Ezra Levant exposes Justin Trudeau’s government expanding CRTC control via Bill C-11, forcing YouTubers and podcasters—like Jordan Peterson—to register, risking prosecution for dissent. The move parallels Romania’s communist-era typewriter registration and aligns with C-18’s link tax, while 41% of Canadians trust Rebel News over legacy media. Levant warns of algorithm manipulation to suppress topics like vaccines or transgenderism, linking it to broader authoritarian bills like C-36 and the Online Harms Act, criticized by Twitter as China-level censorship. The episode ties media control to net zero policies, revealing public opposition—68% reject higher gas taxes—as Trudeau’s climate agenda pushes "degrowth," harming affordability while ignoring global emissions. [Automatically generated summary]
Exciting show today because terrible things are happening, which is a cause for excitement.
Justin Trudeau's CRTC has demanded that YouTubers and bloggers and podcasters, anyone with a streaming video, has to register with the government if they're above a certain size.
Well, we know where registration of journalists leads and it's nowhere good.
That's our show for today.
I want to show you some video clips, including of Stephen Gilbo talking about these things in the past.
So I'd like you to see it, not just hear it in a podcast.
Can you please go to RebelNewsPlus.com?
That's the video version of this podcast.
Click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month and you get to see the clips we put on for you.
All right, thanks very much.
here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau announces on a Friday afternoon that YouTubers and podcasters must register with the government.
It's October 2nd, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
When governments want to reduce media scrutiny of something, when they want to bury something, they announce it on a Friday afternoon, preferably before a long weekend.
That's what Trudeau did on Friday with this bizarre tweet by the CRTC, the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission, Trudeau's Radio and TV Regulator, except, as you know, a few months ago, Trudeau's Bill C-11 gave that old, useless relic astonishing new powers to regulate the internet.
Here's the tweet by the CRTC.
They said, today we're taking a major step towards modernizing Canada's broadcasting system.
Following broad consultations, we are releasing our first two decisions, including which online streaming services must register with us.
Modernize, eh?
Do you think that a government agency can modernize anything, especially the internet?
Has the internet been waiting for 25 years for Justin Trudeau and his appointees to fix it, to make it modern?
Have the geniuses in Silicon Valley been asking for help to modernize things?
Because compared to the Liberal Party of Canada, they're old-fashioned.
They don't know anything about technology.
Come on, the CRTC is a joke created in the age of radio and TV back in 1976.
It's been obsolete for more than a decade, probably two decades, other than for handing out lucrative monopolies to Canada's cell phone cartel.
Canadians literally pay the highest cell phone rates in the world.
Thanks, CRTC.
The CRTC has various predecessors stretching back to the advent of radio almost 100 years ago.
The reason the government said it was necessary back then is there was limited bandwidth on radio.
If you have a radio station, let's say at 1060 on the AM dial, you can't have another radio station nearby that's close to it on that frequency.
So there was a physical limit.
You needed a regulator.
It was a century old problem.
There are unlimited TV channels on your cable package on streaming services like Netflix.
There's the satellite radio.
Of course, there's YouTube and podcasts and live streaming.
Now, the internet is unlimited.
It's not like AM radio stations.
And everyone can be a creator now.
Ordinary people can become huge stars on Twitter or Facebook or TikTok if they have something smart or funny or interesting to say.
It's all being very hard for the regulators and gatekeepers and lobbyists at the CRTC.
They were left behind until Trudeau gave those old cronies power over the internet.
And now they want YouTubers and other talent to register with the government.
Really?
So journalists, anyone with a large audience, register with the government.
I've heard that phrase before.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I was in federal court in Toronto where Trudeau's lawyers told the court that I, as an author, should have to register with the government to write a book that was critical of Justin Trudeau.
They said that.
They literally argued that.
I'm the first Canadian author in history who's being ordered to register my books with the government.
There were 24 books about Justin Trudeau published in the 2019 election.
Mine was the only critical one.
