Ezra Levant’s CENSORED episode reveals YouTube’s removal of a Rebel Media video criticizing Justin Trudeau for allegedly pushing a Hamas-linked Palestinian migrant plan, tied to Trump’s delayed peace deal—$100K+ migrants with no ties to Canada. Levant links this to Trudeau’s $4.5B Transmountain Pipeline overpayment and court failures, questioning rule-of-law neglect, while critics like Manny Montenegrino blame ideological opposition from figures like Gerald Butts. Foreign investors now see Canada as unreliable, pipelines stalled indefinitely, and legal oversight—including the RCMP’s refusal to prosecute the Hutterite turkey incident—further erodes trust in governance. [Automatically generated summary]
In today's podcast, I show you some unfortunate news.
We have had a video taken down by YouTube that claims it's against community guidelines.
Of course, they don't tell us what words in the YouTube video violate it, what guidelines we violate.
They don't show us the complaint or tell us who complained.
They really don't tell us anything.
And I take you through the four-minute clip that they deleted.
I take you through their rules, and I ask you the question, is this the sign of more censorship to come?
So I hope you'll pay attention to this because I fear this is the beginning of a new war on free speech in Canada, and I wonder who's behind it.
Maybe you have a view on that.
By the way, I'd like to invite you to become a premium subscriber.
It's eight bucks a month or 80 bucks a year.
You get the video version of this podcast, obviously quite relevant to today's story, for example.
You get access to Sheila Gunread's show, David Mancy's show, other premium contents, and you get the satisfaction of knowing that you help pay our bills.
Okay, here's today's show about censorship.
Tonight, YouTube starts to clamp down on the rebel.
Is this how they're going to run interference for Trudeau in the election?
It's September 6th, 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 is government will walk up just because it's my bloody right to do so.
Something strange and disturbing happened to us this week.
We were censored by YouTube in a way we never have been before.
You'll remember I did a lengthy monologue earlier in the week about a story in the Jerusalem Post that quoted a Lebanese newspaper that reported a Hamas leader saying that Canada had offered to take 100,000 Palestinian migrants from Lebanon and Syria.
It was part of Donald Trump's deal of the century peace plan, but that the details of that plan would not be revealed by Trump until after the Israeli elections.
Now, my understanding of the idea was that Lebanon wanted these Palestinians out of their country.
Obviously, Israel is not going to take them.
So the idea was that Canada would take 100,000 and a couple other European countries would take them too.
It had the ring of truth to it.
That does sound like the kind of deal-making Trump would do.
And we know that Trudeau rushed in 50,000 Syrian migrants, not from Syria, mind you.
They were already safe in Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan.
So the idea of taking 100,000 more actually sounds exactly like something Trudeau would want to do, along with his Muslim immigration minister, Ahmed Hassan.
Now, I did note that an unnamed liberal spin doctor said, nah, that's not true.
Okay, that sure sounded plausible.
And then I saw this story in the mainstream Canadian media.
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon want asylum in Canada.
It's in city news.
You can see that carefully staged protest sign written in English.
I have a right to live in a country that respects my right as a child.
He sounds perfect, doesn't he?
The moment he lands in Canada, he'll probably have some human rights complaint and then a $10.5 million payoff from Trudeau.
Let me quote a little bit from that story in Citi.
We want to immigrate.
We want to go to Canada for a better life.
There is no work or money or anything here.
I got a stroke and did open-heart surgery.
No one helped me, said Hanaya Mohammed, one of the protesters.
Oh, good.
Let's bring in someone who just had a stroke and needs open heart surgery.
Hey, fella, go straight to the front of our line of our free healthcare system.
So that actually sounds like a pretty well-organized protest.
Pretty clearly focused on talking to English language foreign media.
As I noted in my monologue, there was that vague denial from some anonymous liberal spin doctor the other day.
But then there's a report in a Lebanese newspaper quoting a Muslim leader, and then there's these protests.
Yeah, who are you going to believe?
So that was my monologue.
I think my main point was, it does sound like the kind of deal making that Trump might try to do, and it does sound like something Trudeau would go along with.
And right now we only have these competing lines of gossip, but it is a legitimate question to ask Trudeau, and one you can bet Trudeau does not want to be asked, at least until after the election.
And luckily for him, he never will be asked that question by the media party that's all on his payroll now.
So that was that.
And as I think you know, every day we put a short video clip from my monologue up on YouTube for free as a sample or a teaser, as they're called, in TV, encouraging people to become subscribers to the premium show like you are.
Now we've done this hundreds and hundreds of times.
Content Removed: Terrorism Gossip00:11:11
As you know, we've published more than 13,000 free videos on YouTube over the last five years, but this time, YouTube banned it.
They blocked it.
They took it down.
And look what they wrote.
