems, partly because he doesn't admit there are problems other than problems that other people did.
And he doesn't really solve those problems, but he can apologize for them, can't he?
Usually with a lot of tears from the dramatic act or substitute drama teachers.
So you know he really means that.
Yeah, no, that ain't gonna work.
It's a form of his censorship policy, isn't it?
He'll just stop people from expressing themselves.
He leans on Twitter and Facebook and YouTube to get critics shut up.
He'll demonize people as racist or whatever.
He'll revive the Section 13 censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
He'll silence anyone saying there's a problem.
So if everyone is silenced and no one is saying there's a problem, then there's obviously no more problem, right?
No, no, no, that's not how it works.
If you put a piece of duct tape across someone's mouth, you have maybe silenced them, but you certainly haven't solved the problem.
You've probably made it worse.
You probably have not changed their mind.
Oh, and by the way, at least Pierre Trudeau claimed to fight against separatism.
He caused and stoked separatism, but at least he claimed to try to fight against it.
Stephen Harper, by the way, he cooled Quebec's separatism to absolute zero.
Imagine that, a Western conservative from Calgary, so appeasing and appealing to Quebec that the Bloc Quépécois sensing melted away.
They disappeared under Harper.
Well, Justin Trudeau, he's not quite as patriotic as his old man, is he?
He said, This is what he said a few years back when he was in opposition.
He said, And I always say that if I ever believed Canada was really the candidate of Stephen Harper, and we were going against abortion and going against gay marriage, and we were going backward in 10,000 different ways, maybe I'd think of wanting to make Quebec a country.
Yeah, you know, I think this isn't an accident.
See, if Quebec was upset about anything, Trudeau would give them whatever they wanted.
Look at how far he was willing to go for SNC Lavland or Bombardier or whatever, but the West, I think he wants it to burn.
Because I think Justin Trudeau has calculated in his mind there are enough haters in the rest of Canada to win it for him.
He wants to demonize the West.
He wants the West angry because maybe he can win Toronto and Ottawa and Quebec and the Atlantic that way.
I don't think this is an accident.
That head-bobbing peacock move shows this is something he was certainly thinking about.
I think Justin Trudeau would absolutely sacrifice Canadian unity to win the next election.
What do you think?
Stay with us for more on this subject of Law & Condition.
Welcome back.
Well, who better to talk about this than our friend Lauren Gunter's senior columnist at the Edmonton Sun?
He joins us now via Skype.
Great to see you again.
Thanks for being here.
Good to see you.
I have in front of me your column.
Let me just read the headline: Trudeau risks Western Canadian resentment with pig-headed environmentalism.
I agree with that as far as it goes, Lauren, but I think it's not just environmentalism.
I think he enjoys the fight against the West.
It would be on any subject.
I think he just likes baiting and bashing the West.
Environmentalism is his cause du jour, but it could be anything.
Yeah, when our son, who is now in his mid-20s, was seven, he came back from school one day, and we asked him about how things were going.
He was talking about the principal at his elementary school, and he said, That Mrs. C has too much government in her.
And my wife laughed, and she said, Where do you think he gets that from?
And it's the same with Justin.
Like, he sat at that kitchen table as a child and heard his father go after Western Canada and probably, you know, probably disparage Alberta all the time.
It would be very hard for him not to have drunk a lot of that up.
And so I agree with you.
It's not just environmentalism, but on this issue, which was the pair of anti-pipeline bills that the Liberals are going to pass before the end of this session, I think they're doing more than anything else to stir up that resent.
Yeah.
You know, I'm glad you mentioned that.
I mean, it's true.
Even just by passive osmosis, if you're at the dinner table with your prime minister dad, and especially, I mean, Trudeau was born in December 1971.
So he was still pretty, pretty young.
He wouldn't have any memory of the first term or two of Pierre Trudeau's government.
But by the time the National Energy Program came around in 1980, 81, 82 kind of time, okay, now Justin Trudeau, the boy, is 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and he's taking an interest in his dad.
