Ezra Levant critiques Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s concession to the teachers’ union, which rejected a 10% pay raise over transgender policies despite public support, risking Conservatives alienating their base. He compares her approach to Trump and DeSantis, urging Alberta to purge non-compliant school officials and divest from woke-promoting firms like BlackRock. Meanwhile, BC’s Cowichan ruling—granting Aboriginal title over private land without notice—ignites backlash, with Mayor Malcolm Brody and AG Nikki Sharma facing public outrage; a petition at endlandgrabs.com demands property rights protection amid fears of judicial activism and UN-backed Indigenous claims eroding legal certainty. Letters expose Sudan’s ignored genocide, Canada’s foreign minister Anita Anand’s performative aid tweets, and concerns over violent immigrants, contrasting with Trump’s 7,500-refugee cap favoring white South African farmers, questioning Canada’s priorities and policies. [Automatically generated summary]
In Alberta, the labor union there is on the back foot.
They were ordered to go back to work and not strike.
And now they're talking about a general strike.
When was the last time there was a general strike in Canada?
Would you believe me if I told you it was in 1976, a one-day general strike against Pierre Trudeau?
Do you think that's going to happen in 2025 in Alberta?
I'll give you my thoughts and I'll explain what Danielle Smith, the Premier, could do to make sure that these union radicals do not have power over the government.
I'll give you my thoughts on that.
But first, let me invite you to get a subscription to what we call Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
And in addition to the great video content that you can only get this way, you'll have the satisfaction of keeping Rebel News strong because we take no money from the government, and it shows.
Tonight, tips for Alberta in fighting against the deep state.
It's October 30th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Alberta just offered its teachers a double digit pay race that would make them the highest paid in Western Canada, more even than in the costly city of Vancouver.
There's quite something.
It's weird to me that teachers are unionized as if it's some factory job, dangerous work or something like a coal miner.
In Canada, the bulk of unions are in fact in the public sector, not blue-collar workers, not even white-collar workers, pink-collar workers, they call it, including nurses and teachers, not just civil servants.
The problem with government unions, though, is that they typically have a monopoly in their workforce, as in you have to pay, you have to be either a member of the union or even pay union dues if you're not a member of the union in order to even work.
And the government has a monopoly in its own way, too.
So neither side is really using its own money in these negotiations.
The taxpayers' interests are usually subverted.
Even conservative governments are tempted just to throw money at a government union just to avert a strike.
Now, Donald Trump is different.
In some ways, I think he's enjoying the current government shutdown in the United States.
I think he means to use it to make some deep permanent spending cuts to sort of trap the Democrats in their shutdown.
Here's his director of management and budget proposing to permanently let go around 10,000 staff.
Now, that's a drop in the bucket in the size of the U.S. workforce.
But still, they're talking about shutting down the bulk of the health department and the education department and using the shutdown as the opportunity to do so.
But in Canada, I think most conservatives are far more timid.
Anyways, Alberta has made this super generous offer to government teachers, which in its own way is outrageous.
Why should government workers with pretty much guaranteed job security get a double-digit pay raise at the expense of the rest of the workers in the province?
But the teachers' union, which really has become an extension of the NDP opposition, has made radicalized, has radicalized the teachers over the extremist issue of transgender policy in the schools.
What I mean by that is the provincial government wants age-appropriate books in young classes, not extreme sex content.
And there's been a lot of books, just crazy.
I'd even call them pornographic for really young kids.
So the government wants to stop that.
They also want to end the secrecy of many of these transgender sex student clubs where kids were encouraged to change their names from a boy to a girl and to identify as the other sex.
And teachers promised to keep all that a secret from their parents.
So these were secret clubs where kids would transition and the school would promise to keep the parents out of it.
Just crazy, crazy stuff.
Smith has taken steps to ensure that parents are kept informed of these things.
And she's also taken steps to ban men and boys from competing in women's and girls' sports and going into their changing rooms.
By the way, these are enormously popular positions, far broader than just the Conservative Party base.
I haven't seen a poll in recent months, but I'd hazard a guess that 80% of Albertans support these common sense moves on transgenderism, but not the union or at least the union leadership.
So anyways, the teachers were threatening a strike.
Smith ordered them back to work, and Smith preemptively used the notwithstanding clause to preempt leftist judge shopping, where the unions would find some NDP judge who would agree to throw everything that the government did out.