They said, we've removed this video because it violates our community guidelines.
You'll be able to view this video for seven days from when it was removed.
This period allows you to review the content and decide whether you wish to submit an appeal.
Well, of course we're going to appeal, and of course we'll surely lose.
It's not a legal appeal like in a court.
It's pretty funny that they pretend that it is.
We don't know who the accuser is who complained.
We don't know what the actual complaint was.
We don't know what we've allegedly done wrong.
We don't know what rule we've allegedly broken.
We don't know who the judge of this appeal is.
It's really a joke.
Now, maybe you saw that the words community guidelines were a clickable link there.
And if you click it, you get sent to this page on YouTube called Policies and Safety.
And you see right there at the top, it says, when you use YouTube, you join a community of people from all over the world.
Every cool new community feature on YouTube involves a certain level of trust.
Millions of users respect that trust, and we trust you to be responsible too.
Review the guidelines below.
Following the guidelines below helps to keep YouTube fun and enjoyable for everyone.
Yeah, no, I'm actually not interested in producing editorial commentaries that are fun and enjoyable for everyone.
Sorry, that's not what we do here.
I'm interested in giving my political point of view on current events, including on controversial issues.
I criticize people in good faith, people in the public eye.
It's legitimate.
In this video, I criticized a terrorist named Yasser Arafat.
He's dead now.
I criticized a terrorist named Omar Cotter.
He's rich now.
And a politician named Justin Trudeau.
I don't really care if they found the video to be fun and enjoyable because it wasn't meant to be fun or enjoyable.
You might not like everything you see on YouTube if you think content is inappropriate.
I'm reading here from their rules.
You might not like everything you see on YouTube.
If you think content is inappropriate, use the flagging feature to submit it for review by our YouTube staff.
Okay, so what do they define as inappropriate, right?
Well, let's click on that link.
Nudity or sexual content.
Other than the fact I'm enormously attractive, obviously it's not that button.
Harmful or dangerous content.
Don't post videos that encourage others to do things that might cause them to get badly hurt, especially kids.
Videos showing such harmful or dangerous acts may get age restricted or removed depending on their severity.
Now, they didn't say which rule applies, but if I had to guess, they're trying to shoehorn us into this one.
Hateful content.
Our products are platforms for free expression, but we don't support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or gender, sexual orientation, gender identity.
or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics.
Well, we do the opposite of promoting and condoning violence.
I rail against violence.
Primary purpose of inciting hatred based on those characteristics.
Obviously, that's not our primary purpose.
It's not our purpose at all.
I think Palestinian Arabs should stay in the beautiful Arab city of Beirut.
That's actually the marina in Beirut.
These Palestinians have been in Beirut for three generations.
They're not actually refugees by any definition.
There is no civil war in Lebanon.
There hasn't been in decades.
The civil war in Syria is pretty much done too, other than a few tiny pockets of exception.
There's no promotion of violence or anything like that in our video.
It was a political discussion of a Trump proposal and Trudeau's possible willingness to go along with it and be the fall guy here.
I've just gone through the warning we've received.
I went through their community guidelines.
And again, we don't know what we're accused of doing, what word or words are allegedly wrong, who complained, who will hear the appeal as if it's a court.
But in light of all of what I just showed you, I want you to watch the entire clip that we uploaded to YouTube that was taken down almost immediately by then.
So my monologue was probably 20 minutes, and we put four minutes of that on YouTube.
Here's the four minute or so clip that they removed.
And you tell me if we violated any of the rules I just read to you.
And doing a deal in the Middle East, I can't think of anything more complicated.
Again, less Western in thinking.
Remember, Israel had already offered the Palestinians everything.
All the land, all the money, all even weapons.
Israel offered to give the Palestinians weapons.
Seriously, and Yasser Arafat just rejected it.
Because end of the day, he didn't want peace.
He wanted to get rid of the Jews.
Look at the Gaza Strip.
Israel unilaterally just left the Gaza Strip and just gave it back to the Palestinians, who just turned it into an armed base camp to shoot rockets into the rest of Israel.
So I'm skeptical of any deal, even by the grand dealmaker Trump himself.
But the main point is this.
What did Palestinians in Lebanon have to do with anything?
How is that an issue at all, let alone an issue for Israel or America or Canada?
Why would we, why should we take them in Canada?
They're not in jeopardy.
They have no ties to Canada.
They have no English skills.
They have no job skills.
They have no cultural skills to fit here.
They're Arabs living in Arabia.
Why would we have a mass transfer of Palestinians from Lebanon to Canada?
Just as some sort of bargaining chip for someone else's chess game?
Why would Canada have anything to do with this at all?
I don't even get it.
Maybe it went like this.
Maybe Lebanon insisted these Palestinians get out and go to Israel.
