CN Rail sued protesters over $270M in freight delays caused by eco-terrorism—track obstructions, arson, and assaults since February 8, 2020—while CBC misrepresented Indigenous opposition to pipelines despite unanimous local support. The host links RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucky’s unprofessional ties to Trudeau’s corruption scandals (e.g., SNC Lavalin) to police inaction, praising Alberta oil workers who cleared blockades as "true environmentalists." Meanwhile, Trump’s potential Flynn pardon exposes FBI entrapment tactics via the Logan Act, with leaked notes revealing efforts to "get him to lie," while listener accounts reveal exploitative conditions for temporary foreign workers. The episode argues systemic bias and labor reform are urgent to counter both media narratives and corporate abuse. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, my Rebel fans, I'm taking a break from the virus to talk about something before the virus.
It seems so long ago.
A lawsuit filed by CN Rail against eco-terrorists who were blockading their railway tracks in British Columbia.
I have the 10-page statement of claim from the BC courts, and I'll walk through it with you.
Very interesting.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber.
Go to rebelnews.com.
$8 a month.
You get the video version of the show.
And you support us.
Keep us strong.
Please do.
Okay, here's the podcast.
Tonight, the first piece of good news I've seen in a long time.
CN Rail is suing the blockaders.
It's May 1st, 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 is government will buy a public is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Remember the railway blockades that paralyzed Canada for months?
Seems like a lifetime ago before the Chinese virus crisis.
This video clip here was one of the craziest images from that time.
This is from Ontario trying to derail a train for political purposes.
That's, I'm sorry, that's dictionary definition terrorism, by the way.
It was in Ontario, though the purported justification was solidarity with Indian bands in northern BC to oppose a $6 billion natural gas pipeline there called Coastal Gaslink.
Except that when we sent our reporter Kian Becksty up to Northern BC to visit the protesters, they weren't Aboriginal.
They weren't even from BC.
They were white anarchists, eco-terrorists brought in from Ontario.
They were play acting that they were locals.
They were impersonating Indians, sort of Elizabeth Warren-type protesters when you think about it.
It was foreign-funded white eco-protesters, you know, Gerald Butts kind of people, Elizabeth Mays kind of people.
And in fact, every single one of the Indian bands along the route support the pipeline.
Aboriginal businessmen and political leaders filed affidavits with the courts saying how this pipeline is absolutely critical to their communities.
It's going to be a source of jobs and security for them.
They hate these eco-interlopers, these fakers.
The media party, especially Trudeau's odious CBC state broadcaster, they obviously sided with the white anarchists and ignored the local Aboriginal support.
The CBC pretends to like Indigenous people, but it's like the media party in the United States and blacks.
They only like black people when they follow a stereotype, namely that they support the Democrats and big government.
You've never seen anyone more vicious and more racist than a liberal journalist confronting a black conservative.
Except a CBC journalist confronting a pro-oil and gas Indian.
Anyways, the media is obviously a big problem here, but the bigger problem, frankly, was the police.
They just stood by as these blockades happened.
As you know, Trudeau handpicked the new RCMP commissioner, Brenda Lucky, and she literally does whatever Trudeau says.
She's why Trudeau never had to worry about an investigation into his corruptions in the SNC Lavalam matter.
That hug I just showed you, extremely unprofessional, which is Trudeau's way of handling women.
Every woman in his cabinet has to physically hug him.
Right during that, in the middle of the corruption scandal, Trudeau did that hug.
It's like a hug between two mafia bosses, a pact of solidarity.
Trudeau's a disgrace, but Brenda Lucky is worse because she's supposed to be a cop.
And so her police, and to be fair, pretty much every other police force in the country, just absolutely bent the knee to these criminal blockaders.
Just stood there and watched until one sunny day a group of unemployed Alberta oilmen just went to one blockade and just removed the junk from the railroad tracks, put it in the back of a dump truck, just did what the cops and the politicians and the media wouldn't do, couldn't do.
They were citizens and of course cleaning up junk is actually what environmentalism looked like.
So those lads just did it.
