Ezra Levant’s campaign targets Chrystia Freeland for allegedly hiding a $2.5B Ukraine fund decision while advising PM Mark Carney, violating conflict-of-interest laws. Rebel News demands an investigation into encrypted messages and preferential treatment, citing a 2019 CSIS report on China’s election interference via Quebec industrialists like the Demire family. Levant warns Canada risks U.S. backlash by prioritizing China over Arctic military cooperation with America, while criticizing Carney’s "dictatorship tour" and Michael Ma’s Liberal switch as signs of foreign influence. Viewers highlight Iran’s theocratic threats and aid corruption, arguing radical Islam’s violence surpasses China’s economic interference—yet both undermine Canadian sovereignty. [Automatically generated summary]
We're taking on Christia Freeland, even though I think she's already fled with all the money.
We're taking her to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and we've got a heck of a letter to back it up.
I'll show you that today.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this podcast.
Please go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
Eight bucks a month, which might not sound like a lot to you, but boy, it adds up for us.
Tonight, Rebel News goes into battle with Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney.
We'll give you all the details.
It's January 14th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you sensorious bug.
Oh, hi, everybody.
Just today, we had a managers' meeting here at Rebel News for about 90 minutes, trying to figure out our next strategic plan.
And by that, I mean every day we do our journalistic plan, our editorial plan.
We're going to cover this story.
We're going to fly over there to cover that story.
Maybe we should hire a reporter here or there.
Recently, we've been very busy.
We've onboarded two new great journalists, Scarlett, who is hard at work in the Greater Toronto area, covering the Iranian-Canadian protests, covering street protests involving Hamas activists.
Scarlett's doing a great job.
And Tamara, Tamara Leach, of course, who's based in Medicine Hat, but by working carefully with her probation officer, we're able to move her around the country as a journalist.
And I'm excited she was visiting us earlier this week.
So that's part of our editorial strategy, right?
What are we going to cover?
We're off to Davos this weekend.
That's part of our strategy.
But what about our bigger business plan?
What need do we fill?
How do we give people what they want?
How are we different, for example, from other independent journalists?
There's more of us now.
Back when Rebel News started 10 years ago, it was just us.
Now there's other groups like Juno and Western Standard and Epoch Times.
So where does Rebel News fit?
In some ways, we're the older brother.
We've been around for more than 10 years.
In some ways, we're the biggest.
I don't know the exact statistics of our competitors, but I showed you just before Christmas that according to the app HootSuite, we have more than 400 million views and impressions every year.
So I think we're the biggest, but that again doesn't tell me what is our purpose.
What is our mission?
What's our strategy?
What is our promise to people other than just telling the other side of the story?
I think it's more of a tactic than a strategy, isn't it?
And one of the things that I came back to at our meeting today was every now and then when we cover a story that moves us in a good way or a bad way, we stop and we do something about it.
You know what I mean?
The pandemic was the biggest example of that.
We saw people getting arrested for ridiculous reasons.
So we created something called Fight the Fines that later grew into an enormous project defending in the end 3,000 people, including many pastors, churches, truckers, and Tamara Leach herself.
And I think it's that activism part that every once in a while, I mean, we don't do it all the time.
We don't have an action every single day, but we have 10 or 15 news stories a day, right?
So news is our bread and butter.
But every once in a while, and I feel this especially, I look around and I say, so no one's going to do something about this?
We've got a crazy story.
No one's going to do anything.
Not even the opposition.
That's how I felt the other day when Garnet Genuis, the Conservative MP from Northern Alberta, was banned from York University.
I thought, well, no one's going to do something about it.
We're going to do something about it.
So we got our free speech truck.
We went on campus and we showed that there was no problem asserting our freedom.
That's what I mean by activism.
When something just ticks me off, and we've got to do something.
We're in another incidence of that right now.
And I want to show you what I've spent the morning working on.
It's a video that we just released.
And I'm going to play it in full now.
It's about 12 minutes or so, and then I'm going to come back on the other end.
I just, I don't want you to miss this video.
And I also want to talk a little bit more about the video, sort of a meta conversation, because I want to tell you why I think it's so important that Rebel News not just report the news.
We tell you the news.
We give you our opinions.
I think that's probably our main thing we do.
But like I say, every once in a while we look around and say, so no one's going to stop this.
No one's going to try.
No one's going to fill the void.
All right, fine, we will.
Here's an example of that.
