Ezra Levant reveals a 2020 Canadian military plan (August 6) to deploy jeeps with bullhorns, broadcasting Justin Trudeau’s speeches and "Information Operations" via social media to suppress dissent during pandemic restrictions. The initiative, allegedly paused by General John Vance, targeted perceived "irrational" backlash while dismissing WHO/China misinformation as harmless. Levant contrasts this with the Independent Press Gallery (IPG), led by Candice Malcolm of True North, which secured 50 new journalists after legacy media exclusions—though Alberta and Toronto resist expansion. Criticizing mask mandates, Dr. Teresa Tam’s influence, and potential indefinite quarantine laws, Levant argues for alternative media like TNC.news ($10/month suggested) and Post-Millennial to counter state-aligned narratives, warning of creeping authoritarianism under pandemic policies. [Automatically generated summary]
I can't believe I missed it when it came out about a week ago.
It's about the Canadian military cooking up a plan to promote Justin Trudeau's pandemic communications.
I'm talking about jeeps with bullhorns on them blaring Trudeau speeches, all kinds of crazy stuff like that.
I'll read you what the general says or the admiral in this case.
That's coming up in just a moment.
But first let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
Basically gets you the video version of this podcast, plus videos by my friends Sheila Gunread and David Menzies.
It's just $8 a month or $80 for the whole year, so you get a bit of a discount, as you can see.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
Okay, here's today's show.
Tonight, Canada's military hatches a plan to transmit pandemic propaganda to Canadians.
It's August 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 government.
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
You know, I saw the pandemic in China before it came here.
I didn't really know what I was seeing, but because I follow a ton of Chinese dissidents on social media, I kept seeing videos like this.
Confusing, terrifying, and of course impossible to corroborate, but it certainly felt authoritarian.
Something bad was going on.
But then again, China really is under a sort of perpetual martial law.
We hadn't seen the worst of that in Canada during the pandemic, but I was shocked to learn just how far down that road Australia, or at least their state called Victoria, has gone.
Imagine deploying the Australian Defense Force, that's their soldiers, to enforce some random, capricious, unscientific, whimsical, ever-changing, unsubstantiated public health orders.
The curfew is the weirdest part, as if the virus only comes out at night, like it's a vampire or something.
But soldiers, why soldiers?
Do they have special health care skills?
Special law enforcement skills they know how to write a ticket?
Special communication skills to calm the public?
Of course not.
It's the opposite.
It's for the menacing effect.
It's for the threat.
It's for the psychological control.
I don't think those soldiers actually want to do this.
I don't think they enlisted to go to war against their own people or to knock on house doors and spy on their compatriots.
I think they're being used.
So far, that's being avoided in Canada and the United States, more or less.
I think some Canadian forces were conscripted into doing some menial tasks in some Quebec seniors' homes.
Extremely inappropriate, by the way, completely unnecessary, abusive of both the patients and the Canadian forces.
Psychologically speaking, abusive of the patients.
Like when the Canadian forces were sent to shovel snow in Toronto that one time, why are you being disrespectful to the soldiers, making them do that?
But other than that, I don't think the Canadian military is being deployed.
But look at this, look at this, look at this.
I didn't see this when it was first published a week or two ago.
It's about how Canada's military hatched a plan to wage an information battle against Canadians, Canadians who don't buy the Trudeau government line or the United Nations line.
Look at this.
The Canadian forces planned what some military insiders described as a propaganda campaign aimed at heading off civil disobedience by the public during the coronavirus pandemic.
But the initiative was shut down by the country's top soldier who questioned whether it went too far in the methods military officers wanted to use.
Say, who actually came up with this idea?
I don't think it's ever really properly answered in this story.
I'll read some more.
The campaign called for shaping and exploiting information, allowing the Canadian forces to be able to strengthen trust in official sources of information, said a military planning document reviewed by this newspaper.
One of the desired results was that civil order be maintained during the pandemic.
Canadian public is deterred from participating in civil disobedience, according to the objectives of the plan.
Canadian public compliance with suppression measures is reinforced.
All right, so we don't have new fighter jets in Canada.
So we can't keep up with our American allies.
We can't properly patrol the skies against the new generation of Russian aircraft.
We're obviously totally outclassed by China's bridgeoning navy.
We're not strong on cybersecurity, cyber attacks from China.
