Calgary academic David Barrett, a University of Calgary lab coordinator, lost a defamation case after falsely labeling Rebel News reporter Sheila Gunn Reed a "Neo-Nazi" in 2019, apologizing publicly for 30 days and paying $1,200 in damages plus legal fees. Justin Trudeau’s new cabinet—packed with five additions despite losing 27 seats—sidelines strong women like Freeland and McKenna while assigning token roles like "Middle Class Prosperity" to men, exposing a sexist pattern. Key portfolios remain male-dominated, and critics question Trudeau’s commitment to gender parity amid past controversies like blackface. Rebel News vows to sue further, highlighting Canada’s failure to protect journalists from defamation and violence while leftist figures face legal consequences for targeting them. [Automatically generated summary]
We had a legal victory on Friday against someone who was calling us a Nazi.
I'm a big free speech guy, but when you call someone a Nazi, it's a very factual statement.
It's a defamation.
And it can have real consequences.
You get deplatformed, you get punched in the face.
Well, we finally pushed back against some lefty, and the results were spectacular.
I can't even believe it.
Anyway, I'll give you the details in a moment.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber to Rebel News.
Just go to premium.rebelnews.com.
It's $8 a month.
And you get the video version of this show, plus two other shows.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, a Calgary academic apologizes and pays cash for falsely calling our reporter a Nazi.
Is this a way to fight back against the left?
It's November 25th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
Fighting Back Against the Left?00:15:42
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
But why I publish them?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
I'm not sure if you saw this.
Three million people did see it, but if you're not on Twitter, you probably didn't.
On Friday, an academic at the University of Calgary published this apology on Twitter, where it will remain for 30 days.
It says, I apologize to Ms. Sheila Gunn Reed for my tweet on June 12, 2019, using the term neo-Nazi.
I retract the allegation without reservation and regret any harm they may have caused to Ms. Gunn Reed or her family.
I had no basis for making the allegation against her in particular and acknowledged that it is false in regards to her.
And he also agreed to pay Sheila $1,200.
And of course, he has to bear his own legal fees.
The guy's name is David Barrett, and he's a minor bureaucrat at the University of Calgary.
Apparently, he's the Aquatic Ecology Lab Coordinator.
So I'm guessing, you know, government worker, environmentalist.
I'm guessing he's just a garden variety leftist who was triggered by something Sheila said one day.
And instead of ignoring her or responding to her, I mean, if you're an expert in ecology, surely you could muster some scientific facts or arguments, right?
But for some reason, and I'm assuming that reason is just laziness, and the fact that so many other leftists do the same thing, this guy thought the right thing to do was to call Sheila a neo-Nazi.
That's not true.
And it's deeply defamatory.
She's not a neo-Nazi.
These are what neo-Nazis look like.
She's not a neo-Nazi.
She's not a Nazi of any variety.
I'm starting to wonder if anyone under 40 even knows what an actual Nazi still is.
Sheila does not believe in the superiority of the Aryan race.
Sheila does not believe in the extermination of Jews, in the creation of a fascist European superstate, a Reich.
Sheila does not idolize Adolf Hitler.
I think that's a working definition of a neo-Nazi, I think.
In fact, Sheila's pretty much the opposite of all those things.
Sheila has helped lead two trips to Israel, both of which included visits to the National Holocaust Memorial and Museum there called Yad Veshem.
And when she was in Poland a couple years ago, covering the UN Global Warming Conference in that country, she decided to make the trip to a concentration camp at Auschwitz and make a very touching video from there, including where she described how awful it is for leftists to use Holocaust or Nazi imagery to merely insult political rivals.
Take a listen.
The concentration camps are a testament to the real, tangible evil that humanity is capable of.
And the word Nazi should only be used to describe Nazis, that very real evil.
So yeah, don't call Sheila a Nazi or a neo-Nazi or anything like that.
It has a very specific meaning.
It's not a generic insult like calling someone an idiot or even the anti-female slur calling someone a bitch.
Those are mean words, but they're obviously just generic insults and they're not really defamatory.
They're more just insults.
They don't contain a very specific factual meaning.
If you are a Nazi, that means something very specific.
And it's not a matter of opinion if you're a Nazi.
It's either true or false.
And these days, it means something especially terrible again.
And it also has immediate real-world consequences.
