China’s Global Times mocks Justin Trudeau as a "giant baby" for his $800M WHO donation while critics slam his $252M farm aid—prioritizing Chinese-made masks. His ethics violations, like the Aga Khan island holiday, reveal avoidance of accountability, preferring press optics over governance. Trudeau’s 2015 "absolutely not" on Christian/Yazidi refugee preference clashes with later critiques of Harper’s policies. Pre-politics, he earned $10K–$30K per motivational speech, blending performative leadership with questionable ethics. Meanwhile, FightTheFines.com exposes 13+ cases of overzealous ticketing officers, like Sheila Gunnreid’s "creepy" separation from her child. His legacy? Symbolic gestures over substance, leaving Canadians vulnerable to both foreign influence and domestic chaos. [Automatically generated summary]
I follow a lot of communist Chinese propaganda accounts online and you might think, why are you doing that?
Well, partly because I'm curious what they think our soft spots are.
You can sort of reverse engineer their propaganda to figure out what they're actually concerned about.
And it's also interesting who they praise.
Today I talk about an essay in Global Times, their English language foreign policy propaganda mag, that calls Justin Trudeau, you're going to laugh, a giant baby.
What does that mean?
Well, I'll take you through the essay.
I read it and I've got some thoughts on it.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get access to the video version of the podcast, plus a few other shows, and it helps us stay strong, you know?
I mean, that's how we make our money around here.
We don't get any money from the government.
So please consider going to RebelNews.com and subscribing.
Okay, here's the podcast.
Tonight, for all of Justin Trudeau's simping, China still calls Canada a giant baby.
It's May 6th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is the government will watch publishers is because it's my bloody right to do so.
China's View on Taiwan00:15:40
The funny thing about China's Communist Party is that, like, say, a wild animal, it can sense fear.
As in, if you bend the knee, if you appease it, if you pay the Danegeld, as Rudyard Kipling wrote about another international bully centuries ago, the Vikings, well, they'll just take and take and take.
The classic proof of that is nicknames, the most personal expression of admiration or contempt.
I mean, compare how the Chinese treat Donald Trump, the most vocally anti-China president in history, surely.
They give him the red carpet, Honor Guard, the works.
And I never get tired of this article in nothing less than the New York Times of all places.
They call him Donald the Strong.
That's what they call him in China.
Compare that to our widow guy.
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 Tudo, was senior potato.
So we feel we are off to a great start.
Hey, here's a question.
We all know that China is really, really mad at Trump now.
Trump just cut off funding to China's World Health Organization.
Trump is pressing countries to bring back their companies, to bring back their factories from China to America.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is repeatedly blaming the Chinese government for releasing the virus from a lab.
Pompeo says it's an accident, but he clearly blames the Wuhan Virology Institute, not bat soup.
And yet, here's my question.
Could you even imagine for one second China taking two U.S. citizens hostage like they took two Canadian citizens hostage 17 months ago?
What?
Trudeau sending 16 tons of mass to China in February didn't change their mind and release the kidnapped hostages?
Are you kidding?
That just confirmed for the Chinese who Trudeau was.
Someone who would give his bullies his lunch money voluntarily and say thank you to them with a smile.
It just doesn't stop.
I see that the Liberals have nixed a proposed farm aid proposal of $2.6 billion.
Trudeau will give them $252 million, less than one-tenth of what was required.
And a lot of that has to go to things like buying Chinese-made face masks for the farm.
Got it.
So $252 million for all of Canada's farm sector.
All right, maybe, if it even happens.
But same week, more than $800 million gifted by Trudeau for China's World Health Organization, announced by China's man himself, Dr. Tedros.
My God.
So what does China's Communist Party think of all this?
Well, let's go to their premier English language foreign affairs publication, Global Times.
It's where the Communist Party of China publishes their state-of-the-art propaganda for foreign diplomatic consumption.
I have to tell you, I find it mildly unsettling that their editor, Hu Xi Jin, personally follows me on Twitter, only one of a couple hundred people he follows in the world.
In a way, I'm glad I want him to get an earful of our point of view.
It's ironic.
China's Canadian prince, Justin Trudeau, blocks and censors rebel news whenever he can, but Trudeau's Chinese bosses make a special point of listening to what we're saying.
Following us sounds a bit more ominous.
I just want to tell you that for the record, I'm in good health other than being fat, and I have never contemplated suicide in my life.