Mine was the only one investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and fined by police and Elections Canada.
And don't think the CRTC wasn't watching.
They watched and they noticed and they learned that no one cared.
Well, a lot of ordinary people cared, but not a single so-called journalism advocacy group called the Canadian Association of Journalists, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Amnesty International, Penn Canada.
Not a single journalism advocate or author's advocate cared.
Not even enough just to tweet about it, let alone to send a lawyer to court to intervene in the case.
The CRTC saw that Trudeau has successfully subverted and undermined the media by subsidizing it and bribing it.
So they learned, they knew that they could force, if they could force me to register my book, they could force others to register their podcasts and live streams.
I should point out, not everyone was silent when my book was being prosecuted.
Jordan Peterson saw the danger and he tweeted up a storm in support of me.
I'm grateful to him.
He stood on principle and now they're coming for him as Canada's leading YouTuber.
He says he won't comply.
It'll be interesting to see if they prosecute him and who will come to his aid if they do.
As my old friend John O'Sullivan always said to me, it's easier to fight in the first ditch than in the last ditch.
Here's his tweet.
Jordan Peterson says, take your modernization and stuff where the sun never shines.
I hope that means he won't comply, but they will surely prosecute him.
They've been looking for a reason to prosecute him.
As La Vrenti Beria, the head of Stalin's secret police in the Soviet Union, used to say, show me the man and I'll show you the crime as in they'll get you on something, anything, even if they have to manufacture a fake crime to get you, which they just did on Friday.
This shocking decision was not debated, let alone voted on by Parliament.
It's a decree, like something Castro would do.
But it's pretty certain that the Liberals would have won the vote if they had put it to Parliament.
The NDP are even worse than the Liberals.
Here's NDP or Charlie Angus, who wants to make a government list of conservative activists.
Recently, I crossed a new Rubicon in 23 years of public service.
I had to ask the OPP to come and answer phones at my office because we were being overwhelmed with threats of violence against me, my staff, my family.
Welcome to public life in 2023, where death threats and intimidation are becoming part of the playbook of the far right.
And it's not just politicians.
We're seeing death threats against journalists, school board trustees, medical professionals.
What's bubbling up in the conspiracy swamps of 4chan, Reddit, next are increasingly crossing the line into real life.
Call it pitchfork politics.
It represents a serious threat, not just to public safety, but the very nature of democracy itself.
These extremists make these threats because they can get away with it.
It's time to mandate the RCMP to establish a registry of online domestic extremism.
They need to have the resources to identify the sources of the threat, to make contact with them, and to keep track of them in a public registry.
Democracy is in a very fragile place, and we need to work together to keep people and our system working.
Understand, he's not saying to make a list of actual criminals.
It's already a crime to make a threat or whatever he claims happened.
I don't believe him.
He wants to put out known activists on his list.
The block hippois is just as bad.
And frankly, I'm not sure how every conservative MP would vote.
Here's Aaron O'Toole's old heritage critic, Alan Reyes, a couple of years ago saying he wants more regulation of the internet too.
This was an alleged conservative.
But we don't see it in the bill.
There's nothing in this bill that allows for the regulation of social media or platforms like YouTube.
And it's clear we would have liked to have seen this in the bill.
The minister even says we have to find a way of preventing hate speech, conspiracy theories, and fake news that's shared.
But right now in the bill, unfortunately, we won't even be able to amend it in that aspect and because it's simply absent from the bill.
Well, he's not running again, thankfully.
But how many other O'Toole liberals are lurking in the Conservative Party?
You know, it reminds me, and I think about this from time to time.
I've told you the story before about how communist Romania made people register their typewriters with the police.
First, they had to answer questions, what are you doing with such a dangerous and anti-social device as a typewriter?
License to Censor?00:11:43
Then they had to give a sample of how the typewriter typed.
And that sample would be kept on file at the police station so that if police discovered some samizdat, that's the word for illegal political commentary, the police could compare the samizdat, the illegal messages, with the output of different typewriters to see who would have typed it, like a fingerprint, since each old-fashioned typewriter was slightly different than the other.