We really don't even have any peacekeepers left in the world.
We canceled the annual war games simulation at Cold Lake, the Air Force games called Maple Flag.
But apparently we've got resources and manpower and budgets and time to work on political compliance of Canadian citizens to suppress dissident voices.
Those dissident voices, we have a word for that.
It's called democracy.
It's what our military is supposed to be protecting, not suppressing.
I'll read some more.
When Chief of the Defense Staff General John Vance was briefed about the Information Operations campaign, he ordered it stopped.
Some senior military staff raised concerns the plan could be open to abuse in using propaganda or deception to manipulate the Canadian public.
You don't say.
The campaign was a combination of traditional communications methods using public affairs staff and influence activity specialists, as well as various other techniques to get military and government messages across to the public.
Really?
So the purpose of the armed forces is to convey Trudeau's speeches now.
Yeah?
And the guns are just a subtle way of emphasizing how important it is to comply and submit to Trudeau, right?
Hey, remember this ad produced by the Liberals?
Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities.
Canadian cities.
Soldiers with guns in our cities.
In Canada.
We did not make this up.
Choose your community.
Yeah, they said that if I voted for Stephen Harper, there'd be soldiers in the streets.
Well, I did vote for Stephen Harper, so I guess they were right.
The Liberals want to put soldiers in the streets.
I'll read more.
If necessary, military vehicles with loudspeakers would be used to transmit such information.
Seriously, that is pure banana republic-type stuff.
Could you imagine that?
I mean, Trudeau really does love Cuba and China, does it?
Can you imagine a Jeep?
Now hear this.
You must listen to Trudeau.
Can you imagine that?
The Canadian forces was also ready to set up portable radio stations, which were used in Afghanistan to provide the military with an outlet to communicate in areas where infrastructure was lacking.
Quote, village assessments would be conducted and meetings would be set up with religious leaders and non-governmental organizations, the Information Operations Plan noted.
So if I disagree with Trudeau, which I do, does that make me the Taliban in this story?
I'm not sure, because of course in real life, Trudeau himself is on the side of the Taliban, or at least al-Qaeda.
He's the one who personally apologized to and cut a huge check to Omar Qader, the al-Qaeda terrorist.
So in this weird scenario where the military is setting up propaganda, who's the good guys and who's the bad guys?
Look at this.
Information operations is defined by the Canadian forces as actions taken in support of political and military objectives, which influence decision makers by affecting others' information while exploiting and protecting one's own information.
asked about whether the military expected Canadians to participate in civil disobedience or riots during the pandemic.
Santarpia, that's a Rear Admiral, responded, that was our worst case scenario.
So he's the big boss who was talking to the citizens, Santarpia.
Now, riots are one thing.
Our police can handle riots, actually.
All our police departments can, they all do.
They often choose not to.
Anti-fathugs, the railway blockades in January and February.
Even what we've seen in city centers, what we've personally experienced outside Toronto City Hall, lawlessness, I'd call that a riot.
Police could stop them if they want.
The Canadian forces wouldn't dream of sending in the army to fight those left-wing riots, to propagandize about that.
It would be unthinkable.
Yet they worked up a whole plan for people who don't want to wear masks or take Trudeau's Chinese vaccine.
But look at that one word there.
Do you see I read the word civil disobedience?
That's different from a riot.
Civil disobedience is not an insurrection or treason or a military-style attack.
The military was looking at getting involved in fighting civil disobedience.
Your giveaway word here is the word civil.
So what's the military doing planning to deal with civil disobedience?
By definition, it's civil.
People refusing to wear a mask, people refusing to take Trudeau's Chinese vaccine.
Is the military going to get involved with that?
Really?
Will they actually stab the needle right into your arm?
Will they engage in propaganda, military jeeps with loudspeakers parked outside your house or something?
Trudeau can't convince us in his daily press blather.
He won't even let us come to those.
So some military propagandists is going to have some town hall meetings like local chiefs or something back in Afghanistan.
Get this.
The military's information operations campaign noted physical distancing and self-isolation had resulted in Canadians perceiving a loss of freedom.
This disempowerment in general context of anxiety will lead to increases of irrational behavior, which may run counter to the overall response effort and public well-being, it added.
Okay.
Hey guys, you only perceive that you've lost your freedom?
