CBC’s June 2019 climate coverage—nearly 20,000 stories versus 3,721 on oil sands—pushed alarmist narratives like toxic exhaled CO₂ and the Green New Deal’s potential to starve humanity, per Alex Newman’s claims. He ties foreign funding (Kremlin, billionaire green backers) to anti-energy policies, while criticizing Greta Thunberg’s media exploitation as "climate totalitarianism." Meanwhile, MP Selena Cesar Chavanes dodged accountability for Trudeau’s alleged misconduct, calling critics "bullying," and her refusal to answer questions led to her political withdrawal. Newman warns such ideological overreach risks societal collapse, from gender indoctrination in schools to unchecked power grabs under emergency rhetoric. [Automatically generated summary]
CBC seems more ridiculously CBC than CBC normally does these days, if that is even possible.
And so I've conducted a tiny non-scientific experiment to see if I'm right about this.
It's June 21st, 2019.
I'm Sheila Gunread and you're watching 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 is government.
So my news feed, probably like yours, has been absolutely polluted with the term climate emergency over the last few days, thanks in no small part to Canada's Environment Minister Catherine McKenna's meaningless declaration in the House of Commons that Canada is in some sort of climate catastrophe.
And it would appear that CBC is one of the very worst pushers of all this climate emergency hysteria.
Now normally in my daily work and in my daily videos here at The Rebel, I do a lot of hard journalism with a bit of commentary at the end.
I read and go through a lot of government documents, access to information and freedom of information packages, as well as order paper questions.
It's fine, it's fun, and I like it enough because I like to know what the government is doing when they think nobody's watching them.
And I especially like for you at home to know what the government is doing when they think nobody's watching them because you're the one paying for it all.
But sometimes it's fun to turn the same investigative lens on the competition.
And no, I don't mean going through the CBC's expenses, although you know what?
Wouldn't that be fun and revealing?
No, today I'm sort of trying to confirm or debunk my own bias about the CBC and fact check myself a little bit.
What I mean is the CBC really as bad as I think it is or am I just blinded by my own disgust of having to fund it all?
Let's have a little fun and check it out together.
It's Friday.
The boss is gone.
Let's not be too academic tonight.
So yesterday I was at my computer waiting on things to upload to the internet.
Honestly, to be frank, I spent a lot of time doing that because I live in the middle of nowhere where upload speeds are absolutely molasses in January.
So to pass the time, I just pulled up the CBC search bar and I got to work.
CBC absolutely loves to talk about climate change.
It isn't all in my head.
On their website, right now there are nearly 20,000 stories referencing climate change specifically from the pro-climate change, We're All Gonna Die in 12 Years Angle.
And there are dozens and dozens and dozens of these fear-mongering stories that were just posted since June 18th, including how we now need to be a haven for climate refugees, whatever those things are.
This now is versus some 3,721 stories about the oil sands.
And approximately 50% of those in my brief leafing through and in my estimation are presenting the oil sands as a net negative in society.
Actually, the only thing CBC loves to talk about more than climate change is Trump, with nearly 44,000 hits on the word Trump in the CBC story database.
Now, let's flip this a bit and compare it.
The CBC, they are absolutely obsessed with Trump.
Fine, me too a little bit, but in a different way.
If we plug Trump emails into the CBC News search bar, we get almost 12,500 hits under the news tab.
If we plug Clinton emails into the news tab, we get just 736 hits in the CBC archive.
How's that for misplaced emphasis, right?
Let's do a few more of these just for fun.
Okay, let's compare missteps by politicians on the right and then on the left.
There are some 49 stories in the CBC archives alleging some sort of ties between Alberta Premier Jason Kenney or his nominated candidates. and the white supremacist movement.
But there are just 41 stories if you search the keywords Trudeau and water bottle and not one of those stories references the phrase paper-like juice box water bottle sort of things.
Ain't that something?
Okay, one last one because I've been noticing an uptick in anti-meat, anti-farming rhetoric, specifically coming from the left.
And I bet CBC is jumping on the bandwagon because really there's not a left-wing bandwagon these people at the CBC won't jump on.
When you search the keyword meatless on the CBC website, I get 228 stories, most of which are trying to sell me on a carbohydrate-laden abomination that masquerades as beef.
