Ezra Levant warns Bill S7, Canada’s Liberal-backed law granting border agents warrantless device searches under "reasonable general concern," mirrors China’s social credit system and tech surveillance like ArriveCAN or Pfizer’s proposed vaccine compliance chips. With Christia Freeland—finance minister and WEF Board of Trustees member—linked to Soros and Schwab, critics question conflicts between national sovereignty and globalist agendas, including WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. Public skepticism grows as the WEF pushes biometric tracking, framing dissent as fringe while mainstream media ignores its real-world influence, from pandemic overreach to border enforcement. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm going to take you through a, I guess, a sort of small and obscure bill introduced by Justin Trudeau's liberals, introduced into the Senate, which is a little bit odd.
It's called Bill S7, and it gives border guards the power to search your phone for photos and videos and texts and emails, not based on probable cause or anything like that, just really a hunch.
General concern is what they say.
It's quite something.
I'll take you through it.
But before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
And I think it's valuable.
I mean, I know some people like the podcast because they're driving or riding a bike or on the bus or something.
But the video version, we really like to jam in, well, videos.
And I think it really adds value.
When I write my scripts and when I put it together, I'm thinking video first.
So I think it's the best experience.
It's $8 a month.
In addition to my nightly show, you also get weekly shows from David Menzies, Sheila Gunread, Andrew Chapinos, and Nat and Cat.
So there's a lot of content, 36 shows a month, just for $8.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, why do they want a digital ID so badly?
It's May 27th, and this is the Angel of At 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.
But why?
is because it's my bloody right to do so i'm worried about a new bill introduced in canada's parliament to give border guards the right to search and seize information in your cell phone including photos including emails including documents.
It really is modeled after China's so-called social credit system, where everything about you is tracked in a government database, or more likely, contracted out to a company like Amazon or Google on behalf of the government.
So they both have your stuff.
I think it's a worst of both worlds.
I'm not against ID.
I'm very much for ID for things like voting, for example, or immigration.
Those are things that the left hates ID for.
They call ID racist.
Weirdly, when you say that people should have to show ID to vote in an election, I don't think it's racist.
I think it's racist to say, as the left does, that minorities don't have access to ID, that that's a barrier for them.
I think that's just weird.
I think it's false.
I think it's just an excuse.
It's the soft bigotry of low expectations.
The left doesn't want ID because they want to cheat.
I'm for normal ID.
What's normal is the question, I guess, these days.
I've been carrying around my birth certificate in my wallet for decades.
Same with my original social insurance card.
It's no problem.
Those and my driver's license and my health card fit in my wallet and in some credit cards and maybe some cash.
And I guess the wallet's a bit bulky, but it's no big deal.
I've never lost my wallet in my life.
What a hassle it would be to replace all those things.
I can understand the appeal of digital versions of those IDs.
I get it.
I use digital versions of tickets now.
I used to fly before unvaccinated people were banned from flying.
You could choose a paper airline ticket, but it was also pretty convenient just to have it on your smartphone.
Just hope your cell phone battery doesn't die and you're fine.
Tickets for events, too.
Ticketmaster gives you digital cards.
I think phone-based payments are pretty handy, too.
I don't know if you've ever used Apple Pay, for example, where you scan your phone on the credit card machine just like you would scan a credit card in the past.
Apple Pay doesn't bother me too much because if it weren't for my phone, I'd probably be swiping a credit card instead.
So it's not like I'm creating a new digital record about myself that I wouldn't otherwise do.
Same with the airline tickets, same with the Ticketmaster example.
I think this is all obvious.
The reason we like digital tickets for things is because they can be convenient for us and they're convenient for the other side too, for airlines to scan you in that way.
No fuss, no must, no paper.
It's connected right to their computer systems.
But I'm worried about a merger between all of these different databases.
I'm worried about connections between the databases.
I'm fine with my credit card company knowing where I buy things.
They sort of have to know that to make the payment for me.
But what else is connected?
And to whom?
And who gets that data?
We've had scary answers to that question in the past, especially in the past decade, not so much from credit card companies, but from big tech companies who know much more about you, like Facebook and Google.
Now, they're free services, your Facebook page.
They're free because they're not the product being bought and sold.
You are to their advertisers, but mainly to them.
They know everything about you.
Everything you read, everything you write, everything you buy.
They Know Everything00:05:48
These days, everything your eyes look at, everything you say is picked up by your phone's microphone.
And you can't remember every word you write or say in your whole life, but a computer can.