Of course they were smeared as racists and vigilantes by the liberal McLean's magazine.
Chase Chomey, the oil worker who was smeared, is suing McLean's now with our help, which is a bit of justice and it proves we can fight back.
And that brings me to the news.
Today CN RAIL is suing the blockade terrorists.
That's what you are if you use violence, threats of violence, to achieve political aims.
Is terrorism here?
Here's some of the more dangerous eco-terrorists in Ontario literally pushing things onto the rails, burning debris, throwing rocks at the window of the train engineer.
They want.
They wanted to stop the train, to derail it, to damage it, maybe to burn it, maybe to injure or god forbid even kill the conductor.
So CN is suing, i'm so delighted to say they're suing in British Columbia.
And here's the news story about it.
CN lawsuit alleges 270 million dollars in freight was hit by rail blockade in northern Bc, a major rail line blockaded by protesters in lawn chairs in support of anti-pipeline movement.
Yeah, a bit more than lawn chairs there, mate.
Let me read a bit.
CN RAIL has filed a lawsuit against protesters who allegedly blocked trains uh, dozens of his trains in northern Bc in february in support of the Tuoting First Nation.
Okay, so that's a sentence there.
I count I think there's 27 words there and there's only 20 words if you take a little words like the and of.
So it's a very short sentence and yet there are two falsehoods in it, or at least misdirections, protesters who allegedly blocked the trains, allegedly what?
This picture right there of them blocking the train streets right there.
Do I have to call that an alleged picture?
An alleged picture in an alleged website by Justin Trudeau's alleged state broadcast star.
The alleged queen of England today said, no, it's not alleged, it happened.
I mean, there may be a question of whether or not it was a crime, but it happened.
They blocked the trains again.
Remember what the CBC wrote just earlier this week.
They were talking about the persecution of the Falun Gong religious group in China.
It's completely documented, it's undisputed, is it's true?
It's as true as the Tiananmen Square massacre.
I mean, the only people in the world who deny it are the Chinese Communist Party, but the CBC wrote of their persecution.
They said its followers say the Chinese government persecutes them and oppresses their religious rights.
Okay, got it.
So global warming is caused by your suv, that's a fact.
Russia rigged the U.s election that's a fact.
Carbon tax changes the weather that's a fact.
Gun control stops criminals, that's a foul.
These things are facts.
But it's only an allegation.
That the Falun GONG are oppressed, its followers say the Chinese government persecutes them.
Jews say that the Nazis killed them in what some call.
The Jews say that's the CBC, an alleged train pro.
There was allegedly people.
That's true.
That was CBC state broadcaster.
Never trust them, ever.
And that That second part of the same sentence, in support of the Watsuaten First Nation, that's a lie Too.
The truth is that every single Watsuaten band along the route supports the pipeline.
They do.
They want to work on it.
They are working on it.
They're going to get jobs and wealth and security from it.
Training too, a chance to have jobs for their young people in their own community so they don't have to head down to Vancouver to make it in life.
It's foreign-funded eco-terrorists who are against it, but the CBC says that, no, The Watsuaten band is against us.
They're lying to you.
They're liars.
So let's stop reading their lies and let's look at the lawsuit itself.
And so I had our lawyers call up the lawsuit, and you can see the first thing is it was filed on February 10th.
Well, it's May already, so it's more than two months ago.
Isn't that interesting that it only makes news now, which tells you something.
The bad guys, the eco-terrorists, they don't want this news out there.
Far from companies having to be afraid of bad PR.
It's the opposite.
The green pieces of the world are afraid of bad PR, are afraid of other people maybe getting courage and suing too.
They're afraid that ordinary people were turning against the lawbreakers.
Isn't that interesting?
I bet they were nervous, and at least at CN they didn't want to sue.
Oh, we'll be eating live in the media.
Well, obviously the CBC is going to hate you, but ordinary Canadians are on your side.
These eco-terrorists are the ones who should worry.
So look at it.
As you can see in the document, the plaintiff is CN Rail.
The defendants for now are named as Joe and Jane Doe.
Those are just dummy names, placeholders, until the actual identity of the criminals can be found.