Just want to let you know, because the Chinese are following me.
So what does China's foreign policy establishment think of Trudeau?
Well, Patty Haidu, you'll recall they tweeted high praise for her for her passionate defense of Chinese propaganda.
Even China has admitted they fudged their numbers of deaths in Wuhan, like they've revised their numbers, but Peking Patty is still defending their lives.
It's so embarrassing.
Even CTV couldn't stomach it.
February 17th, you said that the suspension of flights to and from China and closing the borders, and I'll quote you, was not effective at all in controlling the spread of the disease.
You also said in the long term, they create a greater risk to public health.
You also praised China as being very open.
I'm just, were you wrong about that, Minister?
And I think it's important to know that because we've still got a long road ahead.
Well, I think, you know, the praise that I offered China in the early days was based on their historic containment efforts.
Don't forget there were, you know, multiple, millions and millions of Chinese people under essentially confinement, if you will, for a very long time.
In fact, in some of those cities, people are just getting back to normal.
And that was a public health measure that had never been seen before.
Those containment efforts ultimately failed.
And, you know, I will point to the fact that I understand by the remarks that I made.
But the thing about bullies stealing your lunch money is that you have to do it every day or they punch you again.
That's that Dane Geld thing.
So take a look at this.
Canada should end travesty of WHO bashing campaign.
This is in Global Times.
Editor's note, Canada recently joined a chorus initiated by the U.S. questioning the WHO's role in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Canadian House of Commons Health Committee on Thursday decided to issue a formal summons to Bruce Aylward, one of the WHO's Canadian senior advisors, to testify on the group's contested response to COVID-19.
The move comes after U.S. Senator Todd Young sent a letter to WHO Director General Tedros Adenom Gebrezos to express deep skepticism about the WHO's guidance and COVID-19 and concern of China's influence in the organization.
What do the summons issued by Canadian MPs mean?
Two experts shared their insights with the Global Times.
So just to remind you what they're talking about here, Bruce Aylward is this man, the disgraced Canadian doctor, who put his political loyalty to communist China above his loyalty to public health.
Remember this weirdness?
would the WHO consider Taiwan's membership?
Would the...
I can't hear it.
I couldn't hear your question.
Okay, yeah, let me repeat the question.
No, let's move to another one then.
Right.
Because I'm actually curious on talking about Taiwan as well, on Taiwan's case.
We decided to give Dr. Howard another call to follow up.
And I just want to see if you can comment a bit on how Taiwan has done so far in terms of containing the virus.
Well, we've already talked about China.
And, you know, when you look across all the different areas of China, they've actually all done quite a good job.
So with that, I'd like to thank you very much for inviting us to participate.
And good luck as you go forward with the battle in Hong Kong.
Oh, my God.
What a little sellout.
He'd rather disparage Taiwan or even deny its existence, not even say the word Taiwan, than talk about the most successful country that fought the virus and upset his communist masters.
Taiwan is the role model.
It's so pitiful that he hung up like that.
So Canada's parliament wants to hear from this guy, and he has repeatedly refused to attend an invitation, so they have summoned him.
That's how parliaments in free countries work.
But let me read a bit from Chinese Communist mouthpiece.
It's just gorgeous.
And I bet it really hurt Justin Trudeau's feelings.
This is from, let me quote, Shen Yi, director of Fudan University's Research Center for Cyberspace Governance.
I don't know what that means, but like I say, this is an official Communist Party org in this website.
So this expresses Beijing's view.
Canada is again becoming an accomplice in the U.S. buckpassing campaign and scapegoating either WHO or China for its flawed handling of the epidemic to cover up its systematic loopholes.
By exerting pressure on high-level medical expert Bruce Aylward, some Canadian politicians fawned on the U.S. by expressing their dissatisfaction with the WHO and expressed doubts about China's dealing with the epidemic in the earlier stages.
Yeah, I think it was in a unanimous vote by that parliamentary committee to summon that little weasel, Aylward.
So Trudeau's liberals, the China simps, they actually all agreed.
The socialist NDP agreed.
The even more socialist bloc and the conservatives, hardly a pro-Trump outfit, to be frank.
Pretty sure it wasn't pro-U.S. fawning.
It was the disgust of every party at the misconduct of Bruce Aylward.
But let's continue reading.
Like the U.S., Canada acts like a country with a self-centered giant baby mentality who refuses to accept the fact which it is unwilling to believe.