Registering typewriters.
Let me read a little bit about that.
This is from a Guardian story, but a book about typewriters in Romania.
When the typewriter arrives, she explains the system for registering it with the police, how it is fingerprinted, and how they must provide an explanation for why they need it.
An instrument can be used to type about personal feelings, forbidden.
Or write anti-government pamphlets, forbidden.
So yeah, in Canada, we don't register typewriters.
Come on, that's crazy.
We register podcasts and live streamers and YouTubes.
We also register guns and then we ban them.
You'd think this would freak out everyone who should be freaked out, but that forgets that most of the regime media are fine with this because they know they're going to be fine on the inside.
They're in the system.
They're not punished by the system.
I mean, the CBC's Aaron Werry, he wrote a love letter to Trudeau that he called a book, Pure CBC Propaganda, published the same time as mine.
He wasn't prosecuted or fined.
I was.
So why would Aaron Werry stand up for my freedom?
He wasn't going to be persecuted.
CTV, CBC, Global News, The Star, The Globe and Mail, they're all on the inside of Trudeau's regime.
You have to understand they like competitors being banned.
They don't really care about Freedman speech or the independence of the press.
They made that decision years ago when they decided to take Trudeau's cash.
They chose power over independence.
They chose bailouts over revenue from their own readers.
They chose sides.
They sided with the regime.
By the way, the bailout media didn't just fail despite Trudeau's cash.
I think they failed because of it.
I mean, very few news organizations permit critical coverage of Trudeau anymore, and people can sense it.
It shows.
I mean, here's the state broadcaster's chief Ottawa reporter.
Look at how proud she is.
You know, Rebel News, as you know, started in my living room just eight years ago, but already 41% of Canadians trust us more than trust age-old legacy media like CBC CTV, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail.
How?
Because we're independent.
Well, it's Monday afternoon.
I've seen very little in the last 72 hours on this from the media party.
I've seen foreigners weighing in.
Isn't that always the way?
Foreigners who aren't on the take can criticize Trudeau.
They see him how he is.
Glenn Greenwald, he's an American who lives in Brazil.
He did a series of tweets about it.
Look at this one here.
He says the Canadian government, armed with one of the world's most repressive online censorship schemes, announces that all online streaming services that offer podcasts must formally register with the government to permit regulatory controls.
And look at that, almost 50 million views.
That's 10 times more than the entire combined audience of every news outlet in Canada.
Now, a lot of those are foreign viewers, but it's not like this isn't interesting stuff.
But like the Trucker Convoy, the media party up here knows who butters their bread, so they don't want to talk about it.
If they talk about it, they want to take the liberal side.
Now, Glenn Greenwald does not take any Trudeau money, so he covers the news as he sees it.
Elon Musk saw Glenn Greenwald's tweet and he chimed in.
Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.
Shameful.
Almost 40 million views of that tweet, too.
I'm shy to say it.
My own tweet on the subject got only 1.2 million views.
But again, it shows that Canadians care about freedom, even if Trudeau and the media party don't.
1.2 million views, that's five times more than watch CBC's The National on any given night.
Now, this didn't just happen all at once.
Trudeau recently rammed through Bill C-11 that put the entire internet under the control of his CRTC appointees.
C-11 lets Trudeau order Facebook, Google, YouTube to alter their algorithms to hide things Trudeau doesn't like.
Here's the key section of the law.
You've heard me read this before.
Section 9.11E says the Commission may make orders imposing conditions, including the presentation of programs and programming services for selection by the public, including the showcasing and discoverability of Canadian programs.
That's a search algorithm.
What shows up, what you discover?
YouTube, Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter already boost or throttle content based on their own criteria.
It's usually hostile to conservatives or contrarians, especially on issues like vaccines or transgenderism.
But this new law puts Trudeau in charge.
