Ezra Levant critiques Canada’s April 28 election, where Mark Carney’s Conservatives—despite tax cuts (15% income tax drop) and energy expansion—risk losing to Liberals due to polling bias favoring Justin Trudeau. He exposes China’s interference, including PLA hacking 250,000 Liberal voters and WeChat propaganda targeting Tories, while questioning Carney’s $250M loan from Xi Jinping. Trump’s tariffs may backfire by boosting anti-Americanism, aiding Carney’s potential rise as PM, despite Rebel News suing Liberals over trademark violations amid "shy voter" concerns. Canada’s strategic vulnerabilities—Arctic access, Five Eyes leaks, and fentanyl labs—could worsen under a China-aligned government. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm going to take you through the Conservative Party's campaign platform that they announced today.
There's actually a few good things in it I want to show you.
But first, let me invite you to get what I call a Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month, which might not seem like a lot of money to you, but boy, it adds up for us.
That's how we run the company.
You know, we don't get any money from the government, so we rely on you.
It's rebelnewsplus.com.
Oh, by the way, one more thing.
Thanks for tuning into this podcast.
If you appreciate the news that Rebel brings you, consider being a part of what makes it possible.
You can do so by subscribing to our exclusive content at RebelNewsPlus.com.
That means get exclusive shows, documentary, behind the scenes, and more.
And it's for a cheap price as low as $8 to start.
We appreciate your support.
Tonight, Pierre Polyev releases the Conservative Party campaign platform.
It's April 22nd, and this is the Answer Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious thug.
The election was supposed to be about a carbon tax.
It was the most hated thing Trudeau had done to us in his decade as prime minister.
And no one doubted that Pierre Polyev was truly against it.
It was a huge political winner for him.
But then Mark Carney came along and in his first act as party leader reduced the tax rate of the carbon tax to zero.
Now, understand the trick here, though.
He didn't repeal the tax.
I'm not sure that he could, given that Parliament hasn't sat in months.
Carney had a bit of theater, that's all, where he signed a fancy-looking piece of paper as if he were President Trump signing an executive order.
this?
Yeah, except that in Canada the Prime Minister doesn't sign executive orders.
The Governor General does on advice of the Prime Minister.
I don't think Mark Carney knows how we do it.
He's been out of Canada so long.
But my point is, Mark Carney did not abolish the tax.
He didn't repeal it.
He didn't remove it.
He didn't root it out.
He just turned the amount down to zero for now.
And if you remember what he said, it's not that he disagrees with it suddenly.
He just said it was divisive, as in it could be a political problem for him right now.
So when he thinks it won't cause him a political problem, he'll be able to turn it up like a thermostat or something.
Of course he will.
I mean, carbon taxes aren't just Carney's favorite policy.
They're really part of his identity.
It's what he's done for the past decade.
It's what his wife had lobbied for.
The job he had at the UN, his reason for jetting around the world, going to the World Economic Forum, it was all about global warming, carbon taxes, transitioning off oil, etc.
He was the co-chair of something called the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, G-Fans.
It's a terrible acronym.
But basically, it meant he jetted around the world, pressuring companies to decarbonize and threatening them with divestment if they didn't cooperate.
That's why he was interrogated by the U.S. Congress last year for allegedly extorting companies to comply with his green policies or be targeted for divestment.
Now he's going to do that to our entire country.
So, yeah, if you think Mark Carney is opposed to carbon taxes, you just haven't been listening to him.
He knows he needs to turn it down to zero for this election, but just for this election.
I mean, what kind of grown-up says they are a follower of Greta Tunberg, the high school junior high dropout?
I see myself as part of the social movement.
I think those at the vanguard of the social movement might see me as being farther behind.
And I've, you know, full, absolutely full credit, and I do in the book to Greta Thunberg, who I've had the pleasure of meeting several times and who absolutely has catalyzed that movement, the youth movement, and also done something incredibly valuable.
And this is embarrassing to admit, but I think we should admit it.
And this is often true, by the way, in finance.
Very obvious truths are not fully understood in the system.
So what she hammered home was the carbon budget, how small it was, how rapidly it was being depleted.
And we've moved in a few short years, in part because of her, from a world of ESG, sustainability, broader conversations around, as I say, sustainability, to a relentless focus on net zero.
It's called the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero for a reason, because we've moved to the relentless logic of having to get emissions down consistent with the carbon budget.