The coronavirus had struck a blow to their once-vaunted superior capabilities in responding to public health crises.
The death rate from the coronavirus in Canada, higher than that of China, crushed their illusions and sense of superiority.
Now, here I'm of two minds, folks.
It's true, Trudeau is a giant baby.
He hasn't gone into work in nearly two months.
And while Canadian hospitals have managed just fine to handle the virus, thank God no hospital has been overrun.
There's a very high recovery rate, etc., it's true that Trudeau's federal response has been a laugh.
Especially Teresa Tam, Trudeau's bungling public health officer, who has got literally everything wrong from her advice not to wear masks, her advice not to close the borders, calling everyone who's worried about the pandemic a racist.
She was wrong on everything, but frankly, she was just parroting the Chinese Communist Party's own talking points since she works for the WHO directly.
So I think there's some truth in this criticism.
My main observation is it's funny that Trudeau gives China literally everything.
He rushes to give the bully their lunch money.
He sent them 16 tons of face masks, and still they mock him as a giant baby.
That's even worse than nickname than little potato, the giant baby.
Canada's deep skepticism reflects its extreme ideological anxiety and frustration, they continue.
I don't think so.
I think it just projects, you know, with the Chinese thesis here just pretends that Justin Trudeau is a thinker.
I don't think he, I think he's just at home smoking a bong and playing video games all day.
The essay here goes on with a weird rant that has that clunky dictatorship vocabulary.
It was clearly written to win approval in Beijing, not to change any minds in the West.
But it's accidentally revealing here.
They are pointing a finger at a renowned epidemiologist who led a group of WHO experts to China for a joint mission on COVID-19 in February because Aylward revealed some facts those politicians long balked at.
Aylward praised China's coronavirus prevention work, saying potential patients were well organized and tested quickly at a press conference in Beijing in February.
But some in Canada continue to hold on to their prejudice against China, ignoring some of the key elements of China's success in fighting the epidemic, which Aylward summarized and applauded.
Canada should invite Aylward back to the country for more experience sharing and consultations, but not for being blamed for its own mismanagement.
So the Chinese communists love this Aylward guy.
He's their man.
I mean, take it from them.
He praises China.
He obeys China.
Canada should hang on his every word.
That's pretty much what they're saying.
If I had COVID-19, I want to be treated in China.
Oh my God.
Do you think that's true?
Would you really want to be sick if you had anywhere in the world to be sick?
Would you choose China?
If you could be sick anywhere.
Do you think Aylward actually believes that himself?
It's a weird look into the mind of the Communist Party reading this essay.
That's why I read the Global Times.
That's why I follow Chinese outlets.
A small part of me is glad they read me in return, but it's also something that Bruce Aylward should read.
And Trudeau and Patty Haidu and Teresa bracelets tam.
If there are people who are non-compliant, there are definitely laws and public health powers that can quarantine people in mandatory settings.
It's potential.
You could track people, put bracelets on their arms, have police and other setups to ensure quarantine is undertaken.
Yeah, I think all of Canada's public health elite and political elites should read this article in the Global Times because if China's Communist Party is praising you, you're being a Canadian wrong.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, I remember it wasn't that long ago when Tony Clements, the former Conservative cabinet minister, mused that Justin Trudeau had a scheme to seize guns without passing it through Parliament.
Oh, he was mocked and ridiculed.
And then it happened.
Justin Trudeau taking advantage of two crises, one of them a national international pandemic, the other the personal tragedy of the largest mass shooting in Canadian history.
Piggybacking on top of both of those crises, Justin Trudeau made his move to ban what he called 1,500 different types of firearms.
Our next guest thinks that that was not only useless, it's chaotic and illogical.
That's the title of his column in the Edmonton Sun.
Trudeau's ban on so-called assault rifle is not all useless, it's chaotic and illogical.
And joining us here to make the case in person is our friend Lauren Cunter.
Lauren, great to see you again.
Good to see you.
I'm not an expert in firearms.
I know other rebel reporters like Sheila and Kian are stronger on the subject.
They've got a petition, by the way, handsoffourguns.ca.
But I'm not as well versed in it.
I just read your article, and you obviously have a very strong command of the situation.
Why don't I just sort of get out of the way and let you teach our readers, our viewers, tell me why is it chaotic and illogical?
My interest really is only on the political and legal side.