Take a look at the video I released earlier today.
And don't go away.
I'll be on the other side.
So stick around, wait for me.
It looks like Christia Freeland is getting away with it.
She was a Canadian MP.
Well, she was Mark Carney's special advisor on Ukraine.
She secretly took another job at the same time with the president of Ukraine himself, Vladimir Zelensky.
She was working both sides.
She was hired by Ukraine on December 22nd.
She told Mark Carney, the prime minister, about it on December 24th, but they agreed to keep it a secret.
On December 27th, the Saturday during the Christmas break, the Canadian government quickly sent $2.5 billion to Ukraine, and Freeland was working both sides of the deal.
You cannot do that.
That's illegal.
I'll show you the law in a moment.
That's called a conflict of interest.
And this whole arrangement would have stayed a secret had Zelensky himself not tweeted about it more than a week later on January 5th.
Now, that tweet clearly surprised Carney and Freeland, who hadn't planned to make it public.
Freeland broke the law, and Carney probably did too.
And so Freeland's first response after being outed was to say, well, she wasn't being paid by Ukraine.
And anyway, she was going to quit as a Canadian member of parliament in a few weeks.
But after public uproar grew, she quit immediately and hid from the media.
I don't even know what country she's in now, but I could probably guess.
And everybody seems to have dropped the matter.
Well, everybody except us.
What Christia Freeland did was illegal.
That's not just my opinion.
It's the law.
Let me show you this letter written by our lawyer, Chad Williamson.
It is a detailed three-page complaint to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Conrad von Finkenstein.
I really want you to read this letter for yourself.
You can find it at our special website, auditfreeland.com.
We need a whole forensic audit of what happened, how and why Freeland's Ukraine job was kept a secret, what her involvement was in the $2.5 billion blowout, how that money is being accounted for, who got it, and what penalties Freeland will face for doing all of this.
I'm going to read you parts of the letter now, but please read it for yourself.
It's only three pages long, and I promise you, you'll learn more about what Christia Freeland did wrong in those three pages than in all the mainstream media reporting on this subject combined.
And that's the thing.
Once Freeland quit as an MP, the regime media basically said, oh, well, she's gone now.
Nothing to see here.
Let's talk about something else.
And the opposition parties dropped it too.
We have a better idea.
Now you might remember we hired Chad Williamson as our lawyer to sue Trudeau's crooked Justice Minister David LeMetti when LeMetti illegally deleted his government Twitter account to hide his tracks after the federal court ruled the Emergencies Act was illegally applied by him.
Now we won that battle.
LeMetti had to stop deleting his records.
We caught the Justice Minister breaking the law and we stopped him.
Just huge.
Chad was also our lawyer the last time we sued the Liberal Debates Commission for trying to keep rebel news reporters out.
He is our winningest lawyer, actually.
So let me show you his letter to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
I'm going to read it.
Dear sir, we act for Rebel News Network Limited and Mr. Ezra Levant.
On their behalf, we formally request that your office initiate an examination under Section 45 of the Conflict of Interest Act into the conduct of the Honorable Christia Freeland.
The matter concerns her receipt of a personal professional opportunity from the administration of Ukraine while concurrently participating in the allocation of multi-billion dollar financial aid packages to that same state as a member of the Canadian government and as a member of parliament.
The proximity of these events warrants rigorous scrutiny to ensure the integrity of the executive of this country.
And then he's got another chapter called Factual Matrix.
The chronology of these events is not merely suggestive, it is extremely concerning.
I won't read the whole thing there.
Chad outlines the dates I just mentioned to you.
Then he digs into the law and quickly dispatches Freeland's attempted excuse of not being paid.
Inquiry foundations and the unpaid fallacy.
Sections four and five.
The minister's suggestion that the unpaid nature of the role mitigated to conflict is legally insufficient.
Under section two, a private interest is defined by exclusion.
It does not require pecuniary gain.
Prestige and international standing clearly constitute a private interest.
Accordingly, there are reasonable grounds for inquiry regarding one, section four, conflict of interest, whether the minister exercised official power in a manner that provided an opportunity to further her private interest in a prestigious post-parliamentary career.
Two, section five, general duty, whether the minister met her mandatory duty to arrange her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest.
Now, here's the heart of the letter.
This part is just devastating to Freeland, who clearly broke the law.
I'm not surprised to you.
