Justin Trudeau’s push for Canada’s UN Security Council temporary seat—voted June 16th—faces skepticism despite likely success, with critics linking his globalist agenda to China and the OIC, citing $8–$10M annual funding from Trudeau, ideological alignment (e.g., ISIS withdrawal, WHO billions), and silence on hostage crises. Meanwhile, CBC Kids News’s Recap series allegedly weaponizes transgenderism for political messaging, targeting young viewers with pre-scripted narratives while ignoring biological perspectives, mirroring Trudeau’s government’s perceived indoctrination tactics. Ontario’s lockdowns, enforced amid minimal cases in provinces like Saskatchewan, expose deeper compliance questions, undermining claims of a "freedom gene" in Canadian culture—his UN ambitions may reflect a broader pattern of prioritizing foreign influence over domestic accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
Oh I don't make it happily, but sometimes predictions, you know, it's different from what you hope to happen, right?
I predict, well, I won't give it away now, but I make a prediction about what will happen at the United Nations vote tomorrow on whether or not Canada will be given a temporary visitor's pass to join the UN Security Council.
Justin Trudeau has put all his eggs in that basket.
Oh, he's betting big.
I'll give you my prediction.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber.
We've got this thing called Rebel News Plus.
It's basically the video version of this podcast.
Plus shows from Sheila Gunread and David Menzies.
It's $8 a month, $80 for the whole year.
Not a lot of dough, I might say, if you compare it to the other streaming services, but it's the only place you're going to hear the other side of the story in politics in Canada.
Please go to RebelNews.com and click on subscribe.
It would be a great favor to me because we use that money to pay our bills.
Okay, here's the podcast.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau's obsession with the United Nations faces a test tomorrow in a key UN vote.
Here's why I think Trudeau and China will win.
It's June 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 is government will watch just because it's my bloody right to do so.
Countries Clash Over UN00:14:02
The United Nations is one of the worst things in the world.
I know it didn't mean to be that way.
I don't think it started out that way, but it has been captured and corrupted and gamed and bought and sold and absolutely hijacked.
It embodies two of Robert Conquest's laws.
You know him, he's the late historian.
One of his laws was, any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
I mean, that's so obvious it almost goes without saying, especially for a government institution, especially something that fancies itself as a sort of world government.
And another one of Conquest rules, the simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it's controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
As in, it's not about peace.
It's not about freedom.
It's not about human rights.
It's not about democracy.
It's about the opposition to all of those things, the opposite of all of those things.
The World Health Organization, as we've just learned, isn't about sharing information about health and pandemics.
It's about covering up that information, weaponizing that information, hiding things.
That's why the countries that trusted the WHO the most were the hardest hit.
And the countries that were the most skeptical, like Taiwan, which is actually banned from the UN, they got through the pandemic the best because they didn't believe the lies.
So I think that's all obvious.
I think that it's much worse than we even know.
UN peacekeepers are amongst the world's most predatory child rapists, for example.
Just horrific stuff.
I'm just giving you one of a thousand examples.
Continues to this day.
I mean, if that doesn't tell you the nature of the UN, nothing will.
How about this?
The UN just decided it's going to investigate racism.
Of course, they don't mean racism in, I don't know, places like China, about the Uyghurs.
They mean in places like America, Canada, the UK, and Israel.
But as Hillel Noyer of UN Watch points out, the world's most racist and brutal regimes are the judges.
UN human rights members include Mauritania with 500,000 black slaves to this day.
Venezuela, with Maduro's tyranny, and Qatar, which enslaves migrants.
Libya, same thing.
They have slave auctions.
They have open-air slave markets in Libya.
This inquiry will be a force.
Of course it will.
So why does Justin Trudeau so desperately want to be a part of it?
Of course, every country is a part of the UN except Taiwan, that was kicked out to appease Communist China, which is an outrage.
But why does Justin Trudeau so desperately want a temporary seat on the UN Security Council?
Just to refresh your memory, there are all sorts of UN agencies, right?
There's the Human Rights Council I just mentioned.
There's the World Health Organization.
Countries can be a member of all those little committees, except Taiwan.
By the way, China runs five UN agencies more than any other country does.
They're taking over the UN and its purposes.
And all countries are part of something called the General Assembly.
It's just a giant, really, international parliament of sorts.
193 countries in it.
