Ezra Levant critiques Bill C-64, Canada’s "PharmaCare" bill, as a 7-page legislative placeholder with no funding or drug specifics, relying on future deals and expert panels—while protests outside Jewish synagogues, schools, and shops in Toronto, Montreal, and Vaughan escalate with chants for Jewish deaths and extremist flags. Spencer Fernando argues Trudeau’s concessions stem from misunderstanding "fear-based dominance" ideologies, not genuine support. Despite small numbers, these groups exploit shock tactics to intimidate, risking long-term hatred normalization, exposing Trudeau’s failure to counter extremism effectively. [Automatically generated summary]
It took about two hours to get through the whole thing.
I'm going to take you through the entire PharmaCare Act, Bill C64.
It's so short, I'll read every word to you in the duration of my monologue.
So you'll be able to forever say, I read that bill, and it is a fake.
It is a mini pretend bill.
I'm sort of excited about this.
That's ahead.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
It'll help here because I'm going to go through the act.
I want you to see it with your eyes.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
You get great content, and we get eight bucks, which adds up.
A lot of people chip in eight bucks.
We can pay our bills around here because we don't take money from Trudeau and its shows.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, are the Liberals and New Democrats really going to bring in Pharmacare?
I'll read you the entirety of their teeny tiny law.
It's March 11th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Hey, I don't know if you remember, but a couple weeks ago we read through the large law.
It was about 100 pages called C-63, the Online Harms Act.
Now, a lot of that was just distraction, BS, stuff that's already on the books.
For example, it was absurd in the law, a call for a block button on social media.
But if you've ever used Facebook or Twitter, you know that's on there.
In fact, you might even know that it's a requirement to have your social media app on the App Store.
You need a block button.
So it was just ridiculous misdirection.
Another example that's rather shocking is the new proposal to ban revenge porn, where someone takes an intimate photograph and then later they break up and then they publish that photo as revenge.
It sounds pretty bad, which is why Stephen Harper made it a crime in 2014.
So to put that in the online harms law and say we're protecting you, it's sort of a misdirection from what really is in Bill C63, massive censorship.
Do you remember we had an emergency live stream, went about two hours going through that 100-page bill?
And in the style of that, I want to take you through a mini, teeny tiny bill called Bill C64, the very following number after C63.
And I should tell you that the totality of this bill is 10 pages, of which one is just the cover page and two are blank.
The entire pharmacare bill is just seven pages, not even seven, because remember, as these laws are written, there's a column on the left in English and a column on the right in French.
Grand total, there's just about three and a half pages in what's called a revolutionary pharmacare bill.
I'm going to take you through it now to show you that it's a trick.
Anyone who believes that pharmacare is coming to Canada is being lied to by, you guessed it, Justin Trudeau and Jagmean Singh.
So let's jump right into it.
The cover is Bill C64, an act respecting pharmacare.
Okay, that's just taking us through one of the 10 pages already.
The next page is just a summary.
Do you see that?
I'll read it in full because it's so brief.
This enactment sets out the principles that the Minister of Health is to consider when working towards the implementation of National Universal PharmaCare and provides the minister with the power to make payments in certain circumstances in relation to the coverage of certain prescription drugs and related products.
But let me reiterate the most important part there.
It sets out principles that the minister should consider when working towards pharmacare.
In other words, this actually isn't the pharmacare bill.
It's a promise to promise.
It's an agreement to agree later.
It's saying, you know what?
If we ever do get around to pharmacare, here's some ideas that we'd like the minister to take into account.
Seriously, they give it away right in the first sentence of the summary.
I'll read the second sentence just out of fairness.
They say, it also sets out certain powers and obligations of the minister, including in relation to the preparation of a list to inform the development of a national formulary and in relation to the development of a national bulk purchasing strategy and requires the minister to publish a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription drugs and related products.
Yeah, I'm not sure if I trust Teresa Tam or the rest of the gang at Health Canada to tell me what drugs I can and can't take.
I think they've forever burnt that trust.
And really, I'm not sure if any of this is the federal government's business.
As you know, our Constitution, Section 92 and Section 91, they divide up what's a federal power, Section 91, and what's a provincial power, Section 92.
