McGill professor Gregory Mickelson allegedly resigned in January 2024 after the university’s board rejected his September divestment push, despite its $1.3B endowment with 8.5% in fossil fuels—ironic given Canada’s -40°C winters and his own reliance on oil for heating and tech. Meanwhile, U.S.-China trade deal Phase One ($200B in purchases) failed to curb China’s data theft (e.g., hacking Canada’s Nortel Networks) or address Hong Kong’s democracy, while Taiwan’s Tsai Ing-wen won re-election by 18% amid Beijing’s threats. The episode ties Mickelson’s resignation to broader critiques of Trudeau’s government for enabling eco-terrorism—like "widow makers" and tire bombs—while dodging accountability, exposing a pattern of prioritizing activism over justice and law enforcement integrity. [Automatically generated summary]
It is cold out there if you're in Canada and even parts of the States.
You know I was in Houston a month ago and it was so cold they brought out the de-icing machine in Houston.
I don't know if they ever did that before.
I don't know.
I'm going to talk about the weather, but I'm going to talk about a professor in McGill who resigned because they're not divesting from fossil fuels.
I guess he's not putting the weather together with his ideology.
Anyways, I'll go through it.
And it's a little bit funny, I think, a little bit odd.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber.
That gives you the video version of this.
There's this one scene where I show you a band.
I'd like you to see that on video, and I show a few other things from his resume on video.
I know you're probably watching and listening to this in a subway or a bus or in a car so you can't watch a video.
But I would encourage you to become a premium subscriber so that you can watch it by video.
And just go to premium.rebelnews.com.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of this podcast.
All right, here it is.
Tonight, it's freezing across Canada, but a McGill professor wants everyone to stop using fossil fuels.
The weird thing is, he claims he's quit over it.
It's January 16th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Oh my God, it is cold out.
Minus 30, minus 40 in the prairies.
And if you count wind chill, there are places it is colder than minus 50, if that's even possible.
I was studying the temperature on the planet Mars.
You know, what am I going to do?
I'm just surfing around.
Of course, Mars is much farther away from the sun than our planet Earth is.
And so it's colder there.
There are different temperatures on different parts of Mars, just like on Earth.
But we are absolutely colder in Canada now than the warmer parts of Mars.
That's a fact.
And that's crazy.
They can't even handle zero degree weather in BC.
Looks pretty fun out there.
Snow Day.
Here are two videos I like.
Look at this video taken yesterday of Vancouver's police horses just frolicking a bit in the snow.
Doesn't that look nice out there?
That's lovely.
Now this next video, I have no idea where it's from.
I don't think it's from Canada, but that is pretty cool.
I thought that was a jet engine at first.
Someone told me it's like some hydraulic blower.
I don't even know what that means.
Let's just call it a super blower.
And look at that, clear the snow off those cars.
That was pretty cool.
Yeah, fossil fuels, eh?
I mean, I guess you could ride a horse, but pretty much anything that's moving these days is moving because of fossil fuels.
You wouldn't want to take a horse out in minus 40.
You don't see a lot of Teslas out there when it's minus 40.
If you've ever been outside with even a cell phone in minus 20, minus 30, you know what that cold does to the batteries.
They last minutes, not hours.
No one is driving a Tesla in minus 40 weather.
In fact, to state the obvious, no one is living in Canada at all without the benefit of fossil fuels.
Solar panels, they don't work when they're covered with snow.
Good luck to this guy.
I hope he doesn't slip.
And even if someone does clear them off, you can see it's not very bright out there in the wintertime in the northern climes.
The sun is only out for a few hours a day, especially the further you go to the north.
Wind turbines are irregular, intermittent, unreliable in the best of times, and depends on the location.
But sometimes cold weather comes with lack of wind.
So they're useless too.
It's good old coal or natural gas or nuclear or in some places hydroelectric dams.
That's what does it for electricity in your homes, natural gas for furnaces.
Some homes still take heating oil.
All of it fossil fuels, unless you're getting nuclear.
And vehicles, well, gasoline and diesel, that's it.
That's all you can really rely on.
And when it's minus 40, you need something to rely on.
Would you want an electric car-style ambulance in minus 40?
Fossil Fuels Dominance00:12:52
Or ever, really?
Or a fire truck that goes on electric batteries only?
Yeah, no, me neither.
Now, Montreal doesn't get as bitter cold as some of these other cities I mentioned.