And I hope they will be found.
I'm sure they will be found.
The rest of the first page is just administrative details on a lawsuit.
This whole thing is only 10 pages long.
It's very short.
Let's go to page 2.
Statement of facts.
Paragraph 1.
CN introduces itself.
Paragraph 2.
It describes the criminals as engaged in blockading CN operations and obstructing or otherwise impeding, counseling others to obstruct and impede the movement or operation of CN's trains.
I like that.
So it's not just those who did it, but those who counseled others to do it.
The ringleaders.
I wonder if Sappora Berman or Gerald Butz are amongst them.
Paragraphs three to six just describe what CN's operations are like.
They ship important goods of every description all around North America, but there's focus on Canada and BC.
If you go to the next page, the third page, you'll see more descriptions.
Let me just read paragraph 10 just because it's interesting.
CN operates an average of 18 commodity, passenger, mixed freight and container freight trains daily over the BCN North Line.
These trains are on average 10,000 feet long with 160 cars, and each may carry freight for multiple customers.
10,000 feet long?
That's almost two miles.
Imagine that train trying to stop on a dime because some thug is trying to derail it on the track.
That's what happened there.
Stopping a train that long, it's like stopping a ship.
It doesn't happen immediately.
By the way, you'll see the underline paragraphs 12, 13, 14, etc.
That just means that those paragraphs were added in an amended version of the lawsuit.
That's to show the judge what's new in the amended lawsuit.
In particular, such as paragraph 16, you can see they were putting in the dollar amount in question.
CN moves over $100 million a day along the whole BC South line.
So, okay, next page, we're halfway through.
It's a description of the blockade.
It's a short lawsuit.
Starting on or about February 8th, 2020, protesters blockaded, obstructed, or otherwise impeded or counseled others to obstruct or impede the movement of CN's trains.
18.
The protesters purportedly in support of Watsuatan Nation.
I like that, purportedly.
That's the word I use.
Because as we've told you before, the Watsuitan First Nation supports the pipeline, probably supports CN Rail too.
So it's interesting.
This lawsuit was filed almost immediately, right?
Protests started in earnest on Feb 8.
The lawsuit was filed and amended again, Feb 10.
That's very fast.
Paragraph 20.
Between February 8th and February 9th, 2020, approximately 31 freightanes have been stopped due to the blockade.
You can see they added more details about the damages and the danger.
I posted this entire 10-page lawsuit on our website.
If you want to read it in full, it's interesting reading.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand.
It's pretty well written and clear.
Paragraph 25.
As a result of the blockade, CN has suffered and will continue to suffer significant economic damages.
Of course they will.
Of course they have.
28.
CN will provide full particulars of damages prior to trial.
Yeah, so they'll just gather all their facts.
Okay, paragraph 19, 29.
It gets into the relief sought.
That's what they're going to ask the court to do for them.
Including 29A, they're asking for a restraining order.
I won't read the whole thing.
It's pretty detailed.
I'll summarize it.
Stop trespassing on the train tracks and their right-of-way.
Stop obstructing and stop telling people to obstruct.
Look at sub-paragraph V there.
Stop people who are physically preventing, interfering, restricting, or in any way physically interfering with the removal of any objects from the line.
I guess those eco-terrorists were harassing the maintenance crews that were clearing the tracks.
Lots more details.
Ordering police to assist with enforcement.
Good luck with that.
Brenda Lucky knows who she obeys.
By the way, the police are too busy patrolling playgrounds and park benches to help.
And then paragraph C, damages.
That means money.
So that's good to see, and I hope they proceed.
But I note again that this lawsuit was filed back in February when the blockades were raging, before the virus froze the whole country.
It's pitiful that they had to file this at all.
You normally don't have to go to civil court to ask a judge to write to the police to ask them to, you know, be police.
But I like the lawsuit.
I don't know if it's up to date.
I've had our lawyers reach out to the court to check the case file, see if anything's moving on it.
But I can't help but note, again, that this was filed in February, and yet the CBC's crack reporter in northern BC says, quote, in a claim filed in BC Supreme Court this week, no, no, no, it wasn't this week, it was this year, sister.