Hospitals and healthcare.
It's a provincial power.
Is this law even constitutional?
Well, like I say, it's just things to think about laws, so it doesn't really step on any toes.
Finally, I'll just read the last sentence.
Finally, it provides for the establishment of a committee of experts to make certain recommendations.
So it doesn't have those recommendations, and it doesn't have a committee to make recommendations, but it provides for the establishment of a committee of experts who will then make recommendations that the minister can then take into consideration.
I'm not kidding.
That's what's in this bill.
So we're already done the first few pages.
Let's read the rest.
I mean, there's really nothing in here, but I want to take you through it so you can say with complete confidence, if anyone ever asks you about the Liberal PharmaCare Bill, you can say, I read every word of that.
It's a baby law.
It's a mini law.
And there's nothing in there other than a promise to think about something in a committee, appoint a committee that will have recommendations.
Like it's a laugh.
So now I'm on the official wording of the law, the preamble.
So again, this isn't the law itself.
These are just sort of clear-your-throat kind of sounds to say, I'm about to do something important.
It's not actually part of the law itself.
It's the preamble to the law.
Whereas the government of Canada recognizes that quality health care, including access to prescription drugs and related products, is critical to protecting and promoting health and well-being of Canadians.
You see what I mean?
This isn't the law yet.
This is them just thumping their chest and feeling important.
Whereas the government of Canada plays an important role in ensuring that prescription drugs and related products are safe, effective, and of high quality.
Yeah, they sort of did the opposite during the lockdowns, didn't they?
They banned you from taking ivermectin, even if your doctor prescribed it.
Whereas the government of Canada acknowledges that when Canadians do not have their prescriptions filled for financial reasons, their health may worsen, which can lead to increased use of the healthcare system and increased health care costs.
Okay, that could be true, but again, you'll see this is just filler.
They're saying things that are pretty banal because they don't really have any law they're announcing.
So they just want to chat with you a bit.
Whereas the government of Canada recognizes the role of the provinces, territories, and Indigenous peoples in the provision of healthcare, including coverage for prescription drugs and related products, and it's committed to collaborating and maintaining partnerships with them to support their efforts to improve the accessibility and affordability of prescription drugs and related products.
So right there, they give it away.
I mentioned before that Section 91 is federal turf.
Section 92 is provincial turf.
They're basically saying this is none of our business.
We don't have the right to do any of this.
But wink wink, if we shovel enough money to the provinces, maybe they'll let us set some rules.
Whereas the government of Canada provides within federal jurisdiction healthcare services, including coverage for prescription drugs and related products to certain populations, they're basically talking about prisoners and I suppose the Canadian Armed Forces and there may be some other places, including some Indigenous communities.
But basically, they're saying we don't have the right to do any of this stuff in 99% of the country.
I'll keep going through these preambles because what else is there?
There's not a lot more in the law.
By the way, we're almost halfway done the law.
We haven't gotten to the law part yet.
Whereas the government of Canada recognizes that the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National PharmaCare, as well as several studies, have recommended establishing universal single-payer public pharmacare in Canada.
So they're saying lots of smart people want us to do this.
Whereas the government of Canada is committed to continued collaboration with the provinces, territories, Indigenous people, and other partners, blah, blah, blah.
Whereas the government recognizes the importance of modernizing the healthcare system with standardized health data and digital tools, such as electronic prescribing, to support better health outcomes and greater efficiency of the healthcare system.
Now, again, this is just blather.
These are just high-minded thoughts, but it makes me a little bit nervous about an ArriveCan app style meddling, privacy-busting digital ID.
I mean, that's what this says to me when I hear digital tools.
Whereas the government of Canada is collaborating with the provinces and territories and other partners and stakeholders to support the work of the Canadian Drug Agency.
Again, I don't want someone in Ottawa telling me in my city, whether I'm in Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, or wherever, I don't want someone in Ottawa making up the rules for me, especially if that's someone's name is Teresa Tan.
And whereas the government of Canada has launched the National Strategy for Drugs for Rare Diseases to improve the accessibility and affordability of those drugs for Canadians.
Well, who can be against that?
Now, therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the House of Commons, enacts as false.
So everything I've read so far was just them, you know, giving themselves an introduction.