That's basically the problem that Donald Trump has, isn't he?
So the unions are big mad, and they're talking about a general strike now.
A general strike, you know what that is?
Where everybody just goes on strike across the economy.
That has not happened in Canada, according to my research, since 1976.
Actually, a protest against Pierre Trudeau, if you can believe it.
That was a one-day general strike.
Actually, it included some private sector unions, too.
Now, of course, most government sector unions would probably be radicalized enough to join a general strike, though I think they would be punished by the courts if they did so in violation of their contracts.
That's the thing about contracts.
You have to abide them.
But I think it's unbelievable or unlikely or even unthinkable that hardworking private sector union members would strike out of sympathy for government teachers, not over any money issue, but, you know, I mean, typically teachers work eight months a year and are the highest paid in Western Canada now.
And I just don't see it that, what, some hardworking oil and gas union member is going to go on strike to support government workers.
I just don't see it, especially if the real issue is political ideology, especially on transgender issues.
So I think the unions will blink here, but they're obviously seething.
And the problem for Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and her United Conservative Party is that they may win, they may have won the election last time, and they may represent the bulk of the province, which I believe they do, especially on things like transgenderism.
But they are sitting atop a mountain of civil servants, many of whom are neutral, but many of whom are radicalized and will do anything to undermine the government despite its democratic mandate.
Ron DeSantis's Law Battle00:06:05
I think a lot of civil servants consider themselves the permanent government, the keepers of the province, the deep state, if you will.
And they're sort of resenting the fact that a conservative is in power.
And so I've been thinking, what can Premier Smith do to rein in the rogue deep state?
How can she take power away from extremists who haven't won elections, but are burrowing into the government and thwarting her plans?
Now, I used to think the best politician in North America at doing this sort of thing was Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
When he won his election in Florida, it was just by a few thousand votes.
Oh my God, it was so close.
But now it's not even close.
Florida is so firmly in the Republican camp, and it's largely due to the fact that DeSantis has used every lever, pushed every button, used every power, every tool, every staffing appointment he can to purge the permanent ruling class from the state and replace them with his own men and women.
In short, he governs like a Democrat in that he wasn't meek.
But wow, has Donald Trump ever eclipsed that?
Starting from his very first day in office, actually starting before he was inaugurated with pronouncements, but literally on day one of him being officially the president, he started issuing executive orders.
I think he must have issued 20 on the first day.
And he has also sacked entire boards and commissions, firing people who aren't on board with his mission.
Like I say, acting like a Democrat, but in pursuit of his own Republican agenda.
Now, that's how Canadian liberals and NDPers act in power.
They spend everything, tax everything.
They appoint every one of their friends, politicize everything.
I gave the example of the Debates Commission the other day, where Trudeau just put his personal friends.
But that's the least of it.
I mean, one of my main criticisms of Stephen Harper's term is that he didn't make any permanent changes.
The CBC being an example, the unfilled Senate seats being another example.
You could add to that the Human Rights Commission.
Why didn't he shut that down?
Or at least stack it?
So many government NGOs, entire bureaucracies.
So back to Alberta.
Premier Danielle Smith surely knows that the government bureaucracy she runs would fire her in a second if they could find a way.
And they'll leak against her and they'll slow walk her policies that they hate and they'll push back and they'll basically work to rule as any union would do in resistance.
Basically the Trump's, like Trump's first term, before he realized that personal loyalty wasn't about vanity.
It was about stopping unelected bureaucrats from thwarting the democratic will of the people as expressed in their vote for the elected government.
So what might Danielle Smith do, not only to survive this latest eruption by the NDP, but also future attempts to undermine her?
Now, Florida's Ron DeSantis did a few dramatic things.
For example, he replaced state attorneys, that is, prosecutors who work for the state, who had made the foolish mistake of publicly announcing their decision not to enforce state laws that they thought were too right-wing, even though they were passed by the legislature.
For example, Florida has rules against transgender surgery for minors, etc.
And prosecutors who said they were above the law, they weren't going to prosecute, DeSantis sacked them.
And that stopped the prosecutors' rebellion.
I'm not sure if that's a major problem in Alberta.
I don't think the problem is individual prosecutors going rogue.
I don't know.
I think it's that the Justice Department could and should more powerfully communicate the government's priorities, say, as opposed to, you know, massive trials against the truckers at the Coots-Alberta border.