I mean, this is a woman who illegally seized bank accounts of hundreds of her political enemies during the Trucker Convoy.
So why would she follow the law when it comes to shoveling $2.5 billion from Canadian taxpayers to her new boss?
Let me read these points.
Substantive statutory considerations.
We request that your office immediately determine if the minister's conduct is consistent with the following prohibitions.
Section 6.1, decision-making.
Participating in a decision where the official knows or reasonably should know they are in a conflict of interest.
Section 7, preferential treatment.
Whether the $2.5 billion allocation constitutes preferential treatment based on the identity of the organization that offered the minister employment.
Section 8, insider information.
Whether non-public information was used to further the minister's private interest in securing the advisory role.
Section 9, influence.
Whether the minister's position was used to influence a decision of the prime minister or cabinet to further her own career trajectory.
Section 10, offers of employment.
Whether the exercise of official power was influenced by plans for or offers of outside employment.
Section 11, gifts and advantages.
Whether the professional offer or any other benefit or advantage conferred constitutes an advantage that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence official duties?
Just absolutely damning.
Please, please read the whole letter for yourself at auditfreeland.com.
I really wish the Conservative Opposition Party had made this demand of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commission.
They have access to unlimited legal support as opposition MPs.
Obviously, we take no government money.
If you want to help me cover the cost of this upcoming legal battle that we're getting into thick, you can do that right now at auditfreeland.com.
Thanks.
Okay, back to the letter.
This part is really interesting.
Ready?
Pursuant to Section 24-1: a reporting public office holder must disclose an offer of outside employment to the commissioner within seven days.
Having received the offer on December 22nd, the statutory deadline was December 29th.
We require confirmation of the exact date your office received this disclosure.
Hey, isn't that a great point?
I bet you she did not disclose it to the commissioner in time or at all until it became public.
This was when Freeland and Carney were still keeping it quiet.
And remember, I mentioned that Chad sued and beat Justice Minister David LeMetty for illegally destroying government records.
Well, we've included a part about that too.
Let me read it.
Our clients remain concerned with the preservation of digital records during ministerial transitions.
In Rebel News Network versus LeMetti, we litigated the unacceptable risk of record scrubbing following a minister's departure.
We demand that your office issue an immediate directive to the minister's office and the Privy Council office to preserve all communications, including encrypted messaging, between Ms. Freeland and Prime Minister Carney from December 20th, 2025 to present.
All internal departmental briefing notes regarding the $2.5 billion gift.
Seriously, don't you think that's in the public interest?
And really, if Rebel News doesn't demand that these records be kept, who will?
So the letter ends with our lawyer demanding that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner answer six questions for us within the next 15 days.
And they are such good questions.
I wish they had been asked in question period in Parliament, but let me read them to you now.
Question one: Procedural compliance.
On what exact date did your office receive a formal written disclosure from Minister Freeland regarding the December 22nd offer as mandated by the seven-day deadline in Section 24-1?
That's a great one.
Question two: The recusal record: Did the minister provide a written notice of recusal regarding the December 27th $2.5 billion funding decision pursuant to Section 21?
And was this recusal subsequently entered into the public registry under Section 25?
Recusal Record Inquiry00:02:01
That is a great question.
Did she step away from the decision?
Of course we know she didn't.
Question 3: Contemporaneous advice.
Did the minister seek or receive written advice from your office between December 22nd and December 27th regarding the ethical compatibility of her participation in aid-related cabinet decisions while entertaining a personal professional offer from the recipient state?
Great question.
Question four: Classification of interest.
Does your office maintain that a high-level advisory appointment to a foreign sovereign state, regardless of remuneration, is an exempt interest under Section 2?
Or does it constitute a gift or other advantage under Section 11?
Yeah, there's no way that simply saying, oh, I'm not getting cash means this is legitimate work.
It's crazy.
Question five: evidence preservation.
What specific enforceable directives has your office issued to the minister staff and the privy council office to prevent the scrubbing or deletion of digital records, specifically encrypted messages, logs involving Mark Carney prior to the minister's resignation?
And finally, preferential treatment inquiry.
Will your office's examination specifically investigate whether the $2.5 billion allocation constitutes preferential treatment to an organization under Section 7 based on the minister's pending transition to that organization?
We expect a prompt acknowledgement of this request, a fulsome response to our queries, and a timeline for your office's preliminary assessment on or before the deadline captioned above.
This is a matter of grave public interest, I think, don't you?
