Ezra Levant warns Canada’s remigration policies could mirror Trump’s aggressive deportation plans, including pressuring nations like Pakistan to repatriate criminals and leveraging Syria’s stability—1.4M refugees already returned—to halt unvetted migrant intake, like Trudeau’s 2017 Syrian military-age men program tied to cases like Vancouver’s Ibrahim Ali. Meanwhile, Bill C-59’s $10M fines for "misleading" environmental claims, even if accurate, risk stifling free speech, with parallels to COVID-era censorship and China’s energy dominance. The pushback frames truthful advocacy as resistance against globalist overreach, urging defiance via ethicaloil.org and climatepot.com. [Automatically generated summary]
Did you know 1.4 million Syrian refugees have gone home?
Hey, are you thinking what I'm thinking?
I'll talk to you a little bit about the word remigration today.
But first, let me invite you to get a subscription of what we call Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, and you get the video version plus the satisfaction of keeping Rebel News strong because we don't take government money and it shows.
That's rebelnewsplus.com.
Tonight, what did Donald Trump mean by the word re-migration?
It's July 2nd, and this is the Azure Levant show.
shame on you you censorious bug oh hi everybody Look at this tweet from last year by Donald Trump.
End Migrant Invasion00:05:33
This was from September in 2024 in the closing weeks of the presidential election campaign.
He said, as president, I will immediately end the migrant invasion of America.
We will stop all migrant flights and all illegal entries, terminate the Kamala phone app for smuggling illegals, revoke deportation immunity, suspend refugee resettlement, and return Kamala's illegal migrants to their home countries, also known as remigration.
I will save our cities and towns, etc.
Remigration, it's a fairly new word to me.
Trump has used it a few times.
He's introducing it into the political lexicon.
Here he is saying it a few weeks ago.
It's a long post, so I'll just quote one sentence.
Our federal government will continue to be focused on the remigration of aliens to the places from where they came and preventing the admission of anyone who undermines the domestic tranquility of the United States.
So now he's putting the word in all capital letters, re-migration, to send you back where you came from.
He's been saying this in one way or another for a long time.
I mean, here he is in 2015, before he even became the Republican candidate.
The executive order gets rescinded.
One good thing about.
You'll rescind that one too?
One good thing about.
You'll rescind the dream ad executive.
You're going to have to.
We have to make a whole new set of standards.
And when people come in, they have to go.
You're going to deport Chuck.
Chuck.
No, no.
We're going to keep the families together.
We have to keep the families together.
But you're going to keep them.
But they have to go.
What if they have no place to go?
We will work with them.
They have to go.
Chuck.
We either have a country or we don't have a country.
Either we have a country.
How do you do it?
The cost of doing it.
Look at the cost of what we have right now.
The cost of doing it.
Let me ask you this.
I understand that, but how do you do it?
Do you think there's tremendous cost for the illegals that are in here right now?
Of course there's cost.
Okay, tremendous.
Do you think there's tremendous crime being committed by illegals?
There's definitely evidence that it's happened.
Tremendous.
It's far greater than what Hamilton.
And you see it all over just last night.
All over.
We will do it and we will expedite it so people can come back in.
Chuck, it'll work out so well.
You will be so happy.
In four years, you're going to be interviewing me and you're going to say, what a great job you've done.
So don't be surprised.
He's been saying it for a decade.
And just the other day, I saw that Secretary of State Marco Rubio in this news story by Axios.
Let me read the headline.
State Department seeks to create Office of Re-Migration in Restructuring.
That's amazing.
That, I would imagine, would be about pushing foreign countries to take back their illegals.
For example, something Pakistan refuses to do for criminal illegals from the UK.
By the way, what exactly does remigration mean in terms of getting it going?
Well, the first rule of holes is when you're in one, stop digging, right?
And there's a huge and important accomplishment by Trump just to stop new border crossing.
It's almost down to zero.
The number of illegals just walking into the United States has fallen to close to zero.
And they're not being released within America as Biden had done.
Biden could have closed the border in a moment, but it was a deliberate decision and a deliberate strategy by the Democrats to bring in literally millions of illegals to turn the country against itself by laying the groundwork for simply importing millions of people who would become naturalized citizens and vote Democrat, not to mention the chaos they would cause in the meantime, and the big bucks involved with migrants from free hotels to free lawyers and all down that food chain.
So Trump turned off the tap, but what do you do with the millions in the U.S. already?
Well, Trump has, you know, he's nearly six months into his term.
I checked.
He is 11% done his second term.
11%.
He has not deported 11% of illegals.
That would have mean he would have deported a million people so far, and he has not done so.