Trudeau has now given himself the power to alter the discoverability of internet content.
He already said he's going to decide which news is trusted and which isn't.
He said that in his very first media bailout announcement when he was starting to pay his friends in the press.
Let me quote from the Globe and Mail.
It's just incredible that he said this out loud.
He said the government said the package will aim to help, quote, trusted news organizations, but we'll leave it to the media industry to define the application of the new initiatives.
Now, they're not leaving it to the media anymore, are they?
That was five years ago.
Justin Trudeau has lost his patience.
He's now going to decide for himself.
As you know, Trudeau introduced a news license called a QCJO, Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization.
Trudeau gave himself the power to give or deny that license.
Until now, that license mainly meant you got tax relief.
We don't get that.
Now it means something else.
And here's Trudeau's cabinet minister, Stephen Gilbo, three years ago, talking about forcing journalists to get a news license.
How will this work?
How are you going to regulate websites?
How are you going to register all that?
Do you buy these recommendations?
Well, I mean, one of the recommendations, so you're talking about a couple of different things here.
But as far as the licensing is concerned, if you're a distributor of content in Canada, and obviously, you know, if you're a very small media organization, the requirement probably wouldn't be the same as if you're Facebook or Google.
So there would have to be some proportionality embedded into this.
But we would ask that they have a license.
Yes.
There was almost no pushback from the regime media because they knew what it really meant.
They'd get the license because Trudeau trusts them, but independent competitors like us would be shut down.
It would ban their upstart competitors.
There used to be some independent journalism NGOs in Canada, but they have been transformed into grant-seeking lobby groups who exist only to extract more bailouts from Trudeau.
They'd never criticize them.
They're in perpetual begging mode, and it shows because he always makes them beg for the next year.
He keeps them on a string.
As I mentioned, Rebel News applied for a QCJO news license.
We were turned down laughably.
Trudeau's bureaucrats claim less than 1% of what we publish is news.
I don't even know how that's possible, but that's what they said.
We're still suing them.
The courts move very slowly.
Friday's announcement demanding that live streamers register with the government is shocking, but not surprising.
Trudeau's been working on co-opting the media since he was elected.
He's about halfway through his plan.
99% of journalists are on the inside, so they're silent.
Bill C-11 gave Trudeau power over the internet, including altering search algorithms.
C-18 gave Trudeau the power to collect a link tax from Facebook and Google and to use that for a slush fund for trusted media only.
Those are both law now, and there's more coming.
Trudeau introduced another censorship bill in the last parliament called C-36.
It died on the order paper, but he says it'll be back.
It includes secret trials for internet hate and punishments, including house arrests, even ankle monitors, even jail.
The final step in Trudeau's censorship plan is the most draconian of all.
He calls it the Online Harms Act.
You know, in a confidential memo, Twitter said it was the worst thing they've seen anywhere outside China, Iran, and North Korea.
And that was Twitter before Elon Musk took over.
In his final bill that he proposes, Trudeau would give himself what his cabinet calls the nuclear option.
That's what they call it.
The power to actually ban entire websites from even existing in Canada, like China does with their great firewall.
We've seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families.
Envision having blocking orders.
I mean, that's that.
Maybe.
It's not, you know, it would likely be a last resolve nuclear bomb in a toolbox of mechanism for regulatory.
So that's what's happening.
That's what Jordan Peterson is concerned about.
That's what I'm concerned about.
You don't force journalists to register with the government unless you plan to regulate them, punish them, throttle them, ban them, even jail them.
It's not just Jordan Peterson who will be forced to register because of his Canadian residents, but American broadcasters with large Canadian audiences will too.
19 out of the top 30 podcasts in Canada are American.
They're covered by this decree.
It'll be interesting to see if American podcasters will save us in the end, though, because the Canadian media sure won't for the reasons outlined above.
Forcing American companies to register with Trudeau, that's anathema to the First Amendment and likely a violation of the U.S.-MCA trade agreement.
Look, Trudeau doesn't care about much.