And then they want me to eat it to save the planet.
One story even tells us to dream of a vegan Christmas with tofu ham.
Another story tries to show us all the ways to convince our aging parents to deny themselves delicious proteins.
So then I searched vegan Ramadan and got just 30 results, but I'm sort of happy Christians aren't alone in this religious holiday vegan torment from the CBC.
Personally, I'd rather die on whatever fiery climate change doomsday they keep promising me than eat a meatless burger.
And I'm especially not going to do it under the advice of the people at the CBC.
Okay, fun experiment over.
What's the moral of the story in all of this?
My bias against all things CBC remains righteous.
And it's always fun to prove myself right.
I love being right.
But more importantly, Canadians shouldn't be paying $1.5 billion to a state broadcaster that's been reduced to a left-wing video journal.
One that's so more obsessed with Donald Trump than Justin Trudeau's embarrassing mistakes and costly expenses.
Stay with us more up next after the break.
Climate Emergency Controversy00:14:53
I don't know about you folks at home, but I have had it up to the top of my frizzy head with the term climate emergency.
And as you know, our parliament has just declared a so-called climate emergency.
And I sort of wanted to know what everybody thinks about all the people who are looking at Canada.
I want to know maybe what my American friends think about Canada's climate hysteria.
So I contacted one of my friends in the media, one of my fellow United Nations watchers, Alex Newman from The New American, and he joins me now.
Hey, Alex, thanks for joining me.
I know that you're on a bit of a book tour right now.
And I think that your beautiful background behind you has a little bit to do with that.
Yeah, well, thank you so much for having me, Sheila.
It's great to be with you.
And yes, I'm on a national tour right now.
The title of my talk is Rescuing Our Children and Our Nation.
And so really, I'm trying to expose what's happening in the public school system.
You know, part of it is this climate indoctrination.
Teaching the kids that the gas they exhale is a toxic pollution, and that if we give up all our freedom and all our money to the United Nations, somehow we'll be saved from this evil pollution.
It's ludicrous, and you know, adult Americans pretty much understand that, but when they're getting them in kindergarten, that's a problem.
At the moment, I'm sitting in John Stormer's library.
John Stormer just passed away pretty recently, but he was a very well-known activist in the education field.
He wrote one of the premier books on this subject called None Dare Call It Education, which is a fascinating read.
And it actually exposed what was going on in the education system many years ago.
Unfortunately, the problem has only gotten worse.
But it's a real honor to be sitting here in his library.
I'm at the Pillar Foundation outside St. Louis, Missouri.
Alex, I wanted to have you on because you follow a lot of the same things that I do with regard to the climate change agenda.
And I've seen lately, I would say over 2019 in particular, there's this movement for both municipalities and in Canada's embarrassing case countries to declare climate emergencies.
Now, I have my own theory about why this is happening, but what's the deal?
What's behind it all?
Well, I think there's this sense among people in government and people in the United Nations that an emergency, so-called, will give them more latitude to implement some of these draconian policies that they don't think they'd be able to pursue otherwise.
You know, Rom Emanuel, who served as Barack Hussein Obama's chief of staff for a time and went on to go be the mayor of Chicago, where I just left, he put it very succinctly where he said, you know, when you have a crisis, it allows you to do things that you otherwise don't think you could have done.
And so I think that's their thinking here: that if they claim this is an emergency, they can usurp all of these new powers under the guise of saving us from the emergency.
When the real emergency is the fact that there's a bunch of crazy people running the government who think the gas we exhale is a pollution that we need to pay tax on and have regulate.
I mean, that's the real emergency.
But I think what's very clear is that they just want to assume all these new powers within the government and at the international level through the United Nations that they could have never gotten before.
You know, great, because you and I are on the same playing field when it comes to that.
That's really what I think.
Now, right now, Canada isn't really doing anything with their declaration of a climate emergency.
But I think changing the language that we use and how we describe the weather, I mean, really, as something of an emergency, it's subliminal fear-mongering, isn't it?
So when you hear that it's an emergency enough times, pretty soon it's not that big of a deal when the government, like you say, enacts more powers and gives themselves more power and takes away your rights to deal with this so-called emergency.