And so he's paying attention not in the wage and price control era of Trudeau, but in the Smash the West, destroy the West, NEP era of Pierre Trudeau.
And that would be his final memory of his dad's prime ministership, his strongest memory, maybe his only memory.
Yeah.
Yeah, and you know, there's a great book that was written by a former liberal insider called The Fights of Our Lives.
And it talks about the five or six elections in Canadian history that have made a difference to the way we're governed.
And it talks about the 1980 election, which is the one where Trudeau made some vague promise, Pierre Trudeau made some vague promise about a made-in-Canada energy policy or whatever.
But nobody ever said anything about the National Energy Program.
And then within a year of the election, of course, they sprang that on us.
But there's a great story because there's always been this rumor that during that campaign in the liberal war room, Keith Davey, who was the longtime senator and chairman of election preparedness for the liberals, there was this rumor forever that he had said, screw the West, we'll take the rest.
That that was their mantra in that election.
And the liberals had always said, oh my goodness, no, one ever said that.
And in this book, it's confirmed.
Yes, indeed.
That's exactly what Keith Davies said.
And so, I mean, I think this group of liberals is not as honest as the last group, even with themselves.
I don't think they sit down and they say, we're going to screw the West.
We're going to screw Alberta.
But everything they do is anathema to what it is that we value, that we believe, and that we advance.
And so it has the same effect in the end.
You know, I want to make one more point and get your reaction to it on Trudeau echoing his father's comments, because it's not the most important thing here.
The most important thing is that he is doing what he's doing.
He's baiting the West, bashing the West.
He's poo-pooing the concerns by these six premiers, including, I should point out, an Aboriginal premier of Northwest Territories.
I want to say one more thing about Trudeau echoing his dad, because I look at Trudeau, and I think he's not a serious man like his dad.
His dad, however wrong-headed, was a thinker and a writer and a sort of scholar.
And he had a firm worldview.
He was wrong, but he had a worldview.
Trudeau is empty.
And whenever I hear Trudeau talk about something spontaneously, like not as in reading a script, it feels like a 10-year-old's recollection.
Oh, sorry, a grown-up's recollection of what he heard when he was 10.
So it hasn't evolved.
It feels childish.
It's how a child would remember it.
So the instinctive distaste aesthetically for those yucky Westerners.
Look at the other two things, the other couple things you can see in him today.
A love for Castro.
Childish, wide-eyed.
When Castro died, this over-the-top eulogy.
Same thing for China, the land of the future.
I mean, the only things that Trudeau actually cares about other than marijuana legalization.
Their basic dictatorship.
I mean, he actually said that, right?
You had to admire their basic dictatorship because it's enabled them to become one of the world leaders in environmentalism.
That is so wrong, so shallow, and so dense that you have to wonder how an adult would even say that.
That's a 45-year-old, a 48-year-old man remembering a feeling that he got from his dad 35 years ago.
That's my theory.
Yeah, I mean, I have a slightly different one, but it basically boils down to an underdeveloped mind.
I think that he was sort of enamored of his freshman seminars in political science at McGill and has never advanced into the real world.
I mean, we all did that when we were in university, right?
We were idealists in first year.
Maybe by fourth year, we were either activists or we were realists.
And as we moved through family and mortgages and jobs and careers and things, we lost a lot of that immature and naive freshman mentality.
He's never had to do that, right?
He could just go around presenting checks.
Peter Pan.
He's Peter Pan.
He's never had to grow up.
Exactly.
He could go around to folk music festivals and drink a little too much beer, smoke a little too much weed, maybe grab a reporter here and there.
And that was as serious as he ever had to be because there was a family fortune that was paying his way.
Then a bunch of seasoned liberals came along and they said, gee, you know, if we had that name leading our party, we could get back to power.
And I've used this analogy with you before and with others too.
I think he's Chance the Gardener.
And if you've ever seen Jerzy Kaczynski's book, Being There, or the movie that was made with Peter Sellers, about that book, about a guy who is a little slow, wanders off from his job as a gardener to a rich guy after the rich guy dies.
And he just spouts these aphorisms.