People are fired for that accusation.
Obviously, I know it's a lie, so I wouldn't fire Sheila.
She's not going to be deplatformed by me for that lie, but she could be deplatformed in other ways on social media.
For example, she could be banned from renting facilities either at the rebel or even in her own life.
She could be physically attacked since the left has this motto, punch a Nazi.
But of course, they don't really know what a Nazi is other than someone they really don't like, someone they want to punch.
So it's universal on the left.
You can do violence against someone if you simply call them the word Nazi first.
We will hunt monsters.
And when we are lost amidst the hypocrisy and the casual violence of certain individuals and institutions, we will, as per Chief Jim Hopper, punch some people in the face when they seek to destroy opposition franchise and the marginalized.
Yeah, that's a mob right there.
And we're not going to let that defamation take root against our people.
We already have some leftist thugs who hit our reporters, including Sheila, this guy here, Deion Bewes.
We're just not going to let it happen again.
So we sued David Barrett.
Well, first, actually, we sent him what's called a libel notice, which is sort of a warning, a serious warning.
And we served it on him with a processor, a warning.
And he ignored it.
He did nothing.
I think he either thought we weren't serious, or maybe he just froze and didn't know what to do.
Or maybe he thought if he just hid under the bed, it would all go away.
He didn't correct anything.
And my theory here is that it's because he made the defamatory comment, as a lot of people do online, with a feeling of at least partial anonymity, like he was part of a larger mob.
There's that mob psychology that can take over.
I remember a few years back, remember when there was a riot in Vancouver after the Stanley Cup, if I recall?
And it was crowded on the streets.
And people blended in with each other and they lost their individual identity.
And like a herd of gazelles or something, they just followed everyone else.
And they rioted.
You see this?
They smashed and they looted shops.
And I remember one case, I did a show about this on Sun News.
One girl went into a smashed clothing store and looted it.
And I remember afterwards when she was identified and arrested, she said she didn't even want what she took.
It wasn't even her size.
It wasn't to her taste.
But everyone was just in this mania and she lost her mind for that moment.
And so she just stole like everyone else.
I think she was telling the truth.
I don't think, by the way, that that's an excuse.
Not at all.
It's animalistic, isn't it?
It suggests that we are not in control of ourselves.
We're like gazelles in a herd or birds in a flock.
We're just following.
That is a dehumanizing defense to say, I lost control.
No, you didn't.
The answer is not to give in.
The answer is to defy the mob, to think for yourself, to apply your own morality, even if the world around you is going mad.
But I can see how it could happen.
You think that for a moment you are anonymous, you are hidden, you are part of a larger ant colony, just one ant amongst thousands, and what you do isn't your own will, and it doesn't matter anyway, since that shirt's going to be stolen by someone else in about 30 seconds if you don't take it.
I think that mob mindset takes root on Twitter.
And we were pulling this David Barrett out of his anonymity, pulling him out of the herd and saying, we know your name, we know who you are, we know where you live and where you work, and we are holding you personally accountable.
And now we invite you to come to court and explain to a judge why you think Sheila Gunn Reed, the philosophite, is a Nazi and why you said that to thousands of people.
And I think he sort of panicked at first.
He hoped it would just go away if he hid under the bed, but we didn't go away.
So he didn't even do what we asked him to do freely.
So we only sued him after he ignored the libel notice.
Then he started to pay attention.
And by that point, we insisted on a settlement, the apology, the correction, symbolic $1,200 payment to Sheila.
Sheila wrote a short tweet about this news.
You can see it here.
Dave called me a neo-Nazi on Twitter.
That tweet cost Dave $1,200 in damages to me, plus his pinned apology tweet, plus his own legal fees.
He wanted our agreement to be confidential.
It is not.
Don't be a Dave.
That's a good point.
Barrett wanted to keep it a secret that he had to pay Sheila, but we insisted that it be public because we want to deter other people from doing the same thing.
I mean, in the grand scale of things, $1,200 isn't a huge amount of money.
He probably spent more than that on his own lawyer.
But the whole point is deterrence.
I'm pretty sure David Barrett will personally not smear Sheila again anytime soon.
Or if he takes a run at her, he'll be factually accurate.
But it's an important lesson to everyone else in the world.
Feel free to take a run at Rebel News.