Israel obviously objected.
Maybe Trump, the dealmaker, said, well, give them to Canada.
They'll take anyone.
Look at that Trudeau.
They'll take anyone.
Let's have Trudeau solve our problem here.
And so it was a fake problem, but Trump knows Trudeau loves Muslim immigrants, so he had a solution to a fake problem that didn't cost America or Israel a thing.
And Trudeau is just the man to do it, along with his immigration minister, Amin Hassan, who has jacked up immigration to more than 1 million people over the next three years.
This is insane, this report.
Now, I don't know if this is true.
I believe that the Jerusalem Post actually reported what this Lebanese newspaper said.
And I believe that the Lebanese newspaper actually accurately quoted what the Palestinian leader said.
from Hamas, it sounds like.
And that Palestinian leader might have even been accurately quoting some suggestion, some brainstorm, some idea that's bouncing around in diplomatic or political circles.
Now, whether that moves from the level of gossip and brainstorming to a plan is quite a different thing.
But as you saw in the Jerusalem report, a post item, Trump is holding off on his peace plan details till after the Israeli elections, which are just two weeks from now, actually.
Now, I don't know if this is real.
I see that Anthony Fury says the Canadian government has denied it.
But I don't know if I trust that denial, to be honest.
First of all, we know that Trudeau lies to Canadians.
He's a politician, whether it's about SNC Lavalan or about some Muslim issues.
He lied and tricked us about Omar Qatar.
He set up the $10.5 million payoff to Qatar in a secret manner, deceiving the public to avoid the family of Qatar's victims suing to get the money.
So Trudeau has tricked us for his Muslim extremist friends before.
In that case, an actual terrorist.
And we're talking about Hamas here now.
And that Omar Qatar thing was just money, but 100,000 Muslim migrants that Hamas chooses to send here.
Well, who knows?
I mean, if Donald Trump is holding off on the details till after the Israeli election, maybe he might hold off until after the Canadian election too.
Because if Trump actually wants to dump a problem in Trudeau's lap, he's probably smart enough to wait until Trudeau's back in office before announcing that.
Now, I don't know if it's true or not.
I'm absolutely sure that Trudeau would approve of the idea if he could.
He has an Islamophilic election strategy.
He'll literally take anyone.
So where was the call to violence there?
Where was the cyberbullying against some kid at school?
Where was the attack against people based on race or whatever?
Well, obviously there wasn't one.
It's just politics.
And the censorship of it is political too, but by whom?
Who was the censor?
Who was the complainer?
Was it Hamas, the terrorist group that was quoted in the original Lebanese story?
Probably not.
I think they like this story.
They're the ones who first talked about it to the Lebanese newspaper.
Was the complaint from Trudeau or a liberal censor who doesn't want to look like an idiot and wants to have this story smothered before the election?
It's more likely.
So I'm censored for talking about a news story that has appeared in a Muslim newspaper and newspaper in Lebanon, a Jewish newspaper in Jerusalem.
It's appeared in a Canadian mainstream network, City News, but I can't talk about it on YouTube.
Well, look at this.
Look at this.
Look, This is from the official Muslim Brotherhood terrorist website called Ikwan Web.
Did you know that the Muslim Brotherhood actually has a website?
And this is their video page.
And if you click on any of these, you'll see they're hosted by YouTube.
So a literal terrorist group can use YouTube to promote their terrorism.
But I can't talk about a report about an official peace plan.
Oh, by the way, all these terrorist groups have various social media accounts.
Here's the official English language Twitter page for the Hamas terrorist group.
This is real.
You don't find it odd?
We're a news company.
We're talking about the news.
We're censored by someone.
We don't know who.
Well, we know it's YouTube.
Was it someone at the Liberal Party also?
Maybe it was someone in Hamas or maybe just some extremist woke activist working at YouTube itself.
We don't know.
We know from other staff who work at Google and YouTube that they have internal blacklists in the company.
One Google YouTube insider leaked that information to the media, including an official blacklist from Google for one of their products called Google Now.
Here's the list of all the blacklisted companies.
And today you can see the Rebel is on the blacklist.
Now, just last week, actually, just this week, on Tuesday, I asked an executive at Google what it meant to be on this Google Now blacklist.
Federal Court Appeal Fiasco00:15:52
They said, oh, no, no, no, no, don't worry about it.
It was just some viewer feedback.
Really?
That's an internal Google document.
You know, we haven't had censorship problems with YouTube lately.
I mean, they have throttled our traffic and they cut off our ability to sell ads by 90%.
But at least they've been letting us publish our videos.
I fear that the censorship of this very vanilla commentary by me about a peace deal, I fear it's the beginning of a new wave of censorship crackdowns.
What do you think?
Stay with us for more.