And yet, the tony people, the trendy people all think it means something.
And he eventually becomes president.
Like, I think this is Chance the Gardener.
Chance the Gardener Analogy00:15:01
Yeah, you know, let me play a quick clip from that.
You're exactly right.
I remember, oh, I just forgot the name of the comedian.
He's so funny.
He played the Pink Panther.
Here, just take a quick look at.
Peter Sellers.
Peter Sellers.
That's right.
Here, take a quick look at that.
As long as the roots are not severed, all is well.
And all will be well in the garden.
In the garden.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Lauren, you're so right.
That's not only the shallowness of Trudeau's comments, but that accurately shows how the fancy people are wowed by this genius.
Let's get, I mean, we're having a lot of fun talking about Justin Trudeau because, you know what, there's a dearth of this kind of psychology of like every utterance of Stephen Harper, everything Trump has said, you get a medical point of view by the left, you get a psychological analysis by the left, his family, his relationships.
None of that has been done with Justin Trudeau.
So I feel like there's, I mean, Sophie Trudeau just did an interview the other day, no wedding ring on.
And I'm not saying that there's trouble in the Trudeau House.
I am pointing out that you don't see her in public with Trudeau a lot.
If that was Melania and Trump, if Melania Trump had given an interview with no wedding ring on, that would be front page New York Times and Southern NASA.
How many times did you see her facial expression examined at the inaugural bowl?
Remember, that was a big thing for days.
Oh, look, she doesn't look happy.
Yeah.
Yeah, unbelievable.
Well, that's, I mean, that's a lot of fun, and I enjoy talking about it because no one else in this country seems to.
But let's get back to the meat and potatoes here, which is Bill C-48 and Bill C-69.
Those are two bills that would disproportionately punish not only industry, but Western industry.
So these six premiers are saying we've got a problem here, Houston, and Trudeau is saying, no, no problem, you're the problem.
What happens next?
Yeah, yeah, I know.
I mean, I like in Trudeau's response where he said that these six premiers were a threat to national unity as when somebody in a schoolyard says, you're a bonehead, and the person who's the subject of the insult thinks they're being witty, and they say, I know you are, but what am I?
And I just, I think that's the level at which he's at at this point.
And so you have this prime minister who doesn't understand the effects that his policies are having on other parts, or maybe even relishes the effects that they're having because these are parts of the country that he doesn't really like anyway.
He doesn't really feel a kinship towards.
And so he's happy because this is energizing the people he needs to vote for him.
The downtown Toronto faux environmentalist who's so happy we're going to get rid of plastic straws because that's going to save the turtles.
I mean, that kind of person who shares his shallow thinking.
But expert after expert after expert told the senators who were examining these two bills that they were going to be economically disastrous.
And the interesting thing about this is that on C69, which is the one that increases the number of steps in the approval process, in the assessment process for future pipelines, in Bill C69, the independent senators, who we all know are the liberal senators, and the conservative senators, went away on their own and constructed their own reports about what needed to be done.
And when they came back, the two reports were very, very similar.
And so similar that they could get together very quickly and form a joint report.
And despite that, despite the fact that they heard thousands of hours of testimony, that they listened to scores of witnesses, and the two of them together, both sides agreed roughly.
Despite that, nope, Trudeau says, nope, we're not changing this bill in any substantial way.
We're going to leave it just the way we sent it to you.
And too bad.
We don't care whether it's hard on national unity.
We don't care whether it's hard on the economy because it's A, going to get us re-elected.
And B, it feeds this fantasy view I have of the environment, that we can switch from a fossil fuel economy to a zero carbon economy just with the waving of a magic wand.
Yeah.
It's the kind of answer you'd expect from a guy who says, oh, I'm reducing my plastic by buying water for $36 U.S. for 12 liter packages shipped to my house, by the way, in plastic containers.
Like, that's the kind of world he lives in.
I want to do one more amateur psychological round here because we've heard a lot in the last six months about Trudeau's personality that we haven't heard in the last four years.
