That's according to John Carpay, founder of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, who joined Ezra from Calgary to walk through what he calls a methodical, bill-by-bill construction of a Canadian surveillance state. The latest entry, the so-called Safe Social Media Act, would bar teens under 16 from social media. Carpay says the policy sounds reasonable and works nothing like it's advertised.

"We're moving towards a communist China social credit type system," Carpay said, "where the government has access to where you are and who you communicate with and what you do."

Carpay laid out the full inventory: the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11), handing internet authority to the CRTC; the Online News Act, which killed news links on Facebook; the Cybersecurity Act, letting cabinet ministers order companies off the internet; the Combating Hate Act (Bill C-9); and the Lawful Access Act (Bill C-22), which has already pushed Signal and Telegram toward the exits. The Safe Social Media Act makes six.

Each bill alone looks modest. Together, Carpay argues, they form a machine: a Digital Safety Commission with the power to fine platforms up to $10 million or three per cent of global revenue, and a 24-hour takedown window that guarantees companies will censor first and ask questions never. Enforcing an age ban, he notes, requires proving everyone's age — which means a national identity check every time an adult opens a browser.

Australia already tried this. Carpay cites a 70 percent circumvention rate within months, with teens using fake IDs, borrowed logins and printed photo masks. Ottawa is charging ahead regardless.

Carpay also flagged a case in which the BC Human Rights Tribunal fined X $100,000 for failing to block content from American users — a Canadian tribunal attempting to police speech in another country entirely. It's the kind of overreach these new commissions will be built to replicate, at scale.

The one check left may come not from Ottawa but from Washington. The Trump administration's under-secretary of state for free speech, Sarah Rogers, has been pressing allies directly on the issue, and Canada's auto sector gives the U.S. real leverage the moment these bills start functioning as trade irritants.

"Governments never take away rights and freedoms without offering a nice-sounding pretext," Carpay said. Six bills in, Canadians are still waiting for Ottawa to explain why safety keeps requiring the surrender of everything else.

GUEST: Long form with John Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. 

The Opposition is back! Avi Yemini and Rukshan Fernando break down the latest in Australian and global politics.

For the first time ever, One Nation has overtaken both Labor and the Coalition in Victoria. Meanwhile, Premier Jacinta Allan's approval rating has plunged to a historic low, with a bombshell new poll suggesting Labor is on track to be turfed out at November's state election.

On today's live show:

• One Nation Overtakes Labor, Liberals in Victorian Polls• Karl Stefanovic sacked by ARN after sudden exit from Nine
• Ashura Marches by Shia Muslims Spark Debate on Multiculturalism

Click here to donate!

The Sycamore Gap tree stood for more than a century beside Hadrian’s Wall as a living symbol of British history and natural beauty. Its distinctive silhouette drew photographers, newlyweds, and tourists from around the world. It was more than a tree. It functioned as a destination, a landmark, and a piece of Britain’s shared heritage.

Viewers may remember the story from three years ago, when the tree was deliberately cut down.

It returned to headlines today for another dispiriting reason. One of the saplings grown from the original tree, planted at Wray Castle as a symbol of renewal after the vandalism, has now been stolen. Even the replacement was not spared.

Sycamore Gap sapling stolen from castle grounds https://t.co/ZRoaLjBEpM

— BBC North West (@BBCNWT) June 30, 2026

In 2023 two professional tree surgeons secretly filmed themselves felling the irreplaceable tree in the middle of the night. According to the evidence presented, they were not acting out of political conviction or environmental activism. There was no stated cause or ideological message. The act was carried out in a spirit of recklessness, with the ensuing outrage and attention treated as part of the spectacle. In the aftermath, an innocent teenager was wrongly accused before the true offenders were identified and convicted.

Justice Christina Lambert ultimately sentenced both men to four years in prison, a decision that made headlines across Britain. For destroying what was, at its core, a tree, the courts imposed a significant custodial sentence.

Whatever else can be said about the individuals involved, they were widely regarded as thoroughly unpleasant and clearly deserving of punishment.

What stands out on revisiting the case is the context in which it occurred.