I have never owned a gun.
I have never fired a gun.
And I don't expect I ever will.
They interest me, though, because I have said over and over and over again for 25 years covering this file: I refuse to trust any government that does not trust my law-abiding neighbors to own guns.
This is a two-way street.
It's not just a privilege to own a gun.
It's a symbol of how much in control people are rather than government.
But beyond that, this new order in council, the power to do this, and you talked about Tony Clement's warning that Trudeau was going to do this by fiat rather than by act of parliament.
The power to do that, though, goes back to C-68 back in the 90s.
That's when the government, the cabinet, granted itself the power to outlaw models of guns by order in council.
Banned Firearms Symbolism00:11:41
And they've done it a few times over the intervening years.
But this is by far the biggest single outlawing of guns.
There are really only about a dozen models of guns that have been banned, but there are variations, you know, the look of them, the stock size, the barrel, whatever variations there are.
It comes to about 1,500 different models and variations that were outlawed just with the signing of an order in council last Friday.
But it's useless.
I mean, let's start with that.
It's useless because this ban would not have stopped the cold polytechnique in the 80s.
It would not have stopped the Quebec mosque shooting a couple of years ago.
It would not have shot, stopped Gabriel Wartman from shooting 22 people, killing 22 people in Nova Scotia last month.
It's just from that standpoint, Trudeau comes out and he says, well, we're so traumatized as a nation by these mass killings that we have to do something.
And then something he says he's doing wouldn't have stopped any of those.
Because what you need to stop mass shootings, and unfortunately, I'm not sure you can actually stop them.
What you would need would be tighter control against people with mental illness having access to firearms.
But nonetheless, so it's useless.
But then when you start to look at the details of this, it's crazy.
It really is crazy.
So as of last Friday, if you own one of the banned firearms, and there are about 250,000 of them in Canada.
250,000 individual guns in these 1,500 categories.
Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, 250,000 individual guns owned legally in Canada out of a total of about 7 million estimated legal guns.
So 250,000, as of last Friday, you cannot shoot them.
You cannot sell them except to the government.
You cannot transport them, not even to a registered gun ring.
You cannot, of course, trade them.
with any other gun owner.
They are now completely useless to you.
They might as well be table-legged for all the worth they are to you.
But you can keep them for the rest of your life.
That was one of the ridiculous things that this ordering council said.
So you can't do anything with them.
You should leave them locked in your gun safe because if you have them, you already have to have them in a government-approved gun safe.
You can leave them in your gun safe until you die.
If you're 22 years old and you've got some of these banned firearms, it could be 70 years you could have them, but you can't use them.
But we were told again and again and again and again and again by the liberals that these guns are so dangerous that we cannot have them in our society.
And yet in the same order where they banned them, they let existing owners keep them for their lifetime.
So as I said, you know, if you're young, it could be 70 years.
In many cases, it'll be 30 or 40 years that people get to keep these guns.
And law-abiding gun owners won't shoot them.
Absolutely, they won't shoot them.
They won't sell them.
They won't transport them.
So they're going to say after a while, you know, what is the point?
I might as well get my money out of them because some of these guns are worth considerable amount of money.
$2,000, $3,000, $5,000 more dollars.
And they'll say, well, I might as well get my money out of them.
So let me sell them to the government, which then intends, once it buys them, to destroy them.
Well, the government isn't ready to buy guns.
It can't be ready for at least two years for its buyback program.
So part of the Order in Council is an amnesty for all existing owners of these two dangerous guns, an amnesty for two years at least, until a government can get its act together to start.
This is purely symbolic bollocks is what this is.
There's no use to it.
It hasn't made Canada one iota safer.
Even if they had seized all of the guns on Saturday, they still wouldn't have made the country any safer.
But nonetheless, the guns are in the possession of the people we were told it's too dangerous to give them to.
And the government has no way of buying them from you, which is the only thing you can do if you want to get rid of them.
So it is complete progressive symbolism.
It's just one of these make nice things that the Trudeau government does over and over and over again.
For instance, banning plastic straw is not going to save a single turtle because Canadian straws don't get in the ocean to choke turtles.
But those are one of the things that we're going to do.
They just, they're so big on woke symbolism to show how passionate they are, how concerned they are, how intelligent they are, that they do these useless things over and over again.
But this is probably the worst of all the things that they promised to do.