Let's go through it.
We really are halfway through this now, more than halfway through.
Short title.
This act may be cited as the PharmaCare Act.
Definitions.
Indigenous peoples, we know what that means.
Minister PharmaCare means a program that provides coverage of prescription drugs and related products.
Pharmaceutical product means a prescription drug or related product that is funded in whole or in part through a pharmacare agreement.
All right, so pretty basic.
I'm already on page five of 10.
And remember, the last two pages of this law are blank.
So we're almost done.
Do you get the feeling that maybe the media bought it, hook, line, and sinker that this was a massive agreement?
This is what Jack Meet Singh traded away in return for his promise to support Justin Trudeau.
Purpose.
The purpose of this act, I thought we already heard the purpose in the preamble, but I'll say it again.
The purpose of this act is to guide efforts to improve for all Canadians the accessibility and affordability of prescription drugs and related products and to support their appropriate use.
You really think a politician should be involved in what's appropriate or not for your health care?
In collaboration with the provinces, territories, Indigenous people, and other partners and stakeholders with the aim of continuing to work toward the implementation of a national universal pharmacare.
Its purpose is also to support the development of a national formulary of essential prescription drugs and related products, etc.
So again, did you get those key words?
The aim of continuing to work towards, so they're not done yet.
This bill is not actually the result yet.
This bill is the, hey guys, keep working towards it.
We love you guys.
Woo, we're cheering for you.
It's a marathon, not a sprint.
I'm not kidding.
Paragraph four, chapter four, we're almost done.
The minister is to consider the following principles and the Canada Health Act when collaborating with provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples, and other partners.
A, improve the accessibility of pharmaceutical products, including through their coverage, in a manner that is more consistent across Canada.
B, how's that going to happen?
How are you going to have as much pharmaceutical products in Nunavut as you do in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver?
It's just not going to happen, by the way.
B, improve the affordability of pharmaceutical products, including by reducing financial barriers for Canadians.
Can you name anything from gasoline to groceries to dairy products to rent that the government has controlled the cost of?
Yeah, me neither.
C, support the appropriate use of pharmaceutical products, namely in a manner that prioritizes patient safety, optimizes health outcomes, and reinforces health system sustainability.
Well, I'm sorry, who gets to decide that?
The government was telling us what we could and couldn't do through the pandemic, and you want to trust them on drugs?
D, provide universal coverage of pharmaceutical products across Canada.
So those are the list of what they call the principles.
Funding.
Now, you'd expect to see a dollar amount here, but you'd be wrong.
Remember, they're just working towards it.
Section five.
The government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for the provinces, territories, and Indigenous peoples to improve the accessibility and affordability of pharmaceutical products, beginning with those for rare diseases.
Oh, so we're beginning with them.
Okay.
I got nothing against providing care for people with rare diseases.
That may actually be something where government is necessary, because if they're rare, there may not be a market solution to them.
But they say that's where we're beginning.
So it sounds like general pharmacare for the population is still quite a ways away.
The funding for provinces and territories must be provided primarily through agreements with their respective governments.
Okay.
So they are, I think, recognizing the fact that they don't actually have the power to pass any laws here.
We're almost done.
I should tell you that this page, and then there's just one more page and we're done.
Payments.
Six, the minister may, if the minister has entered into an agreement with the province or territory to do so, make payments to the province or territory in order to increase any existing public pharmacare coverage and to provide universal single-payer first dollar coverage for specific prescription drugs and related products intended for contraception or the treatment of diabetes.
That's a really weird and specific thing, diabetes and the pill.
Dollar one coverage.
I've never seen that.
First dollar coverage.
So if you just need antibiotics, if you just need cancer medicine, that's not as important for first dollar coverage as the morning after pill.
It tells you to treat those priorities.
For greater certainty, any agreement referred to in subsection one with the province or territory is to provide for first dollar coverage to parents, patients, payments out of CRF, that's consolidated revenue funds.
So that's basically the government's going to pay for this from general revenues.
All right, well, we're almost done.
Minister's Obligations: Plan and Publish00:05:13
And if you were settling in for a long show, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Let me just tell you what the minister's powers and obligations are.