The offenders were white British men operating in rural northern England. The judge was British. The victims, in a broader sense, were Britons who valued their history, countryside, and national heritage. There were no cross-cultural sensitivities at play, no concerns about multicultural tensions, and no perceived need to navigate questions of identity politics. It was, in effect, Britain dealing with its own internal wrongdoing without external sensitivities shaping the response.

Where there is no political sensitivity, the system appears capable of acting quickly and decisively. The Sycamore Gap case was straightforward: deliberate criminal damage to a well-known landmark, public outrage, swift identification of the offenders, and custodial sentences that reflected the seriousness of the act.

But in other cases where politics, identity, or cultural meaning enter the picture, the response is often less consistent.

The grooming gang scandals in places like Rotherham exposed long-standing failures to act on repeated warnings. Investigations later pointed to delays, missed opportunities, and institutional caution, with concerns about community relations and accusations of racism often raised as factors in the reluctance to intervene earlier. Even where convictions were eventually secured, sentences have often been described as modest relative to the scale and duration of harm described in victim accounts.

NB-embed:disturbing_report_on_muslim_pakistani_rape_gangs_rocks_uk

Even in cases closer in nature to the Sycamore Gap tree, the response is far less uniform. The toppling of Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol sits alongside other instances of monument removal linked to “decolonisation,” which have been handled in completely different ways depending on the political climate at the time, sometimes through official approval, sometimes through quiet administrative decisions rather than enforcement. Elsewhere, statues such as Winston Churchill have been vandalised in plain sight, while figures like John A. Macdonald have had monuments boxed up or removed entirely, with the response shifting depending on who the target is, and what the target represents. 

The pattern is not about whether laws exist, but how consistently they are applied.

When cases are politically uncharged, enforcement appears clear and forceful. When they intersect with ideology or identity, the response becomes more uneven, more cautious and more contested.

That is the contrast at the heart of the Sycamore Gap case. Not just a tree, but what it demonstrates about the two-tier justice system in Britain, where the state is decisive about what is clearly punishable, and where that certainty begins to fade.

Guest: Franco Terrazzano, Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), on why the CTF is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to confirm taxpayers will not cover any shortfall if the 24 Sussex Drive fundraising campaign falls short.

The call declares, in Arabic, that Allah is the greatest and that there are no other gods but him. Across the downtown core. On loudspeakers. Every week.

Tonight, on The Ezra Levant Show, Ezra and Rebel News videographer Lincoln flew to Regina on short notice to report on it firsthand. 

The mosque isn't even the most remarkable part of this story. The most remarkable part is who's cheering it on.

The Anglican church directly across the street has a priest who is genuinely thrilled that a loudspeaker is now broadcasting a declaration of Islamic supremacy — in Arabic, every Friday — into the very neighbourhood his congregation worships in. Ezra spoke with him. He's delighted.

The Global News reporter covering the story was wearing a hijab. And when we tried to ask the imam legitimate questions, the mainstream media journalists in the room heckled us. 

Then there's the Regina police, who responded to public backlash not by enforcing the city's noise bylaw — but by warning citizens that criticism of the loudspeakers could land them in court under Mark Carney's new hate speech law, Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act.

The city granted the permit. Then the police threatened the people who complained.

Canada was founded as a Christian country. For generations, Saskatchewan schoolchildren began their school day with the Lord's Prayer. Then, in the 1990s, a judge ordered it stopped after activists complained it violated their freedom of religion. Christianity was pushed out of the public square — quietly, legally, and permanently.

Now that void is being filled by loudspeakers pointed in all directions across a Canadian downtown, and the Anglican priest across the street is celebrating it.

When a foreign religious broadcast is imposed on a city, when the noise bylaw is selectively enforced, and when police threaten citizens for objecting — that isn't multiculturalism. That's something else entirely.

On June 19th, Prime Minister Mark Carney posted a glowing message to X, declaring — with evident pride — that his government had just passed landmark legislation to, among other things, "strengthen bail and sentencing" and "bring justice to those impacted by intimate partner and sexual violence."

A big week for Canada, he called it. Stronger. Fairer. More just.

A big week for Canada.  
Landmark government bills just became law — to build more affordable homes, protect vulnerable communities, safeguard our democracy, strengthen bail and sentencing, and bring justice to those impacted by intimate partner and sexual violence. 
 