It's like the War Measures Act.
Yeah, that's exactly what's happening, Sheila.
You know, I noticed this first when the UK Guardian, you know, about as far to the left as one could possibly be.
They've taken to attacking me recently.
They've attacked me probably three or four times in the last year, and that's fine.
If they want to attack little old me, that's fine.
But I noticed when they started changing the terminology, you know, that they use as standard in their news articles, I thought, oh, it's only going to be a matter of time before other members of the man-made global warming bandwagon get on this.
And I saw, you know, the CBC in Canada was one of the first to jump on.
And they said, oh, we're going to start referring to it as a climate crisis, you know, and all these kinds of outlandish, all this crazy rhetoric to make us think that we really are in an unprecedented and terrible situation.
Whereas if you actually listen to the scientists, quite the opposite is true.
You know, Dr. William Happer, who's Trump's advisor on climate change, he and I spoke at a climate conference a few years ago.
And his talk was wonderful.
And then I went on to interview and people can see the interview.
He explains that the only emergency is that there's not enough CO2 in the atmosphere.
He said plants are designed to live in an atmosphere with four to five times as much CO2.
Of course, CO2 does not control the temperature of the planet.
But what he explained is that we really need more CO2.
The CO2 would be very good for the planet because plants need more of it.
And of course, plants produce our food, our crops, they feed our animals.
And so right now, we are at historically very, very low levels of CO2.
And that is the real danger.
If these people succeeded and managed to get CO2 levels down even further than where they are now, we could find ourselves in a real predicament because as anybody who went to school prior to the late 1990s knows, CO2 is an essential gas.
It's kind of like the building block of life on this planet.
So to declare it a pollution and to declare that we have an emergency around this is just absolutely asinine.
Yeah, and it's even becoming controversial amongst those in the mainstream media and left-wing politicians for someone to simply state the scientific fact that it's plant food.
I know in Canada, we had left-wing politicians attacking right-wing politicians for stating simply that, that CO2 is plant food.
And anybody who knows how photosynthesis works, which I think in Canada is grade four science, it's plant food.
And so, I mean, to say, yeah, you're taxing plant food, that's the truth.
But it's just these constant language games, like you say, when they're, it started off with global warming.
And then when the Earth didn't warm up, then it was climate change.
And then it was what they, for a time, they tried to say global weirding so that they could attribute any sort of extreme or erratic weather since that's just weather, that that was somehow evidentiary of some sort of climate catastrophe.
And now it's climate crisis.
So, I mean, it seems to me that everything keeps getting more and more vague so that anything that happens outside of indoors can be attributed to climate change.
That's exactly what's happening.
In fact, before global warming, there was actually global cooling back in the 1970s and 80s.
If you pick up any American magazine, they would say, oh, we have a global cooling emergency.
The quacks actually, I mean, you can read this in Time magazine.
They suggested we cover the Arctic with black soot to melt the Arctic ice cap because otherwise we were all going to die from global cooling.
And surprise, the solution back then was exactly the same as the solution today, right?
Give us all your money, give up all your freedom, empower the United Nations to tax and regulate the gas of life, and we will save you from your carbon sins.
It's absolutely ludicrous.
And the extremist rhetoric that's now coming out, I think to me, it's just a sign of desperation.
These people realize that the majority of Americans, especially, I don't know the situation in Canada, but in the polling data here, the majority of Americans recognize that the man-made global warming hypothesis is just not correct.
You don't even have to be a scientist to do that.
One of the things we've done in the New American Magazine is we took all the falsifiable predictions that we could find.
So we looked, you know, Al Gore said that the Arctic ice cap might be completely gone by the year 2013.
Well, and I watched him make that prediction.
I was in Copenhagen at the UN Climate Summit.
And of course, 2013 came and went.
And lo and behold, not only was the Arctic ice cap still there, it was far bigger than it was when he was making his silly predictions.
So if you take all, you know, and there's tons of these.
I hope people will go read the articles.
They said, you know, the UN said that there was going to be huge numbers of climate refugees.
And they highlighted the parts of the globe where they thought those refugees were going to come from.