So in that regard, I'm part of that and part of mapping what people want to the mechanisms, particularly in finance, in order to deliver it.
I'm also, though, conscious of two other things, Lionel.
One is that, of course, net zero is absolutely essential to stabilize the climate, but that's not the same thing as protecting biodiversity.
It's not the same thing as having a just transition along the way.
There are lots of other elements that are necessary to this that these broader social movements rightly shine a light on.
Either an unserious man or an extremely serious, extremely dangerous man.
But the media was delighted by it, which is surprising.
I mean, the media had said that anyone who was against carbon taxes was against the future and against our children and a threat to the society.
And it was disqualifying for any conservative who dared to defy the net zero cult.
I mean, entire election debates in this country were about carbon taxes.
But I guess when a liberal turns it off, those worries go away.
It was an issue until it suddenly wasn't an issue when they wanted to get their man elected.
Where's the David Suzuki Foundation?
Where's all the green activists?
Where's Greta herself?
Where's Stephen Gilbo?
They all know it's just a ruse.
Carney is their man, and they simply need him to get him across the finish line.
Liberal Shift on Carbon Taxes00:15:13
And he's the same on everything else that Trudeau stood for, from massive foreign aid to being supportive of Hamas to censoring free speech for critics to being reflexively anti-American.
But Mark Carney has three big things going for him.
Number one, he reduced the carbon tax to zero, even if it's just temporary.
Number two, he is not Justin Trudeau.
So a lot of the hatred for Trudeau has dissipated.
By the way, has anyone even asked, does anyone even care what Trudeau's up to now?
That makes my point.
No one cares.
He was such an empty shell.
And the third thing that Mark Carney has going for him is that the NDP has utterly collapsed, all falling away towards the liberals.
That's probably the biggest factor.
You know, I just went on Wikipedia.
They have a page that lists all the public opinion polls from all the public opinion pollsters in chronological order.
So in the past three days, April 20, 21, and 22, you can check this for yourself, there have been 10 polls published.
And the Conservative Party in those polls ranges from a low of 36.3 in a Nanos poll to a high of 41 in a mainstream poll.
Now, it doesn't really work to average them all because there's different sample sizes and different methodologies.
But I did it anyways.
And the average of the last 10 polls for the Conservatives is 38.5%.
That's pretty good.
That's only down a few points from their all-time high when the Liberals were imploding under Trudeau.
Liberal Party, same thing.
Last 10 polls, they average 42.7% by my math.
So for sure, they are leading by four points.
But so much of that is from the NDP, which is averaging just 8.2% in the last 10 polls.
The NDP are in single digits.
They are about to get wiped out.
I mean, possibly not even getting party status.
It's a unite the left campaign.
By the way, the People's Party of Canada, Maxime Bernier's party, is averaging about 1.5% in the polls.
And I got to tell you, I will never understand why Maxime Bernier didn't even try to get into the leaders' debate this year.
Why didn't he even ask, let alone sue?
I don't know.
So yeah, it looks like a liberal win.
There are six more days, though.
Voting has started already.
And I don't know if you saw Elections Canada says there has been record turnout so far in the advanced polls.
I don't know which party that could benefit.
I could see both sides.
I think a lot of Canadians are desperate to get rid of the Liberals and they don't want another Liberal term.
So I think they're motivated.
But there's also a lot of leftists who are delighted to have a chance to stop Polyev and genuinely believe they're somehow fighting against Donald Trump by voting for Kearney.
And the younger voters are the most pro-Polyev, according to pollsters.
Older voters are the most pro-Kearney, and they seem to have a higher turnout.
Seniors vote more than, say, people in their 20s.
I don't know what high numbers means.
I think a lot of Canadians have bought the line that Pierre Polyev is a mini Trump.
The media has weaponized that like never before.
They know this is their one chance.
But let me show you one more thing.
This is a series of tweets by David Coletto.
As you know, he's my favorite pollster, who's also one of the most accurate when comparing their polls to the election day results.
I think he's very conscientious.
Here's what David Coleto, the pollster for Abacus, wrote yesterday on X.
He said, what if the Liberals never really led by like 8 to 12 points and it was just response bias?
Now, I googled response bias.
I wanted to make sure I understood what I meant.
It's when people say something to a pollster that they don't really mean because there's some other force at play, like people telling pollsters what they think is a socially acceptable answer, sort of peer pressure.