And every country is equal, really, tiny Nauru.
Population, 13,000.
I challenge you to find Nauru on a map.
That's equal to, say, Germany.
Population, 83 million.
Each have one seat on the General Assembly.
Each have the same vote.
So obviously it's just a talk shop, just a way for people from Nauru to get a free trip to New York City.
It's an amazing city, and they get to hobnob with fancy people from, you know, bigger countries.
I tell you, if you ever go to the UN building in New York City, you can see it's surrounded by gorgeous hotels and restaurants.
It's such a pleasure for anyone just to be there.
I suppose that's most of Manhattan.
But it's nothing, really, the General Assembly, because the U.S. and Russia and China and the UK and France, those countries do whatever they want.
They don't wait for permission from Burkina Faso.
There are absolutely two tiers of countries at the UN.
There's the permanent members of the Security Council, those five countries I just listed.
Russia, the United States, France, the UK, and Britain.
Those five were chosen after World War II.
How else could you explain France being there, but not India, for example?
There are many quirks about the UN.
You've got those top-tier members, and then you've got everybody else.
My point is mainly who even cares, right?
Name for me a war that the UN averted.
Name for me a famine that they ended.
Name a terrorist attack they stopped.
Name for me any impasse they resolved.
Did they fix the Syrian civil war?
Did they stop, oh, just to pick something, slavery in Mauritania?
I don't mean slavery way back in ancient days.
I mean slavery right now, millions of modern-day slaves.
Has the UN solved the problem of North Korea?
You tell me.
Who defeated ISIS and killed their terrorist boss?
Not the UN.
Problems are solved by nation states themselves.
And since the fall of the Berlin Wall, that's almost always meant the United States, the last remaining hyperpower.
Who's there for disaster relief?
It's the U.S. Navy, that's who.
But China is rising.
They want to be a rival.
Iran is a regional problem.
Russia, it's a shadow of its former self, but it's still a factor, especially in places like Syria.
It has nuclear arms and oil.
The UN, in many ways, is a united nothing.
It used to be a meeting place for the world's diplomats, and now it has its agenda of its own.
And its own enrichment and perpetuation, such as the annual feast and festival thrown for the global warming partiers.
I mean, who wouldn't want a jet to Paris?
For that big global warming meeting, that Paris meeting was right after Trudeau was elected prime minister.
He went there, he brought the world's largest delegation.
Going by memory, I think he had over 300 people with him.
Catherine McKenna literally hired a fashion photographer for $6,000 to attend to make sure she looked great.
Global warming was not solved, but boy did they have a party.
And that's what Trudeau wants.
He wants the party.
He wants to be an insider, a player.
So he wants a seat on the UN Security Council.
Obviously not one of the permanent seats.
US, UK, Russia, France, and China.
But he wants to be the UN's He wants the UN's member countries to vote for Canada to be one of the temporary members on the Security Council.
Now, temporary members, unlike the five permanent members, don't have a veto over things.
But they get to hang out with the cool kids for a couple years, go to some of the same meetings, get some of the same photo ops.
That's what Trudeau craves.
Travel, photo ops, huge expense accounts, getting away from small Canada and our small problems.
He's being checked out of his job as prime minister for months, mentally.
He's self-hiding at home.
He's got his vacation beard.
He's obviously demotivated.
He's just phoning it in.
He's just at home phoning it in.
But this UN thing really seems to motivate him because it's his escape plan.
Get on the UN Security Council.
Be a good boy for the main voting blocs at the UN, which are China and China's colonies, and the OIC, which stands for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, 57 Muslim countries led by the Saudis.
So if Trudeau can get on the UN Security Council with a vote of all the little countries, he can party in New York all the time.
Hang out with his old friend Gerald Butts down there.
He can live his Canadian problems to others like Christy Freeland.
And after a term on the Security Council, he can make his big personal play, to be the first Canadian Secretary General of the United Nations.
And he could be a shill for China and the OIC, just as he has been as Canada's prime minister.
And it's precisely for that reason, if you look at his voting block, China and Arabia.
Precisely for that reason that unlike most of Canada's pundits, I think Justin Trudeau will actually win the vote tomorrow.
Now just to be clear, different countries from different regions run against each other.
So right now, Canada is not running against 193 countries.
It's running just against Ireland and Norway for this one seat.
Here's Canada's official campaign page.
Look at the issues Trudeau's running on.