He's sent home thousands.
He started with the worst, particularly gang members that were sent to El Salvador's supermax terrorist prison.
But at his current rate, it just won't be done.
He needs remigration.
Some of that is by turning off the taps of free stuff.
That's hard to do, of course, as so much free stuff comes from states and cities and private NGOs.
By free stuff, I mean welfare and healthcare and food stamps, stuff like that.
Still, of course, Trump can turn a lot of that off.
He has levers.
Look at how he's managed to convince wealthy universities to do the right thing simply by threatening to turn off their federal cash or taking them to court.
I mean, I don't know if you heard, but the University of Pennsylvania just announced that it is going to apologize to every woman and girl that they have ever made compete against a man in a sport.
And they're also going to strip all those men of their fake awards and give those awards to their proper female recipients.
Complete, abject apologies from University of Pennsylvania.
And it's all because of money and Trump going to battle over it.
They don't want to be punished legally and financially for breaking civil rights laws.
Trump's team could use levers against cities and states that don't cooperate too.
They're getting pretty creative.
But again, kicking them out.
You can do it through force, through immigration cops and raids and then deportations.
That's what Trump has generally done.
But what if you simply convince them to go, to self-deport?
Now, you might think, who would ever do that?
Why would you ever do that?
Well, let me tell you one reason why it could and should be done.
Self-Deportation Bonuses00:05:55
Here's a study from the Netherlands that helps set the context for how much is at stake money-wise and how much can be saved by not letting these folks in in the first place and how much could be saved by getting them to remigrate home.
Look at this.
Again, Dutch study published in the reputable Telegraph of London.
The negative contribution is especially large for asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East, say authors Jan van de Beek, Yup Hartog, and Garrett Kreffer and Hans Rodenberg.
Sorry, I didn't give you a proper introduction.
This is a Dutch study of the cost of immigrants being cited in the Telegraph of London.
The burden on the taxpayer for each family migrant that comes to the Netherlands is 200,000 euros, according to their report.
I mean, look at this.
The authors write that Western migrants made a total contribution of 900 million euros to the Dutch economy in 2016.
Migrants arriving from countries like the UK, US, and Japan are expected to contribute more to the Dutch economy than they take out.
Okay, that's not too surprising because they're typically educated, they're culturally fit, they have language skills.
In comparison, those arriving from non-Western countries received 18.2 billion euros in the same year.
So, those arriving from Sudan, Morocco, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria were said to have cost the Dutch taxpayer the most.
Did you get that list of countries?
Sudan, Morocco, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
Well, that sounds like Canada's migration shopping list, doesn't it?
We take in a lot of Somalis too and Pakistanis.
I quoted the study, which is in Euros.
Each Euro is worth about $1.60,000 Canadian, so those are huge numbers.
Those numbers suggest that each migrant family is more than $300,000 Canadian dollars in costs to Canada over their lifetime.
Of course, they're not doctors and scientists.
They're at most Uber drivers or low-skilled laborers or other temporary foreign workers, but they get all the good stuff for free.
So, if you know that each migrant from the third world is going to cost you a bundle, again, it varies by type of migrant and where they're from, but let's be honest, we're no longer bringing in the world's best here.
It's not thousands of people coming from Japan every day.
It's almost unlimited what you would pay these people to stop the flood and to return to sender to get remigration going.
Here's a story in Gateway Pundit the other day.
Don't be astonished when Sweden is more than offering more than 50 grand per migrant to leave.
Let me quote from Gateway Funded.
Sweden's center-right coalition government, supported by the national conservative Sweden Democrats, is set to roll out a sweeping new plan that will dramatically increase financial incentives for migrants who voluntarily leave the country, marking one of the most generous, quote, return grant programs in Europe.
Unveiled on Wednesday, the proposed policy would offer up to 600,000 Swedish kroners, that's 61,000 US, to migrant families who choose to repatriate or resettle outside the European Union and select neighboring countries.
Individual adults could receive up to 350,000 Swedish kroner, while couples may qualify for 500,000 Swedish kroners.
Families would also be eligible for an additional 25,000 per child under 18, capped at 600,000 Swedish kroners.
It's an enormous amount of money.
It sounds incredible.
Sounds like winning the lottery for these folks.
And it is.
I mean, imagine being paid north of 50 grand Canadian to leave a country that's not even your country.
You just went there and you won this jackpot if you leave.
But believe it or not, and I'm sure it is easy for you to believe, it is worth it compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars these same migrants will cost Sweden in the long term.
Of course, this only works if you're stopping people coming in in the first place.
Paying people to leave doesn't work if they can come right back in easily and freely.