It's not just the money being hoovered out of the country on a Saturday right after Christmas.
It's that every single check and balance was broken to get the money.
They didn't register it, they didn't disclose it, they didn't recuse.
Lawsuits as Power Instruments00:04:14
This is all dirty.
Christia Freeland secretly broke the law, and Mark Carney himself helped keep it a secret.
Everyone's in on it.
We have sent the letter to the commissioner.
His name is Mr. Von Finkenstein.
It's a great letter.
He is the power to answer these questions, but he also has the power to bury these questions.
I promise you, I'll let you know what he says.
Go to auditfreeland.com, read the letter.
If you agree with me that our lawyer's letter is great, please help me crowdfund his legal bill.
You can do that right there at the same website, auditfreeland.com.
Thanks very much, my friends.
You know, no one should be above the law, especially not someone as unethical as Christia Freeland.
Go to auditfreeland.com, read the complaint for yourself, and help us with our legal war chest because this battle is just starting.
Thanks for your support.
You know, I always get nervous and excited when we launch a legal battle like that.
Nervous because I don't want to lose.
It's embarrassing to lose.
I also know it's likely that we're going to lose because we fight these uphill battles, David versus Goliath.
The other guys have all the advantages, all the money, all the endless legal budgets, and we're the little guy.
I'm excited, though, because I know it is possible to win.
As I mentioned in that video, Chad Williamson is our winningest lawyer.
He beat the Debates Commission in 2021.
In 2025, they just surrendered to him.
He beat David LeMetti.
So I think he's got a good chance.
And if you read the letter, I think it's an excellent letter.
But I'm also aware that these battles cost a lot of money.
And that's one thing when I think of our competitors, I somehow daydream, what would it be like if we didn't have legal bills?
What would it be like if our people were never arrested so we didn't have to defend them in court or sue the police?
What would it be like if we didn't sign up for these legal battles?
I remember when we sued, here's another legal battle that Chad Williamson won for us.
I didn't mention this in the video.
When we sued Stephen Gilbo, if you recall, for blocking us on Twitter.
And you might think that's a petty thing, but it set the precedent that governments cannot cut you off from information just because they don't like you.
So we spent, it was about $90,000 or $100,000 fighting that.
And you might say, oh my God, that's such a waste of money.
And sometimes I feel that way because you could hire, I mean, imagine how many journalists you could hire if you weren't spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawsuits.
You know, journalists are important and opinion commentary is important, but who's going to stand up and stop them?
We stopped Stephen Gilbo from banning people on Twitter, and we actually replicated that same lawsuit so many times.
We basically set the standard, we set the precedent, and we've stopped that misconduct.
We beat David LeMetti, the justice minister who tried to destroy his public records.
And if we can put a dent in Christia Freeland here, I think that is a very valuable thing we're giving to the country.
And I think it's in some ways because of my own unusual background.
I was a lawyer, but I didn't really practice a lot.
I was in politics as a staffer.
I briefly ran, as you may know, but I stepped aside for Stephen Harper.
So I've got this mix inside me.
I'm not just journalistic.
I'm also political.
I'm also a former lawyer.
And I myself have been the target of bad guys trying to get me with lawfare lawsuits.
So I sometimes think of lawsuits as an instrument to challenge some sort of power.
So at least I hope you think that way.
And I really think that Christia Freeland is getting away scot-free here.
I think she's getting away in an outrageous manner.
And if you look at the timeline, she was hired by Ukraine.
She did disclose it quickly to the prime minister, but he kept it a secret.
I think one of the most exciting questions in Chad Williamson's lawyer's letter is: when did she, as is required, let the Conflict of Ethics Commissioner know she got the job?
I bet she didn't do him.
Kovrig's Arctic Concerns00:15:30
Anyways, I just wanted to give you some of those thoughts on our big campaign today because it's the part of Rebel News I love the best, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on that too.
Do you like our news better?
Do you like our commentary?
One of my favorite things, let's be honest, is when we send journalists places.
I really loved seeing Alexa down there with the Venezuelanos and Cubanos in Miami cheering the removal of Maduro.
What did you think of that?
But I think when Rebel News gets into the fight, that's to me, that's just chef's kiss.
That's the favorite thing.
Anyways, those are my thoughts.
Stay with us.
After the break, we'll talk to Sam Cooper about Mark Carney's trip to Communist China.