Yeah, I mean, to me, a perfect symbol of that was in the depths of the pandemic panic, Justin Trudeau celebrating Earth Hour when we're all basically under house arrest.
He just had to let you know as if he turned off the power in his little, his little 22-room mansion.
I do note that not only do we have the quirks that you just mentioned, the buyback's not ready, there's an amnesty for those two years, those guns will still be around for decades.
I read that Aboriginal people, First Nations, are just exempt altogether.
So these evil assault weapons, like I saw Ahmed Hassan, the cabinet minister, tweeted a picture, a terrifying looking picture of an AR-15.
There's no room for this gun in Canada.
He said, well, if it's that deadly, that dangerous, why is there a specific exemption for First Nations?
Are they not worthy of our protection?
Are they not entitled to Justin Trudeau's loving care?
I mean, it's, but I think you're right that this is absolutely targeted at low-information CBC and Toronto Star journalists who will then publish it to their low-information viewers.
I mean, the amount of, I mean, if you ask your average Toronto star or CBC journalist, can you please define an assault weapon?
They wouldn't know.
They wouldn't know what it means.
Can you tell me the difference?
But they have so much blind faith in government to make those kind of definitions for them.
But the ironic thing is that in most of these bands, either this current one or ones that they have done since 1998 under the same legal authority, there are often civilian variations of these firearms that have the same muzzle velocity, the same firing speed, you know, that you can put the same number of cartridges in them.
They are virtually the same gun, but they don't look like a military weapon.
And so they have the same killing power as the military variant, but people use them to hunt, just as they used the military variant.
It's not as though people are going around having fun war games using live ammunition with these assault weapons.
It's just they like the look of it better than the other model.
And so Canadians are using, Canadians are using them legitimately, legally, safely, smartly, all those things.
But the government can't let that set.
It can't let it sit.
One of the things that, one of the guns that's listed in this is a 100-year-old elephant gun.
So how many times has a convenience store in Canada been held up with 100-year-old guns?
Oh, it's funny.
Well, you know, it's, I think Ron Ambrose was making the point the other day, this is a liberal, Canada Liberal Party reaction to a U.S. NRA issue.
Like AR-15s, the civilian version of the former U.S. military standard issue M16 gun.
I mean, those guns are in Canada, but I don't think one is ever being used in a mass shooting or anything.
Like, it's just not a Canadian thing.
So for them to, I think of the 1,500 guns that were banned, a great number of them were AR-15s or variations of them.
It's pure symbolism.
But you make the good point.
If a gun has a wooden stalk instead of a black stalk, if it looks like an old-timey grandpa gun instead of a Rambo gun, it could be the identical working part underneath.
It's really just the paint.
And is it scary?
This is the level of our public policy these days.
I mean, in the early 1960s, the first really well-publicized mass shooting in the United States was a guy who climbed up to the top of the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin and picked off people from the tower for about an hour and a half because police didn't know what was going on.
They didn't.
This was something that never happened before.
They didn't know how to deal with it.
They actually didn't even really know what it was.
And he used a really old, clunky 1930s style hunting rifle.
It doesn't matter what the gun looks like.
But they get caught up in this symbolism.
Progressives, as you well know, are so big on being woke, so big on symbolism, so big on showing that they care.
that they don't really care whether they accomplish anything.
It's the appearance of caring that's more important than the achievement.
And so this is absolutely the best example I've seen so far from the Trudeauites of one of those woke actions that accomplishes nothing except it takes away private property from legitimate, legal, and responsible owners.
And that just infuriates me because, as I said, I'm not a gun owner, never have been, don't expect I ever will be.
But if they can do that with guns, what's the next scary thing?
You used your laptop to spread fake news as they define fake.
Maybe we should seize your laptop.
I mean, that's a bit of a stretch.
But that's the mentality that you're dealing with.
At some point, they might become so exercised about fake news that they forget that they're seizing your laptop, you know, the affront to democracy that it would be to seize your laptop or the affront to law that it would be or the affront to private property.
And they'll do it.
And they'll be justified by downtown Toronto voters who say, yes, I'm going to tweet this because I'm just as woke as they are.
Yeah.
You know, and this pandemic is such a crisis event.
That's when the government makes their big moves.
If you look at all the things Trudeau has done in this crisis, very few of them have anything to do with the actual pandemic, but everyone is an opportunistic grab.
Day-to-Day Governance00:06:49
Hey, can I bounce one last theory off you?