We’re…

— Mark Carney (@MarkJCarney) June 19, 2026

Then, on that very same morning, the Toronto Sun published a story about Medhani Yohans. And suddenly Carney's pithy prose started to curdle.

Yohans, 37, is an Eritrean refugee who pleaded guilty earlier this month in a Guelph, Ont., courtroom to — wait for it — breaching bail. Again. He was sentenced to nine months in jail, minus time served, which means he'll be a free man come August after roughly 70 days behind bars.

Justice Matthew Stanley called Yohans' criminal record "aggravating" and barred him from downtown Guelph for three years. A three-year probation order was also handed down.

Now, about that probation order. The last one Yohans received — issued in February — prohibited him from being within 100 metres of where an unnamed individual lives, works, or is known to frequent. Yohans violated that condition in precisely one hour after his release.

Needless to say, the over/under on how long it takes him to breach the new order isn't exactly keeping oddsmakers up at night.

And what exactly is in that aggravating criminal record? His rap sheet, dating back to January 2023, includes sexual assaults on two strangers. Police have issued multiple public bulletins describing him as a high-risk offender with a history of violence.

Oh, and Yohans is not a Canadian citizen. He originally arrived in Canada as a sponsored refugee from Eritrea — via Europe, somehow — despite what one might charitably describe as a colourful background.

Here's the kicker. A Canada Border Services Agency source confirmed to the Toronto Sun that a deportation order does exist for Yohans. So why is he still here? Because, as a sponsored refugee, he is classified as a "protected person." The only mechanism that overrides that status is something called a danger opinion — a designation issued when an individual poses a major risk to the Canadian public.

You'd think a violent, repeat sex offender with documented assaults on strangers and a one-hour probation violation record might qualify.

The CBSA source told the Toronto Sun that frontline agents did attempt to pursue a danger opinion for Yohans. Headquarters shot it down. Apparently, sexual assault convictions aren't sufficient grounds. One can only wonder what would be.

So let's briefly take stock of who Medhani Yohans is: an illegal entrant, subject to a deportation order, convicted of violent sexual assaults, expected by authorities to re-offend, assessed by police as a high-risk offender, and declared untouchable by CBSA brass. His defence lawyer has argued that returning him to Eritrea would place him in a "volatile situation" back home. Good grief.

Law-abiding Canadian citizens with valid passports get grilled at customs upon returning from a family holiday, while Yohans slipped into the country and has made himself quite comfortable at taxpayer expense — complete with a court interpreter, naturally, since he does not speak either official language.

Mark Carney says Canada is getting tougher on crime. Medhani Yohans says otherwise — and he says it one probation breach at a time.

The latest example? New tariffs on some imported canned vegetables. And despite the government's preferred terminology, tariffs are taxes. Those taxes don't stay with importers or manufacturers. They get passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices at the grocery store.

For families already stretching every dollar, that means pantry staples used in everything from spaghetti sauce to chilli are becoming even more expensive.

📣 Feds just slapped a new tax on FOOD💰
🥫Carney government is putting a tariff on some imported canned vegetables

Huh!?

Tariffs are TAXES

Taxes make things cost MORE

We need food to cost LESS!

🍝 Spaghetti sauce & chili just got more expensive

This makes ZERO sense

📺⬇️ pic.twitter.com/KfxWq660KZ

— Kris Sims (@kris_sims) June 23, 2026

At the same time, Conservatives are proposing to scrap the GST on used vehicles, arguing Canadians shouldn't be taxed again and again on the same product every time it changes hands. With used vehicle prices having nearly doubled since 2019, eliminating the GST could save Canadians thousands of dollars when buying a family vehicle.

It's a striking contrast in priorities. 

One side is proposing tax relief on a necessity that many families rely on to get to work and take their kids to school. The other is imposing new taxes that make basic food items even more expensive.

We'll ask Kris why governments seem so determined to squeeze more money out of ordinary Canadians, why these policies hit low-income families the hardest, and whether Ottawa has completely lost sight of the affordability crisis facing millions of working people.