I think that the oil sands have been expanded too rapidly without a serious plan for environmental remediation in the first place.
So that's why we don't think it's up to us to decide whether there should be another route for a pipeline.
Because the real alternative is not an alternative route.
It's an alternative economy.
Just an incredible statement there.
He's not interested in route number one, route number five, route number ten.
He doesn't want a pipeline on any route.
He doesn't want a pipeline.
He doesn't want the oil sands.
You've seen me play that clip a dozen times before.
That's Gerald Butts, best friend, senior advisor, former principal secretary, and campaign rasputin to Justin Trudeau, Gerald Butts, an extremist.
There he was in his capacity as president of the World Wildlife Fund campaigning against pipelines and oil sands.
Are you surprised at all that he has continued that campaign?
Obviously the work of a true believer in Justin Trudeau's PMO.
And so comes news that the Federal Court of Appeal has approved a variety of lawsuits against the Transmountain Pipeline, a pipeline that Trudeau bought with your taxpayers' dollars off of the Kinder Morgan company that was running it.
He bought the existing Transmountain pipeline upon which the expansion might one day be built.
But my theory was also paying $4.5 billion for the existing pipeline, and everyone says that was an overpayment of about a billion dollars, was not because Trudeau wanted to own it.
He was paying $4.5 billion to shut up the owner because he knew that if he ran the pipeline, owned the pipeline, well, no one would complain to him because he would be the one.
And explaining the reasons that, putting this together, helping figure this out is our friend Manny Montenegrino, a lawyer and political advisor who now runs Think Sharp strategy out of Ottawa, our friend Manny Montenegrino.
Manny, great to see you again.
Great to be with you as always, Ezra.
Manny, I don't think I connected the dots there.
There was a federal court of appeal ruling that allowed a bunch of challenges to go through.
But the shocking news, why don't you tell our viewers what was it that Trudeau and Butts did that is so unusual, so shocking, so radical for a government and owner of a pipeline when facing lawsuits.
Ezra, I will.
I'll get to that right at the end.
What I'd like to do is give a history of what has happened with this Transmountain pipeline.
And I think it's important because we know now with absolute certainty that we cannot trust what the Prime Minister says.
The prime minister will say absolutely anything to please a certain segment of Canadians.
And we know that he has been found not to be credible by the ethics commissioner.
So what I will do is look at the facts and then come to a conclusion because you can't listen to the rhetoric.
And let's start.
In May of 2017, there was a BC election.
And everyone, of course, was paying attention.
And in that election, two parties, the Greens and the NDP, were strongly opposed and they said they were running on the premise that they will block the Trans Mountain Pipeline.
Well, if we were paying attention, we'd know, okay, that's their position.
Well, they won.
The Liberals lost and the Greens and NDP formed a coalition.
So as early as 2017 in May, we knew Trans Mountain Pipeline was going to see some trouble.
Now, the Prime Minister at that time could have said if he was seriously concerned about Trans Mountain Pipeline, he could have acted, he could have met, he could have done something.
Nothing happened for a year.
To the point that a year later, Kinder Morgan, around May, trying to deal with the issue a whole full year without the support of the federal government, found itself frustrated and gave ultimatums.
Now, a prime minister with all the powers it has under its constitution could have helped did nothing.
Kinder Morgan was at a peril and said, we are going to leave.
What does then Justin Trudeau do?
He buys it.
He takes $4.5 billion and buys a pipeline under the pretense he's going to build.
And you heard the finance minister say, we will have shovels in the ground in August of 2018.
Well, that $4.5 billion purchase didn't have a standard condition.
And any first-year lawyer would put in a condition that it gets the approval to build the pipeline from federal court.
That only happened three weeks later, Ezra.
Three weeks later, the Federal Court of Appeal strikes down the permit after spending $4.5 billion.
So that tells me, well, wait a minute.
They can't be that inept.
They're lawyers that didn't understand that this hearing, this decision was going to happen three weeks after doling out $4.5 billion.
Well, let's assume they made that mistake and they did know.
What did Justin Trudeau direct at that decision?
This is a federal court of appeal making a decision.
Did Justin Trudeau appeal to the Supreme Court?
And the Calvin Borough of lawyers at the Supreme Court, Calvary judges at the Supreme Court of Canada that understand the nation and understand would have been a greater review.
They did not appeal.
Justin Trudeau spends $4.5 billion to buy a pipeline and doesn't appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada when they have thousands of lawyers sitting at justice that would have been very happy to argue the case.
That should tell you something.
Well, and here's the thing.
When you're the government, you have a duty to defend your interests, your projects, your laws.
If you lose, you have a duty to appeal unless there's a very sharp policy reason why you choose not to.