I give Alberta's Justice Department some credit, though.
They've done pretty well on firearms laws, basically telegraphing that the province just isn't going to waste their time and money pursuing Mark Carney's gun grabs.
And they've also said similar things about castle law.
You know what I'm talking about?
When someone breaks into your home and you defend your home and you hurt the break-in-enterer, you don't get charged.
So I understand that the province has basically said, we will not prosecute.
So that's good.
But I think there's so much that Smith can go further.
For example, DeSantis in Florida suspended members of school boards that were acting contrary to law, something that was actually done to the Calgary school board on which Danielle Smith sat as a trustee more than 20 years ago.
If there are school boards that are not getting with the program, that are breaking the law, that are too radical, that are slow walking Danielle Smith's policies, Smith should just take them over, put them under direct control from the ministry, as happened to her 20 years ago.
Florida's Ron DeSantis enacted some stop-woke legislation.
In fact, I think that's what it was called, Stop-Woke Act, limiting teaching of race and gender Marxism in schools.
Basically, getting those BLM flags and transgender flags out of school.
What are they doing in primary schools?
Why are you propagandizing children?
So, DeSantis did that at the lower, like children's school level, but he also did that at the university level, banning DEI initiatives and basically saying to the universities: if you want funding, you will stop promoting racial division.
Now, this isn't just important in terms of neutralizing radicalism in those schools and in those universities.
It cuts off funding and personnel for the broader woke movement.
There are thousands of people in Canada who, for a living, are racist, who are for a living, transgenderist.
They are paid six figures to be part of this department or that department in a lot of government institutions, actually, in private companies, too.
Ron DeSantis said, We're going to cut that off, and he has.
Another thing Florida did under DeSantis is to demand that no state investment funds were invested in companies that promoted DEI or other woke policies, like a lot of BlackRocks programs.
Cutting Off Woke Funding00:03:28
Alberta has massive investments.
I don't know if you know this, more than $100 billion in pension funds for its workers and the massive heritage fund.
Now, it's important that those funds are invested in the fiduciary interests of Albertans, that is, to make money.
But just as those funds wouldn't be invested in, say, slave labor companies operating in Xinjiang province and communist China, maybe they shouldn't invest in companies that take a radical view on race either, that promote racism or sexism or transgenderism.
I'm just brainstorming here, but this is all about thinking about: well, what would a Democrat do to get rid of any Republican moles that were blocking their agenda?
I think it's time our side started acting this way the way Trump did.
I mean, look at Trump.
Look at DeSantis.
One of the reasons both are successful is because they act and they cause others to react.
They're not just drifting, they choose their controversies.
They're hyperkinetic, in fact.
They spend a lot of time thinking about what underlying conditions have just been accepted because we always do things that way.
And then they decide just not to continue to do things that way out of inertia.
Sometimes it looks symbolic only.
Here's a funny example: like when Trump fired the board of the Kennedy Center for the Arts.
I mean, you think, well, what does that have to do with anything?
I don't know if you know what the Kennedy Center is.
It's basically a gorgeous building with a huge budget, and they put on concerts and theaters.
It's basically the major house for the arts in Washington, D.C.
It's a government institution.
Yeah, and it was totally politicized by the left.
It was an enormous pot of money for all these cronies to hire each other and pay each other.
But more than that, it was funding a political elite that blackballed conservatives in the arts and weaponized the arts against any Republicans or any government initiative.
Go do that on your own dime, Trump said.
Trump appointed, fired them all, and appointed his allies to that board.
Very symbolic of what he is doing in the rest of the government.
Trump and DeSantis are the two leaders in actually using the powers they were elected to use.
For some reason, our side doesn't like to do that.
One last example, and you might think this is the goofiest yet.
Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
Now, you may say that's goofy or quirky or trivial.
Okay, but just think about it for one second.
Why is renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, why is that silly?
But, I mean, I'm here in Toronto.
How about renaming Toronto's big young Dundas Square?
It's like the Times Square, Toronto, renaming it Sankofa Square after some obscure African tribe.
Why is that not goofy?
So many places are being renamed in Canada too to purge any trace of history and to replace it with a new fake history.
Heck, they're doing that to Sir John A. MacDonald.
They've torn down Sir John A. McDonald's statues, Queen Victoria's statue.
They've purged Sir John A. MacDonald from the $10 bill.
So don't tell me about defacing historical things.