It can store them.
That's what's for sale.
That's the greatest value of these mega-tech corporations.
That's why they're free, because you are for sale.
And the knowledge about everything you care about and would pay for is for sale.
And in the case of Twitter, we've seen this, and YouTube too, and other highly political big tech companies.
They don't just want to make money off you for things you want to buy, advertise.
They want to manage your politics.
They want to censor what you see and censor what you say.
And they want to boost left-wing things in your field of vision.
That's what the new Twitter CEO, Parag Agarwal, meant when he said they're not in the free speech business, they're in the attention business.
You can talk all you want on Twitter, but only they get to decide if anyone hears you and what you hear in return.
They get to turn on or off the taps.
I think that's scary.
Now, this was all happening already, of course, but then came the pandemic.
Nothing worked.
None of their advice worked.
The masks didn't work.
They never did before.
They were just used to keep people in a state of fear and to be a flag to fly, to show which team you were on.
It was obedience training for what was to come.
The six-foot separation rule, it never worked.
It was made up in the first place.
Don't take it from me.
Ask the former head of the commissioner of the FDA, Scott Gottley.
And you're right.
The six feet was arbitrary.
The six feet was arbitrary in and of itself.
But if the administration had focused in on that, they might have been able to affect a policy that would have actually achieved their outcome.
But that policy-making process didn't exist.
And the six feet is a perfect example of sort of the lack of rigor around how CDC made recommendations.
Nobody knows where it came from.
Most people assume that the six feet of distance, the recommendation for keeping six feet apart, comes out of some old studies related to flu, where droplets don't travel more than six feet.
We now know COVID spreads through aerosols.
The initial recommendation that the CDC brought to the White House, and I talk about this, was 10 feet.
And a political appointee in the White House said, We can't recommend 10 feet.
Nobody can measure 10 feet.
It's inoperable.
Society will shut down.
So the compromise was around six feet.
The lockdowns not only did not work, they made everything worse.
Countless lives harmed or even killed, especially children.
What cruelty.
And the vaccines and vaccine mandates, as in if you don't get a vaccine, you can't go to work or you can't fly or you can't go to a restaurant.
Well, let's quote Bill Gates himself talking about how vaccines really aren't vaccines if they don't stop the virus from breaking through.
Here's the most honest six seconds he's ever said, just as weak in fact.
The idea of checking if people are vaccinated, you know, if you have breakthrough infections, what's the point?
No, we knew a lot of this pretty early on.
We knew the truth about the disease itself pretty early on, how it wasn't as deadly as first thought.
We knew, but it was in too many people's interests to have the pandemic as the big thing.
Again, here's Bill Gates himself and how he got it so wrong.
And we knew things pretty soon.
It wasn't until early February when I was in a meeting that experts at the foundation said, There's no way.
You know, this, there's been too much travel without diagnosis for us to contain this.
And then at that point, we didn't really understand the fatality rate.
You know, we didn't understand that it's a fairly low fatality rate and that it's a disease mainly of the elderly, kind of like fluids, although a bit different than that.
So that was a pretty scary period where the world didn't go on alert, including the United States, nearly as fast as it needed to.
I think Bill Gates is cruel and sociopathic and immoral, by the way.
As you know, his relationship with the child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, which he refused to stop visiting, is just one example.
You know, it was also widely reported that Bill had a friendship or business or some kind of contact with Jeffrey Epstein and that you were not, that that was very upsetting to you.
Did that play a role in the divorce at all in this process?
Yeah, as I said, it's not one thing, it was many things.
But I did not like that he'd had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, though.
Then you made that clear to him.
I made that clear to him.
I also met Jeffrey Epstein exactly one time.
Did you?
Yes, because I wanted to see who this man was.
And I regretted it from the second I stepped in the door.
He was abhorrent.
He was evil personified.
I had nightmares about it afterwards.
So, you know, my heart breaks for these young women because that's how I felt.
And here I'm an older woman.
My God, I feel terrible for those young women.
It was awful.
You felt that the moment you walked in.
I didn't hear it.
It was awful.
Yeah.
And you shared that with Bill, and he still continued to spend time with him?
Any of the questions remaining about what Bill's relationship there was, those are for Bill to answer.
Okay.
But I made it very clear how I felt about him.
Gates himself just sort of chuckles about it even now.
Biometric Surveillance Debate00:12:09
Anyone else looking at this?
Well, he's dead, so in general, you always have to be careful.