And I appreciate your wisdom on the gun control stuff.
I just want to give a shout out to your article one more time.
I recommend it.
I really learned a lot from it, Lauren.
Thank you very much.
It's called Trudeau's Ban on So-Called Assault Rifle, Not Only Useless, It's Chaotic and Illogical.
And of course, it's published in the Edmonton Sun and other Sun media.
Can I throw a theory at you?
Because it sort of clicked for me.
And so many things that I don't quite understand about Justin Trudeau, they suddenly make sense if I accept one hypothesis.
And it's that after the 2019 federal election, Trudeau lost his mojo.
Actually, before that, when the Jody Wilson-Raybold stuff came out and then the blackface stuff came out, that sort of took away his superstar-ness.
He was no longer a feminist icon, no longer an Aboriginal rights icon.
And he was no longer, I mean, the blackface thing just showed, in many ways, it made the job not fun anymore for him.
And then he got taken down a peg to official opposition.
And in my mind, and this is my theory, he sort of lost his mojo.
He went on a 17-day Christmas holiday.
I never heard of such a thing for a world leader.
Then he went on a nine-day junket in February.
Now he's on a 40, 50-day self-isolation that no other world leader is.
He's still got his vacation beard.
I think he's checked out.
And so I think he doesn't like the hard work of day-to-day government.
He's delegating it either to bureaucrats or Christopher Freeland.
But there is one thing I think that motivates him.
And this is the theory I'd like to bounce off you.
This is the first time I'm really articulating it, so thank you.
Everything he does is to get out of the job as prime minister and get into a new job as the United Nations next Security Council, sorry, Secretary General of the UN.
So the $800 million gift to the World Health Organization, being very polite with China, which controls a ton of votes, this meaningless but impressive gun ban, Earth Hour, tons of foreign aid, you know, the whole global warming thing.
None of that makes sense to me, unless he's looking to get out of Canada into the UN.
He needs those votes.
He wants to become a guy who has all the perks, all the traveling, all the fun, but none of the day-to-day detail accountability, electoral legitimacy.
That's my big thesis that explains everything about his funk that he's in, and the only things he's passionate about.
They're globalist things.
That's my thesis.
What do you think?
Well, I don't dispute that at all.
I do think that there is another parallel to that that doesn't disagree with what you've just put out there.
But you remember that before he became prime minister, or sorry, before he became an MP, and for a few years after he'd become an MP, his biggest source of income next to the Family Trust was his motivational speeches.
He would go largely to public sector union conventions, social workers, bureaucrats, teachers, people like that, at their conventions, and he would give them these raw-raw, you are the backbone of our nation.
We need our public services.
You are so heroic in what you do.
You make Canada as great as it is.
He'd do these speeches.
He's making $400,000 a year at one point doing that.
And that's what he was doing the first four years he was prime minister.
He doesn't want to actually sit down and run a social services department or run a government department or do any of the day-to-day work.
He simply wants to parachute in, give the little raw-raw speech, look good, mess with his hair, and leave.
And does that fit in with being Secretary General at some point?
Sure, absolutely it does.
But it's also just in his being to do meaningless stuff.
Like he is just the most lightweight prime minister we have ever had.
Yeah.
You know, you can still find a couple of his speeches from that 10-year ago time online, and they are so vacuous, it's painful.
You know, when I try and be charitable towards him, I say he really should have been governor general instead of prime minister because he would travel around, have all the pomp and circumstance.
He could pretend to be the king, smile, selfies, vacuous speeches, and then he goes home.
And he would have actually done a good job of that.
He would have probably been a little too political and too much about him and not about the queen.
But he's really a mascot and he would have done a good job as governor general.
He's going to call him the shiny pony, right?
Yeah, he's.
You know, I see no reason to change that.
I think that's still his job.
He's the shiny pony.
He's the little unicorn who shows up, sprinkles dust and rainbows everywhere.
And in fact, you saw that when he was the first time he was convicted of breaking the ethics rules in the government was when he took the holidays on the private island from the Aga Khan.
And One of the things that the ethics commissioner related that he had told her at that point was that he wasn't in conflict of interest because he didn't know what the Aga Cons Foundation sought from the federal government because he saw his job as coming in and making sure everyone's communicating,
everyone's happy with one another, everyone's working together on solutions, and then he goes on to another meeting or another crisis.