But when you are now the owner of a pipeline, surely you have another duty, a fiduciary duty, some sort of, I mean, the government in general should appeal when it loses a case, unless it is just utterly wrong on something and has a about face, which they don't say here.
And then when you buy something and you let it wither, you let it waste, and you don't lift a finger.
That's my point about it.
The only reason they bought it, Manny, my theory is because if it was owned by the private company called Kinder Morgan, and if this had been left to die this way, Kinder Morgan would be screaming bloody murder.
They're owned by an American company.
They would probably be filing a NAFTA complaint of some sort.
So if this were a private pipeline that was so obviously mistreated that private owners would go nuts.
But Trule basically said, here's $4.5 billion.
Just shut up, take the money, and do not comment on anything we're about to do because it's going to get ugly.
So Ezra, you're absolutely right.
In August of 2018, after the federal court struck down the permit, the Prime Minister had three fundamental duties.
Number one, he had a legal obligation to appeal to the Supreme Court.
He had a constitutional obligation because we are asking, Canadians are asking, what is the rules with respect to trans provincial pipelines and jurisdiction?
Only the Supreme Court of Canada can lay out the rules and say who champions the cause.
Is it the feds?
Is it the province?
It's a tricky area of law.
So he had a constitutional responsibility to bring to the Supreme Court.
And then he had a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers because we spent $4.5 billion.
So there are three duties.
But Ezra, it goes on.
He chooses not to.
And he tells the Canadian people, although he says he's in favor of the pipeline, we will go back and do consultations.
We'll discuss.
We'll go back and listen to what the federal court gave in its decision, and we will cure the problem.
Now, that will take another year.
Now, a year, as you know, Ezra, on $4.5 billion is about $225 million worth of buried, sunken, lost interest costs.
Now, you can say, well, all right, all right, well, the Prime Minister wants to listen to the federal court without appealing to the Supreme Court.
So we spent a year, and I, in my humble estimation, nothing was done.
We don't know what has happened, but let's assume that the government acted in good faith.
Well, one year later, after we have consulted and tried, the government of Canada tried to meet the conditions that were put on by the federal court of appeal a year ago, we now go before the court to say, well, what happened?
We go before the federal court appeal, and as you said at the opening, the decision of the court was, well, we're going to let these interveners give them status.
And yes, they have a legitimate complaint, even though the government of Canada spent a year consulting and meeting their obligations.
You know what happened, Ezra?
The government didn't even send its lawyers and produce a case in rebuttal.
I mean, can you imagine the madness that we have a court case, federal court, dealing with trans-provincial pipelines where the government spent $225 million and lost interest costs, spent thousands and millions of dollars consulting and doesn't go to the court and say, here's what we did.
You know, it's just amazing.
It's almost a million dollars a day.
It's about six, seven hundred thousand dollars a day and not even showing up.
And what could the judges but think if the government wasn't even there to defend?
And a judge, any normal commonsensical person would say, oh, well, the government's fine, they're just they want to be tipped over here.
They're not even here to make the case.
You know, I want to show you, I think you alluded to it, or maybe I was remembering from your Twitter feed how this has been excused by the mainstream media, including the CBC.
Look at this incredible headline, the CBC.
Why did Ottawa fail to defend its Transmountain process in court?
And then the CBC has the answer, oh, blame politics.
Oh, gee, you know, it's just that there's no person to blame.
There's no decider.
It's not the prime minister.
It's just politics, guys.
I mean, I've never seen such a pitiful explanation or excusology, but even they know it was a shock.
Even the fact that they felt they had to have that excusology published shows they know it was a shocking derelict of duty by Harper.
Excuse me, Harper.
Sorry.
I'm kidding.
If only Harper, although this has been going on since the Harper years, Manny, this pipeline was proposed in 2012.
It filed with the NEB in 2013.
We're coming up on seven years for this pipeline, and there's no shovel in the ground.
Exactly.
So there's the, that's what infuriated me the most is when I read the CBC saying, well, you know, just blame politics.
The government spent $4.5 billion to bury a pipeline, not to do anything.
Spent $225 million, spent a year consulting, and doesn't send lawyers in.
Well, that's just politics.
I mean, Canadians were put through hell when a senator spent $90,000, now proven legally, of his own expenses, and Canadians were put through hell over a year because there was no excuse at that time.
But here we're talking in the billions, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and they just fluff it off as, well, it's just politics.
Of course, the prime minister can't defend the pipeline because he might look bad with some environmentalists.
Well, the law is a law in this country.
And you know what's offensive, Ezra, and we have seen it, is the diminution of the rule of law under this prime minister.
We know what happened with, we know what happened with the obstruction of justice and the report of the ethics commissioner.
We know what's happening with China looking at us and saying, you have no rule of law because the prime minister was found to direct by a judge, ethics judge, was found to direct an obstruction of justice and fire the Attorney General.