He's a creepy guy who has a bit of a God complex, and he has $100 billion to indulge any fancy.
But I want you to meet this guy.
I think we've shown him a couple times before.
His name is Yuval Noah Harari.
He's a thinker, a philosopher, even, a futurist, I think.
He's a star.
at the World Economic Forum.
He's pretty bizarre too, by the way.
I won't get into that here.
But listen to him talk about everything that's happened and why it's so useful.
Not useful for public health.
Sorry, that's not what he means.
Useful to condition people to obey, to train them to submit.
COVID is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize total biometric surveillance.
If we want to stop this epidemic, we need not just to monitor people, we need to monitor what's happening under their skin.
What we have seen so far, it's corporations and governments collecting data about where we go, who we meet, what movies we watch.
The next phase is the surveillance going under our skin.
We're now seeing mass surveillance systems established even in democratic countries, which previously rejected them.
And we also see a change in the nature of surveillance.
Previously, surveillance was mainly above the skin.
Now it's going under the skin.
Governments want to know not just where we go or who we meet, above all, they want to know what is happening under our skin.
What's our body temperature?
What's our blood pressure?
What is our medical condition?
Now humans are developing even bigger powers than ever before.
We are really acquiring divine powers of creation and destruction.
We are really upgrading humans into gods.
We are requiring, for instance, the power to re-engineer life.
I know that in recent years we saw populist politicians undermining deliberately the trust that people have in important institutions like universities, like respectable media outlets.
These populist politicians told people that scientists are this small elite, disconnected from the real people.
I mean all this story about Jesus rising from the dead and being the Son of God, this is fake news.
Humans are now hackable animals.
You know that the whole idea that humans have, you know, this, they have this soul or spirit and they have free will and nobody knows what's happening inside me.
So whatever I choose, whether in the election or whether in the supermarket, this is my free will.
That's over.
There was a lot in that clip there.
It was a bit of a montage.
But did you get that first part?
He said, COVID is critical because that is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize total biometric surveillance.
We need not just monitor people, we need to monitor what's happening under their skin.
If you think that's science fiction, well, here's the president of Pfizer talking about a pill that works in a very practical way.
Just look.
It is basically a biological chip that it is in the tablet.
And once you take the tablet and dissolves into your stomach, sends a signal that you took the tablet.
So imagine the applications of that, compliance.
The insurance companies to know that the medicines that patients should take, they do take them.
It is fascinating what happens in this field.
Funny, that was at the World Economic Forum too.
So can these people be serious?
Sure, serious like a pericarditis heart attack, serious like a trillion dollars.
That's how serious they are.
So that's what the vaccine passport was about.
That's what Trudeau's Arrive Can Travel app is about.
That's what digital ID is about.
It's to connect it all.
It's tracked on GPS, your location.
And of course, the phone companies have already been handing over all of your data about where you have been going based on that GPS.
They hand that over to the government too, even though they lie about it.
Here's a story that popped up in the Toronto Star.
This is very early in the pandemic.
Governments aren't tracking your cell phone in the battle of COVID-19.
They aren't.
They might, but they aren't.
All right.
Well, here's one from January this year.
Canada's Privacy Watchdog probing health officials' use of cell phone location data.
And here's one from a month after that.
Few realized, Privacy Commissioner, few realized the government was tracking their pandemic movements.
Yeah.
Few realized it, of course, because the government lied about it and the media covered it up and called anyone who was skeptical a conspiracy theorist.
So I think these things are connected.
It's the nature of a network, the nature of the internet.
What does all this mean?
I think it means total surveillance, but also punishment, if you get out of line.
I mean, ask the hundreds of Canadians who had their bank accounts seized with no court order.
Ask the thousands of people who tried to donate to the GoFundMe for the truckers, but the tech company blocked it on the demand of the government.
That's what I mean.
Connected, link it all together.
One digital ID system for everything.
An everything card.
Where you are.
How's your body?
Your most private details.
Your money.
And give the power to the government to, I don't know, turn it off.
Which brings me to the Bill S7.
Now you might say, don't bills in Parliament start with the letter C, like Bill C11?
Well, that's when they're introduced in the House of Commons.
Strangely, this government bill was introduced in the Senate, so it's got an S.
An act to amend the Customs Act and the Pre-Clearance Act.
I'm going to read from the summary of the law in the actual legislation.
Summary.
The enactment amends the Customs Act to A, clarify the circumstances in which Border Service officers may examine documents stored on personal digital devices.
B, authorize the making of regulations in respect of those examinations.