So here's what I take away from this.
One, you can't trust Trudeau's politicized RCMP to help you when it's a left-wing criminal.
You have to go to court yourself and hope for the best.
Number two, CN Rail finally did that.
They were in such jeopardy.
They stopped being afraid of the bad press.
And guess what?
Bad press didn't really come.
Three, as usual, you can't trust the CBC.
In fact, whatever they say, the opposite is likely true.
Here, they didn't even get the date of the lawsuit right.
They were weird.
Four, and finally, I think Canadians are sick of all this bad behavior, and eco-terrorists maybe are sensing it.
Normally, you sue leftists and they squawk.
Oh, you're shutting us down, but not here.
They're being quiet because I think maybe they know the mood in the country is turning against them.
Good, good.
I'll dig more into this to see if the lawsuit is actually proceeding or if it's just stopped because the virus is shutting down the courts.
I'm glad that finally job creators in Canada like CN Rail are fighting back against foreign-funded eco-terrorists.
So while there are a few asterisks here, a few caveats, would you agree?
Flynn's Setup Revealed00:13:47
it's great to see someone anyone finally fighting back said that michael flynn would come back even bigger and better So are you going to pardon him?
And if so, are you considering to bring him back into your dominance?
Well, it looks to me like Michael Flynn would be exonerated based on everything I see.
Not the judge, but I have a different type of power.
But I don't know that anybody would have to use that power.
I think he's exonerated everything.
I've never seen anything like it.
What they did, what they wrote, you see this, General.
You wouldn't want this happening to you, what they did to General Flynn.
That is U.S. President Donald Trump yesterday talking about bringing back General Flynn, who was the target of an FBI sting operation to knock him out of Trump's office and perhaps bring down Trump himself.
New evidence has emerged that he was set up deliberately by the FBI.
Joining us now from the Los Angeles area ViceSki is our friend Joel Pollock, senior editor largebreitbart.com.
Help explain this, Joel.
Hi, great to see you.
Not all Canadians and even not all Americans know who General Flynn is.
Tell us who he is and tell us how he got thrown out of the Trump administration and why he might be coming back.
Well, first of all, General Michael Flynn is a military veteran career officer, over three decades of experience.
He actually served in the Obama administration before having something of a falling out with them.
And he joined the Trump campaign.
And for the last several months of the Trump campaign in 2016, he was the warm-up speaker.
Whenever you saw Michael Flynn come to the stage, you knew Trump was coming next.
And Trump liked being introduced by a retired general.
And then once Trump won, General Flynn became the architect of Trump's national security policy.
And he took a lot of the policies that he had supported during the Obama years, which Obama had not supported, and he used his views to shape President Trump's national security agenda.
And he was in the process of implementing all of his policies in early January 2017, just after President Trump took office, when the FBI conducted what amounts to a sting operation against him, but they were investigating something that isn't really a crime.
They set up a meeting with him at the White House without warning him that they were investigating him.
And they brought senior officials in.
They schmoozed with him.
He gave them a tour of his new offices in the West Wing and so forth.
It was a friendly visit.
They never told him, as they're required to do by their own policy, that he was a target of investigation.
And their whole purpose now, it appears, was to try to get him to lie about something or to get him to claim to them that he had not spoken to the Russian ambassador when, in fact, he had.
When he was preparing to come into office with President Trump, he had calls with world leaders.
He spoke to policymakers, all that sort of thing.
And it just so happened that there was an intercept, a wiretap on the phone calls with the Russian ambassador, a guy named Sergei Kislyak.
And Flynn spoke twice to Kisliak.
In one instance, he mentioned sanctions.
The Obama administration, attempting, in a sense, to shut the door after the horse had bolted, they tried to accuse Russia of interfering in the election, and they slapped sanctions on some Russians living in the United States.
They closed a Russian facility of some sort.
And Flynn called the Russian ambassador to say, let's not escalate this.
Let's just start freshing the new administration, more or less.
That was later described as Flynn telling them not to sweat the new sanctions, which isn't quite what he said.