I mean, sure, you're banned from going into your job.
Your freedom is gone.
You're under house arrest.
But you just need to perceive it differently.
If you're unhappy, you're obviously irrational.
Not the made-up public health theater.
That's totally rational.
You're the irrational one.
Irrational?
There's nothing wrong with being under house arrest, with deploying the military to make you take a vaccine.
Stop being so irrational.
Here's Teresa Tam to remind you what rational looks like.
I think the public has to know this is one of the worst case scenarios in terms of an infectious disease outbreak in that their cooperation is sought.
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, stop being so irrational, people.
I'll read a bit more.
There is an ongoing debate inside National Defense Headquarters in Ottawa about the use of information operations techniques.
Some public affairs officers, intelligence specialists, and senior planners want to expand the scope of such methods in Canada to allow them to better control and shape government information the public receives, really.
So even though this crazy plan was allegedly nixed, the debate over similar plans continues at defense headquarters.
How to push Trudeau's talking points against mere citizens, how to deploy the military, not against their enemies, but against our own people.
I'll read more.
But Santarpia said Canadians should feel confident the military would always act in accordance with Canadian law.
We'll do our damnedest to be open and transparent and will never use any sort of information capability toward Canadians, he said.
Yeah, you just said that you want to use this against Canadians.
That's what you're debating now.
You're debating doing it and how to do it.
Your staff actually cooked up a plan to do it.
Now that particular plan was nixed, but you're still debating it, but you swear it'll never happen.
Hang on.
Hang on, you're not using some of your PR magic right now, are you?
Some disinformation right now, are you?
Santarpi has said discussions are now underway on how best to accomplish information operations in the future.
Oh, oh, I thought you just said you're not doing that anymore.
We will develop and grow this capability over the coming years as it's really important both at home and abroad.
Hang on, you just said you weren't going to do this at home.
Sorry, I'm being irrational again.
Various ideas have been proposed, including having Canadian forces personnel distribute government-approved messages on their personal social media accounts.
Those inside National Defense Headquarters who propose such an idea argue that technique could be used to dominate discussion in Canada about particular topics on social media platforms.
Oh, okay, so that's what our Armed Forces is doing, propagandizing Trudeau messages.
We're going to dominate.
You know, it's actually brilliant.
It'll work on compliant leftists.
They do what they're told.
But it'll turn normal people, and especially conservatives, against the military.
This scheme will destroy public support from the military.
It'll erode trust.
Trudeau wins both ways.
Santarpius said the Canadian forces was also concerned misinformation would circulate during the pandemic and the information operations campaign was needed to Canada.
Hang on, I thought you just said you're not going to do this anymore.
Hey, does the military have some sort of special skill at deterring misinformation?
So if China lies about the pandemic and the World Health Organization repeats those lies, and Teresa Tam, who still works for the World Health Organization, so she tells those same lies, is it misinformation?
Is there a special magic to determine any of this or is it just whatever Trudeau says?
Military officers probably say, however, that disinformation on the pandemic ultimately didn't become a major issue in Canada.
Much of the misinformation circulated in North America came from sources like U.S. President Donald Trump.
Really, really?
That's what our Army says.
So China is not the source of any misinformation.
Don't believe anyone who says China's lying.
They're honest.
Our top ally, the United States, they're the liars about the pandemic.
You're irrational if you think otherwise.
Candidates Appreciate Press Gallery00:15:26
Hey, can I ask you a question?
Do you think the plan was actually put into effect?
Is this article part of the plan?
Now, I don't know.
I know I don't trust this Rear Admiral any more than I could throw him.
And I think that's the plan here.
Just like the left managed to destroy the NFL and NASCAR by infecting those once conservative institutions with leftist wokeness and craziness, causing conservatives to abandon them.
I think that's what's going on here.
I'm not convinced by anything this man says, this Rear Admiral.
I frankly don't think most Canadians would trust a Jeep going around blaring Trudeau's speeches.
I don't think that's his real mission here.
It's too stupid even for him.
I think the real mission here is to bring the Canadian forces into disrepute, to destroy the love and trust that ordinary Canadians have for the Army, to even make our own soldiers and veterans start to distrust it, even to hate it.
That's always been Justin Trudeau's objective.
He hates our military.
So call this disinformation, call this political interference, whatever.