He's known as a shallow man with no policy depth.
He's 100% about spin and controlling the message.
He's put forward not one but four censorship bills.
That's how obsessed he is.
He really is like his father figure, Castro, isn't he?
We know that Trudeau has a hatred for rebel news.
He says so.
Look at the abusive answer to Alexa Lavoie mere hours after the federal court found that he had violated her constitutional rights and the court ordered him to accredit us at the debate.
Bonjour M. Trudeau, Alexandre pour Rebel News.
Donc M. Trudeau, je vais revenir rapidement sur ce qui s'est passé hier.
Vous avez déabolisé l'un des rares médias qui ne reçoit pas d'argent du gouvernement.
Vous avez exprimé votre opinion en disant que nous propageons la désinformation.
Si c'était vrai et si c'était le cas, la Cour fédérale ne nous aurait pas permis d'être ici aujourd'hui.
Je suis moi-même scientifique et je me base sur les faits.
My question is: Israel and the country the more vaccines a world.
And once their vaccine rappers two vaccine, they are my vaccine.
My question is: more than Canadians desert a rappelle to vaccine.
The privilege or personality.
And you the obligations of the Prime Minister or abolitionists.
J'ai partagé ma perspective sur ton organisation hier soir.
Je n'ai plus rien à dire.
Ça demande bien qui vous êtes.
Merci.
We're going to fight back like our entire existence depends on it.
Net Zero Debates00:15:02
Because it does.
Learn more and sign our petition at stopthecensorship.ca.
And if you can chip in a few bucks to help us fight Trudeau in court, please do, because we're there all alone.
Thanks.
Hey, I've got a question for you.
Do you know what net zero means?
No one knows what net zero means, but we're all supposed to support net zero.
And believe it or not, most conservatives say they support net zero.
Even Pierre Polyev in Ottawa and Danielle Smith in Edmonton say they support net zero.
Net zero, what?
What does that even mean?
Net zero by 2030, net zero by 2050.
What are they netting out to zero?
I think the opacity of that term is why anyone would say they agree with it because, oh, it just is a meaningless phrase.
If it was to have net zero emissions, no, you can't emit any carbon dioxide.
You can't drive.
You can't farm.
You can't heat your homes net zero by 2030.
People would start to ask more questions.
And if they learned that emissions meant anything you do in life, from living to breathing to agriculture, living and breathing, to driving a car or flying in a plane, suddenly there would be a lot more questions.
If people said, how do we have net zero when we're increasing immigration by 1 million souls a year?
They might ask other questions too.
Net zero, what a bunch of BS.
There's a new poll about net zero, and it gives me a flicker of hope that people are starting to see through it.
Joining us now via Skype from Ottawa is the national director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who knows that net zero is basically a scheme to tax everything we do.
Joining us now is Franco Terrazano.
Franco, how are you doing?
Hey, I'm doing great.
Thanks for having me on.
It's a pleasure.
I think one of the tricks that the government uses for any tax is to call it anything except a tax.
They'll call it a levy.
They'll call it a fee.
And in this case, they won't even call it a tax.
They'll call it net zero.
From the Taxpayers Federation's point of view, what is net zero other than a Trojan horse of taxes?
Well, I mean, their number one policy that they try to sell on this is a carbon tax, right?
And not only are Canadians paying one carbon tax, we're now paying two carbon taxes, which Mr. Trudeau imposed on Canada Day.
Happy Canada, folks.
But look, a glimmer of hope, as you alluded to, is a new poll released, done by Leger, released by Post Media that shows the majority of Canadians either want the carbon tax cut or completely killed.
And I think that's good news because remember, not too long ago, all those smart folks in Ottawa, all those lobbyists, academics were saying that the carbon tax was either inevitable or good policy.
Well, Canadians are understanding that it is not good policy.
It's an absolutely useless tax, and it sure doesn't look inevitable anymore with growing momentum of taxpayers fighting back against Trudeau's carbon tax regime.