Peace.
That's code for anti-Americanism, anti-NATOism, rolling back the war on terror.
That's what that means.
Climate change, same thing, rejecting Trump's embrace of fossil fuels.
OPEC loves this because it means Canada will take ourselves and the oil sands out of the world business, leaving it to them.
Promote economic security together.
Now you might think that means, oh, growing the economy, free trade, cutting taxes, that sort of thing.
And you're probably thinking, well, Canada doesn't do that too well.
But if you click on the link, you'll see it means the opposite.
It means Canada giving more of your tax dollars and foreign aid to countries that vote for it.
It's ideologically globalist, and it's just a bribe, really.
Advance gender equality together.
That's not a shot at Saudi Arabia or Iran or places like that.
Trudeau doesn't mean that.
It's just his standard message as a male feminist.
He says it constantly as a preemptive defense against his own groping history.
And finally, strengthening multilateralism is just another way of saying he's anti-Trump.
Trump rejects globalism.
Trump withdrew from the Paris global warming thing.
Trump believes in America first, whether it's military or economics or trade or energy.
Trudeau is telegraphing in actually every single one of these points that he wants to get on the UN Security Council to be the leader of the opposition to America and to Trump in particular.
Normally that job falls to the third world, to the old Soviet Union, to China.
And the first world, the allies, NATO, the Western Democratic countries, stick together.
And by that, I mean stick with our principles of freedom, trade, democracy, security.
Not Trudeau.
Trudeau wants to undermine the world's leading democracy within the UN, just as he has done for the last five years from Canada.
Look at this.
This is a headline in Reuters.
Canada sees tight UN Security Council race says coronavirus response could help.
Oh, really?
What was our coronavirus response?
It was terrible from a national interest point of view.
We didn't ever stop flights coming in from China.
They continued the whole time.
We didn't screen at airports.
But we gave billions of dollars to the China-run WHO.
We gave billions of dollars in foreign aid to any country that would take it.
We never doubted China and their propaganda.
We never criticized China.
In fact, Trudeau obeyed China.
Trudeau refused to even acknowledge Taiwan.
Remember this terrible moment?
This question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On March 28th, he personally tweeted out a thank you to the People's Republic of China for donating PPEs to Canada.
This tweet happened within three hours of China announcing that gift.
Now, as it turned out, many of these PPEs were defective and could not be used.
More recently, Taiwan donated half a million surgical masks to Canada.
And yet here we are, two weeks later, and the minister has yet to personally thank Taiwan for its generosity.
Will the minister now thank this free and democratic country for its generous gift to Canadians?
The Honorable Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague for the question.
Indeed, we are very grateful to every nation for helping Canada.
This is a global pandemic which knows no border.
We have been expressing our thanks to many nations who have contributed.
We will continue to do so.
It is important at a time of pandemic, Mr. Speaker, that we don't play politics, that humanity comes together.
I can say to my COVID foreign minister's call, the world community has come together to make sure that we would make sure that supply chain would remain intact, that we would have transit up, that would have airbridges.
And we will continue, Mr. Speaker, to work with every nation when it comes to health.
This is a public good that we want to work together.
That is the coronavirus response that Trudeau thinks is going to win it for him.
Our foreign minister literally owes the Chinese government $1.2 million in a bizarre loan.
He won't say a cross word about China, despite them having two Canadian hostages now coming up on two years.
We literally gave all of Canada's emergency masks to China during the pandemic.
So do you see my point?
Why wouldn't China vote for Canada and tell all of China's African colonies to do the same?
Why wouldn't the OIC Muslim countries do the same?
Trudeau quit the war on terror.
Trudeau gave millions of dollars in a public apology to a terrorist named Omercotta.
Trudeau met with this bizarre man who went to Afghanistan to hang out with the Taliban.
Trudeau, literally the first thing he did after being elected in 2015, before he was even sworn in, he removed our CF-18 jets from the war on ISIS.
Why wouldn't every one of the 57 Muslim countries in the OIC vote for Trudeau too?
Not to vote for Canada.
I mean, Canadians are democratic.
Canadians believe in freedom.
Canadians are, you and me are, more hostile to China, according to public opinion polls than any other people in the world other than the Swedes.
No, the OIC and China don't like Canada very much.
They don't like Canadians very much.
China takes us hostage.
But boy, do they sure love Trudeau.