Hey, Admiral, Mission accomplished, you disloyal underminer.
Stay with us for more.
Well, I think one of the problems with the mainstream media isn't that they're liberal, although that is definitely a problem.
It's that they're all so bland and uninteresting and all the same.
Well, what a pleasure to sit down with my friend Candice Malcolm, who's not just a great conservative journalist, but she's an innovator, a builder, someone who's not afraid to start something new.
And she joins us down in studio.
Candice, it's great to see you again.
Thank you so much, Ezra.
Thanks for the introduction.
I think it's true that we criticize the media because of the liberal bias, because they're now subsidized, or a lot of them just paid for outright by the government.
But they're also really, really boring.
They have the same opinion on everything, and the range of what you can believe is narrower and narrower.
And I think that's why so many Canadians are tuning out and rejecting that.
Yeah.
You know what?
I admire what you've built with True North, and we love talking to you and Andrew Lawton and your other colleagues.
We love that you're grassroots and that you don't take a dime from the government.
What I want to talk about today, if I may, is the Independent Press Gallery.
Now, you and I have chatted a little bit about this, but since we last spoke, you guys had a great event.
And I spoke to you that day, and I know you were a little bit worried because there was a tiny bump in the road.
But a few hours later, I thought that was the best political interaction I can remember seeing in Canadian conservative politics.
I can't even remember the last one that was better.
It was so good.
I'm talking about the fireside chat style interviews that you guys did with the Conservative candidates.
Give me a little bit of it from your point of view.
You arranged that whole thing.
You did the whole thing.
How do you think it went?
Sure, yeah, so of course we were a little bit disappointed, Ezra, because we had sort of planned and marketed this event as the last debate amongst the Conservative candidates before Conservative members are going to have to mail in their ballots.
We were so excited to get all four of the candidates agreed to it.
I didn't honestly expect Peter McKay to say yes in the first place.
The fact that he did, we were just really excited.
It was going to be the big launch of the IPG.
And because we had all four of the members, the mainstream media had to pay attention.
Even if they hate us, even if they begrudge everything we do, the fact that we had the legitimacy given to us by the candidates meant that they had to cover it.
And they were.
CPAC was going to air it.
There was a couple of news stories written about it.
So we were excited about that.
And then we got the curveball day of because Leslie Lewis informed us that she had an ear infection.
We were hoping that she was going to pull through.
Her doctor advised her to stay home.
Look, I get that people are a little bit paranoid at this point because of the coronavirus or whatever.
And we're in Toronto where there is still cases and stuff like that.
So we said, okay, we can still do the debate without Lesland.
But then, you know, an hour later, Peter McKay's campaign put out that statement.
I think Sheila Guddreid said that it was something funny about earache solidarity or something.
It was so late.
And he would have been better just to say nothing.
It was so transparent that it was a fib.
I think that, I mean, the earache, all right, fine.
I'm not going to say someone's faking an earache.
But he's not even trying when he says, because she has an earache, I won't go to the debate out of solidarity.
And by the way, her campaign manager who came down there, I think he wanted to say, look, we really do support the event.
Steve Ashau says the name.
He said, we don't want that kind of solidarity.
So he was saying, no, Don't use us as an excuse.
It was so transparent.
I think Peter McKay was definitely the loser, at least to the conservative base, that was excited for the debate and excited that you guys were doing it.
Well, and that was the whole idea.
This was to give the conservative members a final view of the candidates and, frankly, to a conservative audience.
I know it's the independent press gallery, and we welcome membership from any independent outlet or journalist, but let's be frank, you know, our audience, your audience, the post-millennial who's also a member, they all are sort of on the right side of the political spectrum.
So, this was a chance for the candidates to actually speak to the base, speak to the people who are going to be submitting their ballots.
So, Peter McKay dropped out at the last minute, and we kind of had to scramble.
As you saw, we had a bunch of stuff planned, and everything went out the window.
We even had ordered nice podium signs with names on it.
You know, some expenses out the window, but that's okay.
We pivoted, and that's sort of the beauty of the small, independent nature of our media companies, is that we're kind of used to pivoting, we're used to scrambling at the last minute.
So, Andrew Lawton did a fantastic job facilitating those conversations.
My favorite part of the evening, I mean, so we ended up doing two back-to-back, I think there were about 45-minute in-depth interviews on the same issues that we were going to be talking about through the debate.