Why can't our side strengthen historical things and rename things in a positive way?
I think Trump was making that point there.
Why not go on a spree of our own, rebuilding our real history instead of the fake revisionism?
Renaming Toronto's Squares00:08:00
If the left can do it, I think the right can also.
By the way, this is the only way to have a chance of making permanent changes, purging things, shutting down whole boards and commissions.
Everything else can be undone the morning after Alberta's Conservatives lose an election, whether that's in 2027 or 2031 or whenever.
Just some thoughts.
Stay with us for more.
You said that Richmond couldn't engage in land acknowledgments because of the cases, the claims involved.
So how come citizens didn't find out then about their property's title being at risk?
You were aware.
Well, the reason that we don't do a land acknowledgement is mostly because of the lawsuit by the Musqueam over the lands, the Garden City lands.
That's the biggest factor.
This case was a factor as well.
But just remember that at the beginning, before the trial, the court was asked to make an order saying that all the landowners in the area had to be notified, and they said no.
And then application was made at a later stage, the very same, asking that all the landowners be notified.
And the answer was again, no.
So that's why all these people woke up one day and found that their property was subject to the Aboriginal title.
They don't know what it is.
They don't know what it means, what the implications are.
They didn't know how it got there, and they don't know where it's going from here.
So it's really a disaster.
You know, a lot of public meetings used to start with the singing of the anthem.
Some would start with the Lord's Prayer.
These were things that united us all and had a reference to our history, where we came from.
These days, those are typically banned or at least replaced by ever more progressive sounding land acknowledgements.
At my own kids' school, there was a land acknowledgement that went so deep and heavy, it felt like a prayer in itself.
It felt semi-religious.
I was the only person, by the way, in the entire auditorium who did not stand for this quasi-religious ceremony.
And the reason for that is because I don't think it's honest.
If you really think you are standing on stolen land, then shouldn't you do something about it?
Shouldn't you give it up?
Shouldn't you return it?
It's a bit much to say, I've stolen this land.
I acknowledge that.
Now let me keep on going.
Now, I don't believe that the land is stolen.
I think that the vast majority of land in Canada was properly ceded, and I hate to use the word, but through conquest.
It's a terrible sounding word when we're talking about our First Nations brothers and sisters, but that is historically what happened.
And many of the treaties, the very first words are, you know, that the First Nation representatives surrendered the land.
I don't mean to be rough in my language, but if you actually read any of the treaties, they're fairly blunt in their description of what happened.
There are some places in Canada where treaties did not happen.
And so a question arises.
If you built a house in Canada somewhere and you thought you owned your house and the bank thought you owned your house because they gave you a mortgage that was secured against your house.
And if for your entire life and for your entire memory of our history, you own that land.
But then suddenly, activist judges said, well, hang on a second.
An amorphous claim might be made to your land that, no, it's not yours.
There's a pre-existing Aboriginal title that someone else, some Indian band, some Aboriginal activist may actually own your land, if not outright, at least some of it.
What would that make you say or do?
Suddenly, it's not just about being politically correct, like putting your pronouns in your email signature.
Now it's actually put up or shut up time.
Well, that's what's happening in British Columbia when a court case suggested that Indigenous title or Aboriginal title could in fact impose itself on millions of people who think that they own their property.
This is a shocking thing, and it led to a very rambunctious town hall meeting two nights ago in Richmond, a suburb of Vancouver.
Joining us now to talk about this is our BC Bureau Chief, Drea Humphrey, who was there in Richmond at the meeting.
Drea, great to see you again.
Thanks for being there.
Good to see you.
Thanks for having me.
Did I properly describe what's going on?
Help me out because I acknowledge I didn't read the full court ruling myself, but it seems serious enough that mayors of BC cities are writing to their landowners saying, hey, heads up, this just in, you might not own your land.
Like they really are sending out those letters en masse, aren't they?
Well, it's an 800-page decision, so don't feel bad about not getting through it yet.
And it was handed down in August.
That is the Cowhatin tribe versus Canada AG case.
And for the first time in Canada's history, we saw Aboriginal title be granted over private fee simple property lands.
So that's never happened in Canada before.
There have been other Aboriginal title claims before.
So this is very unprecedented.
And so the shocking part, in addition to that, is that the private landowners who are affected, it's not millions of people in Richmond.
I would say probably hundreds of landowners because it's a certain strip at this moment.