But in any case, he had this conversation with the Russian ambassador.
The FBI picked it up, and it was leaked illegally to the Washington Post, which published the fact that he'd had this conversation.
That created embarrassment for Flynn because he told the vice president, apparently, that he hadn't discussed sanctions with Kislyak, and maybe he just hadn't remembered.
Maybe the word sanctions hadn't been used.
Maybe he simply said, let's not get into a tit-for-tat.
I think the phrase tit-for-tat was used.
But in any case, the FBI then tried to meet with Flynn, and they were investigating him under something called the Logan Act of 1799.
The Logan Act prevents private citizens from conducting diplomacy.
The charge would be that Flynn, before he became national security advisor, was not entitled to talk to the Russian ambassador about American foreign policy.
But a national security advisor, even one who's just coming in and hasn't taken office, is arguably entitled to conduct diplomacy because they're preparing a transition to a new administration.
And also, no one is ever prosecuted over the Logan Act.
Yes, we want to discourage private individuals from conducting diplomacy like John Kerry, retired Secretary of State, going to Iran and telling them to wait out the Trump administration.
Trump now calls that a violation of the Logan Act.
He wouldn't have said that until they went after Flynn.
But anyway, Trump now says that's a violation of the Logan Act.
And Trump's right.
That's the kind of thing the Logan Act is intended to discourage, but it's never been criminally prosecuted, or maybe once or twice, very, very rarely.
And anyway, they cooked up this idea of going after Flynn on the basis of the Logan Act.
They used that to try to entrap him in what they call a process crime where he misstates something or misremembers something.
You can be prosecuted for lying to the FBI if you simply misremember something.
So they got him to misremember or misstate something.
He, of course, didn't know he was being interviewed.
He was just talking to senior officials in law enforcement, welcoming the new administration, as far as he thought.
And in any case, they then charged him with lying to the FBI.
They forced him, in a sense, to plead guilty and strike a plea bargain because they alleged or they allegedly were going to go after Flynn's son, who apparently worked for a company Flynn ran that did lobbying, and the son hadn't properly disclosed something about contacts with Turkey, some nonsense, basically.
But they threatened to go after his son.
And so Flynn finally said, okay, I'll plead guilty.
And he resigned from the administration.
He was actually asked to resign because they said he had lied to the vice president about this discussion of sanctions.
But of course, the Trump administration didn't know what was going on.
They just knew what the media were saying.
They knew what the FBI was saying.
They knew what they'd been told internally, but very hard in this fog of war to understand exactly what had happened.
The movement behind Trump was outraged that this had happened to Flynn, and they feel he was, and still feel, they felt and feel that he was being set up.
And now the new evidence emerged this week that, in fact, he was being set up, that the FBI knew what they were doing.
They knew they hadn't warned him that they were going to be investigating him.
They also tried to close the case.
There were normal career officials at the FBI who said there's nothing to investigate here.
We can't find anything quote-unquote derogatory about him.
And then senior officials in the FBI, including Peter Strzok, but also acting on the orders of the chief executive offices in the FBI, they kept the case open.
It's clear that they were trying to use Flynn to get at bigger fish, to get at Trump, and maybe simply just to disrupt the new administration because they were talking in notes that have emerged this week, talking about trying to get him to lie or getting him fired.
Yeah.
So here's one of those handwritten notes, just incredible, where one cop says to another, what's the goal here?
Is it to get him to lie so we can prosecute him?
Is it to get him fired?
So is the goal truth or an admission or to get him to...
Imagine a cop and his goal is to trick you specifically.
I know you've got to go in a second, Joel, but tell us what it means when we now have proof that was a transcript, but the actual handwritten note was disclosed as well.
The cops actually made a note saying, let's basically trick and trap this guy to embarrass.
How is that not, how is that cop not being prosecuted?
It's one thing to exonerate Flynn, but shouldn't that cop be prosecuted?
Well, it's a little bit more complicated, no less sinister, but a little more complicated.
They weren't memorializing a decision to go after him.
The notes, as far as we know, simply document a discussion where this was raised.
Are we going after some form of truth, or are we simply going to entrap him?