Feel free to take a run at any people.
There's lots to criticize.
We love a debate, actually.
But don't call us Nazis, or it'll cost you $1,200 for a tweet.
When you look at it that way, it's a lot of money.
Anyway, Sheila sent me the traffic analytics of her tweet.
And you see that number in the middle there?
This is as of yesterday, so it's actually higher now.
As of yesterday, more than 3 million people had read that one tweet alone.
It's that part there that says impressions, the times people saw this tweet on Twitter.
Just her one tweet.
Now, she wrote several tweets about this.
So did I. David Barrett's own apology was probably seen half a million times.
I believe that the case of Sheila Gunn Reed versus David Barrett has been seen by at least 5 million people, maybe as many as 10 million people.
I mean, we know 3 million saw that one tweet alone.
I'm astonished by these numbers.
I mean, Sheila's 3 million was just 48 hours worth.
It's incredible.
For comparison, I don't know if you remember, I once had a tweet retweeted by Donald Trump himself, the president, and that wasn't even seen 2 million times.
So what's going on here?
I mean, it's pretty common for a lefty to call a conservative a Nazi.
I'm sorry to say it's their go-to insult.
It's a joke, but it's sad.
There's even means about it.
Everyone I don't like is Hitler.
It's sad because, first of all, it diminishes what Hitler and the Nazis really worry.
It takes away from the gravity of actual Nazis to call anyone you don't like a Nazi.
And of course it tarnishes Sheila, who is actually a supporter of Jews, who loves Jews.
So why did five, 10 million people watch this?
And it's so funny because Barrett could have simply apologized and corrected when we first wrote to him and it would have been no big deal.
He would have saved his money and the humiliation of being a national embarrassment.
Well, it's because leftists calling conservatives Nazis, that's not rare.
That's common.
But a conservative fighting back, well, that is rare indeed.
That's what's amazing here.
That's what's news here.
Someone who isn't just going to take it anymore.
It's part of our larger stop deplatforming strategy.
I told you about our lawsuit the other day to sue the leftists who bullied the theater owner in Alberta to cancel two book signings we had to rip up our contract.
I think it's the same thing.
The professor, this professor here, Nancy Lavelle at U of Alberta, like David Barrett at U of Calgary, should have known better.
I mean, if she disagrees with us, she should be able to use her words.
She's a professor.
She's obviously smart.
So why not debate us or ignore us or have a counter event?
But to demand a theater cancel a book signing, I bet she hadn't even read my book.
Why was she against it?
I'm not going to call her a Nazi, but that actually is one of the things Nazis did.
They burned books they disagreed with.
That's a Nazi move.
I'm 100% sure that Nancy Lavelle was like David Barrett, thought she was anonymous or sort of anonymous, was just following the herd, wasn't really thinking.
I'm sure she probably thinks this is fake or somehow not serious.
I'll let you know, but I can assure you, inducing breach of contract is a real thing, and we're suing her for it and everyone else who did the same.
And we're suing for defamation too.
I think they used the word Nazi as well.
Let me give you a preliminary report on how that lawsuit is going.
Those two book signings last month were canceled, you might remember.
But just last week, we had two great town hall meetings in Alberta.
This is the one from Edmonton, and we had another one in Calgary.
And so same cities as the book signings, right?
This was about Western alienation, not my book.
But we advertised this event in the exact same way we advertise the book signings.
A website, emails, videos, Twitter.
I literally did not see a single person trying to get these latest two events canceled.
Not one tweet even.
And I didn't hear a single word from either hotel in Calgary or Edmonton that they had been pressured to cancel us.
It just didn't happen.
Now, maybe there's some other explanation for why no one tried to deplatform us, but I think it's cause and effect.
I think it's because of our lawsuit.
I mean, the deplatformers were successful just last month.
They won, right?
They had us banned.
They had us run out of town.
Why wouldn't they be enthused, encouraged, emboldened from that victory?
Why wouldn't they try and do it to us again, especially so soon thereafter?
Like I say, it is a very good experiment because so many of the variables are the same.
Same cities, same advertising, same type of event, just barely one month later.
But this time it was quiet as crickets.
I believe that our stop deplatforming lawsuit has scared them off from doing it again.
I truly believe that is what stopped the deplatforming already.
And we haven't even got in court yet.