See, carbon taxes tells us a little bit about what it's about, carbon.
It doesn't sound that scary, although it's being demonized.
Carbon is the stuff of life.
We're made up of carbon, carbohydrates, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons.
It's everywhere.
Listen, it's element number six on the periodic table.
It's literally in the food we eat.
So when people hear carbon tax, I think they know something's up.
And if you were to interview someone pumping gas and ask them how they feel about a carbon tax, I think they would be able to put it together with the high price they're paying in a pump.
But net zero is a little different.
And tell me, did this Leger poll talk about net zero by name or just one of the tools to get to net zero, namely the carbon tax?
Did they test net zero with the Canadian public?
That's a good question.
Look, Ezra, I'll just be honest with you.
I was so focused on the results about the carbon tax because that is my key as a taxpayer advocate is fighting this absolutely useless tax.
Now, let's talk about that guy or gal filling up at the pumps, right?
And I think if you asked him or her, you know, how do you feel about the carbon tax?
I think any average Canadian would say, well, this is a completely useless tax because how does making my life more expensive, the necessities that I need to get to work to keep my home warm during those cold winter months, to even fill up my grocery cart, how does it make it more expensive for me in Brooks, in Medicine Hat, in Halifax, in Burnaby?
How does making my life more expensive do a single thing for the environment?
And of course, the answer is it doesn't.
The carbon tax does not cut emissions.
It cuts families' budget.
The carbon tax is not about the environment.
No, no, no.
To your point, it is about a form of control, right?
Do what we say or pay.
You know, Franco, I'm so glad you are a watchdog on the carbon tax file because that's where the rubber hits the road.
It doesn't say net zero on the gas pump.
It says tax on the pump.
But I've called up on my phone the poll by Leger, and it does actually ask Canadians a little bit about net zero, which is interesting.
Let's go through together.
And I didn't mean to surprise you with it, but it's actually a glimmer of hope.
I've got it here, and I want to show you the questions that Leger act.
And you give me your reaction to it, Franco.
So here's some of the highlights.
And I'm taking this directly from Leger's website.
And by the way, I mean, everyone's heard of Leger and Leger.
They are the largest Canadian-owned pollster.
And in my experience, they play it straight down the middle.
They're not like some pollsters have a liberal tendency like ECOS.
Leger is really mainly a market research firm.
They do some politics polls, but I think they're pretty straight down the middle.
So here's what they say.
68% of Canadians are unwilling to pay more in gas tax.
And that's your focus, Franco.
But look at this.
Familiarity and practicality of net zero 2050 policy.
This is what I was getting at earlier.
People don't even know what the phrase is.
Half are aware of the Canadian government's net zero policy.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe it's as high.
I think people are just saying that so they don't feel dumb on the call.
However, here's the key, Franco, and I'm reading directly from the Leger website here.
Only 15% feel it's realistic for Canada to be a net zero emitter in 27 years, in the year 2050.
So there's some crazy people out there saying net zero 2030, which would be cutting a staggering amount of industry down.
Only 15% say we'll get there in 2050.
Anyone who says net zero 2030 is crazy.
What do you make of that?
Well, I think Canadians are saying, well, we have no idea what's going to happen two decades from now.
But I also think more and more Canadians are kind of tired of just being fed a load of baloney, if I could say that.
I mean, like the idea that we're just going to punish all of Canadian industries, Canadian workers, and then downstream raise the cost on Canadians and the idea to think that that's going to help the global environment.
I mean, it's preposterous.
And I think Canadians are just sick and tired of taking it from these politicians who are essentially spinsters, right?
I mean, even Trudeau has before acknowledged that if it's just Canada doing all this, essentially it wouldn't do a single thing for the world, right?
Canada makes up 1.5% of global emissions.
So Mr. Trudeau can completely bring all of our industries to a screeching halt.
What would that do?
It wouldn't do anything for the global environment, but it would cause a ton of pain for all Canadians.