You're going to laugh at this.
They have the power to request advice.
The minister may seek advice from the Canadian Drug Agency on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of prescription drugs and related products compared to other treatment options.
The prescription drugs and related products that should be included in prescription drug coverage plans in Canada and the conditions of that coverage.
The connection, collection, and analysis of data.
Again, sounds like privacy defeating.
Information and recommendations to be provided to healthcare practitioners and patients.
I don't really want advice from Justin Trudeau.
Thank you very little.
And E, improvements to be made to the pharmaceutical system, including through greater coordination between health system partners, patients, and other stakeholders.
Sounds like Pfizer is going to be right on the inside.
I mean, Pfizer's got to sell their drugs somehow.
COVID-19's over.
They've got to bolt it on to this.
And we're pretty much done.
I'm just, this is really, there's only one more page and then one more section.
So let's just go through it because I want you to be able to say to anyone who ever mentions PharmaCare, I want you to be able to say, I read every word of this bill.
There's nothing in there other than a promise to work towards something and get advice.
It is a con and a sham.
And any reporter who said that we have a pharmacare plan is lying to you.
National formulary.
The minister must, after discussions with the provinces and territories, request that the Canadian Drug Agency prepare, no later than the first anniversary on the day of which this act receives royal assent, a list of essential prescription drugs and related products to inform the development of a national formulary that will establish the scope of prescription drugs and related products to which Canadians should have access under National Universal Pharmacare.
I think formulary is just a fancy word of saying a list of drugs.
Discussions.
The minister must, after the list referred to as being prepared, initiate discussions based on the list with the provinces, etc.
National bulk purchasing strategy.
This is perhaps the only good idea in the whole thing, although you just know the government's going to screw it up.
The minister must, after discussions with the provinces and territories, request that the Canadian Drug Agency develop, in collaboration with partners and stakeholders, a national bulk purchasing strategy for prescription drugs and related products.
Yeah, somehow I think that's going to go to insiders the same way that all these COVID contracts or military contracts went to family and friends of the liberal insiders.
And you know what?
We're pretty much done.
Section 10, the minister must, no later than the first anniversary of the day in which this act receives royal assent, publish on the website of the Department of Health a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription drugs.
So they must, one year from the passage of this law, not do anything, but within one year, they have to publish a plan on their website.
That is the one deliverable.
Within one year, they have to have a plan on their website.
Progress reports.
The minister may, after discussions with the provinces and territories, request that the Canadian Drug Agency prepare no later than the third anniversary on the day which this strategy is published, and no later than every three years a report on the progress.
So a year from now, have a strategy, and then three years later, report on the progress.
So four years from now, they'll let you know how it's going.
This is your PharmaCare bill.
And we're done.
The very last section is what they call the Committee of Experts.
Remember, I mentioned they have to ask a committee for advice.
It's the last section.
The minister must, no later than 30 days after the day on which this act receives royal assent, establish a committee of experts and provide for its membership to make recommendations respecting options.
The committee must, no later than the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent, provide a written report.
And that is it.
As you can see, there's really no writing on the rest of that page, and the next two pages are completely blank.
I'm sorry to subject you to so much blather, but I wanted you to be able to say with a straight face that you have read every single word in Canada's PharmaCare Act, and there is no PharmaCare Act.
There is no plan for giving you any drug.
There is no funding for giving you any drug.
There is no list of drugs to give you.
There is no system whatsoever.
What you have is a Go Team encouragement to put together some experts.
And a year from now, they'll maybe have something to say, or maybe that's three years after that, or something like that.
And no, by the way, the provinces and territories still retain control of the jurisdiction here.
Would you say, after going through every single section in the bill, that Canada has a national pharmacare plan?
No Plan, Just Protest00:04:49
You couldn't with a straight face, although most of the media have said that.
Do they have a plan for a plan?
No, they don't.
They have a plan to create a plan for the plan.
And in liberal NDB country, that's called a good day's work.
Stay with us.
You know, Alex Jones has his detractors, but you've got to admit, the guy understood the nature, the framework of the battle we're in.
His network is called InfoWars.
Really, a lot of wars are fought over information, aren't they?
And he had a catchphrase, there's a battle on for your mind.