And C, update certain provisions respecting enforcement, offenses, and punishment.
The enactment also amends the Pre-Clearance Act to A, clarify the circumstances in which pre-clearance officers may examine, search, and detain documents stored on personal digital devices.
So let's say you're not carrying your master digital ID, but so much of your info these days is on your phone, right?
Think about it.
Well, turn it over.
Seriously, turn over even your photos.
Turn over your emails.
Turn over your texts.
Your Facebook posts, everything.
Turn it over.
No search warrant.
Here's the new standard.
It's a little bit long, but I'm going to read it.
I'm going to read it slowly.
I think it's important.
And by the way, the words exported and imported means if you're leaving or entering Canada with these things, just a little clarification.
Okay, this is from the bill, S7.
Documents or personal digital device.
At any time, up to the time of release, or at any time up to the time of exportation, an officer designated under some Section 2 may, in accordance with the regulations, examine documents, including emails,
text messages, receipts, photographs or videos that are stored on a personal digital device that has been imported or is about to be exported and is in the custody or possession of a person if the officer has a, get this, reasonable general concern, oh, what's that?
That this act or a regulation made under it has been or might be contravened in respect of one or more of the documents.
B, any other act of parliament that prohibits, controls, or regulates the importation or exportation of goods and is administered or enforced by the officer, any regulation made under the act has been or might be contravened in respect to one or more of the documents.
I'm almost done.
Or C, one or more of the documents may afford evidence in respect of a contravention under this act or regulation made under it or any other act of parliament that prohibits, controls, or regulates the importation or exportation of goods and is administered or enforced by the officer or any regulation made under the act.
Okay, I'm sorry, that's a lot of words.
It's a lot of words.
But what it's saying is they just have to have a general concern that there's something on your phone.
And they demand a look at it and don't think you can stop them.
Don't think you can deny them access.
Don't think you can say, yeah, try and hack it, buddy.
I'll read to you penalty for hindering an officer.
Give me your password.
No, here's the penalty, buddy.
Every person who contravenes section 153 is guilty of an offense, sorry,
punishable and on a summary conviction and liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not more than six months or both.
Huh.
So don't think that you can't deny them, you can just deny them the password.
And by the way, you're guilty of an indictable offense, and you can be liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years or to both.
Imagine $50,000 and five years in prison for not letting them into your cell phone.
Now I believe the customs officers and border guards are important jobs and I believe they should be able to guard our borders.
Now they don't, by the way.
As a matter of policy, they do not.
Look at Wroxham Road.
They don't guard anything there.
But sure, be on guard.
For guns, for drugs.
Yeah, sure.
For illegal people, for people being trafficked, like children being trafficked, Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein style, you know.
But seriously, going through your phone, clicking on your apps, downloading, copying your stuff.
I didn't read part of the bill, but it's in there that they can take copies of your stuff.
And all of it based on a reasonable general concern.
Have you ever heard of that?
What is a reasonable general concern?
Trudeau's Legal Push00:07:59
I just got this.
I just got this feeling in my tummy.
Not probable cause.
Just a hunch, really.
So right now, they have to change the law through S7 to permit this.
This is not legal right now.
Trudeau wants to make it legal.
He's introduced this bill in the Senate.
They want to make it legal for cops to go through your emails, your texts, your photos, your videos.
It's a little purvy, if you ask me.
They don't have that power right now.
This bill will do that.
But really, if they have a digital ID, they won't really need to search your phone at all, will they?
They'll already have all that information.
Thank you very much.
Stay with us for more.
Hey, there were some really exciting moments of our team in Switzerland.
First, they were in Davos, where the World Economic Forum met, and then they went down to Geneva, where the World Health Organization met.
I want to show you three clips because they're just too good.
And it's not going to surprise you that the star of these is Avi Yamini, our Australian chief correspondent.
I think you know, every year we have a viewer survey, a poll, a vote, really, for best rebel reporter.
Now, we got some amazing, and it's hard for me to choose.
It's like asking which child is my favorite.
No, I love them all.
But Avi has won the MVP award two years in a row from our viewers, and you're about to see why.
Here's the first time he bumped into Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada, then the governor of the Bank of England.
Now he's got a climate post with the UN, and I am most certain he intends to come back to Canada to run for parliament and become the liberal leader to succeed Trudeau.
That's my prognostication.
Here's Avi versus Mark Carney, part one.
How do you justify the how does the UN climate envoy justify the massive carbon footprint here today to set this up, this fake city for a week event?