Stay with us.
Well, Mark Carney, our prime minister, has started a global dictatorship tour, if I may.
He just touched down in communist China.
His tweet announcing his arrival, of course, makes no mention of human rights, industrial sabotage, or democratic infiltration, what we saw in various elections, especially in Greater Toronto area.
After he's done in China, he'll visit two other spots.
One is Qatar, the tiny Gulf nation that is the chief sponsor of Hamas, now that Iran is running out of cash.
And then he'll end the whole thing.
Well, where we're going to be at Davos, at the World Economic Forum Summit.
That's Mark Carney's kind of place.
As you know, he was a director of the World Economic Forum for years, a very China-centric place.
It's been a while since Canada has had a prime minister go to China, but Mark Carney is quite familiar with them.
He's met with Xi Jinping himself as in his capacity as chairman of Brookfield Asset Management.
And remember that Mark Carney has not divested himself of his stock.
So he's going with two hats on.
One, the Prime Minister of Canada, the other, a major stockholder in Brookfield Asset Management.
But let's get back to the first point.
How do we deal with China?
It is a fact that they import a variety of Canadian exports, including, for example, canola, which they put under an enormous tariff.
I understand that Saskatchewan Premier Scott Mo has accompanied Mark Carney, clearly with one thing on his agenda, get that import tax removed.
The Chinese, of course, will want something in return, perhaps softening or removing the tariff on Chinese electric vehicles, a tariff brought in to protect Ontario's auto industry.
But what about their meddling in our democracy?
What about the Chinese consulate putting an actual bounty on a democratic opposition, an opponent, Chinese Canadian, in the last federal election?
Will any of that come up?
Well, there's one man who I would trust on this stuff more than anyone else.
He's an independent journalist who has really made a name for himself on the foreign interference issue.
You could probably guess who I'm talking about.
His name is Sam Cooper.
He's the boss of the Bureau.
You can find it at thebureau.news, and he joins me now.
Sam, thanks very much for coming back on the show.
You're so busy.
I'm grateful to have a few moments of your time.
Put aside Qatar and the World Economic Forum.
Tell me what we should be watching with Mark Carney's trip to China.
Well, I think Michael Kovrig, who your viewers know very well, was kidnapped in the Manwanzao pressure case.
He's been very vocal, Ezra, in the past week, airing out his well-founded and hard-earned knowledge of what Carney could be up to in China.
And Mr. Kovrig laid it out.
He said, Jean Chréchan was there a week before Carney in Beijing.
Jacques Crechan has deep business ties and has had for decades with Beijing.
He's there, according to Mr. Kovrig, the expert, apparently to pave the way for what may be possible in business dealings.
And so as you said in your intro, it's no secret now to Canadians that China is up to no good in our country.
But I think the real story is here that not only is Mark Carney through Brookfield deeply exposed in his own business dealings to China.
I think Ezra, we've talked about how Mr. Carney scored a $250 emergency loan on a Brookfield real estate investment in China in 2024.
That's shortly before he replaced Justin Trudeau.
So I testified about that in parliament as being a potential conflict.
But beyond that, as Mr. Kovrig and I and others have noted, powerful business industrialists connected to Jean-Cretian in Montreal have essentially been writing Canada's China policy for decades.
And Mr. Kovrig, I, and other experts think they're the ones that are driving, that will be driving sort of the agenda for Mark Carney in his visit to Beijing.
And that worries me and a lot of experts on China.
You know, I remember when Jean-Cretchen announced he was going to go work in China.
If my recollection is accurate, he announced that publicly just six weeks after he finished his term as PM.
I think there was no way he didn't know in advance that was his plans.
I don't think he was silent, incommunicado, and then suddenly when he was done being PM, he negotiated.
I think he was warming to China the whole time.
But in any event, for 20 years, he's been deeply involved in China with the Demire family that his own child married into.
So he's full on in China.
But you've got to say, okay, he's a businessman now.
He's a lobbyist now.
He's sort of a grand figure in the Liberal Party, but he really hasn't been, I don't think, an advisor to the government in Canada.
But him meeting with the Chinese in advance of Mark Carney, that really feels like he was there to soften the ground, to shape the battlefield, so to speak.
And so I think my question is: will this serve liberal interests, personal interests, corporate interests, Demire interests, Kretchen interests, or will it serve the Canadian interests?
Because I think they're different.
I have no problem with Canada trading with China.