This is good.
Let the leftists ignore us or better yet, debate us, or hold contrary events of their own, but stop inducing people to breach contracts with us.
And I believe that Sheila's settlement against David Barrett will do the same.
Do you want to criticize us?
Great.
I like that.
That's called a debate.
I can give you 10 legitimate criticisms against us, our ideas, our company, the rebel, against me personally.
Heck, I might even invite you on the show if you can express criticism of me and our ideas articulately enough.
Come on the show.
Let's have an Argy Bargie.
Let's get back to that where we used to debate each other, not cancel events and call each other Nazis.
And by the way, it's not even a two-way street.
I've never in my life ever heard of conservatives de-platforming a leftist.
Have you?
Never even once.
Not once in my life have I heard of a conservative physically attacking a liberal, especially a liberal reporter, in the manner that each one of these videos here shows our reporters being attacked in some way.
I think every single one of our reporters that we've had is being attacked in some way by the left.
I've never seen it the other way around.
This guy here, by the way, it's still continuing.
This is the manager of the Radisson Toronto East, attacked both David Menzies and our cameraman, Efren.
So we're suing them for assault.
We offered them a very easy settlement, including just if they said sorry, but they refused to.
I'd Rather Stand Up00:02:03
I'd rather settle, but they won't.
I think a judge has to tell them they can't hit people, so we're going to court.
And I think we have to do this.
I think we have to do this.
We have other lawsuits afoot as well, not because we want to sue.
In fact, sort of the opposite.
I'd rather spend all these hundreds of thousands of dollars when you add it up.
I'd rather spend it on more reporters, actually.
But I think we have to do this.
We have to stop these people from demonizing us as Nazis.
We have to stop them from physically attacking our reporters and cameramen.
We had to go to court when Justin Trudeau's hand-picked elections commission banned us from the elections to me.
I think we just have to, because no one else is going to stand up for us.
So we're going to keep doing it.
I think I've come to terms with that after nearly five years.
We've had no help from the people who should be helping, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists or the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression or for Penn Canada or for Amnesty International or any of these groups, Reporters Without Borders.
None of them.
Okay, fine.
Okay, fine.
So we'll do it ourselves.
That's fine.
Rebel News does journalism.
You bet we do.
And we also fight to protect journalism, whether you're calling us Nazis, deplatforming us, or punching us.
Fair enough.
We'll fight.
I think it's one of the reasons people like us.
Because we put our money where our mouth is.
We fight back.
We don't bend the knee.
And we're sick of turning the other cheek.
And the fact that five or 10 million people read Sheila's news tells me there's an awful, awful lot of Canadians and Americans and Brits and Australians too who want our team to finally take the gloves off and not just turn the other cheek every time.
Stay with us for more.
Crisis Management Crisis00:14:00
Well, did you know that from the election to when Justin Trudeau rolled out his new cabinet was about a month.
And Trudeau went about a month without taking a single question from the media.
Now, that's not shocking, but what is rather telling is that the media itself was fine with this and didn't mention Trudeau's being absent without leave as the country lurches from problem to problem.
But let's take a moment and look at some of the changes in Trudeau's new cabinet.
He lost a few stalwarts.
Joining us now via Skype from Ottawa to talk about some important changes is our friend Manny Montenegrino, the boss of Think Sharp.
Manny, great to see you again.
Yeah, great to be with you, Ezra.
Thank you.
Now, you have zeroed in on some of the more important changes, especially for our viewers in the West.
Why don't you start off with the new Natural Resources Minister, Seamus O'Regan?
Sure, thank you.
I found it very peculiar that we certainly do know that there is a problem with the West.
There is a separation movement in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and we hear the media, we hear the Prime Minister Trudeau saying, I have to address this.
And so you look to see what is the evidence that he really means what he says.
Well, he appointed Seamus O'Regan to Natural Resource Minister.
Now, this job, this ministry, his job is to see that the natural resources that are abundant in Canada, and they are of all sorts, oil, gas, mining, trees, coal, et cetera, et cetera.
And this element of our GDP is about 20%.
So it's a big deal.
Natural Resource Minister is a big deal.
And his job is to get that natural resources to market.
And Seamus O'Regan is appointed as the minister.
And Seamus O'Regan has done advertising and has said that he wants no resources moved from the land, no resources.