How did you get here?
Did you fly?
You walked?
Did you come on a private jet?
Of course not.
So how do you justify this?
Look at all of this.
For one week event, the carbon footprint is huge.
Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?
Drop it.
No?
Drop it.
Look, there is lots of progress being made.
But look, I'm not doing a stand-up interview, okay?
Why not?
You're walking that way, anyways.
I think people around the world, you know, this year they say regaining trust.
That's the whole purpose.
I do lots of media.
Friendly media.
No, I do.
No, God knows.
The ones that are here are invited.
I'm doing no media at this time.
Can we sit down and make a time with you and answer some actual tough questions?
You can make a request for a meeting.
So you can deny it.
Look, as I say, as with everyone else, you can do the same thing, as with the guy from True North.
Oh, you're amazing.
He's a good guy, but I'm not.
I'm a good guy.
I'm sure you're a good guy as well.
All people are good.
It's absolutely right.
But the whole world is looking at this now going, you're a pack of hypocrites, and you're at the top of the chain there.
What would you answer, people?
Just give me one answer to the people.
Take care, sir.
Yeah, he's a little bit of a slippery fish, isn't he?
And he's not used to being asked questions.
Well, wouldn't you know it, Davos being a small town, Avi Yamini bumped into Mark Carney the next day.
And if you don't understand the reference here, Avi's talking about the World Economic Forum idea, I think it's so gross that we should eat bugs.
We should eat bugs.
Anyhow, here's part two of Avi versus Carney.
Mark, now good time.
How are you?
How are you doing?
I'm missing you from yesterday.
Who's your friend?
How are you doing?
Very well, thank you.
That's good.
Any bug sandwiches today?
I haven't had anything to eat today.
I actually haven't.
I haven't.
I haven't had anything to eat today, but have you got any recommendations?
I don't know.
I own nothing, so I'm happy.
Well, that's good.
I want to show you just one more video.
And this is Avi Yamini and Savannah Hernandez and our team, when they were in Geneva, the World Health Organization, and their assembly, that's their big meeting.
They were just outside the building, like literally outside doing what we call a scene setter, just showing you the backdrop.
And police came and said, and I'll let you see it for yourself, because you will not believe me otherwise, the police said you may not even film images of the outside of the building if you're saying bad things about us.
I swear to God, don't take my word for it.
Take a look at this.
Yeah, yeah.
Is everything okay?
Now it's stopped to film.
Why?
Because you have not authorization.
Not film.
One second.
Why do you need authorization here?
Yes, it's double virtuous.
Why can't you film the World Health Organization?
Because it's official if you said double verchaux is bad.
Yeah.
Double verchau when you film.
It's okay.
Double vercha.
He said okay.
You film.
If I say it's bad.
Perhaps I don't film it.
Maybe I do, so what does it matter?
We can film if we like the World Health Organization, but if we're reporting badly on the World Health Organization, we can't film.
So they don't seem too happy with filming the World Criminal Health Organization.
How you doing, mate?
Bonjour.
Do you speak English?
Very few.
You are from the profession, you are a journalist.
You are...
We will contact the control center to see if you have an authorization to...
Bring someone in English.
I don't speak French, mate.
My name sounds good in French too.
This is certainly an image of health.
He's got his masks tied to his security belt.
It's very secure.
Please, just one moment.
Okay.
Thank you.
What?
One moment.
Yes.
It's possible to have your interview, okay, just for the image.
The image, yeah?
Yes, not inside the building.
Well, no, go inside.
That's okay.
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
Just around.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you very much.
There you go.
So that's the thing you've got to learn when you stand up for yourself against tyranny.
And that's what it is.
That's a taste of tyranny.
That's what it looks like when authoritarian states and rulers try to shut you down.
If you stand up for yourself, nine out of ten times, at least while you're in a democracy, you will win.
Let that be a lesson.
Avi mini for rebel news in Geneva, Switzerland.
That's a good message by Avi at the end.
If you fight back for your rights in a democracy, you can sometimes win.
Avi says nine out of ten times a win.
I'm not sure if it's that high.
But Avi does a good job of it, and you can see why he was elected twice by our viewers, our reporter of the year.
Rich Canadian Minister's Dilemma00:10:16
Well, one of my favorite reporters, in fact, my number one favorite reporter at the National Post, tied with Rex Murphy, is our next guest.
You know who I'm talking about, Rupa Supermania.
She joins us now via Skype to talk about her column about the World Economic Forum.