He didn't have any concept of the day-to-day details of what the government does.
And I have no reason to doubt that that was sincere on his part.
He was wrong, but it was sincere.
And I think that's exactly why he likes the daily press briefings outside Rideau Cottage in Ottawa because the cameras are all on him.
There are no reporters there.
I mean, of course, some of them ask questions remotely, but the focus is all on him, and he gets to look like he's concerned and he gets to talk about giving things people like.
And that's the part of the job that he likes, the actual day-to-day governing.
He doesn't like it at all, which is why Freeland is really the prime minister.
Yeah, that's so true.
Trudeau And The Daily Press00:03:59
Well, Lauren, we covered a lot of ground today.
It's so nice to see you again.
And we look forward to getting your take on so many things in the weeks ahead.
Thanks for coming.
Well, and as of May 14th, Alberta opens up its barbershop.
So next time I won't have this Bernie Sanders here.
Well, you're a lot more camped than me.
May 14th, I might have to take a flight to Edmonton because I'm getting so shaggy it's out of control.
All right, take care, my friend.
Thank you.
Okay, you bet.
All right.
There you have it, Lauren Gunter.
Well, that's good to know that Alberta is opening up again.
I think we should too across most of the country.
Stay with us.
More Ahead on the Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about Trudeau refusing to take refugees from Hong Kong.
Ron writes: Remember when a reporter asked Trudeau when he was inviting tens of thousands of bogus Syrian refugees whether he would give preference to the neediest victims of the Syrian Civil War, the Christians and Yazidis, who were the primary victims of Islamist aggression?
Trudeau's answer: absolutely not.
I had forgotten about that.
You're exactly right.
That was a shocking statement.
As you know, under Stephen Harper, there was preference for the lambs, not the wolves.
If persecuted groups could identify and present themselves, they would be taken.
Here's the clip of Justin Trudeau saying that's disgusting.
Remember this?
Good morning, Mr. Trudeau.
I wanted to start by asking you about the Conservatives' policy of prioritizing ethnic and religious minorities when bringing in refugees.
Is that something that would continue if the Liberals were elected?
As we gather this weekend with our families over Thanksgiving and talk about the kind of country we have and the kind of country we want, I think we need to think about families across the oceans who've been desperately seeking to build a better life for themselves and for their kids,
who've gathered all their worldly belongings on their backs in plastic bags, gathered their kids around them, and hope that maybe somewhere there is a place where they can build a better life.
And to know that somewhere in the prime minister's office, staffers were pouring through their personal files to try and see whether these families or find out which families would be suitable for a photo op for the prime minister's re-election campaign.
That's disgusting.
Yeah, I had forgotten about that yesterday.
Thanks for a reminder.
Bruce writes, you're right about Trudeau checking out.
His actions show that he just wanted the glamour and prestige of being prime minister.
Yeah, Lauren Gundra made a good point.
He reminded me that Trudeau, before he became an MP, and actually for a couple years afterwards, just loved to go to these super softball speeches where he would give sort of Oprah Winfrey-style duck-speak new age sort of blather and get paid 10, 20, 30 grand a pop and take lots of selfies and meet a lot of young girls.
That is sort of Trudeau's happy place.
On my interview with Sheila Gunnreid on our latest FightTheFines.com case, PJ writes, wouldn't child services need to be called to separate a minor from her guardian by putting her in the back of a cop car?
Everything about this stinks.
Exactly.
I was watching the extended clip that we have on the FightTheFines.com page, and I don't think that that ticketing cop had the power to put hands on this woman, to handcuff her, to physically search her under her clothes.
That's creepy.
To put her in a car to separate her from her kid.
It would be like if you had a parking ticket, if your parking meter expired and some meter maid put a ticket under your windshield wiper, you'd say, all right, grumble, grumble.
But for that person, then say, up against the car, handcuffs, by what right?
13 Cases and Counting00:00:32
By what right?
Oh, it makes me mad.
We got so many more cases coming at fightthefines.com.
I'd have to check the count.
I think we're probably up to 13 now.
It takes a little while to process them.
We've got to vet them, interview them.
The lawyer's got to talk to them.
Our journalist's got to talk to them.
We've got to produce a video.
So we have a few more in the pipeline.
It will not surprise me if we have 20 before too long.
I think we're most of the way there.
Very frustrating, but we'll do the fighting.
All right, my friends, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rubber World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.