But if you've closed the door in, you can get them out any way you can.
And we're just talking about dollars so far.
What's the cost to society in terms of cultural breakdown and even violence and even, I hate to say it, rape?
People from low-trust societies where women are not treated fairly.
Easy pickings.
Which brings me to a video I saw the other day in Dublin, one of my favorite cities.
New Somali refugees have started to arrive, not from Somalia, but from Sweden.
That's curious.
This is from Miko Keefe's Twitter feed, which I go to every day.
You can see they're setting up tents in the same place where I was a year ago and saw tents.
a look at the video.
Now, of course, there are no refugees from Sweden.
You cannot be a refugee from Sweden.
It is not a dangerous place.
You're safe there.
Why would Somalis move from Sweden to Dublin?
Well, my theory is maybe they took the big cash payout from Sweden.
Maybe they took their 60 grand.
They obviously don't want to go home to Somalia.
Who would?
I wouldn't.
So they just move right to another one of the high benefits, high trust societies that haven't wised up yet.
And the biggest suckers around are the Irish government.
Imagine that.
I bet Canada gets a lot of these self-deported Swedes also, get some cash in Sweden, then come to Canada for the big score.
Syrians and Refugee Realities00:03:04
But I was looking at Syria yesterday.
You know, I was looking at how the Middle East has been reshaped in the last couple months.
Did you know?
I don't know if you know this, Donald Trump has lifted U.S. sanctions from Syria.
Do you know that?
Trump is moving fast.
The Middle East is smashed and can be remade now.
Iran is no longer a major factor.
Syria, Hezbollah, Lebanon.
They're not major obstacles anymore.
And Trump has given Hamas 60 days to get with the program, or he'll give Israel the green light to wipe them out finally.
So Trump wants Syria to be a normal kind of country again.
Now, I'm not thrilled with Syria's leader, who's a former al-Qaeda terrorist, but if he agrees to certain limits about not becoming a hostile regime and not becoming a terrorist regime, and hopefully if he protects the small Christian minority there, Trump will reward Syria and bring it back into the community of nations, which will be a hell of a trick given that Russia, too, still has military bases in that same country.
Do you think Syria can be fixed?
I'm a skeptic.
It's sort of halfway between the absolute hopeless country of Afghanistan and a Western-ish, progressive-ish country like Iran.
I don't know.
I'm a skeptic, but Trump thinks it can be fixed.
But incredibly, 1.4 million Syrian refugees think it can be fixed.
Look at this story by the UN itself.
Let me read a headline: Geneva.
Some 400,000 Syrians have returned from neighboring countries since the fall of the Assad regime on 8th of December 2024, according to estimates by UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency.
During the same period, more than a million internally displaced people within Syria have also returned, bringing the total number of Syrians who have gone home to over 1.4 million.
Wow, so they're coming home.
They're not worried about war anymore.
1.4 million.
And look at this in the same article.
In January, UNHCR launched an operational framework to help 1.5 million refugees and 2 million internally displaced persons return home in 2025 alone.
3.5 million people in this year alone.
Millions of Syrians believe that that country is stable enough that they are going home to their homes, which is great.
It's great for them.
It's great for Syria.
And holy smokes, is it great for us?
Because Syria is safe now or safe enough.
So people aren't fleeing from danger anymore, are they?
So we don't have to take Syrian refugees into Canada anymore, do we?
Like that refugee Ibrahim Ali that Trudeau brought over.
He was a rapist who raped and murdered a 13-year-old Chinese-Canadian girl in Vancouver a few years ago.
Trudeau's Refugee Controversy00:14:48
Trudeau brought in unvetted military-age single migrant men to our country from places where uncovered women are treated as fair game for rape and worse.
Okay, good news.
They can all go home.
And I, for one, think we should give them a free plane ticket to do so and maybe even buy them, I don't know, a matching set of luggage or something.
Of course, we need to close the door first.
It doesn't make sense to pay people to go back to Syria for a vacation if they're just going to come back in.
We got to close the door.
But Canada is falling apart because of mass immigration.
So is the UK.
So is Ireland.
America was too, but Trump stopped that and he's showing the way by closing its borders and engaging in deportations.
And now he's using the word remigration.
So are Scandinavian countries who realize they'll actually save billions of dollars by pinging these ill-suited migrants to leave.
Maybe we should too.
Stay with us for more.
You know, censorship is on the march around the world.
There was a victory against censorship in Australia.
Our friend Billboard Chris won a battle against that country's e-safety commissioner for a tweet talking about transgenderism.
It was a win and a much needed one, but the forces of censorship are on the march.