Well, if you actually look at those areas, all of them, without exception, have experienced massive population growth, far beyond the average for the rest of the world.
So the UN could not have been more wrong.
And, you know, this is a consistent track record.
Anytime they make a prediction that can be falsified, what we find is not only is it falsified, it is completely debunked, oftentimes exactly the opposite of what they said was going to happen.
You know, and they make these predictions about places where people don't live or where you don't hear a lot from the people on the ground.
So then a vast majority, or not even a vast majority, but a lot of people end up believing these lies.
And the people who live there, like the people in Churchill, Manitoba in northern Canada, they're like, hey, you know what?
There's lots of ice.
It's the middle of June and the harbor is blocked.
But those stories don't get out because there's, you know, a couple hundred people living there and a couple million people listening to Al Gore or billion for that matter.
I wanted to talk to you about a story that you did a little while back, but not too long ago.
And you were talking about the Green New Deal and you actually interviewed someone that I'm a huge fan of, Patrick Moore, who's been under attack by the left-wing media trying to debunk his own history and sort of gaslight him and the rest of us into thinking that he wasn't a part of Greenpeace when, I mean, you could just have to follow the internet record to find that out.
But you did an interview with him where he said that, you know, if the United States imposed the Green New Deal as the left-wing kooks would love it to be imposed, people would die.
That's exactly right.
You know, it's funny.
I did that interview with him up in your stomping grounds.
We were in Alberta, in Calgary, at a conference there.
He and I both spoke there.
He about climate change, me about education.
But I've met Patrick on several occasions.
He goes to some of these UN global warming summits and fantastic guy.
And so I asked him, you know, it was right around the time that this Green New Deal was in the news.
So I thought, hey, here's a guy who's really the epitome of green, right?
The guy is a total environmentalist, and I'm an environmentalist too, but in a real sense, in the sense that we actually do want to preserve the environment.
We don't want to fight fake boogeymen and we care about human beings too.
And what he told me was amazing.
He said, basically, if this Green New Deal were to be implemented as described in the policy documents that they put up on the internet, that Alexandra, they call her occasional cortex now, the communists from New York.
If it were to be implemented as prescribed by these people, you would end up killing the vast majority of humans.
In fact, he said almost all humans would die because we wouldn't have trucks anymore.
We wouldn't have fertilizer anymore.
We wouldn't be able to get the food into the cities.
It would be a total catastrophe.
And then irony of ironies, he said his biggest concern was that if such an idea were to come about, all the trees in the world would be chopped down as well because, hey, we wouldn't have fossil fuels anymore.
So to heat our homes, to cook our food, we'd have to all go out and chop down all the forests.
And hey, the world would lose all its trees.
So the green agenda is really the epitome of stupidity if you believe that these people really believe this.
And I'm sure at the lower levels, the activists out in the street holding the signs, they really do believe this.
But the reality is once you get behind the curtain and you find the puppet masters, our Congress, to their credit, has actually done some investigations on this.
They found out, first of all, that the Kremlin was funding a lot of this.
In fact, this came out in a House of Representatives report a couple of years ago.
They found out that the Kremlin was funding all these pseudo-environmental groups in the United States to try to keep all of our energy in the ground so that, of course, they could make a bunch of money.
And then in addition to that, a couple years before that, the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee did an investigation, and they identified what they described as a billionaires club, that was their term, not mine, of fanatical billionaires who had been bankrolling the green movement.
I mean, the wealthiest of the wealthy for the purpose of enriching themselves.
And there's a lot of evidence out there showing that this is the case.
And of course, they don't really believe this stuff that they're peddling.
They just know that it's going to empower them and enrich them.
And of course, it will all be at our expense.
You know, isn't that the truth?
And then you have governors like Jay Inslee Saying that Canada should not approve any more pipelines.
You know, for a guy who really dislikes Trump, everything I've seen about Jay Inslee, he's usually bashing Trump or he's spouting off about Russian collusion.
Well, let me tell you, there's some foreign meddling and foreign collusion right there because every time that a Canadian pipeline gets blocked, it helps the Saudis.
It helps the Venezuelans.
It helps the Iranians.
It helps, you know, for it helps Putin if we can't get our old jobs.