GUEST: Kris Sims from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

A horrific attack in Montreal has shocked the city and the country, but the way the media has framed the story is almost as disturbing as the crime itself. In a Jewish neighbourhood of Montreal, a police officer was murdered in the line of duty. A Jewish civilian was also killed in the chaos, while the terrorist gunman was ultimately shot dead by police. The attack was captured on viral cellphone footage, making the tragedy impossible to ignore. Yet the true motivations behind the violence are being carefully hidden from the public as authorities and their media allies curate the narrative.

READ HIS MANIFESTO: The Montreal murderer was a Jew-hating Communist censor
The murderer in Montreal has been named: Seth Hatfield, from Alberta. He murdered a policeman in a shooting spree in a Jewish neighbourhood in Montreal.

Soon afterwards, government journalists at the… pic.twitter.com/wux4Kl2Q9D

— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) June 23, 2026

The accused killer left behind a 104-page manifesto. This was not some short, incoherent internet rant. It was a sprawling, detailed document packed with explicit antisemitism, seething anti-Zionist conspiracy theories, and a deep well of communist, anti-capitalist ideology. The shooter also vented grievances commonly associated with the online incel movement, lamenting his isolation and blaming society's dating norms for his failures.

Authorities and the mainstream media initially refused to release the manifesto. Instead, CBC, Canada's state broadcaster, obtained early access to the document and publicly labelled the killer an incel. One word. That was the entire framing pushed to Canadians: a misogynistic loner driven by personal resentment who lashed out in violence.

Why did CBC, with privileged access to the document, choose to withhold the full story from the public? Why did it focus on the incel angle while ignoring the clear evidence of antisemitism and radical far-left politics? This is perhaps the clearest illustration of the media's agenda at work. The focus on misogyny and the incel label is not accidental; it is a deliberate attempt to frame the crime as a byproduct of a supposed right-wing, male-driven social crisis while burying the uncomfortable reality of left-wing antisemitic extremism.

NB-embed:manifesto_reveals_alleged_montreal_gunman_s_antisemitic_far_left_and_incel_ideology

Even police say they have not yet determined a motive for the attack. That is not because the evidence is absent; it is because the evidence remains hidden from public scrutiny.

This is not a matter of speculation. The manifesto, which Rebel News has made available in full in the interests of transparency and public accountability, contains page after page attacking Jews, Zionists, and capitalism. It rails against Israel and echoes rhetoric commonly heard in Marxist academic circles. The manifesto's contents have also been confirmed by multiple independent journalists, including Juno News and Jesse Brown, who have verified the document's length and the ideological themes it contains.

The reporting about Montreal's incel shooter misled the public into thinking this killer was a Minassian-style woman-hater looking to kill as many women as possible. Not true.
1/x

— Jesse Brown (@JesseBrown) June 23, 2026

What many mainstream media commentators have failed to emphasise is that the shooter's worldview was not rooted in a single grievance. It was a toxic cocktail of radical ideologies, combining traditional antisemitism, modern far-left Marxist resentment, and the despair of an alienated young man. The pattern is clear, but only if one is willing to examine the facts, and much of the media appears unwilling to do so.

In the end, two innocent people are dead: police officer Mohamed Lamine Benredouane and civilian Michael Mizrahi. Their families deserve to know the truth about why their loved ones were killed. The public deserves to know what motivated this attack. Yet the gatekeepers in the press and the authorities have decided that Canadians cannot be trusted with the facts. They have chosen narrative over truth and ideology over transparency.

That is the real scandal here: not merely a murder, but the concealment of its meaning. The culture war over truth and information is playing out in real time, and the casualties are not only the victims but the very idea of honest journalism.

GUEST: John Lott, an economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate, weighs in on Canada’s crime crisis.

If you want the world's news before the world knows it, go to Donald Trump's social media platform. Yesterday, Trump announced on Truth Social that Keir Starmer had confirmed he was stepping down — and sure enough, today it became official. The final humiliation from a man who had basically been at political war, moral war, and social media war with Starmer from the very beginning.

Starmer's successor is already in place. Andy Burnham — the former mayor of Manchester, who won a by-election just one week ago — has been universally anointed by the Labour Party to take over. No general election, just an internal party process. It really is almost identical to how Mark Carney took over from Justin Trudeau here in Canada. 