I keep an eye on my friends in Ireland, and the European Union is demanding that they sign on to a Europe-wide social media censorship regulation.
And their prime minister, or Taishach, as he's called in Gaelic, is saying he would be interested in doing so.
Now, we're lucky that here in Canada, we are sort of following under the protective umbrella of our First Amendment friends to the South, because otherwise you just know Mark Carney would be censoring like a Trudeau.
In fact, you've heard me tell you that the number one priority assigned to the Heritage Department is to re-enact the online harms bill, so-called C63 in the last Parliament.
I am worried, but let me read you a headline and then let's go to the number one expert on the subject.
This is a story in the Manchester Guardian.
UN expert.
Oh, you know it's going to be good.
UN expert urges criminalizing fossil fuel disinformation, banning lobbying.
Rapporteur calls for defossilization of economies and urgent reparations to avert catastrophic rights and climate harms.
Isn't that something?
Let me just read to you the first sentence and then we'll go to Mark Murano of Climate Depot.
A leading UN expert is calling for criminal penalties against those peddling disinformation about the climate crisis and a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying and advertising as part of a radical shake-up to safeguard human rights and curtail planetary catastrophe.
Hey, folks, to safeguard your human rights, we need to take away your human rights.
Okay, give me one more sentence and then we'll go to Mark.
Elisa Morgera, who sounds like a very pleasant person, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Climate Change, who presents her damning new report to the General Assembly in Geneva on Monday, argues that the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, and other wealthy fossil fuel nations are legally obliged under international law to fully phase out oil, gas, and coal by 2030 and compensate communities for harms caused.
Gee, I didn't see that coming.
Well, you know, I really do want to read you the whole thing because each line is crazier than the next.
But I want to bring in the man who brought this to my attention.
He's our friend.
He's the boss of climatepot.com.
By the way, climateboat.com, I think it's fair to say, is the most up-to-date, most comprehensive website for any of these climate battles.
And Mark has been doing this for more than 20 years.
I really think he is the number one expert in the United States.
And I'm always grateful when he finds time to join us.
So joining us now via Skype is our buddy Mark Moreno.
Mark, this gets crazier and crazier.
Of course, they want cash.
But I think the funniest part is that to save human rights, they've got to end our free speech.
Yes.
And if you remembered the background to this, well, first of all, decades of background.
You had the corporate media colluding with the United Nations, with the climate activists, with academia, comparing anyone who dissents, they called him climate deniers.
They compared him to Holocaust deniers.
In my book, Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, I had a whole chapter section on all the dozens of examples of mainstream reporters from the Boston Globe, the CBS News, on down the line comparing climate skeptics to Holocaust deniers.
So they first wanted to intimidate you into silence.
When that doesn't work, we know that about two years ago, the UN climate information chief said that they partnered with Google in order to essentially redirect everyone to only UN-approved scientific claims.
So they're working with big tech to manipulate information flow.
Now you have this lady, Elisa Morgiero, and I love this report.
I love the panel.
The International Panel on the Information Environment, IPI is what they call it.
Just another bureaucratic arm of the UN cranking out these reports.
Now, how are we going to argue with this, Ezra?
They systematically reviewed 300 studies to come up with the conclusion that essentially there's, quote, bad actors out there amplifying disinformation and misinformation, and we need to be criminally prosecuted.
It's interesting because they actually quote a University of Copenhagen professor, a guy named Klaus Jensen, who says, misinformation is a major problem.
He led this iPy report, the UN bureaucracy.
I just wanted to read you the quote because it's so profound.
They always tell you what they're doing.
If we don't have the right information available, how are we going to vote for the right causes in politicians?
And how are politicians going to translate the claims and evidence made by the UN into necessary action?
Unfortunately, the bad actors are still very active and they probably have the upper hand now.
Now, you and I are considered the bad actors.
They're literally saying we can't allow free speech because people might vote the wrong way.
That is officially sanctioned, stamped information and messaging coming from the United Nations.
I absolutely believe it.
And just before we turn on the cameras, we were having some banter, and you reminded me that this is similar to the censorship guidelines brought in during the COVID crisis.
We can't let you hear from alternative views.
And by the way, the number one person that they wanted to censor back then was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now the head of healthcare in the Trump administration.
So it's very political what's going on here.
And you know the old saying, let truth and falsehood grapple.
You know, I mean, truth wins.
Sometimes it takes a while for truth to win.
Sometimes it's still lacing up its boots by the time the lies run around the world.
But in the long term, the answer to bad facts is good facts.
And who are these folks to censor us anyways?
What's incredible is they're basically saying, we want to win the argument and we want to stop the other side from even being allowed to argue.