Rupa, great to see you again.
Great to see you too, everyone.
Thank you so much for your kind words.
I just really appreciate it.
And I don't know if I fully deserve it, but.
Well, listen, what I like about your coverage is you're not afraid to zig when everyone else is zagging.
Sometimes you're a contrarian, and I think that's the hardest thing to be.
Hey, your new column, I have it in front of me here in the National Post.
It's called World Health Organization and the Davos Elite Leave a Lot to be desired.
Canadians elect our leaders to work in our interests, not those of international bureaucrats or the rich and powerful.
I should have known this, but I didn't.
I didn't realize that Trudeau last year gave nearly 3 million Canadian tax dollars to the World Economic Forum.
They're full of billionaires, Rupa.
The richest people in the world.
What are we doing?
I know, I know.
It truly is bizarre.
So this is a story that was actually broken by the True North Center a couple of weeks ago.
And it came as a surprise to me as well.
I didn't think that a rich organization like the World Economic Forum, which has all kinds of rich benefactors, needs to be subsidized by taxpayers.
And it's not just Canadian taxpayers who've been subsidizing, help subsidize the World Economic Forum.
It's also taxpayers in Japan, it's taxpayers in the U.S., you name it, Germany, a bunch of different countries.
And it really is perplexing.
Why do taxpayers have to foot the bill for this annual event?
And it really does, it's problematic optics, in my opinion.
Sure, $3 million is not a whole lot of money.
And you could say it's an insignificant sum of money.
But my point is that this is happening in the context of a very inflationary environment where the average Canadian is struggling to make ends meet.
And so this is just very problematic for a range of different reasons.
Yeah, and it's, you know, $3 million is not a lot of money in the scheme of the Canadian budget.
They waste that much in a matter of seconds.
But there's something immoral about it.
It feels upside down.
This really is the Western meeting place for oligarchs.
Like, we use the word oligarch as a pejorative to describe the billionaires around Vladimir Putin.
Okay, I get it.
They are shady characters.
But what do you call people in the West who are ultra-rich and powerful and want to scheme behind the scenes?
George Soros, Jeffrey Bezos, Bill Gates.
Shouldn't we call them oligarchs too?
That's who Davos is for and about and by.
And so the idea that Canada would give even $1 to the oligarch meeting group.
And it's not like this is some international government agency.
It's basically Klaus Schwab's company.
It's so gross that we're giving them any money.
I think it was our finance minister and deputy prime minister Christia Freeland who called them plutocrats.
And she went from being one of their biggest critics to now being an insider.
She sits on the board of trustees of the World Economic Forum.
And again, this is something that I flagged about a year and a half ago.
And it was, you know, she's been a member of this board for a few years now.
And I'm not quite sure why this is not a bigger issue here in Canada, because the optics, again, once again, don't look good.
She's the only politician on the board of the World Economic Forum.
And I think it's important that we ask why that is the case.
That's a great point.
I mean, I know a little bit about Christia Freeland, and I did read her book, Plutocrats.
It felt like an attempt at being, you know, I don't know if our viewers remember there was a show called Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
It was by Robin Leach, who would just visit these rich people on yachts.
It felt like it was sort of a puriant, if I'm saying that word right.
You know, I'm hanging out with billionaires.
She was actually George Soros's official biographer before she came back.
I think she just loved hanging around rich people.
And she would sort of say, oh, I'm not for the super rich, but she loved it.
And she was working for Soros as a biographer.
I don't understand what value she has to the World Economic Forum other than she's an insider in the Canadian cabinet.
Like she was sort of a pop nonfiction author.
She had a project at Thomson Reuters that failed spectacularly.
I guess what I'm saying is, just like Hunter Biden had these contracts in Russia and China and Ukraine, clearly because it was just about his relationship with his dad, Joe Biden, I think Christia Freeland's only use to the World Economic Forum is not her brilliant management or strategic skills.
It's that she's plugged right into the Canadian government.
And that scares me because how can you be loyal to two organizations that are sometimes at odds?
I just think it's really inappropriate.
Well, that is the point, isn't it?
You have two different, so you have the national interests, the Canadian national interests, which is what she's supposed to be defending.
That is what she should be standing up for.
And then you have the interests of the World Economic Forum, which may be at odds with what is in our national interest.
And this does present a dilemma.
And the World Economic Forum says that their Board of Trustees is comprised of people from a range of different backgrounds, from the political establishment, from big corporations, from civil society, and so on and so forth.