They want to say the right thing to the person on the other side of the phone.
Or maybe just, for example, people who are polyev supporters are less willing to talk to pollsters than liberal voters are.
That's an example of response bias.
Whenever I get a pollster on the phone, I assume it's a trick or a trap or someone posing as a pollster.
I just hang on.
I mean, that's not me really being a conspiracy theorist.
That's just me valuing my privacy and distrusting the political class, and I'm not going to spend the time on it.
Maybe that makes me a hypocrite because I love reading polls, but I'm not going to participate in one.
That's response bias.
Anyways, that's what Coleto suggested there.
And then he wrote this too, and I thought this was very candid for a pollster to say.
He said, to go from a 15-point liberal lead a month ago to a 2.1 today is pretty remarkable.
If you believe that, then you also have to believe, one, the liberals have run a horrible campaign.
Two, the conservatives have run an amazing campaign.
In other words, Coletto is saying it's more likely that the polls were wrong a month ago, or are wrong now, than the mood of the country has swung so much.
Now, I don't know.
I think there was a euphoria at removing Trudeau, just like there was in the States when Joe Biden was kicked out for Kamala Harris.
And that rejuvenated the left that was demoralized.
And in Canada, it united the left also, wiped out the NDP.
But I think a number of centrists probably got caught up in that and probably their anti-Trump instincts were inflamed.
Now, Trump hasn't taken a shot at Canada or mentioned annexing us in the last few weeks.
The Trump effect is subsiding a bit.
I don't know, but I think the election is still afoot.
I mean, look at this.
The government says 7.3 million people have voted already.
A new record for this point of the election cycle.
It was just 5.8 million last time at this point.
But this seems like a more momentous election than last one, doesn't it?
Anyways, I said I'd look at policy.
So here's the Conservative official policy platform.
It was released today.
If you scroll down it, you'll see about 32 different boxes representing 32 different policies.
First one is reducing income tax by 15%.
By the way, scrapping the carbon tax is on the list too.
They say for real, for good, in contrast to Carney.
Cutting the sales tax on homes and reducing capital gains tax.
In fact, the first six points are all related to relieving taxes and fees.
The next three are ramping up energy projects and other industrial projects, including oil and gas.
Lots about crime and reviving the military.
So that's the website version.
But they have a larger written version of the platform, and I'm so glad I reviewed it because it talks about some things that are not on the online version.
Here, I'm going to read the entire platform of immigration.
I'll just read it word for word.
Restore order to immigration.
Under the last Conservative government, Canada had an immigration system that worked.
It was fair, orderly, and the envy of the world.
But after the lost liberal decade, that system is broken.
The Liberals' reckless and unsustainable immigration surge overwhelmed Canadian housing and healthcare services.
We will restore integrity to the system by cracking down on fraud and dramatically reducing the number of temporary foreign workers and foreign students and limiting permanent immigration to a sustainable rate similar to levels under the Harper government.
We will prioritize those who are most needed, who grow our economy and meet our healthcare needs, and rebuild an immigration system that works for newcomers and Canadians alike.
And then he's got a few bullet points.
He says we will keep the rate of population growth below the rate of housing growth, job growth, and healthcare accessibility to ensure sustainable immigration levels that are fair for Canadians and newcomers alike.
I think that's a good one.
Reject the radical liberal century initiative proposal to grow Toronto to a city of 33.5 million, Montreal to a city of 12.2 million, Vancouver to a city of 11.9 million, Calgary, Edmonton to cities of 15.5 million, and Ottawa-Gatineau to a city of 4.8 million within a single lifetime.
I know that sounds insane.
That really is the platform of the Century Initiative that Mark Carney's team signed on to.
Next bullet point, require union labor market assessment pre-checks, ensuring unions get consulted before employers hire temporary foreign workers to protect Canadian jobs.
I agree with that, by the way.
Require criminal background checks for individuals entering Canada on a student permit.
It's insane that's not happening now.
Process refugee claims faster on a last-in-first-out basis and implement departure tracking so we have a clear idea of how many people are overstaying their visa.
I would add to that, if you're going back to the country you fled for holidays, you ain't no refugee.
Next one, expand and speed up removals for any criminal activity on a visitor permit.
Anyone who's here on a visitor visa who breaks our laws will be removed from Canada.
Now, that last point is a bit of a change from what Polyev told me a year ago when I asked him if he would deport foreign nationals who engage in anti-Semitic hate marches.