We've seen how he passively, aggressively dealt with Jody Wilson-Raybel, Jane Philpott.
Soon the passive just gave way to the aggressive.
We've heard from Selena Cesar Chavan, the immigrant, I think, from Grenada, the black lady, who was really hotheaded in her own right.
But we heard how Trudeau shouted at her on the phone when he didn't get his way.
We heard how Trudeau was the driving force behind the false prosecution of Vice Admiral Mark Norman because he dared to not fall into line.
I think Trudeau has a personality quirk that if he doesn't get his way in politics, which is a game of give and take, he pouts and he's vengeful.
And you saw that even when those Aboriginal protesters came in to his fundraiser in Toronto on behalf of Grassy Narrows, he went edgy.
He said, thank you for your donation.
Thank you for your donation.
Like it was sort of, ha ha.
You remember, too, he was at a corn roast in August last year, just south of Montreal.
And a woman asked him when he was going, the federal government was going to pay back the Quebec government the $149 million that it cost Quebec to accept, to offer social services to the people he was allowing to come across illegally from the United States.
And he said, that kind of racism isn't needed here.
He just, his back went straight up.
He just gets so nasty.
And granted, the woman was a bit edgy, but she's a voter.
She's not the opposition leader.
She's not somebody in a great position of power.
But he ranted on her and called her a racist.
And really, maybe there was sort of a hint of racism in what she was meaning, but she didn't say anything racist.
And he just jumped on her.
That's just the way he is.
And I remember that incident, and we'll play some background footage here as I mention it.
The police grabbed her and twisted her arm and wouldn't let her go.
She did not threaten her accost.
And we see that, I don't know if you know this, Lauren, but we had a young reporter, Kian Bexty, go to a prime minister's event in Meadow Lakes, Saskatchewan.
Same thing, a PMO handler literally elbowed our Kian Bexley there.
I think the agitation is building up.
Gerald Butts leaving.
They're sort of rudderless.
Let me ask you, listen, I'm enjoying the psychological conversation about Trudeau and his team because it's not analyzed enough out there.
But let's bring it back one more time to the substance of it.
Do you think Bill C69 and BC 48, do you think those will be rammed through by Justin Trudeau?
Yes.
Yes, I do, because of just what we said, that he gets his backup about things and he thinks that he needs to have his way, that he's the prime minister, he gets to have his way.
But also because I do think they genuinely believe in the liberal caucus, in the House of Commons, that these are really good bills, A, for the environment, and B, for their reelection chances, which are dwindling in some key ways.
Frankly, at this point, I am still worried that we're going to have a liberal minority and it's going to be held in place by the NDP or the Greens, which would be even worse than what we have now.
But yes, I do think this is going to get pushed through for all of those reasons, because Trudeau is arrogant and because he really honestly believes his own publicity, that these are terrific pieces of legislation.
You remember, you know what he did, of course, before he became prime minister, immediately before he became prime minister.
He was a very well-paid motivational speaker who mostly went to public sector conventions and conferences.
Right.
Teachers have to make backpacks about how important their public service jobs were, whether they were teachers or bureaucrats or nurses or whatever it was, how important those jobs were to Canada, how important they were to our society.
I don't disagree with that, but that's all he did.
He had these bromides that he would go and he'd deliver for a half an hour, and then they'd all swoon and clap.
But you know, because you've been to conferences that when you go, you get this happy feeling, right?
You come back energized.
You want to start in on the re-energize your mission, whatever it is.
It's politics, it's work, it's whatever.
That's the upside of a conference.
He has never seen the downside of that.
So he just thinks because he went to all these conferences, got paid a lot of money, and people rushed up to him afterwards and said, oh, you're so insightful.
You're so marvelous.
You're so wonderful.
He thinks that how it works.
And so then when he says something and anyone, whether it's a citizen or an opposition politician, disagrees with him and sometimes very sharply.
He's never seen that before.
He just doesn't know how to handle it.
You are so, so right.
You know, believe it or not, I used to have the same speaking agent as him.
And I used to follow, I used to see clips of some of his speeches.