Now, just as Trudeau was awful, Keir Starmer was awful. But what is remarkable is how quickly he fell. It took Trudeau years to crater that badly in the polls. Starmer did it in two. He always seemed plastic and fake — nothing real underneath there. He looked sort of stunned the whole time, as if he was simply waiting for things to blow over. They didn't blow over.

He ended up with the lowest approval numbers of any recorded British prime minister. And on his way out, he wept. Not for any of the tragedies that happened on his watch. For himself.

Here is a short list — call it ten things — of what Keir Starmer leaves behind.

First, he destroyed the Royal Navy. Obviously this decline did not happen entirely in the last two years, but the Royal Navy once ruled the world. There was a time when British law required the Royal Navy to have more ships than the next two navies combined. Today, only one ship was seaworthy enough to be dispatched during the recent conflagration in the Mediterranean and the Gulf — and it broke down. Two cabinet ministers responsible for the military resigned not in disgrace, but in protest, saying it would be a disgrace to stay on.

Second, the two-tier justice system. Because of the growing Muslim demographic in the UK, there is a proposal to make it illegal to criticize Islam. Cousin marriage is being legalized. Sharia law already operates in many communities. And the rape gangs — the industrial-scale rape of working-class British girls by Pakistani Muslim networks — were covered up for decades, in part by Keir Starmer himself, who as head of the Crown Prosecution Service did his best never to prosecute those cases, while suing into submission any conservatives who dared criticize the Islamification of society.

Consider the contrast: a mother named Lucy Connolly briefly posted, after children were stabbed by a Muslim extremist, that she wouldn't care if a migrant hotel burnt down. She wasn't calling for it. She said she wouldn't care. The post was up for an hour before she deleted it. She was sentenced to years in prison. Meanwhile, men who beat police officers — including a woman — at Manchester Airport faced a very different kind of justice. Two tiers. Two sets of rules.

Then there was the Chagos Islands scandal. In some bizarre fit of Third World-ism, Starmer moved to hand over a key NATO military base — used by American B-1 bombers — to a foreign country, and pay them billions of dollars for the privilege. There was even talk of slavery reparations from the British Empire — the same British Empire that actually abolished the slave trade.

He proposed internet ID cards, claiming it was to protect children from social media, while simultaneously supporting gender surgery for minors. Thirty Britons a day were arrested for things they wrote on Facebook or Twitter — 30 a day, according to the Times of London. That is a larger number, on the public record, than what is known in Russia or China.

He declared a war on farmers through inheritance taxes that would force families to sell the land their parents built. He banned fracking. He invested in uneconomic windmills. He presided over some of the highest electricity prices in Europe. He cut fuel subsidies for pensioners in winter. And just days before his resignation, he proposed killing hundreds of wild ponies.

Boats full of economic migrants cross from France every day. France is not an unsafe country. Under international refugee law, asylum must be claimed in the first safe country reached. But Starmer, the lawyer, insisted the European Convention on Human Rights gave him no choice. That is simply not true. And while Hamas still held hostages in Gaza, he declared British recognition of Palestinian sovereignty — just as Mark Carney did here.

Keir Starmer will be forgotten as quickly as he rose. A man who left no imprint on society other than making the world's problems a little bit worse. His successor has inherited a country that is harder to defend, more divided, and considerably poorer than the one Starmer was handed two years ago.

The British people deserved better. They know it. That is why he's gone.

GUEST: British independent journalist Jack Hadfield.

Whether that survives the editing room is another question. But in the room, at least, it felt like something had shifted.

The campaign's tagline is simple: Alberta's done waiting. It is a direct rebuke to a very long line of Alberta leaders — Preston Manning, Peter Lougheed, Jason Kenney — who argued that the province's grievances could be resolved from within Confederation. They tried. It didn't work. The argument Wilson is making is that there is no lack of solutions to the problems Alberta faces. There is a lack of power to implement them. The system itself is the problem.

A Global News reporter asked two good questions. He couldn't help himself, though — he took a shot at Tamara Lich when he introduced himself. Tamara responded.

The independence campaign now heads into summer, with the Calgary Stampede a few weeks away and the October referendum question on the horizon. For the next two months, most Albertans will be thinking about pancake breakfasts and barbecues. But the fall is coming. And when it does, this question will be on the front page.

Alberta's done waiting. Whether the rest of Canada is ready to hear that is a different matter entirely.