Yeah, if we can't get our oil and gas to market.
And you know what?
Frankly, you know, I love the Americans.
I love President Trump, but it also protects the American market share.
And for a guy that doesn't like Trump, Jay Inslee is sure being one of his best people making his business case these days when he's blocking Canadian oil and gas from getting to market.
That's right.
Jay Inslee is really out on the fringe on Florida Killian.
He really is.
And I actually had the missed pleasure of meeting one of his minions at actually at the last UN climate conference that you and I both went to in Poland in Katowice.
And he was running around giving interviews to everybody who would listen about, oh, the governor, he's going to save the climate and all this kind of stuff.
Totally, totally ridiculous.
But, you know, even in Washington State, people don't buy this stuff.
In fact, I work closely with a lot of legislators there.
And there's a lot of public unhappiness about this.
The whole green agenda.
People don't want to pay taxes out the nose to be able to drive their car, to be able to heat their homes, to be able to fertilize their crops.
And I think the American people have now seen through it.
I know Jay Inslee's got some big ambitions.
He thinks he's going to be president someday.
I'm quite confident that's not going to happen.
The American people are not that dumb.
Yeah, I think he's too far left for even most Democrats.
Directing Children Into Sex Ed00:07:37
And that's, you know, that's really saying something.
I wanted to ask you, with the rise of this Greta Thunberg girl, there's a whole portion of the green movement that relies on the exploitation of children.
It puts children up front as though they're experts.
And then it's we're supposed to believe children because they're apparently more sincere than people who know something about how photosynthesis happens and weather happens and who have a little bit of historical knowledge about how things happen and how things change.
And with Greta, she's not a well-young girl, which makes the exploitation of her a lot worse.
But she seems to be, you know, a means to an end.
So everybody is just happy to push her in the spotlight all the time.
That's exactly what's happening.
In fact, I've lived most of the last decade in Sweden.
And in Sweden, she's like a superhero.
Every, you know, most of the media is either owned or subsidized by the government.
And she's plastered on the front page as a superhero who's going to save the climate, who's speaking truth to power and all this.
It's so nonsensical.
And, you know, I will add a caveat there.
I fully support the idea of getting out of the schools.
So, you know, if she's going to skip school, good, that's less brainwashing.
It'll be better off.
But, you know, the adults, supposed adults who are exploiting these children.
You know, Greta is autistic.
You know, to exploit a child with that kind of situation and put her on TV as if she were some kind of climate expert, it's just beyond grotesque.
You know, children should not be used as political props, especially to advocate for totalitarianism, especially to advocate for policies that would end up killing millions of people.
You know, it's disgusting.
But when you see the policies that they're trying to implement, these are really policies that would have a tremendous adverse impact on people, especially the poorest people in the world, right?
We're talking about denying these people access to the energy they need to industrialize their economies, to cook their food, to power their homes, to move their goods to market.
And these are people who are going to remain in dire poverty as a direct result of these policies.
One of my favorite climate scientists from the University of Alabama, Dr. Spencer, he calls these people climate Nazis because these policies that they're pursuing will have the effect of killing millions of people.
And to use children as a political prop for an ideology for policies that would kill people is just so far beyond the pale that you really wonder what are these UN leaders thinking.
You know, it's bad enough for you guys to make fools of yourselves and tell us we're going to die from the gas of life.
But to bring children into this mix who don't know any better, who really, you know, as Dr. New Zakedmordner, a very prominent Swedish scientist who served on the UNIPCC explained, to bring children in this who should be out playing soccer, to get them to serve as political props is just, it's disgusting, Sheila, and it needs to stop.
Well, and, you know, I mean, does this little girl need more anxiety?
Because she's being told every single day that the world is going to end in, I think it's 11 and a half years now that you and I have left.
But speaking of children being used as political props, we're changing lanes quite a bit, but I did see this story on the New American, a recent story by you about California's horrifying sex ed curriculum.
The first line of your story is chilling right to the bone.
It reads, over one in four California children aged 12 through 17 now identifies as gender non-conforming according to a recent study by the University of California, Los Angeles.
That is horrific.
How did we get here?
You know, the simple answer is this is happening as a direct result of the indoctrination in the public school system.