That's really their confessing that the only way they can win is if the other guys are silenced.
Yes.
And that has been going on in the climate.
It's funny, you mentioned the COVID.
Are we talking about it?
Because everything I learned in the COVID debate, I had already learned in the climate debate decades earlier.
It was the same exact template.
And this goes back, you know, you could say Al Gore's movie really was when they started cracking down, but it really didn't happen until Donald Trump was the Republican nominee 2016 because the media said we can never allow a populist movement like Donald Trump to ever gain power again.
We've got to squelch it.
And that's when everything, all the controls came down, not only the mainstream media, but all the social media.
That's when we had the deep state and the national security and intel agencies embedded in things like Twitter.
And we found this out from the Twitter files and Facebook, how they were told they had to come in.
It's the same template, but what we're talking about today, and it's fascinating to see how open and honest the UN is saying, this is what we need to do.
This is what we are doing.
This is what our report showed.
We need to start censoring the bad actors in misinformation.
Otherwise, people won't vote.
Why are they saying all this?
Because the COP 30 UN summit is coming up.
And it's perhaps the most unanticipated, dreaded UN summit by climate activists in the history of climate summits.
Because as of right now, not even two dozen countries out of over 200 have even made pledges, let alone kept pledges in line with the UN-Paris climate agreement net zero goals.
So they're watching the entire collapse of their movement, and they're freaking out.
They're watching the election results in Canada.
I'm sorry, not Canada, but Germany, throughout Europe, the EU.
They're even watching Canada with Mark Carney, even though he didn't repeal the carbon tax, he zeroed it down under, I guess, political pressure.
I'm not a Canadian, but I don't know the detail ins and outs of that, but even that was somewhat significant.
And so the UN is looking at this.
They're watching Bolsonaro.
I'm sorry, not Bolsonaro, but Malay and Argentina pulled the whole delegation from COP29.
France didn't even send their environmental team to it.
They've said oil was a gift from God.
This is the first time in my lifetime, Ezra, that there's going to be no official U.S. delegation to COP30 in Berlin, Brazil, this November.
I'm thinking of appointing myself, by the way, the unofficial U.S. ambassador.
If I can get away with it, maybe I'll get special access and they'll let me have a speech or something.
I don't know.
Isn't that amazing?
Hey, I just want to read one more line from this story, and thank you for bringing it to our attention.
And then it rang a bell in my mind.
And I want to read something to you that I think might come as a surprise to you because I barely noticed it.
And I shame on me for missing it, but your story brought it back to mind.
Let me quote just one more line from this Guardian story, and then let me pivot a bit.
So, this is one of the things that this UN expert wants to do, according to The Guardian.
States must ban fossil fuel ads and lobbying, criminalize greenwashing, misinformation, and misrepresentation by the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising firms, and enforce harsh penalties for attacks on climate advocates who are facing a rise in malicious lawsuits, online harassment, and physical violence.
Now, of course, we're against physical violence, including that practiced by Greenpeace.
That's sort of, I've never seen any anti-Greenpeace violence.
I've seen a lot of Greenpeace violence, including from Stephen Gilbo in Carney's cabinet.
But basically, they're saying you're not allowed to criticize, you're not allowed to, you're not allowed to criticize climate, and you're not allowed to even advocate for yourself.
And this would limit, for example, in Canada, there's some fuels that they say are cleaner, and they say, well, we have this much ethanol, or we have like this much octane.
Like there are some fuels that are cleaner by certain definitions.
You're not allowed to say that.
And here's the shock, Mark.
And here's, when I saw this story, I thought, hang on, that happened in Canada.
Let me pull up a video clip.
Here is a short speech, a statement rather, by one of the most radical MPs in Canada.
He's a socialist, Charlie Angus.
Take a listen to this.
This was when he was introducing what's called a private member's bill in Canada.
Mark, now, private members' bills are what they sound like.
It's a backbench MP.
He can write it, but it has very little chance of succeeding unless it's officially backed by the government.
It's really more a press release than anything.
But just watch for a minute, and then I'm going to tell you the shocking news.
So this is Charlie Angus, a socialist MP.
Take a look.
Big Oil has always relied on the big tobacco playbook of delay and disinformation.
And so to tackle this immense threat to human health, we need to use many of the strategies that finally took down big tobacco.
In 1997, the Canadian Parliament banned advertising from big tobacco because of the clear threat to human health.
This is why I'm so proud to stand here today with representatives of Canada's medical community to state that the time has come to ban all oil and gas advertising.
The big tobacco moment has finally arrived for big oil.
Bill C372 will, quote, provide a legislative response to a national public health and environmental problem of substantial and pressing concerns.