And I guess fair is fair because the feeling is mutual, isn't it?
CBC's Agenda with J.K. Rowling00:13:04
Yeah, I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here.
Unlike a lot of people, I think Justin Trudeau is going to win the vote tomorrow, which means I think that freedom and democracy and accountability and Canada's national interest is going to lose.
But China and the Muslim countries, well, they're about to do a victory lap in your face, Donald Trump.
Stay with us for more.
Hey, welcome back.
I've done a couple of episodes on this before.
You know, the CBC has a kids' propaganda unit.
It's written by adults, of course, but it's designed to propagate political ideas to minor children, including children of tender years.
I find it very creepy and very bizarre, but it's a project given great importance under Justin Trudeau.
Well, they took a subject that is definitely for grown-ups, that's of transgenderism, and they weaponized it in a bizarre attack against children's author J.K. Rowling.
Here, watch about 45 seconds of the CBC's Kids News propaganda department.
All right, well, let's get into it, Vina.
What has you fired up this week?
Well, I've been following this J.K. Rowling controversy, and it all started with a tweet she made.
Actually, it started with this headline, creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate.
JK took issue with the word people being used.
Maybe she was trying to be funny, but she hinted that the publication should have stuck with using the word women.
Some fans pointed out that there are lots of those who menstruate who don't identify as women.
And then things got a little messy.
Lots of tweets back and forth.
And at one point, JK fired back with, my life has been shaped by being female, and I don't think it's hateful to say so.
It's 2020.
Releasing these kind of statements online is not a good book.
Oh, and it went on from there, these teens reading perfectly scripted pro-trans attacks on J.K. Rowling for daring to say women are women.
I like how they let the young man there mansplain to J.K. Rowling that it's not a good look in 2020 to say you're a female.
It went on, every word of it written by an adult handed to those child actors to read all of it inappropriate for children of tender years.
Joining us now via Skype to talk about it is our friend Andrew Lawton who discovered this.
Andrew, I keep an eye on CBC Kids News, but it's not actually something I regularly go to.
But this is stuff being pumped out to children.
This is radical politics.
I don't even think these are kid-friendly discussions at all, let alone weaponizing it and saying J.K. Rowling is a bad woman.
This is so awful.
Tell me your thoughts on this and how you came across it.
Yeah, I'm not one of these pearl-clutching, won't somebody please think of the children types.
I realize that kids can handle difficult conversations.
I fully understand that.
But when I was a kid, kids' shows were things like Arthur and the Magic School Bus.
I wasn't watching the TV to hear about, you know, transgender politics or any sort of politics.
The show itself is called Recap, which is pitched as a news show.
And the irony is it wouldn't even pass the muster as being an adult news show because it's all opinion, but it's pitched as a news show.
And on the CBC website, it says that it's for kids age six and up.
So as young as six years old, is the target audience in CBC's eyes of this show called Recap.
So the problem that I have with this is that they've used very strong language.
They've referred to J.K. Rowling, the beloved author, as, quote, transphobic.
A direct quote from the young man on the panel here.
They've told her she should read the room.
They've said that those of us who menstruate aren't always female, and they're passing it off as fact.
So a six-year-old who's watching this, who might not even know what menstruation is, is being told that menstruation is not about whether you're female or not, that anyone can.
So there's a lot packed into what was only really a two-minute clip here.
And what I find most troubling about it is that this is pitched as news.
It's pitched towards children.
And more importantly, it is mocking those who do what J.K. Rowling did, which is talk about something from a biological perspective.
J.K. Rowling wasn't being anti-trans.
She wasn't being bigoted.
She was saying, listen, woman means something.
Womanhood means something.
And when I saw this, I was actually in disbelief, despite not holding CBC by and large up in the highest esteem for all the reasons I just mentioned.
And what was interesting, just on one note here, and I don't know if it was in the clip that was just played.
At one point, they say Daniel Radcliffe, the Harry Potter film star who actually reputed what or refuted Rotherwood J.K. Rowling said, they called him inspiring for advocating for what he believes in, but she's supposed to just shut up.
Yeah, it's incredible.
You know, Sean Tran, the guy in the bottom right corner there, lecturing J.K. Rowling on what a good look is for women.
I mean, in any other context, that would be called man splay.
Imagine a man.
But the thing is, Sean Tran is a child actor.