Here's my question.
Hi, Mr. Polyev, Ashley Levan from Rebel News.
You mentioned certain things that rise to the level of a crime, but there are many things that aren't quite at that level.
For example, people marching calling for an intifada or using language that may not rise to the level of a criminal prosecution.
And you've said before that you respect freedom of speech even for odious views.
But what about people who are not Canadian citizens, who are foreign nationals, perhaps here on a student visa to go to our schools, and instead of studying at university, they're participating in these hate marches, intimidating people, Jewish restaurants, calling for the death of Jews.
Again, not criminal level, but these are foreign nationals.
Would you support canceling the visas and deporting foreign nationals who, instead of doing what they came here to do, are spreading hate at these pro-Hamas rallies?
Thank you for your question.
You raise a number of different issues.
One, if someone comes here on a student visa and they're not actually a student, then on that basis alone, they should go home.
We don't want to have, one of the problems we have with the student visa program is that it has been used as a fraudulent point of entry, particularly for corrupt employers trying to get labor from abroad.
So in general, we believe that we should shut down all the fraud in the student visa program, and anyone who claims to come here to study that is not actually studying should not be here.
With regards to protests, I do believe in freedom of speech.
I believe people should be allowed to say things I disagree with, even things that I find appalling.
That is the price of living in a free country.
The alternative is to have state censors who then decide what kind of speech is acceptable and what is not, and then who chooses those state censors.
And then those censors will pick and choose based on their own political views which speech is allowed and which speech is not.
That's why I believe in freedom of expression.
You mentioned, for example, if someone stands up and calls for violence against a particular group, they can, under the current criminal code, be charged with incitement.
Those provisions already exist.
And I would encourage law enforcement to make sure those provisions are upheld for any and all people who incite, deliberately incite violence against an identifiable group, because that has been criminalized for many years.
And anyone who is convicted of that, who is not a citizen, should obviously not be in Canada.
Now, back then, Polyev said he'd only deport Hamas radicals if they were convicted of a hate crime.
Today he says he'll deport anyone who breaks our laws, which suggests any other crimes, maybe even vandalism.
But I think that's still too high a bar because marching through our streets shouting anti-Semitic slurs at Jews, it's not actually a crime in Canada.
And frankly, I don't know if it should be a crime in Canada for citizens.
That's free speech.
But we don't have to put up with that from foreigners who are here as our guests.
The U.S. is deporting bad faith visitors, including people on student visas who participated in the Hamas encampments and universities, not for necessarily committing crimes, but for organizing anti-American and anti-Semitic rallies.
I think we need to go harder on foreign hate mongers in our country, but it is a baby step.
I want to read one more section of the platform dealing with freedom of speech.
And again, this wasn't on their website, but it's in their PDF document.
It starts off saying, Wilfred Laurier once said Canada is free and freedom is its nationality, but during the lost liberal decade, freedom of speech has been threatened, history erased, and voices silenced by censorship laws and corporate collusion.
A new conservative government will restore free speech, protect personal liberties, honor our shared story, and promote Canadian culture and history.
We will support media freedom by first point, introducing a Freedom of Speech Act to repeal liberal censorship laws and restore Canadian news on Meta and other platforms.
Okay, I'd like more details on that.
Boosting the local journalism initiative by $25 million for local news.
All right, I don't know how that increases freedom to have more government in journalism.
Next, ensuring all domestic government advertising dollars are spent on Canadian platforms only.
Well, I mean, if they're going to be ads, are they ads or are they a subsidy for media?
I don't have a strong opinion on that one.
The next one, provide $25 million in support for indigenous language media.
We already do.
Next one, supporting remote area internet connectivity so every Canadian has reliable access to news.
How about leave that to Starlink?
We will save by defunding the CBC and reforming Crown corporations while maintaining Radio Canada, that's French CBC services.
English language CBC should be a Canadian-owned, self-sufficient media organization that is a not-for-profit and supported by listeners, donations, sponsorships, ad revenue, and licensing revenue.
All right, I support that.
I think I like about half of these points, but why is the government funding any journalism, including the local journalism initiative?
How is that any different from funding the CBC?
And why would taxpayers be forced to continue funding the French CBC?
That said, of course, this is better than any other party on the issue.
I found this section promising.
It was a little bit later in the document.
Protect free speech on campus.
Free speech is a cornerstone of Canadian democracy.