Okay, thank you.
No worries.
They were not told anything about this case.
It was filed originally back in 2013.
And then, of course, it was argued over the last five years or so.
And they didn't get a knock on the door.
They didn't get a letter.
They didn't get a phone call until Aboriginal title was already deemed over their land.
And their own title was deemed defective and invalid by the BC Supreme Court.
Oh, my goodness.
So first of all, thank you for the correction that this doesn't apply everywhere.
It's just on certain parcels of land that I guess did not have a treaty.
And the bulk of those are in British Columbia.
In Ontario and Eastern Canada, and even in Alberta, I think all the land was covered by treaties.
So just to be clear, is the property in question the places where there is no treaty?
Is that why you say it's hundreds as opposed to millions?
It's just a certain section.
So so far, Aboriginal title has been given over approximately 7.5 kilometers of land.
Now, here's the thing.
The case is in appeal by all parties, which again are not the property owners.
And that includes being appealed by the Cowichan tribes, which is saying, na-uh-uh-uh, we should have more, much more than what you've given us, because we picked blueberries and we fished back there, according to oral stories.
So everybody is concerned about what this actually means.
And may I remind you, in 2023, we saw something similar happened in Haida Guai, where David Eby didn't even wait for the courts.
He just made a deal with the Haida Guai Nation and gave them Aboriginal title.
And the promise was there, there was, don't worry, it's not going to affect private owned lands.
But the fact of the matter is, even though that was not over private property title, it means that people who live there are now ruled under a government that they can't elect close to half of that, you know, those islands' population.
Reconciliation and Aboriginal Title00:11:25
Wow.
You know, the fact that people who weren't in that small lawsuit were not advised of it.
I was reading that one of the reasons is that the courts didn't want all these interveners.
The courts didn't want all these severely normal British Columbians to say, hey, you're talking about my house.
I have an interest here.
Can I be an intervener?
I got something to say, Judge.
And it sounds to me like the judges purposefully did not ring the alarm.
And like you say, the decision went ahead and the people who were affected by it weren't even given notice.
Am I accurately reflecting what happened?
Absolutely.
Both the province as well as the city of Richmond said, hey, we should probably tell these homeowners.
And the judge, Judge Young, Justice Young, ruled, no, we're not going to do that.
Or it's normally it would be Cowichan tribe's responsibility and she ruled that they do not have to notify.
But here's the thing.
The citizens understandably are not happy with the fact that the city didn't let them know anyways.
It wasn't unlawful for them to send a letter and let them know so that they could start advocating on their behalf.
Wow.
Now, I understand that at this first of all, tell me a little bit about the town hall meeting a couple of nights ago because I saw your Twitter feed.
It looked huge.
And Richmond is a very diverse place, ethnically speaking, large Chinese community, large South Asian community.
What's interesting about that is that these folks, you know, I mean, there's been a large multicultural community in Vancouver for, I'd say, 50 years, certainly since the 1980s.
This pits newcomers who thought they were coming to, like, I saw one speaker say, this reminds me of Hong Kong, where the communist government says you don't really have title to your land.
And all these folks who believed in the Canadian dream, the Canadian system, poured their life savings, bought a house.
Now they're terrible.
It's just very strange to see.
Tell me a little bit about what the meeting was.
Like, who was there?
What were the sentiments?
Who was there on behalf of the government?
What kind of questions were, but give us a little bit of background, and then maybe we'll show some clips.
Well, first, we'll start with the fact that the meeting had to be relocated.
It was originally planned for Richmond City Hall, but because so many people wanted to attend, they had to move it to the Vancouver Sheraton Hotel, which is located inside of Richmond.
And so that alone was probably different for them.
And there were hundreds who showed up.
At one point, there were many people standing as there were no seats available.
And it began with Mayor Brody, Malcolm Brody, addressing them and saying, here's what's happened.
We have a lawyer here today.
We'll also have the Attorney General Nikki Sharma speaking today as well.
And so everybody sort of waited and heard this feel from the lawyer.
What stood out to me about what the lawyer said is, because of course everybody there is going, what does this mean to us?
Not even just the owners, but tenants too.
Also, businesses.
There's a couple of golf courses that are being claimed as well.
And so, one of the things that stood out to me, and I had actually spoken and interviewed a realtor, Matt Brevner, our Rebel News alumni before, and he had raised this as well, was that because it has been ruled that the Aboriginal title is outside of BC's Land Title Act, which was supposed to be our most secure property rights.