The bill will make it illegal for big oil and gas lobby and the gas lobby or their front groups or paid influencers to falsely promote the burning of fossil fuels as a benefit to the public.
The legislation will make it illegal to falsely claim that the use of one fossil fuel product is somehow better than another fossil fuel product in improving the environment.
To claim that there are clean fossil fuels is like saying there are safe cigarettes.
We know that is simply not true.
So that bill did not move forward.
That was not passed into law.
I just can't believe he would say that fossil fuels benefit human, do not benefit human society.
That'll be banned.
80% of global energy comes from fossil fuels.
The entire modern era is based on fossil fuels.
He wouldn't even have a camera and a microphone without fossil fuels.
The whole thing is absurd.
We couldn't live in snowy Canada, really, without fossil fuels.
But here's the crazy thing.
And Mark, I want to confess, I'm embarrassed that I haven't done more journalism on this.
That bill died, and I knew it would.
But the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau, before he was deposed, they took the ideas of that man and they embedded it, believe it or not, in another bill called C-59, a Competition Act bill, which became law almost exactly a year ago, June 20th, 2024.
So we're laughing at how kooky this Guardian story is and that UN extremist and that private members bill.
Ethical Oil Test Case00:13:01
It's law.
Let me read to you a little bit from the Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is pretty centrist, pretty moderate.
Let me just read a little bit from this, and then I'm going to throw it back to you, because I know when you pitched this story, when you suggested this story to our producer, he was shocked, you were shocked, but I want to let you know that dark day has arrived in Canada.
Let me read from the Chamber of Commerce.
So by the way, this became law June 20th last year.
Instead of applying only to products, the amendment applies broadly to anybody making a representation about a business or business activity that relates to the environment.
It is not limited to protecting consumers from false advertising in the traditional sense.
It covers what a company or its employees or representatives can say to investors, financial institutions, stakeholders, business partners, even regulators and governments.
It applies to businesses that don't offer services or public products to the public and includes industry and business associations as well as advocates.
Let me just read one or two more lines.
Sure.
This is the crazy part.
The reverse onus, Mark.
The new section regulates and impacts almost every sector of the Canadian economy under the late stage amendment.
Environmental representations do not even have to be false or materially misleading to be actionable.
A communication can be true, but illegal unless substantiated in accordance with an undefined, quote, internationally recognized methodology.
It goes on in that vein.
And oh, by the way, penalties of up to $10 million for the first offense.
So what's happened?
So you can't, you know, you can't talk about how this coal has less emissions than that coal or lower sulfur or how natural gas has lower carbon emissions than coal, if you care about that sort of thing.
You can't do basic business.
There's a reverse onus.
The presumption is you're lying.
Fines are $10 million.
That has been the law in Canada for a year, Mark.
Have they started enforcing it?
Because that's just incredible.
From the lips of the UN to the legislative books in Canada, I'm not aware of that.
That is incredible.
It doesn't even have to be materially false, and they can still punish you and criminalize it.
How do you fight that in Canada?
And the big question is: have they started enforcing that?
I mean, that's an incredible law.
And of course, this would apply to American companies operating in Canada.
And there's in our Canadian oil patches, all U.S. companies.
Mark, you and I first met almost 20 years ago when I set up something called Ethical Oil based on my book of the same title.
And I was at Sun News Network, so maybe not quite 20 years ago.
The book did really well.
And then we set up something called the Ethical Oil Institute.
And it was a little think tank that I ran for a few years.
Then they got really busy with rebel news.
And, you know, instead of just talking about oil, talked about everything.
I think we need to revive ethicaloil.org, the Ethical Oil Institute, because I think we've got to live truly and freely and speak positively about Canada's oil and gas industry.
And if these folks want to charge us with a crime, I think that we need to be the test case because I literally won, I don't win a lot of prizes out there, especially from a mainstream media jury.
But Mark, I don't know if you know, but my book, Ethical Oil, actually won the Canadian Business Book of the Year.
So it's not just me saying rah-rah.
The book was, it was one of the most valuable things I think I ever did.
And now that that is, that book would be a crime today.
I was about to say that book would be illegal and you'd be prosecuted under speech crimes today.
Yeah, you know, I think I got to lean into it.
To give myself an excuse, it's been an extremely busy year politically.
There's a ton going on.
There was an election.
So maybe I didn't focus on this as much as I should, but I feel rebuked by my own lack of action here.
And I feel compelled to lean into it.
And I can understand why an oil company or an oil advocacy group wouldn't, like a mainstream one, wouldn't want to run afoul of the law.
I get it.