And well, just go with the clip, Ezra, and you'll see.
Sure, here's a video.
Because climate change, the greatest challenge of our time, will decide the fate of polar bears, walrus, whales, and all living things, including us.
We will help change the way we use and produce energy.
This will be the most important chapter of WWF's history.
Together, let's shape a healthier world for our children and our grandchildren.
Come with us for a living planet.
Manny, it's not just that he was saying climate change is the number one issue, it's that he was doing so for a registered anti-oil sands lobbyist group that's registered with the lobbyist commissioner in Ottawa to attack the oil sands.
He's not even just musing.
He is campaigning there.
Yeah, exactly.
So, Ezra, everybody is asking.
The media has asked.
The premiers from the West have asked, we want to see a sign that you really care about healing the divide in Canada.
And this is not the sign.
In fact, this is a greater declaration of war than we've already had.
So that is very disturbing, especially if you are in the resource industry.
And that includes more than oil and gas.
It includes all other types of resources.
This is a declaration of war.
There are enough people at cabinet that are going to fight against the resources of Canada.
You don't need to have the resource minister fighting against himself.
Yeah.
You know, Seamus O'Regan is a very weak cabinet minister who has been given jobs.
And frankly, he was a veterans minister.
He failed there.
He was the Aboriginal Affairs Minister.
He was famous for this one unbelievable Twitter picture.
It was quite something.
He was in a private plane flying high above the land.
And it was a picture of him looking very pensive.
And it was like he was writing poetry.
I will never stop.
This is my, it was so tone deaf that this white, great white savior flying above Aboriginal people, he was our hero.
It was so tone deaf.
This guy lurches from crisis to crisis.
He bungles everything he touches.
I put it to you that if he were not part of Justin Trudeau's wedding party, he was one of, he wasn't the best man, I don't think, but he was, you can see in this picture here, he's one of the group of drunks that went out to party at his bachelor party.
If you look at this picture, half the people in it are either Gerald Butts, his principal secretary, top advisor, or cabinet ministers.
It's as if if you didn't know Justin Trudeau in his blackface college days, you're not part of Canada's leadership team.
It's so nepotistic, it's gross.
Yeah, well, there are two points.
I mean, first of all, you're absolutely right.
It is nepotism.
You forgot this one fact that Seamus O'Regan did attend what is now known as the illegal island that the prime minister and his family vacationed twice with the Aga Khan.
So he was there as well.
So there is a very weak.
You know, you would expect a very strong minister because it's going to be hard at that table where climate change seems to be held by many, many ministers.
You needed a strong minister to fight minister resources to fight for the resources in Canada.
And what we've got is the weakest minister and a person who has advocated against any form of exploration, any form of resource development.
So in my view, the hand is already in.
There's nothing more to see.
You've appointed a minister and the minister is extremely weak.
And so on that basis, on the unity of Canada, on what we see, which is very alarming out West, and I'm just surprised that the media has not said, hey, wait a minute, this is not a strong resource minister.
This is not a guy that's going to be fighting at the table for Alberta, for Saskatchewan, for the West, for forestry, for mining, for Yukon mining, for Ontario Northern mining.
This isn't the strong minister that's going to fight for them.
Yeah.
Let's talk about another cabinet minister, Christia Freeland, who, for some reason, I don't get it.
She's such a media darling.
When I think of Trudeau, I think obviously he's really antagonized the West, and I'm a Westerner at heart, so that bothers me.
But I think one of the legacies of Trudeau's first term has got to be his disastrous foreign affairs.
Whether it's China, we're coming up on the one-year anniversary of the hostage taking of the two Michaels.
India, the disastrous costume party tour, Saudi Arabia, you know, just country after country we bungled.
I don't understand why she's considered a hero.
She was out-negotiated by Donald Trump.
Tell us what you think of her being put in charge of intergovernmental affairs, but also being allowed to keep the NAFTA file, which you'd think you'd get her off that.
Trump team hates her.
Why are they keeping her on that?
Well, I'm less focused on the NAFTA.
I think she has pretty well nothing to do with the NAFTA file.
It's been handled by all the experts around her, and it's her legacy that she believes it makes her strong.
I'm going to focus again, as I did with Seamus O'Regan, on the West.
This is point number two, Ezra.