It's impossible for us not to.
But what I'm worried about is that this, everything will be skewed to favor the in-group, the Kretchen crowd, the insiders.
And remember that Carney himself is still an insider with those shares.
I'm just worried that instead of a political deal, we're getting a business deal done by the state, but for the benefit of the few.
That's my worry.
And, you know, five to 10 years ago, a lot of people could still claim this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's not anymore.
Ezra, you mentioned canola.
I reported on a CSIS document for the Bureau.news in the wake of my revelations at Global News on election interference.
This was really not noticed, but it said CSIS assessed that during the Mun Wanzao crisis, China's Ministry of State Security was putting maximum pressure on Canadian industrialists because they believed that the industrialists had maximum leverage with senior Canadian politicians, R.E. Justin Trudeau.
This CESIS document, and people can go to the Bureau.news, assessed that China was calibrating its election interference in 2019 to secure the release of Mun Wanzhao, and they were calibrating their support across all three major political parties while still supporting Justin Trudeau.
Let me underline that.
The document says Justin Trudeau was favored by China, but to show that China was a little displeased with Mun's detention, they started to scatter their election interference goodies around to different parties.
And again, let me underline: Richardsons in Saskatchewan, a big grain trader, was mentioned in that document.
And as you say, and I think I agree, the Quebec industrialists would be even at the higher level of the pyramid of influence with China and influence on Mark Carney, Jacques Christian, even some conservatives such as Brian Mulroney probably had that similar influence.
You know, I understand Mark Carney's argument.
He's saying we have to diversify our export markets because the United States tariff position is confusing and scary.
And Trump just this week was saying he doesn't know if he wants to renegotiate the U.S.-MCA trade deal.
I can understand why, whether you're left-wing or right-wing, that means diversify.
That said, 80% of our exports go to the States, only 5% to China.
And by the way, what China, I think, really wants from Canada is our raw materials.
They want our coal, our potash, our oil.
And we haven't really built the proper infrastructure.
Like, we haven't built an oil pipeline.
It's certainly not one that looks like it'll be speedy.
I'm also, but my point is by wooing China, by bending the need to China morally, I'm worried that the United States might have a bad reaction to that if they think we're getting too chummy, if they think we're abandoning the U.S. orbit.
This, instead of diversifying our exports, this might actually lead to some backlash.
And listen, Canada is an independent country.
I don't want it to be a puppet of the U.S.
But do you think there's a risk that if Mark Carney is too friendly with Xi Jinping, that might get a reaction from Marco Rubio?
Ezra, I absolutely believe that's the case.
And let me point to a great story that you and your network broke.
That was the Chinese PLA training in Canada's Arctic.
That's the exact type of episode that my sources, who are at a senior level in the U.S. government, also good people in Canada's government say.
Canada has not only been in bed with China, with Jean-Crechin and his business friends in Montreal for decades.
Remember, they started with Pierre Trudeau, who recognized the CCP over Taiwan.
And as a new book reveals, that set a bad model for the rest of the world.
This is the concern of the American government, who I believe is up every hour of the night these days, planning for a potential shock scenario of a war with Beijing over their plans to attack Taiwan within the next year or two.
And so, Canada, by Mark Carney, of course, we need to be sovereign.
We need to get the best deal.
President Donald Trump is being very bellicose, harsher than any recent American president, but they are protecting their interests.
And I'll circle back to that great story you broke about the PLA training in the Arctic.
Look, Ezra, we both know when we're talking about Trump wanting to buy Greenland, China and Russia are already involved in Canada's Arctic.
This is a major concern.
And Mark Carney scoring deeper trade deals, that's sending us on the road to destruction very quickly, I believe.
I'm afraid.
Yeah.
You know, I mean, Trump has an audacious style.
I really recommend to people to read his old book called The Art of the Deal, which was pre-politics.
I mean, he was always political, but it was about how he likes to negotiate.
And he talked about making outrageous demands, then backing down so his strong demands appeared very, very modest by comparison.
He talks about putting the other guy off balance by saying, you know, throwing out curveballs.
If you read how he did business in New York City, which is a very cutthroat real estate environment, you can see some of those traits at work now.
And I don't think he denies them.
I don't think anyone actually thinks the United States is going to have a military war with Denmark.
I just don't think anyone believes.
But by making that a huffing and puffing threat, everything else seems modern.