We see the Prime Minister.
And so the rule of law, I mean, I cannot, Ezra, I'm lost for words to sit there and see one of the biggest projects Canadians ever brought, and we don't send in lawyers after a year of negotiations to just say to the court, here's what we did.
Here's how we met your conditions a year ago.
We feel we met that burden, and please give us a pipeline and not even make those representations.
It is more than the 4.5 billion.
It is a destruction of the rule of law because we expect our government to be protecting us in the courts.
And you know, Ezra, so when I look at the totality of it, I can only come to one conclusion.
And the conclusion is there's absolutely no intent of this government to have the Transmattan pipeline going.
And I am absolutely certain, given the facts I gave you over two years, that if the Liberal government gets re-elected, this pipeline will not even see a shovel for four years.
And it will be just, you know, as everything else, just hidden away.
So, yeah, so we now have a prime minister that fails his ethical duty to appeal, fails his constitutional duty appeal, fails his financial, fiscal duty to appeal, and now fails the whole rudimentary.
Pipeline Lawyers Bought Off00:12:58
I mean, I've never been to a court where the other side doesn't appear and let counsel just have the day.
It is an affront to the rule of law.
Well, and the thing is, and maybe I've overemphasized this already, if this pipeline were still a privately funded project of Kinder Morgan, they would have raised bloody hell.
They would have had their own lawyers there.
They would have said to the federal government, you've got to.
There would have been someone watching the interests of the pipeline, but they were bought out.
They were bought off.
And by the way, I don't blame, if someone offered me a billion dollars more than anything I had was worth, I'd take the money and shut up too.
You can't blame Kinder Morgan.
But the thing is, without Kinder Morgan, with them paid off, there was no one looking out for it.
I'm sort of surprised and disappointed that there wasn't another watchdog that caught this.
But let me ask you a question because I remember when Omar Cotter was captured by the U.S.
And that happened under the Liberal watch.
That was in the last years of Kretchen and Martin.
And then Harper took over sort of halfway through Omar Cotter's tenure in Guantanamo Bay.
And I checked, Manny, because I wrote a book about this.
I checked.
And the Canadian Bar Association did not complain about Omar Cotter's detention in Guantanamo Bay until a particular date.
And that is when Stephen Harper became Prime Minister.
So when Kretchen and Martin were in office, they didn't care about Omar Cotter.
When Harper was in office, they suddenly cared.
And let me bring it to my point.
I have not heard from the Canadian Bar Association on the ethics of this government, how they sacked Jody Wilson-Raybold, how they tried to undermine the Department of Public Prosecutions, how they have neglected this.
Now, maybe I haven't seen it.
I did look for the Wilson-Raybold stuff.
I think the Canadian Bar Association, which is supposed to be a lawyer's watchdog of sorts, and I certainly haven't seen anything at any law society, I think that the legal profession itself is giving Justin Trudeau a pass on his legal ethical breaches.
Right, you wouldn't be wrong to think that.
Ezra, you raised Omar Carter, and I'm going to try in a few minutes to explain how that is consistent to what the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, did with Transmedal.
Omar Carter, very simply, was abused, not had his rights read to him, his charter rights under the Liberal government 2002, 2003.
But at that time, the Liberal government was acting promptly because there was no law saying that a Canadian on foreign soil is entitled to charter protection.
That decision was made in 2010 by the Supreme Court and retroactively to 2003 when Omar Kader was detained.
The great legal issue there, in my opinion, is are there damages arising from a decision made from the Supreme Court 2010 to retroactively apply to conduct done by a government, then the Liberal government in 2003, when they were at that time acting within the law.
And the second question is, would those damages be anywhere significant because Canada or any Canadian, not one Canadian, laid his hands on Omar Qatar and it was all done by the Americans.
And you know and I know the but for test and that is the test that the courts apply and that says if Canada understood and had that decision of 2010 by the Supreme Court, let's say 1988 that says Canadians abroad are entitled to Charter Protection and the Canadian government, the Liberal government in 2003 provided the Charter Rights, would the American government have acted any differently?
And the answer is absolutely not.
He was in Gitmo.
The Americans dealt with him and so the damages would have been zero.
And here's why I bring that to you, is because again, the Prime Minister did not allow that case to go to court and didn't allow the rule of law to determine what happens in these rare,
rare factual circumstances when a Supreme Court decision was made in 2010 retroactively to 2003 over a Canadian that Canada had no control over in Gitmo by the American government.
That would have been a triable issue.
And in my opinion, the damages would have been zero.
And that's why it did not go to court.
And there's that situation again.
And I bring it back to Transmountain.
Why didn't the Prime Minister let he says to Canadians that he was offended and hurt by this decision and upset like every other Canadian?