You know, I always like to check the weather in Tuk-Tayuktuk.
I follow it on my phone, believe it or not, because it always makes me feel better about weather in Toronto or Calgary, wherever I am.
I've been up to Tuck Tayuk Tuck, and it's very pleasant in June.
But it is not June up there now.
It's only about minus one in Montreal as I'm speaking, but it looks like it's going down to minus 18 tonight, even colder tomorrow.
Minus 26 is what it feels like.
Wind chills.
So to sum up, if you haven't got the point yet, we would all be freezing in the dark were it not for fossil fuels.
But check out this weirdness, of course, in the CBC State broadcast or where else.
Tenured Miguel Proff resigns over university's refusal to divest from fossil fuels.
Let me read some more.
The sub-headline there, university says it will become carbon neutral by 2040, but protesters say that's too little, too late.
Now, I'm calling BS here.
I just find it hard to believe.
A tenured professor, the reason the CBC put that in the headline, as you may know, getting tenure, which comes from the Latin word to hold, that's what every professor dreams of.
It's a level of seniority where basically you have a guaranteed job for the rest of your life.
Until that point, as a professor, you've got to be very careful.
You've got to play politics with the other professors and deans.
You have to work very hard, publish research maybe, keep your nose clean.
But once you get tenure, you're set.
It's a kind of union seniority.
Then you can pretty much do whatever.
I don't know.
Goof off, sleep with your students, get extremely political, all of it, any of it, not worry about being fired.
You're in for life.
So the CBC said this professor had tenure.
That was their way of saying, wow, who would quit a guaranteed job for life?
Really, it's like being appointed to the Senate.
You're in there.
Actually, the Senate.
It's over at age 75.
If this professor quit a tenured job on a point of principle, he must mean it.
I think that's why they put it in the headline.
Which I've got to tell you is exactly why I just don't believe it.
I believe there has to be some parallel reason, a collateral reason why he left.
Maybe he has a better offer somewhere.
Maybe he was going to quit or retire anyways or for other reasons.
Maybe he's a red professor who actually got into deep trouble and was going to be sacked despite his tenure.
Maybe he's just tired.
I don't know.
But it makes no sense to me to give up a six-figure salary for a one-day media pop about what a saint you are.
Why not stay in that position and continue to propagandize generations of McGill students getting a big salary for, I don't know, just a few hours of work a day.
And of course, universities only teach, what, eight months a year?
It's a pretty sweet gig.
It doesn't make sense.
But the CBC lacks the curiosity to dig deeper.
I sent an email to the professor today asking him precisely these things.
Very friendly.
You can see my email here.
Does he drive a car?
Does he use plastic?
How does he heat his home?
Were you going to leave for other reasons?
I don't know.
I'll let you know if he replies.
So far, he hasn't.
But let's take it at face value.
Okay?
This saintly professor quit a great gig at McGill for the sole reason that he's really mad that they won't divest their university endowment of over a billion dollars from fossil fuel companies.
About 8.5% of their money is invested in oil and gas companies.
Now they're not divesting this year just like they didn't divest last year or the year before.
Every year he's been there.
I think he's been there for almost 20 years.
Oh, and they won't shut down their use of fossil fuels either.
And they won't shut down their parking lots and turn them into, I don't know, hippie garden plots or something, composting.
Yeah.
All of a sudden, he was moved by principle.
Let's accept that at face value.
I'll read some more.
Frustrated by McGill University's refusal to divest itself of investments in fossil fuels, Gregory Mickelson felt it would be immoral to stay on.
What it boiled down to for me was a matter of conscience, said Mickelson, who taught at McGill for 18 years.
Maybe we have a saint here, my friends.
Mickelson, who taught the philosophy of biology and environmental ethics, brought forward a motion last September requesting that McGill fully divest from fossil fuels.
Because of the subject matter I research and teach, it became clear that this kind of action is imperative, Mickelson told CBC.
That motion was approved in a majority vote, but all decisions made at Senate must then go through the school's board of governors after the board's social responsibility committee charged with determining whether divesting from fossil fuels would be a socially responsible decision reached its decision opposing divestment December 5.
Mickelson felt he had no option.
He handed in his letter of resignation seven days later.
Let's say the school divested from oil and gas stocks that they had invested in for financial reasons, and then they took that money and invested in other stocks for political reasons, which obviously means they would get a lower rate of return.