And I noticed, by the way, there were Danish and Greenlandish diplomats in the White House today.
So we'll see what happens there.
And Trump talks about China's presence.
And I don't know.
I think that Canada could actually do more things, interesting things.
Let me throw something at you.
And maybe it's outside your wheelhouse.
So maybe you don't have an opinion on it.
But look, there is a U.S. military base in the UK, in Italy, in Germany, in Turkey, in about 100 countries in the world.
And you could say, oh, that violates their sovereignty.
Well, those countries would say, no, it gives us actually the benefit.
Canada doesn't have a U.S. base here, even though Americans do train in some of our military bases.
If we had a joint Canada-U.S. base in the Arctic, let's say near Inivik, or even further north, Tuck Tayuk Tuck, where Americans and Canadians could train and work together in the Arctic, it would be allies, buddies.
I'm not saying 51st state.
I'm just saying let's have what Germany has.
They have 40 U.S. bases.
Let's have an Arctic base co-located with the Americans where we train with each other, not with PLA, Chinese communists.
I think Trump would value that so much.
It would be like an asymmetrical thing.
Maybe he'd go easy on our auto industry.
Maybe he'd go easy on other things.
I don't know.
But I think that, I don't know if Mark Carney can do that because he's taking a bit of an anti-American tone.
Just something that we could tip our hat to the Americans and say, yeah, listen, let us sell our oil or our wheat or our potash, our canola, and we'll help you on Arctic sovereignty, which we agree with.
Anyway, it's an idea.
I just wanted to float that idea and hear what you thought of it.
I love the idea.
I've had similar ideas.
And I would add to that, we should be not signing exclusive deals, but signing heavily weighted deals where we are providing our critical minerals to the United States for them to.
Ezra, let me tell you what I think the Western Hemisphere and the world is all about now.
The U.S. government bought into globalism over the past 30, 40 years.
China snuck in and secured all the critical minerals needed.
They've captured the supply chain.
So if that war happens, the U.S. government will run out of munitions very soon.
They're in a race to secure critical minerals and to secure Western Hemisphere military security dominance, really, because they're preparing for war with China.
So 100%, let's do those bases together with the Americans.
These are our natural allies.
As people, we're very close.
We're not identical, but I have the opinion that we can never really be separate from the United States in terms of an ally.
Going to saying that we're going to be European or China adjacent, it'll never work.
So, yes, stronger military cooperation and interoperability, stronger sharing on resources.
This is what the people in Canada, deep down, I think most of them really want.
And it makes sense at a high strategic level.
Let me ask you one last question.
And it's actually totally a different part of the world.
It's in Markham, Ontario, part of the Greater Toronto Area.
There are different camps of Chinese communities.
Chinese Influence in Markham00:02:29
Some are, you know, absolutely freedom-oriented, dissident, you might even say democracy activists.
But then there are those who favor the Chinese Communist Party.
And there are, I'm not going to say street battles, but it's certainly a tug of war.
And you saw that where Michael Ma was elected as a conservative, but was wooed somehow by Mark Carney.
And one of his opponents, Joe Tae, is real.
Like there's this really interesting battle playing itself out.
It's a peaceful battle so far, thank God, between who sort of is the boss on the ground.
And Michael Ma was flipped from the conservatives to the liberals.
And now he is on that plane in China.
His immediate reward was to get an audience with the dictator.
And I think that's in poor taste, by the way.
I think it's an insult to the people of Markham who voted for a more freedom-oriented Canada.
And then they're given someone who's being wooed by the Chinese communists.
What signal does it send that as a reward for turning tables, Michael Ma is now visiting with a top dictator?
It's a horrible signal, and that's a deep story.
I believe, Ezra, that first of all, Mark Carney, I've documented at the Bureau through photographic evidence and open sources that Mark Carney was meeting with people that should be on the foreign agent registry because they are senior Beijing United Front Work Department political operatives that appeared to give Mark Carney support in his nomination.
I similarly documented that Michael Ma, without alleging that he's involved in any under-the-table dealings, he's been meeting more than once with very senior people that should be on Canada's foreign agent registry when it, in fact, if it's ever implemented.
These are people, Ezra, that I'll assert to you, are extremely key to the Don Valley North election interference story and the election interference across Canada.
Michael Ma, you know, toasting wine glasses with them, wearing a red scarf in front of, you know, images of Beijing's military in Markham, which you point to.
I think it's a hugely concerning issue.