Well, if you were, let's go to court, let the judge decide, let there be a full hearing.
The decision was made in secret and rule of law didn't apply.
So this government under Justin Trudeau has a history of abusive rule of law with SNC Lavalan, with the firing of the Attorney General, with the Omar Qadar secret deal, with Transmountain not appealing and not sending lawyers in.
It is, you know, as much as I care about the 4.5 billion and the 225 million Ezra, I see that this government uses supports and the rule of law as, we'll say what CBC says, blame politics.
It's just politics.
It's just in the air.
It's like a, you know, who can blame?
Who knows why the wind blows?
You know, Manny, you and I have talked about ethics and law and fiduciary duties and what a lawyer's duties are.
But if you pull the camera back, if you were some global oil and gas or pipeline company, and it's one of the biggest industries in the world, and by the way, there's not a single authoritative forecaster who doesn't see the demand for fossil fuels continuing to grow for the foreseeable future, especially as people in the third world get lifted up by oil and gas and the modern economy.
Oil and gas will remain king along with coal.
It's a huge industry, Manny, and it's dominated by international players.
If you were a big oil gas pipeline company based in Texas, based in London, based in Germany, you wouldn't dive into the minutiae as you and I have just been doing for 15 minutes.
You would just say, oh, Canada, risky.
You can't trust anything.
Nothing happens.
They always find an excuse for not doing something.
Let's not put a new mega project in Canada.
Let's put it in the States under Trump.
Let's put it in Australia.
Let's put it in Poland.
But let's not put it in Canada.
You know, whatever the details are, the headline is, you should not invest in Canada.
That's what I think.
If I was a foreign investor.
Well, Ezra, you got it wrong.
It's not risky.
It's known.
I mean, you're saying risky.
Risk means that there's an element of hope and chance that a project goes through.
Ezra, the facts are clear.
We have Gerald Butts, who is the director of ideology of this government, who resigned in disgrace and is back at it.
And the media don't care whose primary purpose in government, we saw it in Ontario and in Canada, is to keep oil in the ground.
You saw that clip.
So we have, and they have maneuvered successfully to kill all pipelines and pretend to keep a pipeline by killing it with buying it and doing nothing.
There is no risk.
If I were advising, and listen, it's not a surprise.
They've already left.
I mean, they've already left Canada.
There is no risk in Canada.
It is completely verboten that oil and gas under this government, this federal liberal government, will not see the light of day.
And that is just a fact.
And people are going to move their dollars.
And they are moving their dollars.
And they're moving out of Canada.
Manny, I want to leave you with one image.
And I'll email you this whole document because I know you'll find the whole thing interesting.
Here is something dated 2008.
It's called the Tar Sands Campaign.
This is an official document by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in New York.
And you can see on the participants page, the logo page.
There's the cover of it.
But on the logos page, you can see the World Wildlife Fund.
And that is, of course, Gerald Butz's group.
So Gerald Butts' group was taking money from the Rockefeller Brothers Funds.
You can see green pieces on there too.
You can see Sephora Burma's forest ethics.
But look at the map.
The map, and this is 11 years ago, shows all the proposed pipelines.
Northern Gateway was one of them.
They had the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline.
They had a kill map.
They had a map of targets.
And here we are 11 years later, and Gerald Butts is no longer an outsider.
Look at that, Mackenzie Valley Gateway Pipeline, tanker trail.
You can see the map there.
Mission accomplished.
11 years later, Manny, they're no longer on the outside protesting.
They're on the inside.
And in fact, it wasn't just Gerald Butts.
Two other organizations there.
Marlow Reynolds, who headed up Pembina, is now Catherine McKenna's chief of staff.
And there are other organizations, the Sierra Club, their president, works for the Liberal government.
The people who wrote that attack plan carried out the plan under Gerald Butts and Justin Trudeau.
That's why there hasn't been a pipeline built.
That's why there never will be as long as Trudeau's in office.
Last word to you, Manny.
Absolutely right.
And, you know, it's not a shock to the outside investment community outside of Canada.
They know it clearly as I know it clearly.
The problem with Canadians, many of us are good and we want to believe the word of our leader.
And so we believe, you know, you know, Ezra, recall that motion that was done a few months ago where the government of Canada, and it was big news, the government of Canada, the cabinet voted in favor of the Trans Mountain pipeline.
I mean, that was just to get votes.
I mean, can you imagine?
They bought the pipeline for 4.5 billion.
Seven months later, they have a cabinet discussion on whether they should approve the pipeline.
You approved it worth our dollars.
So it is just amazing.
It is very clear to the world.
It's not clear to Canadians.
You are not understanding.
We'll go through the facts, go through what happened in two years.
There will not be a pipeline in Canada.