Yeah.
Hey, I want to throw one more thing at you because again, you say net zero.
People say, what is like, it's just such a weird phrase, net and zero.
Net zero, what?
Well, when Leger asked Canadians, like one of the ways to get to net zero, that means reducing carbon emissions, would be shutting down our power sources, including clean burning natural gas.
Here in Ontario, they have lots of windmills and solar, but obviously it's not reliable.
So they started all these natural gas power plants as backups.
Well, guess what?
They're running full time because wind and solar are unreliable sources.
So here's what Leger said.
They asked Canadians if it's realistic to eliminate virtually all of Canada's electricity from carbon emitting sources by 2035, as in shut down natural gas power plants.
Only 19% of Canadians said that's doable.
So the phrase net zero, I think, is a foggy, amorphous thing that a person on the phone would say, yeah, I've heard of that.
Yeah, I support that because they don't even know what it means.
But when you start getting specific, like, how do you feel about a higher carbon tax?
How do you feel about shutting down natural gas?
When you start putting meaning around the world with net zero, only 19% of Canadians think, yeah, we should shut down our natural gas power plants.
I find this poll encouraging.
I think we need a way, though, Franco, a different, clearer way to say the word net zero, because even saying that word, I think, enhances it as a real thing.
And it hides its true nature.
What do you think?
What could we say?
What could we use instead of net zero?
And I'm putting you on the spot here today, but I want to muddle my way through it because if you ask someone in high school or college, do you believe in net zero by 2050, net zero by 2030?
Oh, sure.
Oh, sure.
Okay, how about no cars?
No power, no travel, no flights, no regular agriculture, no meat.
Okay, I know what you mean now.
How should we phrase this?
You're a master at communication around tax issues.
What ideas would you have?
Well, okay, Ezra, so I just want to say two things.
Number one, I mean, it's kind of the Orwellian type of political speak, right?
These politicians don't want to actually tell you exactly what they mean.
They want these high-minded phrases so people don't actually know what they're talking about.
Then they want to say the couch in these terms where it's almost impossible for anyone to be like, oh, I'm against that.
Even though if they were honest with you with what it means.
As you can see, many Canadians would be against exactly what it means, right?
Like, hey, do you want to pay X amount more for gas to do absolutely nothing for the environment?
And then you actually find out that a majority of Canadians either want the carbon tax cut or killed.
Now, in terms of what phrasing should we use, well, I'm not even sure it needs to be one exact phrase to counter what these politicians are talking about.
In fact, I think you've got to break it down as many ways as possible to show Canadians exactly what that type of policy or tax or new government regulation would mean.
So I think we actually have to break it down to the specifics so Canadians know exactly what politicians and bureaucrats and academics are planning.
Yeah.
You know, let me close on this.
I saw a tweet that suggested young people have two big worries on their mind.
One is they can't afford to live.
They can't afford to buy a house.
They can't afford groceries.
Inflation is really hitting young people who are just getting going in life hard.
And in the same token, they're anxious about a climate Armageddon because they've been bombarded with this terrifying apocalyptic imagery.
First of all, I think they're linked.
One of the reasons things are so expensive is because of carbon taxes and because power is so expensive, could we go into unreliables?
And I don't know.
I think we can get to a prosperity agenda where energy and food are cheap, where housing is affordable.
But I don't think we're ever going to do that with this climate catastrophizing out there.
In fact, I think part of the whole climate agenda is to make life difficult and poor so that we have less life.
They actually have that phrase, degrowth, where they want less of everything, less economy.
And if you ask Bill Gates, he believes we need billions fewer people in the world.
I think they want smaller lives, smaller people, and smaller hopes.
That's what net zero means.
I don't know.
I'm going to keep turning it over in my head because I think we need to rebut that phrase.
Last word to you, Franco.
Well, one of the reasons life is more expensive, that's an understatement.
Ezra, come on, carbon tax number one.
There's a second carbon tax in place.