So, the things that conservatives care about, not the stuff that the mainstream media obsesses on, not, you know, what is your position on abortion, what is your same stuff that they've heard over and over.
No, we actually wanted to talk to them about freedom of speech, about immigration, about all those topics.
And so, Andrew did a fantastic job just getting into that.
And then, my favorite part of the night was the scrums afterwards, because we had all these independent journalists, all these young, you know, really hungry guys asking great questions.
You know, compare that to the stale mainstream media ones where you get the same question over and over.
I think True North counted that one of the debates, they were asked like 20 times about systemic racism.
It was like over and over.
Whereas our questions, you know, everyone had their own questions.
It was really interesting and great to hear from so many different journalists.
You're right.
I mean, and I enjoy, I went down there briefly, and then I came back up here to our world headquarters because I was sort of doing a live stream from here.
But I went down there just to say hi, and it was such a pleasure for me to meet young journalists, independent, and frankly, I don't know if they're right-wing or left-wing, but that I had never heard of before and that wanted to join.
I was very excited by that.
And then, and I saw some of these questions like, what do you think of banning TikTok?
Okay, that's a refreshing question.
Interesting.
This is a real question, goes to Chinese security and whatever.
The questions that were asked were great.
I think the star of the night was your own colleague, Andrew Lawton.
Let me just throw just to two moments.
I mean, I've always been a fan of Andrew, but he really hit a new height here.
Can I show two of my favorites?
Sure, absolutely.
He was so well-briefed, and he exposed new things about the candidates, which is hard to do because they've been asked so many questions.
Here's when he sort of discovered that Derek Sloan supports the dairy cartel.
That was news to me.
He did it so well.
Take a look at this.
One of the big issues that we heard in the 2017 conservative leadership race, which was odd to become so central, was supply management.
And this is an issue where I think conservatives have often philosophically been at odds with some of the political realities.
And I know you've farmers in your riding.
I know a lot of farmers, including dairy farmers specifically, make up the conservative base.
What's your stance?
Well, I think that when you look at so first, I'll say I don't have any intentions to make any major changes to supply management, although we can always look at ways to modify the system.
That's real news.
And here's Andrew very gently with a smile, exposing a contradiction in Aaron O'Toole, talking tough about free speech.
But well, he engaged in a bit of cancel culture too.
Take a look at this question from Andrew.
Throughout the conservative leadership race, there have been two candidates disqualified.
One of them, Richard Descari, another one, Jim Carajalios.
And the reason I bring those up is because your campaign had actually complained about Jim Carahalios' campaign and the race.
A lot of members have reached out to us wondering how you square on one hand being against cancel culture and being for free votes, but on the other hand seemingly supporting a position that denied the members the ultimate right to determine who their leader should be or who their candidates should be.
Well we have a leadership election committee, the LEOC committee that decides.
We complain because Mr. Karakalios was lying, lying to thousands of Canadians about me.
And on issues that I'm very passionate about.
He did that with a smile.
It wasn't gotcha.
It was very fair.
I have to say, and I mean, I knew he was good, and I know I'm gushing now, but that truly was some of the finest journalism I've seen.
I'm not just saying that because I'm a friend of yours and a friend of his.
That was great.
Yeah, Andrew is just an incredibly talented journalist all around.
And I think, you know, he comes from talk radio, so he's really good at asking these kind of questions and doing interviews.
He's interviewed a lot of people.
He's interviewed Justin Trudeau before.
He's interviewed Maya Angelou.
He's got a really good list of people he's interviewed.
And I think that just his ability to get down to the nitty-gritty.
I think that the candidates appreciated the opportunity to talk to someone who's sort of friendly and actually wanting to get into the issues into their platforms.
The candidates were relaxed because they didn't feel like it was going to be an attack.
Right.
But the questions were firmer than they would normally get.
That's the irony.
Yeah, and I think that the outcome was that viewers really got a better look at the candidates.
And that's, again, why I think that Peter McKay did lose out.
Because had he shown up, I mean, I'm not sure if there was three, whether we would have gone ahead with the debate or whether we would have still done the fireside chats.
I kind of like the fireside chats.
In the future, when there's other races, I hope we do them too because they give you the opportunity to really get to know a candidate.