And that's exactly what it was like.
Justin Trudeau should have been on the TED Talk circuit and some sort of, you know, frankly, if he were a governor general, I would hate it if he wrote his own speeches.
But being a mascot, just showing up everywhere, smiling, selfies, if he could have been nonpartisan, that would have been actually a good place for him.
But anyone who has to deal with disagreement or policy is not the job for him.
Listen, Lauren, I could talk to you all day about these things because you're one of the few guys in the country who aren't afraid to challenge the precious one.
But I know you've got to go and do some real work, too.
Thank you for being here with us today.
All right.
Take care, my friend.
That's our friend Lauren Gunter, senior columnist of the Edmonton Sun.
I encourage you to read his article in today's edition.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back to my monologue yesterday about Trudeau's proposed plastics ban.
Joel writes, don't forget Trudeau thinks babies are scientists, so he must think this nine-year-old kid is the world's most renowned guru and everything.
I forgot about that.
I forgot about that.
Babies are scientists.
You know, as Lauren Gunter said, Trudeau used to go to these, he loves speaking in front of high school kids because he can just say any goofy thing like, babies are scientists and will grow the economy from the heart out.
And he always can end sentences with some upspeak.
And they'll just love it.
And that really was what he did in his life.
I think you've nailed it.
I think he really is like that.
Robert writes, elect clowns expect a circus.
Yes, now, I said for a long time that Gerald Butts was the resputant of Canadian politics.
It was so clear.
And I think the proof of that moment was in the Trudeau inquiry, where Justin Trudeau was prosecuted and convicted by the ethics commissioner, violating four or five counts of the Conflict of Interest Act for taking the free gift from the Aga Khan.
And let me just give me one more second.
I know you've heard me say this before, but the accusation was that by taking a vacation worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in secret from the Aga Khan, Trudeau was at risk for corruption because, of course, the Aga Khan is a huge lobbyist getting huge grants from the government of Canada.
And Trudeau's defense to that accusation, which on the face of it is so obvious, someone, you know, Aga Khan, who's a billionaire, of course he'll let Trudeau hang out at his Bahamas property when he's got a grant request in.
It's business.
That's how they do it in the third world, at least.
Trudeau said, no, couldn't be because I don't know anything.
I wouldn't understand what the hell he's talking about.
I just come in and shake hands.
I'm a relationship builder and then I let the smart people do the work.
Read the, Google it.
Find the Trudeau report by the Ethics Commissioner.
That was his defense.
He said, I couldn't be corrupted because I had no idea what the man was saying to me.
I never do.
Gerald Butts used to run this government.
Now he's gone.
It's so clear that Trudeau is just bouncing around like a pinball.
On my interview with Barbara Kay, Paul writes, the liberals keep upping the rhetoric they call pro-life anti-choice.
Climate change has become a climate crisis.
Now we're guilty of genocide because of murders of natives by natives.
Yeah, you know what?
Someone sent me a message yesterday asking me what the legal consequences to a conviction for genocide is.
And I thought, well, you know, getting into international law, and I don't even know if international law is a real thing, because try enforcing it.
You and what army, right?
But I'm going to look into that.
Someone sent me a tip.
And if someone has actually been found convicted of genocide, if a government has, what are the so-called consequences?
What were the consequences in Bosnia or Rwanda?
Obviously, the Holocaust ended when the Third RACH was destroyed by the Allies.
And the Armenian genocide just ended when the Turks ruled over everyone.
The Ukrainian genocide of the Holodomor, again, Stalin, quote, won.
Stalin was never removed.
So what does happen when a sitting government is, quote, convicted of genocide?
Now, maybe even a genocide court at The Hague would say Trudeau is so stupid, he pled guilty to a crime that did not actually happen.
Guilty Plea Debate00:00:21
But what do you do when the accused man says, yeah, I'm guilty?
It's just so, I'm going to look into that.
I'm going to look at it.
I think international law is a lot of hocus-pocus.
But, you know, it behooves me to look into this a bit, and I appreciate the question.
Well, folks, that's the show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.