And then you have these policies that just almost directly go after our oil and gas resource, whether it's Bill C-69, the No More Pipelines Law, Bill C-48, the discriminatory tanker ban, rejecting the Northern Gateway pipeline, moving the regulatory goalposts on energy ease.
Biden pulls a presidential plug on Keystone.
Trudeau barely bats an eye.
I mean, no, this is a huge reason that life's more expensive.
But here's the thing, right?
I think most of those younger Canadians who answer that poll aren't really ideological one way or the other.
I think the vast majority, they care about the environment, but they also care about being able to afford hamburger meat, right?
And the beauty of this is that you can kind of do both at the same time, but you have to be honest.
So number one, these types of carbon taxes don't do a single thing for the environment.
And number two, how we become prosperous in Canada while still taking care of the environment?
It's actually quite easy, right?
You want to sell our natural gas or natural resources all over the world.
Let's do that.
And two, let's make sure entrepreneurs can develop new types of technology with market forces, and then we can export that as well.
So that's how we have to do it.
And I think there is a glimmer of hope in this poll that we've been discussing.
You know, I think we have to get back to what environmentalism used to mean, which is clean air, clean soil, and clean water, real things.
And I think, by the way, there is work to do on that.
And if you've ever traveled to China, you know that there are huge, real problems with pollution.
I think combating climate change, which is code word for taxes, has actually snuffed out real and necessary environmentalism as something we got to work on too.
High energy Franco Terrazano, one of our favorite guys.
You take care, my friend.
Thanks so much for having me on.
All right, our pleasure.
There you have it.
Meta's Censorious Conservatism00:02:59
Stay with us.
more ahead.
Your letters to me.
Andrew Bakey or Balky says, it comes down to the Liberal Party fundamental belief that if people won't choose to consume state-funded content, they will force you to.
The same can be said for similar liberal policies around environmental protection and healthcare.
Yeah, they're authoritarian by nature and they hate criticism.
And it's true they've managed to mollify and vanilify 99% of the official media just by putting them on the payroll.
It was really easy.
But people want skeptical, critical, independent takes.
And so they'll find them, even if it's just people on Twitter.
I mean, I think we're one step above Twitter, not in terms of morality or whatever.
I think that anyone on Twitter is great, but in terms of our processes, because we do this full time.
But I think to Trudeau, anyone who's not part of the regime media is disgraceful and should be banned.
I call our team citizen journalists.
You can be a citizen journalist too.
I've said this for a long time.
If you have something interesting to say in your smartphone for free, you can become the media.
Use your camera.
Post to Facebook or Twitter.
Type a tweet.
That is what journalists do.
And Trudeau looks down his nose at those people, not because they're not smart, but because he doesn't control them.
Screaming Baby Jones says, and the thing CBC encourages the reader to share links to their web articles on their own site, to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, LinkedIn, and email.
Maybe CBC should be paying Meta for the privilege of increasing reach on social media platforms.
Look, I have a lot of beefs with Meta.
They're actually sort of the opposite of Trudeau's beefs.
I despise the fact that Facebook, which owns Meta, sorry, Meta owns Facebook, Meta owns Instagram, are so censorious of conservatives.
Mark Zuckerberg spent tens of millions of dollars on a Democrat get out the vote campaign.
He's extremely partisan.
They really interfered with the Brazilian elections, with the French elections.
Facebook are already great interferers.
Trudeau wants them to interfere more under his Bill C-11, but he wants to take hundreds of millions of their dollars to pay off to his trusted journalists.
So in this one instance, I'm on Facebook's side.
Carl Rhodes says, since Trudeau says Rebel News is not an accredited news source, Rebel should petition Facebook to allow Rebel links.
Then Rebel will be the only news source on Facebook.
It's funny you say that.
We actually wrote a letter to Facebook making that exact point.
Our lawyers did, saying, look, we're not a QCJO approved journalism source, so stop banning us.
Well, they've ignored the letter so far.
It doesn't surprise me.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.