They want to maintain a certain reputation and be on the right side of life.
I totally get it.
But I have no need to indulge in false courtesies or exquisite etiquette.
I'm a guy who believes in free speech, and I feel like going out there and telling the truth about Canada's oil patch and to hell with socialist Charlie Angus or this bill.
Absolutely.
And that's what people need to do.
It's got to be open defiance of these kinds of laws.
We saw that in COVID.
I remember in Australia, if you even put a Facebook like on a post about a COVID lockdown protest, police would visit your house.
I mean, this was the most intrusive.
And this was all the precedence that was particularly broken in the West during the COVID lockdown.
It was almost unprecedented what occurred on a mass scale in once free western nations and the climate activists have been trying to piggyback.
Now what the?
U.n's trying to do, what's happened in Canada is probably unlikely to succeed right now in the?
U.s we've got.
We're going very far the other direction just today when it comes to like identity politics, transgender.
Donald Trump, by withholding funds to the University OF Pennsylvania, has now Leah Thomas the, the male swimmer who won all the female records, is now being officially stripped of all the titles.
So that's what you need.
You just need actual, open defiance.
I'm a big believer in the narrative and I think your ethical oil is exactly right.
It's like blood diamonds was a great narrative.
Are you going to buy diamonds like that?
We need to call these, you know, blood evs blood energy.
Ethical oil it's exactly the same concept.
You really want energy that's coming.
That's a that China has a monopoly on with.
You know, Uyurg in concentration camps or underage kids in Chinese cobalt mines in Africa, and it's that idea that homegrown energy is the best.
This is the mess that you know by this is the mess that both Republicans Democrats, liberal conservatives have gotten us into up until Donald Trump, globally.
They've all because the Republicans always bought into the.
I don't want to curse on air, but the bull bleep rhetoric yeah, of this narrative on climate and the urgency and the oh yeah, we would.
Of course it's a problem, but let's just go a little slower.
No, it's better to have Donald Trump and his EPA director calling it a cult and a hoax and a religion right to their face, so much so that career bureaucrats now at the US EPA are writing a letter of dissent because they're calling climate change a religion and they're not taking it seriously.
You've got to upend the table and I and I fully support what you're trying to do and fighting that, especially with your.
Your premise of ethical oil is just phenomenal, you know.
I think it's up to us to do it.
I have the background.
I mean I haven't really leaned into the ethical oil battle in a while, although it's always on my mind and we love talking to you.
But rebel news is, I think you know, from time to time we go to court and fight for free speech, and this is a confluence of both of those.
This is not just defending oil and gas, which is Canada's leading industry.
It's defending our freedom of speech and I and I think that like really, I can't think of any group that overlaps free speech and oil more than Rebel NEWS.
We love going to court, we love fighting to test cases.
We've got some good lawyers that know it's time to go after this specific law.
Yes, I mean, that sounds.
This sounds like it's ripe to expand, and we've got good lawyers we've worked with over the years.
Mark, I got to tell you I sort of forgot About this because the oil industry has not made a fuss about it.
Maybe because they're afraid that fuss itself might be illegal.
Mark, you've lit a fire under me.
I'm going to stay in touch with you on it.
By the way, I just emailed you this Chamber of Commerce website that I referred to.
You may wish to look into this further yourself for your American viewers.
They might be shocked because this applies to U.S. companies operating in Canada too, if I'm not mistaken.
Wow.
Okay.
I didn't know anything about it.
So I look forward to seeing that.
I just wanted you to, the only thing I wanted to mention is the reason the UN and this whole idea of suppressing free speech on my website, Climate Deep, I found a recent study by the United Nations, climate crisis driving surge in gender-based violence.
And they're worried about, quote, femicide during heat waves, which is the killing of females.
Every degree rise in temperature is associated with a 4.7 increase in intimate partner violence, IPV is what they call it.
This is the kind of absolute drivel and crap coming from the United Nations that if you oppose, you will be censored and criminally prosecuted.
It's insane.
And this is the next battle.
And I think you're exactly on the forefront of it with ethical oil and going after this as a test case in Canada because this is the kind of stuff that we need to go after completely in the Trumpian way as well.
And the Ezra way, where you just flip the narrative on them.
And that's what's missing.
That's what's been missing in global politics for these decades.
And that's the most effective weapon, flipping the narrative against these, in terms of public perception and public debate, flipping the narrative in terms of the entire argument on climate change.
And that's how we did it on COVID, I believe, with COVID lockdowns.
By fomenting as much as we could resistance to that, it overturned it.
And I think that ushered in this era of Argentina and Donald Trump because they overstepped the bounds in COVID.