But it still begs the question: why is the only actively serving politician on the board of trustees from Canada?
What exactly, what purpose is that serving?
And I feel that this is not getting the attention that it deserves.
Now, the World Economic Forum makes it very clear that the Board of Trustees don't get any compensation for serving on the board, but they provide guidance.
They provide guidance to the organization.
But what is that guidance?
What does that guidance look like?
And is that in our national interest?
That's the most important question, I think.
I would think that being finance minister, deputy prime minister, and she seems to be the foreign minister, at least in regards to Ukraine, I would think that sort of takes up someone's time.
So I wonder why and how she can make time to serve the interests of a group of oligarchs.
I find it odd.
Maybe it's her relationship with George Soros that has carried her over.
I don't know.
But Rupa, I'll tell you this.
It's very rare that Canadian journalists, other than independent sort of even fringe journalists, talk about the World Economic Forum.
I know that Terry Corcoran of the Financial Post does.
But other than him, you mention the World Economic Forum and people will hiss at you and say, that's a conspiracy theory.
The great reset is a conspiracy theory.
They don't actually want you to own nothing and be happy, even though each of those phrases is their official thing.
It's so weird how in certain polite society, if you even mention the World Economic Forum, they'll call you a crank, even though it's a real thing.
We were just there.
It's a real thing.
Last word to you, Rupa.
Why is it that no one even is curious?
This is a very interesting thing.
Even if you like billionaires and oligarchs and secret societies and Klaus Schwab, who is literally the son of a man who moved to Nazi Germany to run a factory.
I mean, I'm not blaming him for his father's affiliation with the Nazis, but he's like this classic supervillain, this Klaus Schwab.
And he says the craziest things.
Like, surely just out of sheer spectacle, journalists would find this curious, but very few even talk about him.
Yeah, so Ezra, I don't think we need to, you know, really even have a conspiracy theory here.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's all out in the open.
Their agenda is out in the open.
They're very clear about where they're coming from, what they want to accomplish.
They see themselves as agents of change.
They see themselves as powerful individuals trying to influence governments all over the world.
Where is the conspiracy here, right?
But ultimately, I think what is important is that does that serve the national interests?
That's the question that we should be answering every single time that the World Economic Forum is a topic of discussion, or for that matter, the World Health Organization and the Pandemic Treaty, which is, which is, as you mentioned, they also met this past week.
And the pandemic treaty now is, to be honest with you, I mean, I'm nothing against international treaties.
I think they serve a purpose.
But with the pandemic treaty, you really have to wonder, an organization that got it so wrong on the pandemic, do we really trust them to come up with this global pandemic treaty to deal with the next pandemic?
I know it raises a lot of questions for me, and it should for a lot of people.
Yeah.
Raising Questions About Global Reset00:08:12
Well, Rupa, we're so grateful for your column in the National Post.
I'm so glad you have that prime journalistic real estate because you're getting the people who really ought to hear it, and I'm glad they are.
Nice to see you again, my friend.
Thanks for your time.
Thanks so much, Ezra.
Right on.
There you have it, Rupa Supermania, who is a columnist for the National Post as well as for Nikai, Nikkei, excuse me, the Asian news agency.
Stay with us.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me, Island.
Jason says, Roman never fails to impress me.
Thanks for the great interview.
Roman Babra, I really like the guy.
And I have to say, he was probably the most effective critic of the lockdowns from within government.
I really like the cut of the jib of Randy Hillier.
How he fights.
I like the fact that other MPPs battled Doug Fortu.
They were all thrown out.
But I think that Roman Baber did the most research.
He was the most meticulous, the most authoritative.
And really, he was pretty early to it.
He was pretty early to it.
I think he was sacked in January of 2021.
So not even a year into it.
He realized things were wrong.
Give the guy credit for that.
Sebastian says, most likely Pierre is going to be the candidate.
But I'm hoping Roman becomes an MP and works his way up to be leader.
I think it's quite possible that Roman Baber is elected, and it wouldn't surprise me if Pierre Polyev appoints him to cabinet, especially if Roman Babur wins in his Toronto riding of York Center.
I actually happen to live in that riding.
And, you know, the Conservatives have a tough time in the greater Toronto area.
That's a winnable seat.
It was held by the Conservatives.
It was lost to the Liberals.
I think Roman Baber could win it back.
Ryan F. says Roman is one of the few candidates who kept it 100 during the lockdowns and mandates.
Yeah, and he lost his job over it.