I mean, how serious is the prime minister in seeking to have bridge the divide that's building in Canada?
And that is the appointment of Krista Freeland.
Well, again, I go back to the history.
She is not, she's a very divisive person.
She has, in her role as a foreign minister, has created great division.
And let's go through it.
You talked about the NAFTA.
I mean, she literally insulted the president of the United States while in NAFTA by going to a tyrant seminar and likening the president to a tyrant, to the point that I'm told by my people in Washington that she wasn't even allowed on the premises in the White House.
And they're so upset about her.
So here she did.
And that was gratuitous.
There is no need to be insulting the president when you're doing the biggest trade deal Canada's ever had.
But she did.
That's a divisive mentality.
But that's not where I stop.
You look at the gratuitous email that she made against Saudi Arabia.
And that was for no purpose at all.
A Saudi citizen was administered Saudi justice, and she sat and gave a gratuitous email.
And everyone, even the diplomatic community, have said, what was that all about?
But it was gratuitous.
It was divisive.
And that cost $5 billion to Canadians.
And we don't even have an ambassador.
We still don't have an ambassador in Saudi Arabia.
So that was, there is no purpose to do that.
I mean, there are many, many nations that don't have the rule of law of Canada.
We see what's happening in Hong Kong, and there's silence.
But that was gratuitous against Saudi Arabia.
That's country number two.
We know that there's issues with Russia, and you've mentioned with China.
Our foreign minister, Christopher Freeland, was not even allowed to speak to the highest orders in China with the two Michaels.
Now, if you look at those three incidents in her duties as foreign minister, the only conclusion you can come from that is she's a very divisive person by nature.
It's her way or the highway, and this has caused great trouble.
How you think you could put her in the role when you have open source out west to heal them from a person that has not shown any capability of healing great divides is beyond me.
This just leads me to conclude, Ezra, that the prime minister really doesn't care about solving the problems out west because Christa Freeland is the last person I would put.
There are many, I mean, capable people that are in the liberal cabinet that would have done a better job.
She is probably the last person because of her track record.
So there's strike number two.
Yeah.
You know, Christia Freeland was a journalist and a pop author.
She sort of wrote a book about the lifestyles of the rich and famous.
She was given a job at Thompson Reuters to start their new high-tech digital project, spent tens of millions of dollars, basically fired everybody who knew what they were doing because she was so sure she did.
In the end, it was such a mess up that they shut down the whole project and fired everybody.
That was what she did right before she came back up to Canada.
And I mean, of course, she's wasting our money, but the idea that she knows better, don't listen to the diplomatic hands, don't listen to people who've done it before.
I think that style that wrecked her multi-million dollar project at Thompson Reuters, we see that in foreign affairs.
I just want to play one quick clip for you, Manny.
It's her certainty that she's right, combined with her naivete.
Here's a clip I've shown our people 10 times because it's so funny.
The Chinese gave Trudeau a nickname, Little Potato, and she was so pleased with this.
She thought it was such a compliment.
She bragged about it on TV.
Take a look at this.
We're quite proud the Prime Minister has been given a fond nickname in China.
He is called Tudo, which I believe means potato.
And he's, I can't say the Chinese word, it's Xian Tudo, little potato, because his father, Pierre Elliot Pudo, was senior potato.
So we feel we are off to a great start.
Well, Manny, she's no longer in charge of the China file.
And they put in someone who is very sophisticated in Chinese relations, who would never say anything so dumb.
But my worry is that he is absolutely in the pocket of Beijing.
His name is Francois-Philippe Champagne.
He worked with Jean-Cre-Chen before.
He worked for Chinese investors before.
And here's some interesting stories that were dug up.
He has done work with Chinese propaganda media before.
He's done interviews with government-run Chinese networks praising China as modern and responsible and secure and sophisticated.
So he's not going to be a bumbler like Christy Freeland, but he's absolutely in the tank for Beijing.
That's the third person that I was going to speak about, how I find it odd that you put that person in the role of foreign affairs minister when you have this, what I'll call inherent conflict with China.
So, you know, Ezra, when I look at the totality of all the appointments, I mean, you know, let's start from the beginning.
Cabinet Changes and Gender Parity00:06:01
They increased the cabinet by five.
And they lost 27 seats.
And they shrunk their caucus, but they increased the cabinet.