Wow.
Well, you've lit a fire under me.
That's for sure.
I'm excited about this.
You know, sometimes you look around and say, who's going to save us?
Well, you've got to step up.
And fighting for freedom, you know, that's our motto, Mark.
I don't know if you know, but at the end of every single show, that's how I close the show.
I say, keep fighting for freedom.
And you got to, because it naturally atrophies and it just shrinks.
And I know it's tiring fighting for freedom because it's never done.
And you have a win, sure, catch your breath, but you got to get back in there.
In Canada, we've got problems because Mark Carney is now our prime minister and he's doing all sorts of weird things.
And it's our job to fight.
You know, I was go ahead.
Well, I was going to say, just as an American, I will say just off the bat that Trudeau was basically a caricature, easy to hate, arrogant, came off.
Pretty much most American conservatives and even centrists hate him.
Carney comes off as a competent normal leader.
I don't know.
I mean, I know he's not in terms of he's got a serious agenda.
He's the puppet master.
He's not a puppet like Trudeau.
He's the actual guy pulling the strings.
But he is a brilliant just public image he presents to the world.
I got to say that he's very effective messenger of saying he's just a mainstream normal leader in Canada.
That's the perception here in the U.S. Even Trump has said nice things about him.
Yeah, and that's why he won, which was demoralizing to the freedom-oriented Canadians.
Well, it didn't help that Trump wanted to make you the 51st state and had a rise in nationalism, right?
But Trump's one of Trump's bigger mistakes.
Yeah, well, we'll keep adding up here.
Mark, great to catch up with you.
I really appreciate this conversation.
Thank you for your encouragement.
And I got to come up with a plan now.
So I'll.
All right.
Good luck.
And I'm happy to help in any way.
This is where the rubber meets the road.
Congratulations.
Right on.
Take care, my friend.
And you keep up the work down there.
All right.
Appreciate it.
There you have it.
Mark Morano.
Like I say, if you haven't been visiting climatepot.com, you're doing it wrong.
It's such a great site.
It sort of in a way reminds me of the old Drudge Report and that it finds all the interesting stories from around the world.
And it's like a briefing.
And it's, you know, Mark's been doing it for probably 20 years and it shows.
So he's the best data.
Hey, keep with us more after this short break.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me on trade negotiations with the states.
Humpty Dumpty, I think that might be a pen name, says, Kevin O'Leary is 100% correct.
There should be no tariffs on either side.
Why do they call it free trade if it's anything but?
Well, Trump says he uses tariffs as a weapon to concentrate the mind of the other side, and we know that it certainly does that.
I really do think that Trump would accept a tariff-free relationship with Canada if we remove some of the non-tariff irritants like our dairy cartel, like limits on U.S. banks or U.S. cell phones up here.
NATO's Mutual Defense Pact00:02:10
And it was a pretty dumb move by Mark Carney to try and enforce a multi-billion dollar social media tax right in the middle of trade negotiations.
That seems sort of dumb.
On a Surrey terror attack, which has not got a lot of coverage in the mainstream media, Larry Williams says the Ministry of Truth did not deem this worthy of broadcasting.
Yeah, I mean, an ISIS attack in Vancouver.
And have you heard about it?
On my monologue about Israel and America and Israel wars, Aaron Licinius says the U.S. should fight for itself.
If some other nation is aligned with its interests, then it might support them, but only if the interests of the U.S. are considered first.
Well, the U.S. has signed a treaty with a couple dozen other countries called NATO.
And Article 5 of NATO says an attack against one is tantamount to an attack on all.
So the U.S. is sort of a mutual defense pact.
That's one of the things that Vladimir Putin complained about, is that it was surrounded by NATO right up in its grill.
There was no buffer zone with Ukraine anymore.
Israel does not have the same defense pact with the United States.
It just doesn't.
And I just, I guess my point is America goes to war for a lot of reasons and a lot of times.
And it's not always called a full-scale war.
Sending six B-2 bombers to take out Iranian nukes does not count as a war.
If that were the case, America's at war every single day around the world.
I guess what I was trying to do in my monologue was to show that Israel gets $3 billion a year from the U.S. for military aid.
Yes, it's true.
10% of its military budget.
It's still a meaningful amount.
But compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars that the U.S. spends on bases all around the world, including a dozen in the Arab world, and throughout Europe, like seriously, super-rich Germany, Japan, U.K., Italy, they get U.S. military bases.
I'm willing to take criticism of U.S. adventurism overseas, but if you're going to point out Israel's $3 billion a year from America, don't you think you ought to point out the quarter trillion dollars a year the U.S. spends in other countries too?