We will ensure campuses remain places of debate, not censorship by, point one, requiring universities to enforce the standards of section two of the charter's freedom of expression as a condition for federal funding.
Canada's China Dilemma00:15:06
Obviously, that's a good idea, and given the amount of funding from the feds to universities, it would be easy to command compliance.
Look, I like the platform compared to the liberal spending and taxing and debt frenzy.
I'm sure it's like almost anything.
But mainly we need to root out the Liberal Party, the corrupt, compromised, dedicated to extremism on everything from mass immigration to environmental extremism to foreign meddling.
I don't want to be dramatic, but I really do think this election is the most important for Canada in my lifetime.
And yeah, I'm worried.
Stay with us for more with Gordon Chang next.
Well, China is always in the news.
It's in the news for a lot of reasons, military, economic, political, and in Canada's case, there's some national security concerns.
As you know, I was curious about the strange way that Canada's new prime minister was selected.
The Liberal Party had an online-only voting system.
People as young as 14 were allowed to vote.
Foreign nationals were allowed to vote.
400,000 people registered to vote, but 250,000 of those 400,000 were disqualified, and we never really got an explanation for that.
I posed the question with no answer.
Could it be that the People's Liberation Army hackers were able to penetrate the Liberal Party's system?
I have no basis that they did other than it's quite curious to me that a majority of registered voters were disqualified, and the results in the end were bizarrely uniform.
In every district in the country, Mark Carney won by approximately the same amount, even in the home districts of his rivals, such as Christia Freeland.
That's just an observation.
I don't have a conclusion to make because there were no complaints filed.
That's been different over the last few weeks as the government itself, the agency tasked with detecting foreign interference, has on several occasions held emergency news conferences saying that the Chinese Communist Party has been targeting conservative candidates, including with propaganda drives using the WeChat app, popular with Chinese Canadians.
There was a remarkable case when Paul Cheng, a Liberal Party candidate in the greater Toronto area, said, half-jokingly, he claims, but said it three times, that a conservative Chinese-Canadian candidate was wanted in Beijing.
And if anyone were to kidnap him and bring him to the Chinese consulate, they would receive a reward of $1 million Hong Kong dollars.
He was replaced, but only after Mark Carney stood by him.
His successor, by some measures, even worse.
What does China see in Canada?
What does China see in our Prime Minister, Mark Carney?
Joining us now to talk about that and just as important, the Chinese-U.S. tariff war is our friend Gordon Ji Chang, who I say is the most interesting and best informed analyst of China out there today.
What a pleasure to see you again, Gordon.
I know you're so busy.
Thanks for jamming us in.
Oh, well, thank you so much, Ezra.
I really appreciate it.
Now, Canada has been dealing with China issues for a long time.
The two diplomats who were taken, Canada would say, hostage by China for years.
China just put a massive tariff on Canadian canola crops.
There's always something afoot in Canada.
Pull the camera back a bit.
What does China see in Canada?
What would be the prize for China that motivates them to meddle in our democracy?
There are so many prizes.
So, for instance, the Arctic.
China wants to dominate the Arctic with its new best friend, Russia.
But also, remember, Canada is part of the five eyes.
It would love to have some intel on what was being discussed.
Canada borders the United States, the world's longest undefended border.
And we know that that border is troublesome.
In federal fiscal FY24, which ended on September 30, 2024, the number of terrorist watch list suspects coming in across the northern border far exceeded those coming in across the undefended southern border.
There were 155 on the terror watch list apprehended coming from Mexico.
There was 358 EZRA coming from Canada.
And that shows there is an infiltration problem.
We know that various U.S. administrations, Biden, Trump, have talked to Ottawa about all these problems and a lot more of them, by the way, and have generally received a cold reception.
This is not a good story from the United States point of view, because although we always think of Canada as close friends, nonetheless, we do know that the Trudeau government allowed hostile elements to use Canada as a staging ground for assaults on the U.S.
And oh, by the way, where was the world's largest fentanyl lab?
No, it wasn't in China.
No, it wasn't in Mexico.
It was in Vancouver.
Wow.
You know, that terrorist statistic is one I bet most Canadians don't know.
We know that ordinary migrants, obviously, that Mexican border was much larger an issue.
But for, like you say, those terrorist suspects on the watch list.
Hey, I've got one last question for you about Mark Carney before we move on to U.S. tariffs.