Period.
I hate to say it.
You're right.
And we have to hear it because we have to know that's the situation we're in.
Manny, as always, it's great to have your legal political analysis.
Thank you for being so generous with your time.
You're a fan favorite with viewers because you really help us think things through.
I appreciate that.
Thank you, Ezra.
Thank you for having me on your show.
You're always welcome, my friend.
Have a great weekend.
Take care.
All right, there's Manny Montenegrino.
He's the CEO of Think Sharp, and he joined us today via Skype from Ottawa.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about the McKinnon Report.
Sheldon writes, anywhere the NDP have been, they leave a path of financial disaster, and someone else always has to clean up their mess.
That's true.
It was absolutely true in Ontario.
It's absolutely true in Alberta.
It's going to be true in BC when the NDP are done.
Interestingly enough, Janice McKinnon and Roy Romano's NDP government in Saskatchewan, they actually ended with a small surplus.
RCMP's Misstep00:03:44
Jamie writes, it's not cuts that are needed, it's chops.
Entire ministries and a horde of government agencies could disappear overnight and no one would miss them.
That's a great point.
I mean, if you shut down half the departments in Edmonton, or for that matter, in any province or the federal government, would anyone even notice?
On my interview with Sheila Gunn Reed, Tim writes, I'll bet my bottom dollar those terrorists set those turkeys free five miles down the road.
You'll find five defenseless turkeys completely unprepared for the wild are now on their own if they're still alive.
That is abandonment.
They should be arrested and charged for that.
If I was there, I'd be on the lookout for a few stray turkeys.
You know, I went through the criminal code this morning, and there's all sorts of specific sections about animal cruelty.
There's all, it's not just someone who abuses an animal directly.
There's all sorts of animal protection laws in our criminal code.
I'm not even talking about other laws like the Endangered Species Act or whatever, not that turkeys are endangered, but there's a lot of laws protecting animals that aren't in the criminal code.
There is no way that this home invasion, because remember, how to write on the farm, it's their home.
There's no way that this home invasion didn't check at least five boxes.
Let's just go through them again.
Trespass, obviously.
Extortion.
When you say, I'm only going to leave if you do A, B, and C, that's extortion.
Mischief, that's meddling with someone's property or other ways.
Animal cruelty.
And I don't know what else they did if they did other damage, if they did, I think, theft.
Obviously, these turkeys are valuable.
And if they actually did give it to a sanctuary, maybe they had stolen property.
I don't know.
But there are many, many criminal offenses that immediately come to mind.
And there's probably other offenses too, from traffic offenses.
I don't know.
There's about 20 ways you could throw the books at these people.
But as I quoted that one RCMP officer, well, we talked it down and we all had a happy end.
No, no, no.
It's not your job.
Your job is to uphold the law.
Betty writes, this turkey story is a hard one.
If the Hutterites won't defend themselves because that's the way they want it, who else can help them?
Well, you know, the logo, the motto, excuse me, for the RCMP is Mentienne le troi.
It's French.
I think it's almost the same in Latin.
It means uphold the law.
Uphold the law.
That's the RCMP's motto.
So that's your answer.
Yes, sometimes it's sort of sick to watch someone, like it would be like encountering someone in the street, having their face slapped and slapped and slapped.
And you're saying, defend yourself, man.
Don't let them hit you.
And the guy on the ground said, no, no.
So what the Bible says, turn the other cheek.
So he hit me on my right cheek.
I got him turned the left cheek.
I'm doing.
All right.
If you want to live that way, obviously I'm not going to be able to persuade you otherwise.
Like you're literally enduring your face being slapped.
You're not going to find it hard to resist me arguing with you.
But as I explained to Sheila, there are certain offenses against a person and other offenses against the queen herself.
That's why all criminal prosecutions are styled as the queen versus so-and-so.
R.V. So-and-so.
In America, it's the people versus so-and-so.
Because the people have an interest in upholding the law.
You can't consent to every sort of crime, right?
That's what I'm talking about.
And shame on the RCMP for letting go.
And shame on Doug Schweitzer, the left-wing justice minister in Alberta, who shouldn't even be in cabinet.
All right, I'm mad about that Hutterite thing.
We're not done on that story yet, by the way.
I've been talking to Sheila every day about it since we did that story, and I think we're going to go further on this.
People Versus Crime00:00:32
Well, that's our show for today.
May I invite you to watch some of our YouTube videos in addition to this show, including Key and Bexty went to the grand opening of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Toronto.
The only other place in Calgary, in Canada, where I know they had Chick-fil-A before was at the Calgary airport for a while.
So it was a magnet for protesters.
Kean went there, and I should tell you, he brought us some chicken sandwiches here to the office when he was done.
So check that video out elsewhere on our page.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, you at home.