That means the provisions that are inside of that to normally protect you from having your land taken, perhaps there's a scam somehow, which apparently can happen to take your title.
Those are, you know, not within that ruling.
The title goes over, and that's called your indefeasibility protections.
So, that is raising a huge unknown.
The lawyer confirmed that and said, you know what, you don't have those protections.
The other thing the lawyer raised, and it was interesting because I had already caught Nikki Sharma, our attorney general with the NDP, on her way in and asked her, why on earth is it that your government has blocked government lawyers from arguing for extinguishment of Aboriginal title?
They were actually blocked by the NDP from bringing up that argument.
I had asked her about that.
Then, when we got into the meeting, Richmond's lawyer brought that up several times.
He was really calling on the public to demand from the NDP government that they remove whatever barrier they've put on as the Attorney General and allow the province to go ahead and pursue that argument in the appeal, which apparently they suspiciously, in my opinion, did not do during the case, but the city of Richmond, of course, wanted to.
Ms. Sharma, the BC Conservatives say that the NDP was involved in making it making our government lawyers unable to argue against Aboriginal title extinguishment.
What is your response to that claim?
Yeah, it's simply wrong.
And I would ask the Conservative leader what his position was in 2014 when he was in government and received the first claim that was filed in this matter and what his arguments were when he was in government.
Ms. Sharma, in 2021, Mayor Brody said that they were unable to engage as a city in land acknowledgements because of the legal implications that the Musqueam man is claiming.
What is your response?
Are there any legal implications to land acknowledgements that say that we are on territory?
I think I want to say very clearly that the work of reconciliation is very important.
We work with First Nations across this province and we work with cities and we work with people across this province to lift all votes, to come up with resolutions to sort through past wrongs and move forward in a way that respects all people.
And I think that's an important way to look at this.
What about the Indigenous people who think land acknowledgements are empty?
Like people don't actually want to give up the land when they say that?
You know, I think this is a question that is a little bit not related to the issue that we're speaking today, but I will say that it's our position as a government that reconciliation is an important part of the work of the province.
And I think all British Columbians expect us to sit down at a table together and try to resolve issues that are important to them.
Well, boy, she doesn't want to answer any questions at all.
Look, either it's merely symbolic and it's like being polite and being, you know, sensitive.
And we could all be polite.
We could all be sensitive and maybe that makes for a happier and harmonious world.
And British Columbia is a very diverse place, especially the greater Vancouver area.
Yeah, I get it.
But all of a sudden, a judge is saying, no, it's not just about symbolism.
It's not just about a nicety.
It means something real.
And it means you may not actually own your house, your business, your golf course.
So I think Nikki Sharma is trying to have it both ways.
I mean, when she says reconciliation, what is that?
To reconcile.
Everyone loves to reconcile with someone with whom they've fallen out.
There's nothing sweeter than making up with an old friend that you split from.
I get it.
But that's not what we're talking about here.
We're talking about billions of dollars worth of property being given to people who suddenly have been given the rights to it.
Absolutely.
My first report against land acknowledgement was years ago here on Rebel News.
But what I said there at the beginning of that question is very important.
The mayor of Richmond in 2021, after the false claims of discovering bodies at residential schools, spread the country, he was being pressured for his city to engage in land acknowledgements.
And he responded to that pressure by saying the city could not because we now know, he said, because of legal cases that the city was wrapped up in.
Now, I've also since learned that Port Coquitlam also does not do land acknowledgements for the exact same reason.
They are also in the courts over Aboriginal title.
So there is a very real legal implication to doing these land acknowledgement mantras where your elected officials are claiming on behalf that you live on unceded and stolen territory, especially now when we know that you don't even find out if your property, your land is at stake.
So the other thing I would add to that is, of all people, First Nation banned governments should know that reconciliation doesn't come from taking land.
No, that causes resentment today.
Wow, isn't that the truth?
And I see that based on this breakthrough in British Columbia, there are now people talking about a similar litigation in Quebec.
And I tell you, when you start giving property rights and other rights based on race and things like that, and you remove certainty, we are in for all sorts of trouble, economic trouble, because who would invest in land that they don't own?
And I believe you're going to have cultural trouble.
And frankly, I think this will build resentment towards Indigenous people.
It will not reconcile.