Mark Carney was the head of, I call it a mini BlackRock.
It was called Brookfield, and it had about a trillion dollars under management, which is pretty big.
And Carney met with Xi Jinping, and he had a lot of dealings in China.
If I'm being really, really fair, if I'm trying to see things from Carney's point of view, he would say none of my business deals were illegal.
They all followed the law.
We were told to go out and earn a rate of return for our investors.
China has high rates of return.
If you're not in that growing global market, you're nowhere.
So if I was hired as a lawyer to defend his dealings with China, I would say, look, it's the world's biggest economy.
If you doubt it, go into your Walmart and try and find something not made in China.
Shouldn't he have sought the rate of return for his investors?
A critic would say, well, you were exposed to China, you favored China, you are doing China, you're seeking errands, you're running errands for them.
What's your take?
I mean, it's pretty rare for a businessman to actually meet one-on-one with Xi Jinping and to get a quarter billion dollar loan from China.
Or is that just business the way it is these days?
Well, if you ask Hunter Biden, I guess you'd say that's just business the way it is.
A couple things.
The returns from China have really been poor recently, basically this entire decade.
So I'm not so sure that that's a good investment on the part of anybody.
And really what we're talking about is China gaining leverage with someone who's the prime minister of a NATO member and Five Eyes part, and which just happens to share a very long border with the U.S.
So this is not business as usual.
And I think that this is a disqualifying element in Mark Carney's run for a new election.
I mean, a new five-year term.
But I'm just a foreigner, so you don't have to listen to me.
Well, I think, but you know China better than anyone else I know.
Well, let's talk about the United States because, of course, Donald Trump has always talked about China even before his first term.
He would tweet about China as a businessman and even before the era of Twitter.
Like it's been on his mind for 40 years.
I'll be honest with you, Gordon, I don't fully understand Trump's tariff strategy.
I thought I did.
I understand what tariffs are for.
They're for encouraging companies to locate manufacturing in America rather than next.
I think that's the strategy.
But I don't understand the larger strategy.
I'm just going to confess that.
Maybe you can shine a light on it.
And tell me especially how it affects China.
Because I know China was trying to set up its own economic sphere, the Belt and Road Initiative, and it was giving lots of loans.
And, you know, it's really colonizing Africa.
Tell me how the American strategy interacts with China.
And maybe an easy way to do it is tell me how it's different from what Joe Biden did.
Yeah, Trump does have a messaging problem.
And it is not entirely clear on certain days what he's doing.
But in general, the strategy is this, and that is that Trump is using the lure of the American market, the biggest in the world by far.
Consumer spending in the U.S. accounts for, what, 38 or so percent of the global consumer spending.
He's using that to stitch up trade agreements with countries that are our friends.
And he started with Japan, but he's also talking, of course, to South Korea, to Vietnam, to the European Union, Italy.
The Italian prime minister was recently at the White House, Giorgio Maloney.
And the idea is that by doing this, we'll be able to create a U.S.-centered trade bloc, which will, in large measure, exclude China.
And we know this because the Chinese have actually just yesterday on Monday threatened retaliation against any country that enters into a trading relationship with the U.S. that, as Beijing says, undermines China's interests.
So apparently, Beijing is really worried about what Trump is doing.
So in general, that's it.
When you look at the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, this is where he really has a messaging problem because he has not actually spelled out in detail what he wants to do.
There's, of course, the issue of trade surpluses, but it's also Trump has not talked to the American people or talked to the Canadian and Mexican people about his national security concerns that both of these countries pose.
And if he did it, I think that people might not agree with him, but at least they would understand the rationale for what he is doing, because there's a lot of head scratching, not only in Canada, where there's, of course, anger, but also in the United States.
So those people who have been following this have been worried about Canada for a very long time.
We've been talking about it.
And if nothing else, Trump gets high marks for raising the issue, but he needs to raise it in a way that people understand why he's doing what he's doing.
I think he has a rationale for this.
I know he has a rationale for this.
It's just that he's not articulating it well.
Yeah.
I mean, when he talked about security on the border, like you did, people understand that.
And by the way, there is a real problem with drug use in Canada, perhaps not quite as acute in the United States, but we have our own San Francisco.
It's even worse in Vancouver.
And I think there's certain trade irritants, like we have a dairy cartel that increases the price of dairy.
We have a poultry cartel and things like that.
People get that.