And I went into it.
Why would he do that?
And it's a very simple answer.
And because obviously ministries cost money.
It's going to cost a lot more money to run these ministries.
And I looked into the particular type of ministries that he's created, these new ones.
And I'll just name two.
One is just absolutely laughable, and that is a minister of middle class prosperity.
You know, this is Mona Force from near where I live, Vanier, Ottawa.
And she's now the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity.
Now, for four years, all Justin Trudeau has been talking about is middle class, middle class, middle class.
The middle class has now diminished in its net worth and it's losing ground.
So the answer is create a portfolio for that, although I've been focusing on that for four years.
It just seems absurd.
The other ministry that I just shook my head at, and I think I tweeted on it, and that is Joyce Murray, was appointed to Minister of Digital Government.
Now, I don't know what that means.
I don't know why we need a ministry for that.
We have a lot of capable bureaucrats can handle that.
But that's a ministry that's created.
And I guess a 73-year-old woman that is going to run a digital government, I would expect it to see one of the 30-something young women that are in cabinet there to run that department because the new digital society kind of escapes people my age.
And certainly I know a bit.
I don't know many people that know as many as 30-year-olds and 40-year-olds, these bright young female MPs that were elected, certainly could have been part of that decision.
But the reason why these were created, Ezra, it comes down to the box that the prime minister put himself in 2015, and that is a parody government.
So he needs to have a parity, but he's shifted away.
Yeah, you mean gender parity, right?
Yes, of course.
That's a great observation, because look at the heavy portfolios.
Finance, a guy.
Foreign affairs, a guy.
Natural resources, a guy.
Immigration, a guy.
All the heavy, substantive stuff is by males, but you're right.
He has to have, so he sets up these fake portfolios.
He has another one, the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion, Bardis Chagger.
I saw she was interviewed yesterday and was asked, do you have a staff for this?
Do you have a bureaucracy?
What does it mean?
And she didn't know yet.
It was nothing but tokenism to get that fake gender equality.
Right.
And it comes down to the point.
And let's look at it overall.
And I don't know why the media doesn't look at this and say, hey, wait a minute, what's happened in the last four years?
We started with four very known, strong women in the Liberal government.
I mean, they were out there focused and everybody knew of them.
Krista Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, dropped down to Intergovernmental, which I don't even know who was the last intergovernmentalist.
I mean, he was true to himself, if I'm not mistaken.
Well, see, I don't know, and I follow politics very quickly.
That's how low that is on the totem of ministers.
So she's been demoted.
Catherine McKenna, we had an election on climate change.
She's been demoted.
She's been demoted.
I mean, this is a climate change election.
That is the issue that people went to the poll for.
And the minister that ran that ministry is now infrastructure, which is the pouring of cement and creating CO2.
So she's been demoted.
Jodi Wilson-Raybelt, we know she's not there.
Jane Philippot, we know she's not there.
So if you look back a few years, these four women that were basically the face of the gender parity cabinet are all gone.
And they've all been substituted by very strong men.
And I guess they sat there and said, oh, well, this is terrible.
80% of the strong portfolio are all men.
We're not at gender parity.
Let's create three or four new cabinets.
And we'll just assign some ladies to them and everybody will be happy.
Nobody will be asking a question.
Well, to me, that is the epitome.
That is the definition of sexism.
That is, you know, if I said to you that I had a company and my goal is to have gender parity and I'm in the media telling everybody that, but my board of directors, my vice president, my president, and every senior manager is a man.
However, I employ a lot of women as secretaries and so on and so forth, lesser capacities.
I mean, that isn't what gender parity is about.
I mean, equality is putting people, women in the strongest positions as possible.
And this prime minister in one election has completely gone furthest away from it and to an insulting point by giving females titles, ministry titles like the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity.
What does that even mean?
She doesn't even know what that means.
So I don't know why the media hasn't said, hey, wait a minute.
I mean, this is fake true to, I mean, we've seen so many fake aspects of his feminism, and we don't want to get through it.
His whole concept of inclusion and gender and everything that he's talked about, and he's worn blackface.
So this is just a continuation of the insults to Canadians with respect to what he talks about as gender parity.
And it's just so obvious.
Yeah, wow.
That's a very good point.
Wexit And Pipeline Blame00:04:10
That's a very good analysis, Manny.