You know, I was in elementary school, what, 20 years ago, less than 20 years ago, and I never in on four continents, in eight countries, I never once met a boy who thought he was a girl or a girl who thought she was a boy.
It was just inconceivable.
In fact, the word transgender wasn't even in the dictionary for the first 10 years of my life.
And now suddenly, according to this survey out of the University of California, more than one in four, 27% of our young people in California call themselves gender nonconforming.
Boys who don't accept that they're boys, girls who don't accept that they're girls.
And the reality is this number is going to continue skyrocketing.
And it's a direct result of what they're being taught in the classroom.
So the new health education framework is, you know, their Orwellian doublespeak term for their sex ed curriculum.
They start encouraging this madness in kindergarten.
They tell the little boys that they could be little girls.
And in fact, they have one of the recommended books.
This really caused an outrage and uproar in California.
They talked about removing it now.
But it's Who Are You?
And they teach kindergarten children.
The book is recommended for four and five year olds that they can be any gender that they want, that adults have to guess what gender babies are because babies can't speak for themselves.
And they give a whole bunch of examples.
You could be a gender, bi-gender, neutrois, free spirit, non-binary, a bunch of things that I can't even pronounce.
This is sick.
In fact, this is institutionalized child abuse as far as I'm concerned.
And the consequences are going to be absolutely devastating.
We're only now just beginning to see where this leads.
Yeah, this feels like human experimentation on a grand scale.
And yeah, I mean, the problem is that it's with children, children who don't know any better.
You know, I'm one of those people, you know, if you're an adult and you want to live your life however you want, that's great.
I don't care.
Don't make me care.
Don't use the government to make me care either.
But with children, I mean, it's truly, truly evil.
And I just, you know, I just feel like we are on the cusp of a tidal wave of future suicides and extreme mental illness.
And it started with a hysteria that didn't need to be.
That's exactly right, Sheila.
In fact, there's plenty of former transgender people who will tell you this is a monstrous lie.
You know, to tell children that you can go and have your genitals surgically mutilated and then you can be the other gender is the height of irresponsibility.
In fact, I consider that to be criminal because it's not true.
It's an objective, blatant lie that a child can become another gender by mutilating their genitals.
It's just not true.
Every cell in your body, every strand of DNA in your body testifies to the fact that you're either male or female.
You're not non-binary.
You're not a gender or free spirit or neutrogen.
Those things don't actually exist.
So, you know, these people like to pretend like they're pro-science.
They are as anti-science as you can get.
I mean, this is basic biological facts.
And, you know, to involve children in this is so sad.
And there's a lot of former transgender people now who are trying to sound the alarm.
You know, I had my genitals removed and it only made everything worse.
You know, what we need to be doing is helping these children.
And, you know, occasionally there are children who have some problems and they need some help.
What we don't need to be doing is encouraging them to mutilate themselves in an irreversible operation.
And, you know, you now have a school in Minnesota that's being sued.
A school district in Minnesota, a boy who claimed he was a girl, asked the parents, hey, can I have a sex change surgery?
Now they call it a sex validation surgery or something like that.
And the parents said, absolutely not.
So the school district actually took this child to have his genitals surgically removed.
You know, there's a lawsuit going on about it now, but of course the boy's genitals are not going to be coming back.
Society's Slippery Slope00:05:25
That ship has sailed.
And this is where we are heading as a society.
And if responsible people don't speak out, it's only going to get worse and worse and worse.
You know, you think 27% is bad.
Wait till it's 50%.
Alex, I'm virtually speechless hearing about the school that took that boy.
I want to thank you so much for taking the time today.
You're always so generous with your time with me.
I know you've had a long day.
You're on a speaking tour.
Our interview was also all over the place, but such is the world.
Hopefully, we can have you back on the show.
I would love that.
Thank you so much for having me, Sheila.
I really appreciate you and what you guys are doing.
It's amazing.
So thank you once again, and hopefully, we'll talk soon.
Great.
Thanks, Alex.
Stay with us more up next after the break.
Well, everybody, welcome back.
Now, normally, normally, when I fill in for the boss, I don't read the hate mail in the questions, comments, hate mail last segment of his show.