Now, the FBI does use these process crimes to break open difficult cases.
Law enforcement in this country actually does not have that many tools to conduct investigations.
So you might say if they were investigating a legitimate criminal case, let's say involving the mafia or something like that, you might use a small crime like lying to the FBI to put pressure on a member of a conspiracy to plead and implicate everybody else in what you know must be happening but you can't prove.
What they wanted to do was use Flynn and specifically Robert Mueller, the guy who ran the Russia investigation.
They wanted to use Flynn to try to get him to turn against Trump.
They thought, well, we haven't come up with anything, but maybe if we turn the screws on Flynn, maybe if we prosecute him, he'll turn against Trump.
He'll provide information.
The problem was there was no information to provide.
He did actually cooperate with the Mueller investigation.
That's what we were told for months.
He was being cooperative and so forth.
There was nothing to say.
But the real problem that comes out of these notes, this new evidence that's been turned over under a rule called the Brady Rule, where the prosecutors have to provide the defense with all potentially exculpatory information, they turned over these notes.
What's really there, not just in the notes, but also the notes plus the emails.
You have to read them in concert because there's also text messages.
And what they establish is they weren't investigating Flynn for anything.
In other words, they were going to meet with him.
They had started an earlier investigation for the Logan Act, which is bogus to begin with.
It's like me investigating you for being left-handed or something.
It's just not done.
It created a pretext for an investigation.
But even after that, they found nothing incriminating.
Instead of closing the case, they decided to keep it open and then have this meeting with him.
You can indict someone for a process crime if you're actually investigating them for doing something wrong.
They went in there knowing he had done nothing wrong.
That's what's outrageous about this, that the whole investigation was based on an archaic law that's never enforced, that he hadn't violated anyway, and they had already tried to use it to find evidence of some other wrongdoing and had come up empty.
They were going to close the case.
The ordinary career investigators at the FBI would have closed the case.
But the senior brass needed this case opened to try to get at Trump.
And so they set up this meeting with Flynn.
This is what emerges out of all of these documents that have come out.
They set up Flynn with a meeting trying to get him to lie, or as the notes suggest, maybe trying to get him to tell the truth.
But they already knew the truth.
They knew he had spoken to the Russian ambassador and there was nothing to it.
So they were asking him essentially about lawful activities, trying to get him to lie about lawful activities.
If he lied about the lawful activities, they could prosecute him for lying.
And that's really the outrage here, is that they went in knowing this was an innocent man and they knew he might lie about something that was lawful, but it's illegal to lie to the FBI.
He didn't lie, or he may have lied.
We don't know.
He may have simply have misremembered.
They didn't take very good notes about what they spoke to Flynn about.
And he doesn't remember.
And remember, he didn't go in there with a pen and pad.
He didn't go in there with a lawyer.
He didn't think he was being investigated.
They didn't tell him.
That's the other part of this.
They did not give him notice he was under investigation.
They didn't give him the warning that you're talking to the FBI now and anything you say could be used against you and you have to be truthful and accurate.
They didn't say any of that.
So they set this guy up.
And it's outrageous that in a democracy with a Bill of Rights and a fervent belief in individual liberty that you could have this happen.
The corruption is not just with the guy who took the notes and the FBI agent who wrote all this down.
The corruption starts at the top.
It starts in what they call a seventh floor.
It's in the executive suite at the FBI.
Those were the people who kept this case open.
James Comey was the director.
And if you're looking for someone to investigate, it's probably James Comey.
We need to know more about this.
We need to know more about the people who helped him.
We need to know more from Peter Strzzok, et cetera.
And we may find out more because Attorney General William Barr has this prosecutor, John Dunham or Durham, on the case.
He's the Connecticut U.S. Attorney, and he's the guy who's got this grand jury investigated or impaneled.
Durham's got this grand jury to look into criminal, potential criminal violations by the FBI in the investigation of Trump and his campaign.
So we may see some criminal indictments coming, because what it looks like they did here was they violated this guy's rights and lied about it, basically.