As always, it's such a pleasure to catch up with you.
We appreciate your smarts.
And I look forward to keeping in touch with you as Parliament when it resumes.
And how, let me ask you one question.
This is what I've been wondering about.
I was just in Alberta talking about Wexit.
And I asked people, do you think that Trudeau will actually build the Transmountain Pipeline expansion?
He brags about buying the old pipeline that was 70 years old.
No one cares about that.
That was happily pumping away.
Do you think, Manny, that he will push through the pipeline over objections, whether they're environmentalist objections, court objections, aboriginal objections, NDP objections?
Do you actually think he will build the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, or do you think that's just another fake?
It's not going to happen.
Ezra, I'm going to stick to my prediction of, I had a friend in 2017.
Absolutely, he's going to build it.
Absolutely not.
I mean, it's now been three years.
And, you know, and there is no evidence.
I mean, you look at just, I always look for, you know, I'm the lost sailboat now in the Atlantic Ocean, looking for some animal to bring the, you know, a dove to bring some form of sign of land to see that there's going to be some type of change in this government.
But when I look at C. Miss O'Reagan and I look at Christina Freeland's appointment, I look at these are not going to be helping the West.
These to me are signs that we're moving more and more adrift from land.
And we are not going to see that pipeline built in my opinion.
I cannot see it happening.
And you know what?
And here's what's happened with this minority government.
And I'm so, so concerned about it.
If Gerald Butts and the prime minister have lost their spine with respect to the attack on oil and attack on pipelines, they'll find their spine in the minority government with the bloc or with NDP, and they can sit there and say, well, you know, it wasn't us, it was them.
And they'll get what they want, but they'll get to blame, as Justin Trudeau has done with everything.
He'll blame what I'll call the diminution of Canada on someone else.
Ezra, we, 10 years ago, and I tweeted this in 2012, but I said we've never been so strong as a nation.
Quebec bloc was down.
The Western separation was down at its lowest core, and we're now back at the highest.
And this is not accidental.
And unfortunately, I think on the Wexit thing, it will grow.
I can't see any light.
I don't see, I haven't seen one demonstrative act.
I mean, to sit there and ask to have, you know, not ask strong Western leaders for guidance for him, and he's not gone to him.
There are a lot of good people out west that can give the prime minister some frank discussion.
And he goes to his typical, what I'll call the liberal side of the equation out west, which is already heard in Ottawa, but he hasn't done it.
He hasn't done it.
So I don't think it will be built.
I just, I don't see how it can be built.
Yeah.
Very interesting and very depressing.
Manny Montana Green.
Great to see you again, my friend.
No problem, Ezra.
All right, there you have it.
Manny is the CEO of Think Sharp.
He joined us today from Ottawa.
Stay with us.
more ahead of them.
Hey, welcome back.
I'm a monologue Friday about global warming activist Steve Lee visiting schools.
Kids At Home Day00:01:37
Lisa writes, parents need to keep their kids at home on the day he visits.
Yeah, well, Lisa, will parents even know if he's visiting?
Or will they just hear, oh, we're having an assembly or, you know, a guest speaker?
Will they even hear about it?
And if they do, will they even hear the truth?
He's a little propagandist.
Daryl writes, just teach our kids the basics, reading, writing, and arithmetic.
Stop indoctrinating our kids.
Yeah, Daryl, sounds like you haven't been in a school lately.
Oh my God, they don't even teach spelling.
They don't.
They don't even teach spelling anymore.
And don't even get me started on that, please.
Kayrick writes, the problem here is not Steve Lee, but the government's to give him carte blanche to enter schools and spread the propaganda.
Remember a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
Well, you are so right.
And they know it.
I mean, his project's called the 3% because he wants to hit a million school children, which he says is 3% of Canada's population.
And he writes, and they're in school today.
They're young, impressionable kids hearing from a kid that authorities, like their teachers like.
There's no other side to that story.
Even, frankly, if only one in 100 of the people he talks to have a switch flipped on and become environmental activists, that's 10,000 he's replicating.
I mean, yeah, we got to push back.
And I think that should start in Alberta.
I think in Alberta, there shouldn't, this propaganda should not be allowed into government schools.
That's my view.
All right, folks, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of Rebel World Headquarters, good night.