That's what political investing means.
You're choosing other values ahead of profit.
Okay, but then you would make less money on your investment or lose more on your investment.
But the thing is, it's not your money, right?
It's money that donors have donated for the benefit of the school, for the benefit of the students.
So the school, if it had less money because of lower returns, it couldn't do certain things.
It couldn't hire certain teachers.
It couldn't pay for certain expenses.
Maybe students would have to pay higher tuition.
So you'd be imposing your own political taste on other people at their cost.
I wonder what makes this a man.
I think what makes this a man bites dog story.
You know what I mean?
Dog bites man, not news.
Man bites dog story.
I think what makes it a man bites dog story is that the professor actually quit his own high-paying job, which is so rare and unusual.
That's why I'm skeptical.
I mean, you don't see David Suzuki, Al Gorts and Pora Berman not flying, not driving.
They want other people to pay the price.
It's weird that this guy's quitting.
Maybe he thinks McGill will back down.
At the University of British Columbia, they did.
Let me read this.
Earlier this month, the University of British Columbia also promised to fully divest its 1.7 billion endowment fund of fossil fuel investments, clarifying its position on the issue after students went on a 100-hour hunger strike.
I have a friend.
He's a pro-oil activist.
Maybe you know him.
He's this guy here.
He ran in a provincial election in Alberta.
I feel like I helped discover him in a way when I was doing a video on the street in Vancouver in support of ethical oil.
His name is Bernard Hancock, or as he's also known, Bernard the Roughneck.
He's spoken at a couple of our anti-carbon tax rallies for the Rebel.
Anyways, he's working in this cold.
Look at that.
He just posted this to Twitter the other day.
Look at how cold he is.
It's minus 40 where he is.
That's just from the moisture of his breath.
Oh my God, I'm cold just looking at that.
That's ice.
That's ice on his face.
That's ice.
He's outside.
He's working, drilling for oil and gas to keep the rest of us warm.
That is real life.
I like to joke so many people, especially young people, don't know how things are made or where they come from.
I barely do.
Power comes from the plug in the wall, you know.
Food comes from the grocery store.
Actually, these days, I think Zoomers might say, food, well, it comes from Uber Eats.
It comes from Skip the Dishes, an app that delivers my avocado toast to me in my condo for $25.
So I think that too many people forget that stuff is actually made probably outdoors, probably using fossil fuels, with great industrial and human effort, like Bernard was doing there.
The most opposite world possible from that of a McGill professor storming out in a huff because his school's governors won't do what he tells them to do, even though it's against the school's fiduciary duty.
Imagine the luxury where you can quit your job over that.
I bet a lot of people would like to have that kind of job.
Now, I found the professor's biographical website.
It wasn't hard.
This is who he says he is.
I went through some of it.
Impressive credentials.
He's got a PhD, of course, and no, that doesn't mean pilot higher and deeper.
He's a professor.
He's studied and worked in different cities.
He's always cared.
Look at this.
He was acting director of the recycling office of the University of Chicago in 1990.
Seriously, folks, 30 years ago, he was in charge of recycling, and he's got that on his resume.
Look at this.
McGill Association of University Teachers.
So that's the labor union for professors.
He's a union man.
I'm not sure what he does could be called labor.
I think Bernard Hancock does labor.
Being the acting director of the recycling office, not even the permanent director, I'm just the acting director.
I don't think that's quite what Karl Marx had in mind when he said, workers of the world unite.
You have nothing to lose but your chains.
Here we go.
Staff Remuneration Committee.
I know he was on the committee for salaries and whatnot.
Got to get paid.
Got to get paid, absolutely.
He was on the collegiality committee.
In fact, he chaired it and he was a member of it five years.
He was on the collegiality committee.
I don't know what that means.
I wonder if the collegiality committee is indeed collegial.
I wouldn't know.
This just jumped out at me.
Apparently he was in a band.
I think that's what that means.
Megalith, lead singer, 2008-2009.
That's pretty impressive.
Now, I couldn't find any videos of Professor Mickelson singing, but this video purports to be a band called Megalith.
I searched on YouTube.
This band is called Megalith.
I don't know, maybe there's more than one.
And I should note that this appears to be a year after our professor left the band.
But let me give you a flavor of Megalith.
Take a look.
Yeah, no thanks.
I can only wonder what the Cat Skill Poetry Workshop participant 2004 was like.