I mean, he absolutely would have been re-elected, and I think he probably would have merited being in cabinet.
So I think he did pay a price for speaking out.
I'm glad he did.
That's a show for the day, and that's the end of our week.
What a week.
Oh, my gosh.
We covered so many trials.
We covered things in every time zone.
Juan Mendoza Diaz was covering the border, was covering the Uvalde shooting, if I'm saying that right.
And of course, we had our team in the World Economic Forum in Davos, and then the World Health Organization in Geneva.
I think it was actually one of the busiest weeks in the history of Rebel News and one of the most important.
I'm very proud of our team.
In fact, even last night, we had a documentary premiere in the city of Calgary.
A lot going on.
I wish I could have been there, but like I said, I can't fly.
That's our show.
Until Monday, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.
Good night.
And keep fighting for freedom.
And let me leave you with our video of the day from Alexa Lavoie.
Quebec City residents share their perspectives on Klaus Schwab.
bye now so hey alexa for urban news and we are the monday 23 of may And I'm currently in Petit Champlain in Quebec City.
As you know, between the 22nd and the 26th of May in Davos, Switzerland, it's happening the annual forum of the World Economic Forum.
So during this forum, they are all talking about climate change, they are talking about global cooperation, technology, as well as economy, and way more other topics.
So I'm here today to look if people know this man, Klaus Schwab, the president of the World Economic Forum.
I don't have too many remedies.
The remedies have to be discussed through dialogue by the stakeholders of our global system.
But I just see the need for such a dialogue and I see the need for action.
I see the need for a great reset.
And I'm here as well to ask them what the sentence of, you will own nothing and you will be happy means to them.
So let's check it out.
So today I'm asking people if they know this man.
Yes.
Who is it?
Schwab.
Schwab?
Yeah.
Is that Steve Cohen?
No.
No?
I don't know who he is.
Who is he?
Klaus Schwab.
Oh, that's Schwab.
Okay.
Do you recognize this man?
Nope.
If I say it's Klaus Schwab, do that invoke something?
Charles Schwab?
Klaus Schwab.
I know, I've heard of Charles Schwab before.
But no?
Nope.
No.
And you?
No.
I do not.
No?
Should I?
I don't know if he's a person.
Not sure.
I know of the World Economic Forum, but not sure about Schwab.
I'm from Ontario.
no i do not know who this man is i'm actually from i was born in korea and i don't really know this man This man is knowing like all around the world.
Charlie Munger?
No?
If I say Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, do that mean something?
The Schwab, like the bank, the founder of the bank?
But this one is the president of the World Economic Forum.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm young.
I don't really know about that.
And so what that sentence mean for you if I say you will own nothing and you will be happy?
It's a lie.
Yeah.
The more I own, the more happy I am, but it's not necessarily true.
You can be happy with nothing.
I was before.
What that sentence means for you?
Oh, this is, yeah, that's very unfortunate, to say the least.
It's a lot of increasing economic inequality and, you know, destroying our lives one step at a time as it happened for the last 40 or 50 years.
It's not good.
Wow.
But more?
Well, because you'll never own anything because everything is so expensive.
But you'll have to come to grips with it and then just be happy in life.
But it's sad because you won't never own anything.
Yeah, you don't need to own things to be happy.
That seems like a good statement.
You don't need to own things to be happy.
Like you don't need material goods.
Well, I guess if it's saying, like, if it's demanding that you will own nothing, at least from an American standpoint, I know that that would make people upset.
But I think if it's something that you like are making the decision about yourself, then it could be a good thing.
What that sentence mean to you?
You will own nothing and you will be happy.
What that means to you?
I think I'm set here.
Thank you.
Oh, okay.
Junsen?
It's good.
Good?
Yeah, for me, see?
Yeah.
So it's these older white guys that are trying to that think that they know what the younger generations need or want and they are trying to organize the future in the way that they see is best fit.
Dad's Concerns About Our Future00:00:57
But I think this guy is affiliated with a lot of big, you know, multinationals and it's kind of like one big gang that's trying to organize or plan our future in a way that's just not in line with the realities of what people are actually living.
So there's a disconnect.
I don't think it's such a good thing, but do you think it's a good or bad thing?
In terms of as a young generation, it will be good if you don't have anything, but you'll more have opportunity to have more in the future, right?
But if you're dad of like my dad, like dad of one of family, it'll be a little bit more heart, because you'll have to raise your family.
You know, if you're a mom, if you're a dad, you want to do good things to your family, right?