But today, yeah, I'm reading a little bit of hate mail because that hate mail came from somebody relatively important and slightly high-profile.
Now, if you haven't seen Kian Bexti's bizarre encounter with MP Selena Cesar Chavanes, here's a little bit of it.
Just watch.
Are you serious, the Rebel?
You're going to come talk to me?
Why not?
I'm happy to speak with you.
I mean, the report said that there was genocide happening.
Should we prosecute world leaders who oversee genocide?
I'm going to leave you and the rebel to come up with your own dissertation about what we'd love to hear a comment from you.
I'm sure you'll take it and you'll twist it in any way possible.
I'll publish the whole thing.
You have my word.
Whatever you're saying, I'll publish the whole thing.
I'm sure.
I'm sure you will.
Should we prosecute world leaders if they oversee a genocide?
I think you should be looking in your own house before looking in other houses.
I'm not committing genocide.
Do you think I'm committing genocide?
Other stuff of perpetrating lies, doing whatever you want, inciting hate, inciting misinformation.
I don't think that helps at all either.
How did Justin Trudeau bring you back on board after he yelled at you?
What do you mean he brought me back on board?
Nobody's been on the back of the box.
You seem quite happy with him.
Are you expecting some sort of an appointment?
Nobody brought me back on board.
You just speak with a prime minister and let him touch you after he verbally assaults you.
I decide.
I decide what I do and when I decide to do it.
Do you forgive Justin Trudeau for yelling at you?
I decide what I decide to do when I decide to do it.
And do you forgive him?
I decide what I decide to do and when I decide to do it.
Why can't you tell me?
We could do this all day.
Until he gets your office.
No, you could keep going.
You could keep going.
I really have nothing good to say to the rebel.
So I'm not sure why you're entertaining this line of questioning, but just wondering if you forgive somebody who verbally assaulted you.
Anyways, have you been done?
Thanks for chatting with me.
Are you done?
Oh, the big guy's here.
You're done.
I mean, I can keep coming.
Did you just call me a pussy?
That's not very parliamentary language of you.
Do you forgive Justin Trudeau?
And so what?
Do you forgive him?
Do you use parliamentary language in your bullshit that you put out on?
I'm a man of God.
Oh.
Good grief.
Well, hopefully the same God that you serve is the one that I serve as now.
And is that Justin Trudeau, or do you forgive him?
No.
You don't forgive him.
All right, I got more people to go interview, so I'll let you go.
Cesar Chavanez didn't like that we showed her for the irrational, petty, caustic, entitled member of parliament that she very clearly is.
So she responded to Kian's video on Twitter, tweeting, when alt-right so-called news outlets use intimidation and bullying tactics like following women and backing them into a corner to get a story, I call them what they are.
Hashtag unintimidated, hashtag unapologetic.
Oh, I see.
Male reporters can't ever ask a female politician a reasonable question now.
I didn't realize that female politicians can just skirt and hide from accountability because of their gender.
And they tell me there's male privilege.
Anyway, here's what I think.
Cesar Chavanez acted irrationally and emotionally instead of just handling the questions Kian was asking of her.
Her behavior just confirms all the bad stereotypes about women.
She's certainly not doing people like me any favors, that's for darn sure.
But even more importantly, Cesar Chavanez's bad behavior was not some sort of powerful act of feminism against the patriarchy represented by scrappy Kian Bexty.
Oh no, on the contrary, Cesar Chavanes has just revealed how weak she truly is when confronted with reasonable, calm questioning.
And for that, I'm very glad the people of Whitby won't be represented by her after this October.
Conservative MP Mark Warwa Passes Away00:00:44
Now, on a much sadder note, Conservative MP Mark Warwa has just passed away after a valiant battle against cancer.
Conservative MP for Kitchener, Harold Albrecht, honored his friend by saying, deeply saddened by the loss of my dear friend, MP Mark Warwa, a real Canadian statesman and a family man who lived out faith in Jesus Christ daily in word and deed.
Grateful for his friendship and times of prayer with him over the last 13 years.
Our condolences go out to the Warwa family tonight in this very trying time.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thanks so much for tuning in as I hold the fort down for the boss.