Trump also complained that banks aren't allowed to operate in the same way in Canada, U.S. banks.
Those are all very tangible things that people say, okay, I can understand that's a bargaining chip.
But the general bellicaution, I'm a super fan of Trump, have been three elections in a row.
What that did is it allowed the latent anti-Americanism in Canada to flare up.
And Mark Carney said, I'm going to defend against Trump.
And I'm worried, Gordon, that that's going to actually put Mark Carney into the prime ministership because he's just riding.
All he talks about is Trump.
All they do knock about is Trump, Trump, Trump.
And there's sort of Trump derangement syndrome in this country.
And right or wrong, I think that might lead to a really bad dude, Trudeau 2.0, but smarter and harder working, becoming the PM again.
And also, I think maybe even worse on China than Trudeau was, which is saying something.
Yeah, I agree with you, Ezra, down the line.
You know, you look at Palebra.
I mean, he was up 20 points.
Now he's down eight or something like that.
That's an enormous swing.
And that is the Trump factor.
There's nothing else that accounts for that.
So, yeah, clearly the United States needs to have much better messaging and needs to have honest conversations, not only with the Canadian public, but also with the American one as well.
So I couldn't agree with you more.
Well, we'll find out soon enough.
The election is on the 28th, next Monday.
And the gap has narrowed a bit.
I was just looking at the polls.
The average of the last 10 polls puts the Conservatives behind by 4%.
Now, that still is a loss, but it's not the chasm that it was a week or two ago.
One of the pollsters talked about a shy voter effect.
Everyone knows they're supposed to vote for Carney.
I don't know.
He's still predicting a liberal win.
We'll find out really soon.
It's great to catch up with you.
Maybe once the dust settles, we can talk again about how Canada is looking in terms of China relations after the election.
Yes.
And by the way, it's no coincidence that China has taken over the city of Vancouver and they've got a drug problem.
Right, right.
That's a good observation.
We've been talking with Gordon G. Chang.
You've got to follow him on Twitter at Gordon G. Chang.
I really feel that I get the latest on China strategy by following him, and I would encourage you to do so too.
Take care, my friend.
Thanks again for your valuable time.
Thank you, Ezra.
All right.
There we have it.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Journalists' Unacceptable Questions00:02:40
The first one is on Rebels' lawsuit against Liberal Party dirty tricksters over the buttons.
VRP GEO says this is the second trademark violation for Carney in four months.
When he announced his entry for the Liberal leadership in Edmonton on January 16th, he used a logo that was held and used under trademark by another company, Met Credit Debt Collectors.
It was quickly changed after the company told him to stop using him.
Now, I'm going to say in that case, it was probably an accident.
They weren't trying to hide anything.
I'm sure they weren't trying to trick anyone that they were Met Credit.
They just didn't search properly.
So they should have done a little bit more prep, but it's not a sin.
They didn't do something with moral turpitude.
They were just maybe sloppy, let's say.
That is very different here.
They obviously did this in a witting, thoughtful way.
They obviously left their name off it because the whole point was to confuse.
So this is much darker, and it is, in the words of Mark Carney, totally unacceptable, although not so unacceptable that they fired anybody.
On CBC Lies, Clint Scott Fisher says a petition should be started to demand defunding the CBC.
Well, the only people who would possibly do that is Pierre Polyev's conservatives, I think.
Chris Richardson says, pretty rich, the CBC complaining that Rebel News is biased.
Well, by the way, and here's the weird thing, is that none of the party leaders objected to us being at the leaders' debates, at least not that I saw.
I mean, it's true Jagmeet Singh never answers our questions anywhere, but that's just a weirdness he has.
It's got nothing to do with the debates commission.
Mark Carney didn't get any rebel news questions, but he answered other questions from citizen journalists, and he was fine with them.
Our questions, we asked a couple to Pierre Polyev.
We asked a couple to Jagmeet Singh.
He didn't answer.
That's fine.
We asked one to the leader of the bloc who gave an answer in English and he was sort of friendly about it.
I mean, I'm not friendly, but he was substantive about it.
The people who had the problem with us being there, super weirdly, were rival journalists.
I think I told you that when Drea Humphrey asked her question, other journalists were heckling her.
It was the grossest thing I've seen.
And she was surrounded by this booming.
It was shocking.
The regime media did all the things they accuse us of being.
They were rude, they were unprofessional, they were disruptive.
We were not.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.