But again, we left the night not really knowing anything about Peter McKay other than that he didn't show up, even though Ezra was in Toronto.
He lives in Toronto.
He was just up the street and didn't show up.
But the other two candidates, both of them, were able to offer more of themselves, more of their platforms, even if there were those two little contradictions that Andrew found.
We weren't meaning it was just good.
Good journalism.
Yeah, absolutely.
I'm glad we recapped that event.
And what a credit to you and the Independent Press Gallery.
I like the fact that the Independent Press Gallery is doing stuff.
That's what I meant by my introduction.
You're not just a thinker, you're a doer.
You're both.
And that's rare.
And I noticed that there was some snippy comments on social media from the legacy media press gallery, the government press gallery.
Let me show you a couple of those.
Here's a couple by people saying, I don't, what's their problem?
Why don't they just apply?
I can't even believe that people would say that True North and Rebel News have been knocking so hard on the door, our fingers are bloody.
We have had to go to court.
And we've had our applications rejected by press galleries because they just don't like our point of view.
But that's not a reason to censor someone.
It's very strange to me that the existing media party, as I call it, is so self-unaware that they say, oh, you guys don't need to have an independent press gallery.
Why don't you hang out with us?
Well, we would like to, buddy.
That's the problem.
Right.
Yeah, it's really bizarre.
I mean, I think we both had journalists removed from Trudeau events by ourselves.
Andrew Lawton, I think they sent the cops after him, didn't they?
Yeah, and that was a public event where he had registered as a citizen.
And he got kicked out.
Your own Kian Baxi got removed from Trudeau's house when he was trying to show up.
So, I mean, they're literally putting police between us and the government.
And then these journalists are acting aloof, like, why do you need this?
What's the point of this?
I think that they're just sort of either willfully blind or they're trying to undermine our credibility, which it was fine because they have their own, frankly, they have their own credibility issues.
And I trust Canadians to be able to see through that kind of thing.
I was really impressed and surprised to learn from you that there's something like 50 journalists who have applied.
I didn't know.
That's part of my point about going down there to see all these young guys.
Who are you?
50 people feel marginalized by the existing press gallery.
That's quite something.
You and I might be the noisiest on this issue, but there's a lot of others who have been quietly looked over.
I've got one last question for you, and maybe you're not quite ready to answer it, but that's okay.
Let me put it, and you can decline to answer.
We have recently had a kerfuffle in Alberta.
As you know, we got Sheila in Northern Alberta and Kian in Calgary.
We applied to join their Alberta Legislature Press Gallery, and we were blackballed.
No reason.
Sheila's a great, I don't even know any how you can dislike me, I get it.
And Kian can be a little prickly.
But Sheila, come on, I don't know anyone.
She's nice.
And even when she's being mean, she's not mean.
She tries to be mean, but she can't be.
Anyways, they just said no for no reason.
So we're sort of having a big quarrel there.
Have you thought about having the Independent Press Gallery in other places besides just Ottawa?
Or maybe you already are, but we sure could use an independent press gallery in Edmonton, probably in Toronto for Queen's Park, because I know they keep people out too.
I think it's a hazard that the legacy media, it's a moral hazard, they like to keep out their rivals, sort of a cartel, keep up the competition.
Old folks, Old Boys Club.
Have you thought about having provincial emanations of the Independent Press Gallery?
I don't see any reason why not.
I mean, the original idea was to look at the Parliamentary Press Gallery and say, you know, this is an exclusionary club.
They bully people.
You call them an old boys club.
I think they banned women for the first 70 years of their existence.
They banned broadcast media for the first decade of its existence.
They have this legacy of it, but for sure it happens in other parts of the country as well.
And part of the concept was that we want journalists to have access and giving them the credentialed card will prove legitimacy in the eyes of some people who will say, okay, you can come on into our legislature building.
But if there's resistance, I think that's the purpose of the press gallery is to form a united body and say, just because you write for a legacy newspaper doesn't give you the monopoly over telling the news.
And there's so many independent outlets.
I think our event proved there's people that we don't even know about that want to come and want to be part of it.
And the media should be more inclusive.
More Canadians should have their voices told.
It's ironic, Ezra, because the whole purpose behind the CBC is that Canadians' voices need to be told.
And we don't want to be drowned out by American voices.