So if there's not a criminal indictment, there should at least be some sort of career consequences, maybe disbarment for those of the FBI agents who are attorneys.
This is very serious.
It's about as bad as it gets.
It's incredible.
Well, Joel Pollock, thank you for helping us understand it.
My own emotional reaction is that Donald Trump should not only pardon General Flynn, but appoint him to be the next director of the FBI.
Joel, great to see you again.
Modern-Day Slavery Debate00:04:44
Take care.
Have a great weekend.
Thanks for taking the time with us, my friend.
Yeah, no problem.
All right, there you have it Joel Pollock Sr., editor-at-large of Breitbart.com.
General Michael Flynn, what do you think?
Let me know.
Send me an email, etc.
Rebelnews.com.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
On my monologue yesterday about temporary foreign workers being modern-day slavery, Willow writes, My daughter worked for a grape farm, an apple farm, that mostly had foreign workers.
The conditions were deplorable.
They didn't even have the right or the facility to go to the bathroom.
The labor laws don't seem to apply to these businesses.
Yeah, I tell you, I've received a couple letters from farmers who are mad that I'm implying they're like slave plantation owners.
Well, it's not the same, obviously.
You don't physically own the person.
There's no violence on them.
But I'm sorry, it's cheap labor.
And you know, I think Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents an apple knowing it was picked by a Canadian worker and you had labor standards and wage standards and we weren't importing hundreds of cases of the virus.
And it's not even about the virus anymore.
We've got 20% unemployment.
So yeah, I think that Canadians like to eat for a century or two.
We've done farming on our own.
I think we can do it again.
It's something for which you need some training and some skills, but you don't need like a seven-year medical degree to do it.
I think we can train Canadians to do these jobs.
Patrick writes, I own a landscape construction company.
The workers at the plant material suppliers are all temporary foreign workers from Jamaica.
They come here to work minimum wage and live in bunks without electricity at the back of their property.
Modern slavery is finest.
Isn't that incredible?
You know, and again, obviously those Jamaican temporary foreign workers must think it's better than not coming here and living in bunk beds without electricity.
But I tell you again, I mean, I was deeply moved by when I went to the Lincoln Memorial and I read all those things engraved on the wall.
And he really did want to stop the war.
I think he did.
He wanted to keep the union together at any cost.
In fact, I won't go into his letter where he went, described how far he would go.
But there's something powerful and biblical saying the great waste and the great death and the great cost of the Civil War was like a moral equilibrium for the cost of slavery itself.
And I don't think that temporary foreign workers and that whole program is as immoral by any stretch as slavery.
But if we're looking for a cheap shortcut to save a few pennies on your apples and your other fish or other places where temporary foreign workers work, Tim Hortons drive-through, I'm sorry, I just don't accept that moral trade-off anymore.
I just don't.
Dylan writes, I worked as an employment consultant from 2005 to 2010.
When I called HR people to place out burdens, I was consistently told, when we fill our foreign workers quota, we will let you know what positions are left.
Yeah, you know what?
I'm just not interested in telling Canadians, sorry, we're undercutting you because we found some foreigners who are so desperate for work, we'll fly them in and they'll work in bad conditions.
You know what?
If those laws, if our workplace laws are correct, let's enforce them.
If they're wrong, let's remove them.
But you literally are creating an underclass, a working caste, a deplorable, the untouchables.
That's the word I was looking for.
An untouchables class.
That's what they call it in India.
People who are beneath the law, beneath contempt.
No, I don't accept that.
I don't accept that.
And two million Canadians, yeah, I think you could find a few dozen or a few hundred to work on a farm, don't you?
Let me know if you think I'm wrong.
I got a few viewers paying premium subscribers who were mad at me because one lady, I didn't, maybe we should run her letter next week, said, you're implying I'm a slave owner.
Not really, but I'm saying having an underclass of low wage, low everything foreign workers treated lowly, I'm sorry, that's not the way.
That's not the way.
And will your costs go up by hiring Canadians?
Yes, they will.
And should Canadians get used to paying those prices an extra dime for an apple?
Yes, they should.
Let me know what you think.
That's our show for today.
Until Monday, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.