It'll make people more hostile.
I think this is a terrible path.
Now, this is the kind of thing that Rebel News reports on.
And I'm really glad you were right in there in that press conference.
And it makes me feel great to see Rebel News and our microphone.
And you were asking the best questions.
So thank you.
So we're reporting the facts.
We're giving our opinions.
But this feels like the kind of thing where Rebel News, every once in a while, we don't just tell the story, we stop and get involved.
Tell me what's on your mind about maybe a petition or maybe even, I don't know if it's possible, participating in some way to give British Columbians some access to the courts because it sounds like they've been kept out of the courts deliberately.
Well, absolutely.
I am, you know, watching this very closely.
I found out in August, like most people did, and I've been on it ever since.
So, of course, journalistically, we're going to bring that to you.
But we also, at times like this, when there is a great risk to the freedoms of Canadians, we take action.
So we actually have a petition that I strongly encourage you to sign and share.
It's at a website called endlandgrabs.com.
And in there, I go through some of the three factors that I think have influenced where we are at now.
One is, of course, land acknowledgements, as we've discussed.
The other is a UN aspirational framework.
It's called the United Nations Declaration on Rights for Indigenous Peoples, not all people.
And British Columbia was the first jurisdiction in the entire world to adopt that aspiration that aspirational framework and commit to conforming all of our laws to it that put 5% over and above 95%.
So that needs to be addressed.
And of course, we need to call on our legislatures, our city officials, all of them to bring forth security for property rights.
We thought we had that.
We're learning.
Sudan Massacre Ignored00:03:41
We don't.
That needs to change.
So again, that is at endlandgrabs.com.
Great.
Well, I'm so glad to see you on this.
There's so much news out of British Columbia.
Boy, you're covering it.
Whether it's sort of dissident news with the ostrich farm or serious constitutional challenges to property rights in Vancouver, you're there.
It's great to see Drea.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you.
All right.
There you have it, Dray Humphrey, our BC Bureau boss.
Stay with us.
letters to me next.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me about Sudan and the massacre that the left suddenly doesn't really care about.
Frank Uxbridge says our foreign minister is a disgusting disgrace to this nation.
Well, it's not just the foreign minister.
Where's the CBC?
Where is the media party?
Where are the college clubs?
Where are the boycott this and sanction that people?
Like the whole political industrial complex, the media, the professors, where are they?
They couldn't care less.
It's what I said when I quoted that Haviv Retigur.
It's an unusual name he has.
The guy who says, look, no other violence, no other horrific crimes or wars have ever or will ever be protested in this way.
Like, what is Russia doing in Ukraine?
Without even taking sides on that, like, the death toll there is so much larger than what happened in Gaza.
Sudan's death toll is multiple, but no one cares because Israel isn't involved.
I just think it just, I mean, it's a shame what's happening in Sudan.
Now, of course, I'm against it.
But I'm not the guy who's been marching again for a ceasefire for two years.
Where are those people?
Next letter is from Hiker X, who says, What about supporting the people of Canada from violent immigrants?
You know, I saw an amazing thing today.
At first, I didn't even believe it until I checked the source.
According to the Federal Register, which is basically where Trump announces regulations, the United States has announced that it will take 7,500 refugees this year, not 75,000, not 750,000, but 7,500 grand total.
And they will take primarily from white South African farmers who are being victimized by the black political extremists in South Africa who have basically declared war on these white farmers.
Very interesting, isn't it?
And just causing such a tizzy on the left.
But you can't deny that those farmers are being discriminated based on race.
They're being ethnically cleansed.
And you know that those farmers would adapt immediately and perfectly to America.
And you know none of them would go on welfare.
And you know none of them would commit crimes.
I'm not saying none, but I just think that that clarity of purpose, I mean, thank God for Trump.
Next letter is from RT Missia, who says those millions, referring to the millions Canada is giving Sudan, are going to be pocketed by the terrorists.
We could use that money in Canada.
Yeah, if you look at the structure of that tweet yesterday from Anita Anand, the foreign minister, it was almost perfunctory.
Oh, we're really sad to see 2,000 people killed.
Yeah, that's not good for Sudan.
But, and then the bulk of the tweet was boasting about how much money she was spending.
She didn't even say who the terrorists were.
It was such a weird tweet.
And it was so obviously about pandering to people of different diaspora groups in Canada by talking about how much money will be spent.