And yet, when there are Canadian voices that want to have their voice heard, where is the CBC?
They're the ones that are often doing the censoring and doing the exclusion.
More Voices Needed00:02:49
So I think it's a great idea, and I hope we can help you with that.
Well, that'd be great.
I was shocked when it came from post-media, because I used to work for the National Post, and I remember back then it was for free speech.
And I also know that five years ago, they sought the Competition Bureau's blessing to take over their competitors, and they swore on a stack of Bibles, oh, we are not anti-competitive, don't you worry about that?
And here they are keeping us up.
So I hope that we can fix that problem there.
Look, we're going to do our journalism just like you do, whether or not they let us in the building.
But it's pretty weird to me that in the year 2020, old, dying carcass media can keep up the new vibrant green shoots media.
Well, just for a matter of time, I think it's only a matter of time, and then we're going to boil them all over.
Well, it's great to see you.
Congratulations.
I'm so proud that, and we signed our people up.
We had RP.
I know we weren't the first.
Someone got in before us, but we were amongst the first members, and we'll be supporters, and we'll attend all the events.
And if they're anything as good as that great fireside chat event that Andrew chaired, well, it's going to be an amazing addition to the national debate.
Congratulations to you.
Thank you so much, Ezra.
And it's your entrepreneurial spirit as much as anything else.
And that's what the bad guys are scared of.
Oh, thank you so much, Ezra.
All right, there you have it.
There's Candice Malcolm.
the boss of True North.
You know her, you know Andrew, they're good friends of ours, but if you're not yet a subscriber, you gotta go.
Because look, the CBC just takes the money out of your pocket.
They don't even ask, right?
They take it at tax time.
Can you do me a favor and go to tnc.news, right?
Yes.
TNC.news.
And you can sign up for the podcast, the shows.
And you know, it wouldn't hurt to chip in a few bucks.
I mean, God forbid, God forbid, but you don't know what you got till it's gone.
And we've got to support, I say this when I see Spencer Fernando.
I'm a subscriber to the post-millennial.
I think I'm a subscriber to True North.
I better double check.
If someone's out there doing grassroots journalism, I'm going to give them $10 a month.
There's no harm to me because we've got to support people.
Even if you don't agree with everything they say, you've got to support a variety of points of view, not just the government journal scope, TNC.news.
Oh, I would love it if 100 people who are watching our show tonight just clicked on over and joined.
Because you guys live based on viewer support.
That's right, and small dollar donations as well.
There you go.
May I suggest $10 a month?
Thank you.
And I got to check to make sure I'm doing that.
I'm going to check to make sure.
All right, stay with us.
Go ahead.
Welcome back on my monologue last night.
All About Control00:02:08
Johan writes, this is all about control.
This is also about the public health community and doctors making a name for themselves now.
Pandemic is over.
It was an interesting ride.
Let's move on.
Yeah, as Drea Humphrey points out, these masks for preventive reasons, that's unlimited.
That's forever.
I don't want to stay in this crisis forever.
Human beings can't live in a state of anxiety and panic forever.
Christopher writes, science is revising opinion, not buying your attempts to vilify Dr. Tam.
At any given point, it can be argued, A, scientists were still understanding the nature of the virus, and B, she was consistent with the best medical scientific thought about the pandemic at the time.
All right, so you like Teresa Tam, can I ask you a few questions?
Who does she work for?
The honest answer, the technically accurate answer, is both China-dominated World Health Organization and Trudeau.
So I ask again, who does she work for?
Who does she answer to?
How is she accountable?
Are any other opinions allowed?
And are there any limits to her powers?
I don't like any of the answers then.
On my interview with Abby Yamini, Philips writes, just wait, similar quarantine queer few laws coming to Canada.
You can rest assured.
You can be assured.
I'm not so sure.
I'm not so sure, but maybe.
I mean, Australia was doing great.
And what was it, 11 cases the other day?
They put the whole state under martial law.
And even our friend Avi, he didn't even seem that particularly revved up about it himself.
I mean, he's opposed to it and he's critical of it.
But where's the major fight back?
I don't know.
I don't think you can lock down a city the size of Toronto with soldiers like that without something snapping.
And one more question, do you actually believe for a second that the ruling and elite classes will follow those rules?
I do not.
Well, my friend, that's the show for today.
Until tomorrow.
On behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.