Maybe it was a little bit sweeter.
Now, maybe I'm getting old, but making fun of lifelong academics doesn't even feel challenging or amusing to me anymore because it's not weird or odd anymore.
There are thousands, there are tens of thousands of academics just like this one.
Thousands of academics who probably make this guy, Professor Mickelton, look very conservative.
I mean, after all, he has committed the sin of being a middle-aged white male, so there's that.
But if the power goes out in Montreal, God forbid, when it's minus 20 tonight, God forbid, I know that it'll be men like Bernard Hancock that gets those houses warm again and those lights burning brightly again and the cars and the buses moving again.
While an army of vegan conflict studies students for life on the recycling committee publicly rage against industry, well, they'll secretly can't wait to get the fossil fuel heat turned back on.
Phase One Deal Impact00:14:06
Stay with us for more.
For decades, American workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and innovators have been hurt by the unfair trade with China.
Politicians ran for office, promising action to remedy these practices, only to do nothing but allow them to continue.
Unlike those who came before me, I kept my promise.
In June of 2016, in the great state of Pennsylvania, I promised that I would use every lawful presidential power to protect Americans from unfair trade and unfair trade practices.
With this signing, we mark more than just an agreement.
We mark a sea change in international trade.
The agreement tears down major market barriers for U.S. food and agricultural export.
Millions of workers and farmers and innovators have waited decades for this day.
At long last, Americans have a government that puts them first.
Well, that's the official short video announcement from the White House Twitter feed.
Donald Trump declaring victory in his phase one trade deal with China.
It was tough talk with the Chinese delegate right next to him.
It looked pretty strong, especially in contrast to the other presidents who were featured in that short video.
But was it as strong as Trump has suggested, as strong as he had promised in his really three-year trade war against China?
Well, there's only one man I trust on this subject.
And I am delighted that he joins us now via Skype.
Talking about our friend Gordon Cheng, who writes for the Daily Beast, and I follow him closely on Twitter at Gordon G. Chang.
And if you want to know anything about China, you should too.
Gordon, great to see you again.
Thanks for fitting us into your schedule.
Oh, well, thank you so much, Ezra, and I'm delighted.
What a stacey to say.
I love it when you say that because we love following the story of China.
And I like the fact that Trump has been tougher on China than any president in recent history.
I want to know from you, because I know you'll give us the straight goods.
Did he compromise too much?
Are there positives and negatives in this deal?
Take us through it.
Yeah, well, there are positives and negatives.
And I think Trump could have gotten a better deal.
I think if we step back for a moment, the president is right that his predecessors just sort of let this whole problem slide.
They took actions that sometimes really helped China much more than the United States.
So this is a welcome departure.
The primary feature of this deal, Ezra, is essentially China agreeing to buy $200 billion more of U.S. goods and services over a 2017 baseline.
This is no longer free trade.
This is managed trade.
And a lot of free traders are upset at this, but we've got to remember that Xi Jinping, the Chinese ruler, is increasingly determining economic outcomes in China.
He's moving away from a system and more towards a command economy.
So I think the only way you can have really satisfactory trade relations with China is managed trade.
So I applaud the president for making that important switch.
Now, if I understand the news reports correctly, China will buy U.S. agricultural products as well as U.S. natural gas, which will be sent there through those LNG tankers, the liquefied natural gas.
Those are some pretty big exports, and that's competing in the case of LNG, actually against Russia, which signed a big deal with China a while back.
So I guess that's good news for those two industries.
Are there industries that maybe are feeling that they didn't get the deal they were hoping for?
Well, you look at this deal line by line, and there are going to be some industries that didn't do as well as they had lobbied for.
And, you know, the point here, Ezra, is that we're moving to a very different world, which is one which is not as good as the one that we're coming from.
And countries like Canada, for instance, can raise a legitimate question.
Look, if you've got managed trade with China, you know, why can't we do it?
And we've got to remember that under the World Trade Organization's non-discrimination rule, China can't offer a side deal of this sort to the United States.
It has to offer it to the other 161 WTO members, including, of course, Canada.
So this is going to be a very contentious period going forward because other countries are going to say, what about me?
Yeah.
Very interesting.
Now, the last time we spoke, you and I went through some of the new data and intellectual property regimes that Beijing has put into place.
There was a new law, I think, that came into effect on January 1st that basically gave China direct access to any data going through that country.