All these people are child actors.
They're just very young people who can read lines with energy given to them by grown-ups.
We don't actually know who wrote this.
One thing we do know is it wasn't written by these three kids.
So to have some young kid, an early teen, say to J.K. Rowling, why don't you shut up telling us who a woman is or isn't on the woke woco meter?
That's supposedly very low wokeness, a man saying to a woman, shut up talking about being a woman.
But the CBC, I guess, has gone full trans agenda.
But I say again, these are not political thinkers.
These are not even grown-ups.
They are a trick.
It's like a hand puppet.
We don't even know who's behind it.
I find this whole thing extremely troubling.
The only saving grace, Andrew, is that the viewership of these videos, if the public view counts on YouTube or anything go by, are minuscule.
Almost no one's watching this crap.
I think maybe the audience in mind is only an audience of one, Justin Trudeau, for him to see this and pat the CBC on the head.
I actually don't know any young person who would voluntarily watch this crap.
No, and certainly the YouTube view count, you're right, is dismally low.
So there's a fiscal argument against these as much as there's a content-based one.
But at the same time, they're putting them on TV.
There are a lot of parents that might be saying to their kids, listen, I'm doing dishes.
Why don't you just watch what's on TV?
And the kid thinks that, or the parent thinks that the kid is going to be watching Arthur, and then they blink and it's J.K. Rowling is a transphobe.
And that's what's passing for children's entertainment.
And you're right.
I mean, children's personalities used to be about crafts and fun and jokes, not shoving a political agenda.
And in what I wrote and what I said about this on my show, I was very careful to not go after the host because I think they're symptoms of the problem here and not themselves the problem.
You're right, that they are parroting whatever the grown-ups pulling the strings of this are trying to push on them.
You know, I would say that a lot of parents need to say, yes, we're not going to watch this, but it needs to go beyond that because, you know, this was an opinion show.
So even based on news and journalistic standards alone, I don't think they could get away with this as easily on power and politics or something like that, despite bias you might see on other CBC programs.
They were parroting opinions.
They were doing them ineloquently.
And they're telling kids that something that is very complex is simple and factual when in actuality it was neither of those things.
Well, that's a good point.
At least the state broadcaster, when it has a partisan panel, they pretend to have the full spectrum of opinion from A to B.
I mean, I noticed that last weekend they didn't even have any conservative MPs on their political panels, which was quite something.
But yeah, I mean, in this, all three voices are pre-scripted.
There is no difference of opinion.
I take your point about you can't be too tough on these kids because they're just child actors.
They would literally say the opposite thing if that was the words put in front of them.
But there's a message being sent out by the CBC, which is the largest employer of media in the country, larger than all other private employers combined, in fact, that this is how you have to talk.
This is how you have to think if you want to get ahead.
So it's not even that it's persuasive on the marriage.
It's just, oh, so that's how the CBC is.
And they'll even try and cancel the mighty feminist success story, J.K. Rowling, single mom who works away off welfare, becomes a billionaire through her talent.
They're not afraid to cancel her for saying trans women are not women.
So imagine what they would do to you.
I think this is about the CBC telegraphing to the world what is or isn't acceptable to the government.
Yeah, and CBC Kids is particularly insidious in that regard.
There was a story a few years ago, I think you might have covered it as well, where they had posted a listing for a host they were hiring, and they said the exact words were any race except Caucasian.
So they were doing identity politics in their lineup.
At another point, I think it was about a year ago, there was controversy when CBC Kids was glamorizing children who are drag performers.
And they had children who are dressed up in drag performing in an area which has very much been a sexualized area, drag performance.
And for adults, that's fine, do what you want.
But they were not only promoting and drag children, but glamorizing it and talking about how they were going to be slaying on the stage.
And anyone who criticized it, of course, was a bigot and a homophobe.
So they are pushing an agenda here, whether you want to admit it or not.
They are.
Yeah, you know what?
We've learned from another state broadcaster, the BBC, that their kids presenter, Jimmy Savile, was a serial child abuser who molested kids for decades, hundreds and hundreds of kids, and the BBC covered it up.
We also know that Hollywood is notorious for abusing child actors, Harvey Weinstein himself.
But just drugs and sex with minor children.
So whenever young kids are involved in some showbiz thing, I get nervous because I think who is the predator here?
Who's taking advantage?