I really think that's true.
When I look at Twitter, so much on Twitter is designed to shape your opinion of the world, to shape your reality.
TikTok, I think, is even worse.
And so I look at the protests, typically outside Jewish synagogues or Jewish schools, sometimes outside Jewish restaurants or Jewish shops.
And I think, what's the purpose of that?
I don't think it's to persuade Canadians that they're right.
I think these brutal, shocking protests are not designed to win friends.
I think they are, however, designed, as Dale Carnegie might say, to influence people, to shape your view of what Canada is now, that Canada is changed now, that the old rules don't apply now, that the police aren't who they were before, and the idea of what is and isn't allowable has changed, that you're submissive now and they're dominant.
I think there is a psychological purpose behind these protests, and it is not to persuade you, but to terrify you.
It's a form of terrorism, especially when it's backed up by violence, as sometimes they are.
Take a look at this.
I want to show you a protest outside a Jewish synagogue.
I showed you this a couple weeks ago.
This is in the city of Vaughan, north of Toronto, very large synagogue.
There was a huge mob outside the synagogue.
One woman hit a policeman, was arrested, but then the rest of the mob grabbed her, freed her, and the police said, oh, well, like a fisherman whose fish just got away.
Take a look at that.
By the way, why were the police just standing there?
Let me read to you section 176.2 of the criminal code.
Everyone who willfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social, or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction.
Well, they were outside a synagogue.
They were targeting the synagogue.
They said they were, but police were fine with it.
It went on for many hours.
Battle of Wills00:02:50
Joining us now via Skype from Winnipeg, Manitoba to talk about this is our friend Spencer Fernando, the proprietor of spencerfernando.com.
Spencer, great to see you again.
It's been too long.
Good to see you too.
Your latest article is called Through His Weakness and Cowardice, Justin Trudeau is allowing Canada to be stolen from you by the anti-Semitic mobs.
It's a very powerful headline.
Why don't you unpack that for me?
What's your argument?
Basically, that it's we're seeing a battle of wills between, you could say the lawful authorities and just regular Canadians who support the law and oppose anti-Semitism.
And between us and then between people who are obviously anti-Semites, people who have a radical, in many cases, Islamist worldview.
And so what they're trying to do is they're basically saying, you know, we're going to show that we're in control.
You know, the laws don't really apply to us because there's more of us than there are of the police, right?
So we'll just do whatever we want.
We'll intimidate people.
Obviously, they're trying to push Jewish Canadians out of public life.
That's the first step in their plan, obviously, for something much worse.
And so it's really a battle of wills.
And what Trudeau doesn't understand is, you know, I wrote something for my patron subscribers as well that got into this in more depth.
But that really what's happening is, you know, if we give even a little bit of benefit to the doubt to some of the liberal MPs and say, okay, they think they're doing the right thing.
They think if they just appease the pro-Hamas mobs, that something will turn out well for them and that they'll calm down and they'll be sated by some sort of concession.
But they're trying to deal with a group, you know, they're trying to deal with people in the way that you could deal with people who are rational, reasonable, people who support Western civilization, people who support freedom and democracy.
Where yes, making a concession, making a reasonable shift in someone else's direction can bring about something beneficial.
But when you're dealing with people who have an ideology that is all about asserting dominance, imposing fear, I say that the pro called pro-Palestinian, but really pro-Hamas movement is a fear-based movement.
So it responds to strength.
And so when you concede to them, when you give in to them, they say, well, I mean, I guess protesting outside of synagogues is working.
I guess calling for the death of Israel and the death of Jews is working.
And so the government keeps trying to make, oh, one more concession, and then finally they'll be happy, then they'll calm down, they'll go home.
No, it's just going to get worse and worse.
And so, you know, in the clip you showed, obviously that's a serious problem because that's about as textbook as it gets with one group saying, oh, look, we're in control now.
I mean, if we don't want to be arrested, then we just surround the person and take them away and the police can't do anything.
And so that kind of assertion of dominance is a very serious problem because it's just going to keep getting worse unless the government wakes up and realizes that only strength, only resolve, and only making zero concessions is actually going to start turning things around.
Radicalization's Spiral00:10:09
Yeah, I think that's pretty unlikely with Justin Trudeau.