I know I'm oversimplifying it, but I'm a bit of a techno-peasant when it comes to the details.
I know that's been a big concern for Trump and for a lot of the high-tech industries and even Hollywood and movies and things like that.
Does this deal address Chinese intellectual property theft, industrial espionage, or just plain counterfeiting?
Well, it does address IP theft.
But your description was absolutely correct.
China has two new cybersecurity rules.
They're the Multi-Level Protection Scheme 2.0, which was implemented on December 1, and that's according to the 2016 cybersecurity law.
Also, on the first day of this year, the Chinese encryption law or cryptology law went into effect.
And those two rules, when taken together, mean that China will have complete visibility into the China networks of foreign companies.
So that means they'll be able to read all data and have access to all communications because they can no longer encrypt so that the Chinese government and the Communist Party can't read it.
That means everything, Ezra.
And once China is into the China networks of foreign companies, they'll then have access and better access to get to the non-China portions of those networks.
And, you know, Canadians know this better than anybody else because their Nortel networks was bankrupted by Chinese spying and hacking.
As they say, it was hacked to pieces.
And that was something that we Americans and everybody else should remember as well.
I think that one of the most amazing things I saw in the last year was Apple Computers opening up a manufacturing facility in the United States.
I think it was in Texas.
And Trump was so excited about this, too, that he went for a tour of it with Tim Cook, the head of Apple.
And the idea that computer manufacturing would come home to America from Asia is something that I don't think people would have thought would happen a few years ago.
But let me ask you this.
Now that Trump has relieved some of the pressure on China, will some of those high-tech companies that were looking to move either back to America or to a less hostile regime than China, will they say, oh, well, no need to leave China anymore.
We might have a token factory in America, but let's keep the heart of our work here in China.
You put your finger on something which is critical, and that is before this phase one deal was announced, a lot of companies were decreasing their vulnerability to China by moving their factories offshore.
So you had Google, Nintendo, GoPro, Fitbit, RH, which is restoration hardware.
These companies were moving factories out of China.
That whole process has slowed down recently as it's become clear that there would be some sort of trade agreement between China and the United States.
Now, phase one is only a truce, but nonetheless, China has reaped a lot of benefits from this.
And the other thing which is similar is that the Chinese economy is in really fragile shape.
It's decelerating quickly.
And this has instilled a lot of confidence in China.
So for instance, some of the December numbers for China look a lot better because producers there felt that there was going to be a trade deal.
I have one more question for you, and it goes to Trump's diplomacy.
Now, I think Twitter is very limited in China, if it's available at all, as are other Western social media.
But I think the same is true for Iran.
There's a lot of crackdowns on social media.
But nonetheless, Donald Trump, with his trademark tweets, I mean, it's his blunt style of communicating that seems to cut through all the bluster.
He issued at least three tweets in the Persian language Farsi that were speaking directly to Persians, and those were very widely circulated both amongst Iranian expats around the world, and I'm sure people in Iran saw them too.
And now that Trump has sort of kissed and made up a little bit with China, what do you think the likelihood is that he'll keep pressing for democracy in Hong Kong and speaking?
I mean, I just have this dream, Gordon, and forgive me for indulging in a fantasy for a second, that Donald Trump would tweet in the Chinese language something about freedom and democracy for Hong Kong, but of course it would echo around China itself.
I just, there was this beautiful moment when America was really focused on Hong Kong democracy, and I wonder if that moment has passed.
Yeah, we don't know.
You know, phase one is just both sides stepping back.
And remember that it's the most difficult issues that are in phase two, which are, for instance, these cybersecurity rules we just talked about, because they're not covered in phase one, and also the really tough issues of state subsidies, state industrial policies in China.
So, you know, we're going to get to a point where there's going to be a lot of trade friction.
But remember, it's not just trade problems we have with China.
We've got problems with China across the board.
So I think that, you know, we're not going to see Chinese language tweets from President Trump maybe in the next several weeks.
But that's not impossible.
And by the way, Twitter is not available in China.
Now, people have been able to jump the great firewall, as they call it, with virtual private networks.
So Donald Trump happens to be extremely popular among Chinese netizens and people in China because he is direct.
He is, he cuts through it, and their leaders don't.
But this is going to be an important thing for us to watch and for us to remind the President of the United States that he needs to speak out for people in Hong Kong and for the Chinese people.