Now, we don't know if these kids are being taken advantage of in other ways besides just being turned into political puppets.
But what we do know is that the audience, in a way, is being sexually groomed.
Children, as you say, as young as six years old, are being spoken to in a friendly, energetic way about sexual things that shouldn't be treated by kids till much later.
So in a way, young children are being taught by the producers of this channel, talk about sex, talk about various sexual acts, talk about transgenderism, talk about all these sexual things.
That's a form of grooming too, Andrew, because it's the state saying, hey, kids, what used to be a private discussion or an adult discussion is totally cool for you at age six.
And you know it's cool because these child actors say so.
Maybe these child actors themselves are not being abused, but in a way, they're abusing their viewers.
Yeah, and I don't want to, in my view anyway, go beyond what was in that clip alone.
Because, you know, even if you accept everything at face value and you remove other contexts and possibilities there, you're left with what is very easily and aptly described as indoctrination.
And it's so dangerous.
Parents need to have a much more prominent role than many think in kind of understanding what their kids are watching because it's a standard assumption.
If you're not a political parent, if you're not someone who's really immersed in the culture wars like you and I are to think, oh yeah, I can just slip on CBC and my kids will watch it and they'll be watching all these fun shows and laughing and that's that.
I mean, we've joked in the past about people that have tried to say, you know, you got to ban Paw Patrol because it's patriarchal and fascistic and all of these things.
But there are a lot of people that have these political agendas that are managing to exact control over television programming for kids.
And in CBC's case, they're doing it incredibly brazenly.
Locked Down Long Enough00:03:26
What a great point.
You can't watch Paw Patrol because it's too friendly and happy and you know all those puppies.
But let's have you listen to some Marxist critique of transgender versus feminist battles.
Unbelievable.
Andrew Lawton, great to see you again.
Give us a quick reminder.
What's the best website to listen to your show, The Andrew Lawton Show?
What's the best URL for that?
If anyone goes to andrew Lawtonshow.com, it'll bring you right to the podcast page.
And do subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, YouTube, wherever you want.
You can find us.
Yeah, and there's not even a fee for that, is there?
No, it's a completely free show.
Well, then there's no excuse not to subscribe.
AndrewLawtonshow.com, absolutely free.
You can get it on the website or as you say, any other place you get your podcast, Apple and whatnot.
And you are part of the team of talent at True North.
And we just had your friend Candace Malcolm on the other day, and all your stuff is at tnc.news.
Am I right?
Yes, indeed.
All right.
Well, I know our viewers naturally like you and Candace and your whole team.
So hopefully they'll go to your stuff directly too.
Great to see you, my friend.
Keep up the fight.
Yeah, thanks, you too.
All right, there you have it.
Andrew Lawton talking to us about this bizarre.
It's a propaganda unit.
That's all it is.
It's not entertainment.
It's propaganda.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hello, welcome back on my monologue last night.
Wendy writes, The National Post will fold without Rex Murphy.
Without the folks that read Rex Murphy, the National Post doesn't have much left for readership.
Attacking Rex Murphy for being white in 73 is not only racism, it is also ageism.
You know, that would be true in the olden days.
And by olden days, I mean when people paid for newspapers, when newspapers made money through advertising subscriptions.
But the fastest growing line item in post-media's financials, and I've read them, is Justin Trudeau.
He's giving them between $8 and $10 million this year alone.
That's all they care about.
They would fire Rex Murphy 10 times to keep Justin Trudeau.
That's the only one reader they need.
Vladimir writes, Rex Murphy is one of the few whose comments are worthwhile to follow.
I agree.
I think he's the only name-brand writer there.
I mean, there are also some other good writers there, but can you even name one?
On my interview with Randy Hillier on opening the economy, Bruce writes, I'm glad the province of Ontario has Randy Hillier who can speak truth to the powerful.
We've been locked down far too long.
The next time the government sends a panic order, will people be so compliant?
Oh, I regret they will.
You know, I was just looking at different jurisdictions.
You know how many people are in hospital in all of Saskatchewan?
1.2 million people.
Two people in the hospital.
You know how many people are in the hospital in Newfoundland?
Zero.
There is a single case of the virus in Newfoundland, and he's not even, he's staying in home.
But the province is locked down.
Where's the protests?
There aren't none.
Are we missing a freedom gene in our DNA or something?
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rubber World Headquarters, see you at home.