But I want to talk about the larger society because I remember back to the trucker convoy when the truckers were in Ottawa.
I was there for a few days and I saw a lot of Canadian flags and a lot of Canadian symbols and a lot of handwritten signs.
And I spent a lot of time there and I didn't see any swastikas or any Nazis, but some anonymous photographer snapped a quick picture of a Nazi flag.
It looks like it was being held at the fancy Chateau Laurier Hotel there.
And this was circulated.
And I don't think anyone other than this mystery photographer saw it.
It sure felt like it was a setup.
Huge coverage, coast to coast.
Hundreds of news stories written about the swastika to prove that all the thousands of people there were Nazis because they couldn't find any actual swastikas, but some anonymous photographer found one, so he said.
I want to compare that to these weekly hate marches, which have not only sometimes do they have actual terrorist flags, but the chance are you see Heil Hitler salutes.
You see calls for the final solution.
There is only one solution, intifada, which is an Arabic word, I guess the Russian word would be a pogrom, basically an anti-Semitic riot.
My point is one fake swastika flag and the entire truckers were demonized unfairly for weeks.
But you see hate messages that would curdle milk every single time.
And the mainstream media goes out of their way not to report it.
There's violence at these protests.
The mainstream media says they're peaceful.
So what's going on with the media?
Why is the entire political media established, not the entire, but most of the political media establishment in league with the protesters or at least not scrutinizing and criticizing them?
I think this is in many ways a long-term consequence of identity politics.
You know, the idea that who someone is, their character, who they are as a person, the value they bring is dependent only on external characteristics.
And so, you know, let's do an experiment.
Let's pretend that every single element of all these anti-Semitic protests was exactly the same.
You know, the chance, the position, where people were standing, everything's the same, except the protesters were all six foot three, blonde-haired, blue-eyed men, right?
Everything the same, except the protesters, you know, you know, fit the, you know, the mold of the dangerous anti-Semite, you know, from Germany or something, right?
Think of the reaction from Justin Trudeau, every major politician in the liberal government.
They'd be just going absolutely crazy.
The media would be going crazy.
And so you can have the exact same behavior that we would easily identify.
Okay, if it was coming from, you know, white supremacists, people would say this is outrageous.
This is unacceptable.
People would be melting down.
But if it's from people who are identified as, I guess, a victim group, oh, if they're recent immigrants or if they're from a Middle Eastern country, oh, I guess they're just victims of Western imperialism.
You know, they can't be held accountable for their actions.
And so that's one of the big problems here is you have so many people who their whole worldview is that you judge people by what they look like, not what they do, not what they say, not how they act.
And so now, you know, it's like cognitive dissonance, right?
Trudeau's, his whole worldview has been, oh, well, you know, everyone from outside of Canada or outside the Western world is just oppressed and, you know, innocent.
And we've been so bad to them and we need to be apologetic.
And then, oh, it turns out a lot of those people are super anti-Semitic and have extremely hateful views that are basically the same as Nazi Germany.
Oh, well, what to do about that?
And it's like they just, they just can't process it, right?
They just don't know how to deal with it.
So they just kind of pretend it's not happening, right?
That's how a lot of people deal with cognitive dissonance is just ignore it.
Nothing's happening at all.
And so I think that's a very serious problem.
And it's not really going to go away because most of the media is now made up of people who went to university.
And they were steeped in this worldview for years.
And so that's, it's kind of an ongoing problem is they just can't, they can't accept two things that someone could be from a traditional victim group and could also be extremely anti-Semitic and have horrible views.
And so they just choose to ignore it.
Yeah, it's a good point.
You know, I was in London a couple months ago.
They have huge hate marches.
Like I'm talking 100,000 people marching through the city of London.
Now, London's an enormous city.
Really, it's the most essential city in the UK, large Muslim population.
100,000 people in Canada, there have been some marches with more than 10,000 people.
I'd say some even in the 15 or 20,000 person range.
But they haven't been weekly in Canada.
I think there were a few of those, but on a weekly basis in Toronto and Montreal, it's probably in the hundreds.