Again, not alleging Michael Ma is involved in foreign interference, but I have the concern his floor crossing could be connected to Beijing's interference.
Election Interference Scandals00:05:12
Yeah, it sure looks that way.
Well, Sam, I really value your journalism.
And folks, as you know, Rebel News is an independent citizen journalist outfit, but we love to pay attention to other citizen journalists and to host them on the show sometimes.
Can I recommend that you bookmark Sam's website, especially if you care about foreign interference, Chinese-Canadian relations, and other things too?
The website's really easy to remember.
It's thebureau.news, the bureau.news.
And Sam's got an interesting style.
He's got a ton of sources on the ground and in institutions who trust him to get the news out when maybe sometimes the regime media are reluctant to tell what's really going on.
So I really look up to Sam, and we're always grateful he can take a few minutes.
I know he's so busy.
I see him on so many different programs.
He's in demand.
So we're always happy when he clears his schedule for us.
Sam, great to see you.
Keep up the great work, and we look forward to our next update with you.
Always good talking, Esther.
Thanks.
Right on.
There he is.
Sam Cooper, the Bureau of Dot News.
Stay with us.
letters to me next hey welcome back Your letters to me.
Chrissy Dai says, Islamic regime, not Iranian regime.
This is an occupation, not government.
Very important to know the difference.
Ah, interesting.
Well, you know, it's called the Islamic Republic of Iran.
It really is a theology, a theocracy.
Excuse me.
And I should remind you that Margaret Atwood's book, The Handmaid's Tale, which was turned into a hit TV show, and the Democrats used, oh, Trump is bringing in the handmaid's tale.
It's a theocracy.
It's a misogynist theocracy.
No, Trump didn't, and no American has.
That was actually, if you look it up, Margaret Atwood was inspired in this dystopian way by the Iranian revolution.
But I just don't think she had the courage to do the show about Islam.
She made it about Christianity.
But that's not what Christianity is like.
Christianity is liberating.
It's not condemning.
It doesn't subjugate women like radical Islam does.
So anyhow, it's incredible that the left has been so supportive of the true misogynist dystopian regime.
Like, this is what they claim they hated, but they seem to like it.
Kenneth Gerdine says, or Kenneth Egerdine, sorry, says, I'm so sick of them bringing their wars to Canada, then expect Canadian government to fix your countries.
Meanwhile, Canada is suffering because of our own government, and the government is supporting the immigrants more than the Canadian people.
Now, I don't think that Canada, well, Canada gives an enormous amount of foreign aid, and I feel like so much of it is siphoned off and embezzled and corrupted.
And we'll find out a little bit more if there's been any tracking done on this money that Christia Freeland has been shoveling out the door, working both ends of the deal.
The United States does a lot of military exercises around the world.
They have the world's largest military.
They have about 100 bases all over the world.
And the U.S. does go in these wars in a big way.
Donald Trump is trying to change how he does it.
So, like, he had a very light touch in Venezuela.
Now he's sort of running Venezuela through orders.
I'm not going to say through threats, but there's probably threats there too.
It's a very interesting thing as we talked to Dr. Pipes yesterday about can you bring in regime change by knocking off the top guy and then just sort of using The rest is like a ventriloquist doll.
If you cut off the head of the ventriloquist doll and you make it speak in your voice, can you change a country without putting boots on the ground?
Trump's trying to do that in Venezuela, and I got to say, so far it looks like it's working.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in Iran.
Bill Smith says, I am seeing the light.
Canada blames China.
Ceces blames China.
And yes, China is a problem, is they want to economically take over any country they can.
We should not trust China.
However, the worst corrupt influence in Canada is from radical Islam: Iran, Qatar, and other dictatorships.
I agree with you.
And the thing about the Islam, the Islamic extremists funded by Qatar and Iran, is they're violent.
They're abusive.
They're law-breaking.
They're terrifying.
They stomp around in Jewish communities, threatening people.
They change our curriculum in schools.
I mean, as we heard the other day with Melanie Bennett, the Chinese influence is not as abusive.
It's more economic, I think.
And like it is an interference for sure.
It feels less abusive.
We have to be on guard.
I mean, certainly Sam Cooper's comments today were very wise.
I am, when I look to Europe, which I always say is 5, 10, 20 years down the road than we are, you can see that the real threat there, I think, is radical Islam and the overwhelming transformation of those countries through mass immigration.