I just have one more question I want to jam in.
Taiwan has a, I say, is one step further outside the orbit of China.
China wants to annex it.
Taiwan wants to be free.
Both have some ambiguity in how they approach the other.
But in the recent election there, if I'm not mistaken, the president campaigned on a very strong democracy platform really to push China away.
And there was even some pro-Hong Kong messaging that I understand came in the campaign.
I know that some Republicans are very strong for Taiwan, and even some, I think Joe Biden even indicated his support for Taiwan, which made me feel good that it's a bipartisan matter.
Jim, any thoughts on the lessons of the Taiwan election?
I just thought I'd ask your thoughts on that.
Yeah, Tsai Ing-wen won a resounding victory on the 11th of this month.
Her margin was more than 18% over the Guomindong, the opposition party.
And Tsai Ing-wen wasn't even going to get the nomination of her Democratic Progressive Party, were it not for the protests in Hong Kong.
Because China wants, as you say, it wants to annex Taiwan under its one country, two systems formula.
That is the formula that Beijing has used for Hong Kong.
Because it's obviously failed in Hong Kong, the people in Taiwan looked at those protests in Hong Kong and said, okay, we've got to protect ourselves.
So Thai was the beneficiary of that.
This is a really good story of what happened on the 11th.
And as we go forward, we are going to see what you talked about, and that is Taiwan carving out its own separate identity and independence.
This is going to be important for us because a free Taiwan is also an anchor for the free world.
Yeah, well, it's very, that's the one part of the world where I'm encouraged by people taking their democracy and their civil rights very seriously.
And I remain inspired by the people of Hong Kong, and I know you do too, Gordon.
I'll end it there.
I could talk with you for hours about this.
Rcmp And The Rule Of Law00:03:41
It's one of my favorite subjects.
And we've sent reporters to Hong Kong twice in the last six months, and I know we'll do so again.
I look forward to the next time we talk, Gordon.
It's great to see you again.
Thank you so much, Ezra.
All right, there you have it, Gordon G. Chang.
I encourage you to follow Gordon on Twitter.
I know they can't do that inside the great firewall of China, but we can do so.
Gordon G. Chang.
Stay with us.
More Ahead on the Rebel.
Hey, welcome back.
On my interview yesterday with our friend Kian Becky.
Chris writes, ignoring orders from a judge seems like another step towards anarchy.
Arrest them.
Well, that's what I just don't understand.
Rule of law means no one's above the law, but no one's below the law, right?
We saw just a week ago our friend David Menzies try an interview on a public street in a polite but assertive way Ron McLean, the TV commentator, hockey commentator.
So David Menzies said, he asked a question about Don Sherry, and 10 cops literally pushed David down for doing nothing wrong, for asking a journalistic question on a public sidewalk.
And then here you have 10 lawbreakers defying a court order, and the police don't touch them.
In fact, the police sort of keep journalists away from them.
That's not the rule of law.
The rule of law means David's allowed to ask questions and no one is allowed to evade a court order.
I find it greatly demoralizing.
Glenn writes, the failure of the authorities to arrest and prosecute these thugs only encourages other domestic terrorists to think they can act without consequences.
You're right.
And at first I was reluctant or hesitant to use the word eco-terrorist or environmental terrorist because I don't want to throw that word terrorist around lightly.
But when you were making things called widow makers and tire bombs, when you're cutting trees so that they could fall down on people and you're planting little, you know, it's like war on the woods, war in the woods, eco-terrorism.
I think it meets the test.
But look, those are Justin Trudeau's people.
He's not going to touch them.
Peter writes, roadside bombs like that are considered IEDs.
Your government isn't doing anything.
Well, that's the thing.
I'm worried about the RCMP.
They are a federal institution.
Justin Trudeau handpicked their commissioner and has had inappropriate conduct towards her, in my view, hugging her at public events.
Like, I think he's corrupt.
Why would he not corrupt the RCMP as much as we know he tried to corrupt the Justice Department?
The only reason we know about it in the Justice Department is there was an extremely ethical woman in charge named Jody Wilson Raybold.
I don't know if Trudeau made the mistake of appointing an extremely ethical woman to run the RCMP.
I think the opposite.
I think he learned to hire a lackey.
And so I think the RCMP, what Keen led me to believe was the RCMP officers on the ground probably want to enforce the law.
That's probably why they joined the RCMP in the first place.