For example, up at that Jewish synagogue where I showed you that mini riot, I think there were probably less than 100, but they're so active and they're so shocking with their signs and they are so professional and organized that it feels ubiquitous.
And I'm trying to get a read on that because this goes back to my first comment about psychological warfare.
I actually don't think most Canadians support this.
I've seen polls in the U.S. that show 90% of Americans support Israel.
Most people see Hamas as a terrorist group, with the one exception being college-age kids.
And I think in Canada, it feels the same way.
Lots of college-aged kids are woke in anti-Israel, but the bulk of the protesters are Muslim, I'd say the word extremists.
They're new Canadians.
They're in many cases, if global news is to be believed, they're paid agents of Iran, whipping things up on the streets like they used to do.
They always used to sponsor the Al-Quds Day rally in Toronto.
So part of me says this isn't a huge problem.
It just feels that way because it's ubiquitous.
But I think psychologically, it's making Canadians feel like the whole country has changed and now we're all in danger.
And now these are the people bullying us.
Is the truth somewhere in between?
Like how big, how pervasive is this?
Is it a factor in Winnipeg, for example?
It's been fairly limited in Winnipeg.
I mean, obviously, there have been some protests here.
There was, I think, a few months ago, someone shot at a house that had, I think, a Mizusa on it, I believe.
So that was obviously concerning.
But I think the deeper problem is, you know, a lot of people will just go along with whoever looks like they're about to win, right?
You know, people, it's probably some sort of deeply ingrained survival instinct that people have is to just kind of assess, you know, which group, okay, which group looks like it's probably going to be the most powerful in the society and then go along with them.
You know, just stay quiet, look who's going to look for who's going to win and then ally with them.
And so I think that's the real deeper problem is sure, it could be a relatively small group of extreme people, but if they're extremely motivated, they're very fanatical, they're very aggressive, you know, they're extremely active, then that's going to intimidate a lot of people into giving them what they want.
I mean, look, I mean, you have the Canadian government basically giving policy concessions to the anti-Semitic mobs, right?
Because they feel pressure.
They're probably getting tons of emails, you know, tons of messages on Twitter, Facebook, you know, whatever.
And so when there's a lot of people who don't have strong opinions, either most people don't have strong opinions on most political issues, understandably, right?
They're living their lives.
They focused on their jobs and their families.
But if they see one group that starts to become dominant, they say, well, that group looks scary.
I mean, the group threatened the Seattle people who disagree with them.
Looks like they're gaining control and the authorities are giving into them.
So obviously they're extremely powerful.
And so that's the real danger in the long term is a lot of people are just like, you know, I'm just going to be quiet.
I'm just not going to say anything.
I'll just go along with the group that's the most aggressive.
And so that's why I think I keep talking about the need for the government to be strong and for all of us to be strong as well and speak out against it because you need to give confidence to the people in the middle who are going to go with the strongest group.
And that means people who oppose anti-Semitism and support the Jewish community.
We need to make ourselves look like the strongest group.
And there is such a lack of that leadership in Canada today.
Well, listen, Spencer, it's great to catch up with you and keep up the great work.
We've been talking to Spencer Fernando.
His latest at his website, spencerfernando.com, is called, Through His Weakness and Cowardice, Justin Trudeau is allowing Canada to be stolen from you by the anti-Semitic mobs.
Thanks, Spencer.
And we'll talk to you today.
All right.
Cheers.
Stay with us.
Yeah, you know, I go back and forth on the question, is Canada swamped with these Hamas protesters, or is it just a psychological operation?
I think it's a bit of both.
I mean, there's no denying that when you can get 10,000 or maybe 20,000 people in the streets, and I think Montreal actually probably had more than that in one of these rallies.
I think we have a real problem with radicalization of parts of the Muslim community.
In fact, by far, the majority of these pro-Hamas rallies are by new immigrants.
You can tell it in their accent.
That said, it would be lying to ignore the fact that there are born in Canada white, post-Christian, woke radical leftists who see this as the latest battering ram against our civilization.
I don't believe it's as widespread as the media and even our own observations make it look because we're so attentive to the shock of these protests.
I think it will spread and I think it will normalize this hatred.
I think it has to be pulled out by the root.
I also think Justin Trudeau has no intention of doing so.