Imagine being told you have diabetes. Suddenly, life becomes a constant audit of food labels. Sugar is everywhere, so pervasive that ketchup might as well be liquefied doughnuts. Over time, discipline begins to pay off: blood sugar stabilises, some weight is lost, and it is achieved without pharmaceutical shortcuts. But for some in medicine, that is not enough. The push for faster, easier, more dramatic results leads man these days to the latest so-called miracle drug: Ozempic.

Ozempic, officially prescribed for diabetes management, has become a mainstream tool for weight loss. For many, it has little to do with diabetes at all. It is about shrinking the number on the scale, whatever the cost. And yes, it can work at first. Appetite is heavily suppressed, meals shrink dramatically, and even alcohol cravings can fade. For a moment, it feels like a win: fewer calories, less drinking, more money saved.

But that sense of control does not always last.

In my own experience, the side effects arrived quickly and with force, and what initially felt like progress soon became something far more difficult to manage.

Severe gastrointestinal pain left me curled up in discomfort, with little relief from standard remedies. Persistent nausea turned eating into a gamble. Rapid weight loss also came with muscle loss, fatigue, and weakness. There were neurological symptoms too, including a constant ringing in the ears. The result was not just weight loss, but a broader physical toll that outweighed any benefit.

All of this came from a relatively new drug now widely used beyond its original purpose. That raises an unavoidable question: how much is truly known about its long-term risks, and how much is still being uncovered in real time?

History offers a warning. Thalidomide, once marketed in the late 1950s and early 1960s as a safe treatment for morning sickness, caused devastating birth defects worldwide. It remains a stark example of how medical optimism can outpace caution.

Ozempic is not thalidomide. And for some, it is an effective and manageable tool. But the experience for me was different: what was sold as a solution ended up feeling like a trade-off where the cure was far worse than the condition it was meant to address.

The pattern is familiar: new drugs are rolled out quickly, early results are highlighted, and the full risk profile often emerges only after widespread use.

The lesson is not to reject medical progress, but to approach it with scrutiny. Transparency, long-term evidence, and caution matter before turning promising treatments into mass solutions. Because when unintended consequences appear, they are borne not by institutions, but by patients.

GUEST: Ezra Levant interviews Billboard Chris about his recent arrest in Spain

That raises an unavoidable question: If these firearms are truly the "weapons of war" the Liberals have spent years warning Canadians about, why have their licensed owners been allowed to keep them for seven years? Governments do not typically grant repeated amnesties for items they genuinely believe pose an immediate threat to public safety.

Joining us to discuss the latest delay is Tracey Wilson of the CCFR. We'll examine what the Supreme Court challenge means for gun owners, the legal arguments before the court, and why the confiscation scheme remains bogged down years after it was announced.

We'll also discuss how licensed firearms ownership continues to grow despite years of political attacks on lawful gun owners, and the reality of what is actually being surrendered under the program. Among the most common firearms turned in are pink-stocked .22-calibre rifles, a detail that sits awkwardly alongside years of government rhetoric about removing military-style firearms from Canadian communities.

Seven years later, the government's gun grab remains stalled, challenged in court, and increasingly difficult to justify.

GUEST: The CCFR's Tracey Wilson. 

Indian Road in Kingston, Ontario, has been Indian Road for a very long time. The people who live on it love it. They said so. Repeatedly. To their councillors, to reporters, to anyone who would listen. They are proud of the name. Some of them have indigenous heritage themselves and feel no shame whatsoever in the word "Indian." In fact, residents argued over the past year that forcing a change was paternalistic — their word.

It didn't matter. Kingston city council voted 8 to 5 on Tuesday night to rename the street Aki Road, after the Ojibway word for land or earth. The adjacent Indian Road Park will become Old Amino Park. Two brand new names that almost no one in Kingston had ever heard before Tuesday.

A local man who actually canvassed the street — who went door to door and listened — was blunt about what he found. Residents are angry. They feel unheard. They are building resentment. He called the outcome a step in the wrong direction.

He also directly disputed a claim, floated at a council meeting the year before, that the majority of people on the street wanted a new name. He said that the claim was far from the truth.

So why did it happen?

One of the advocates for the change, the executive director of the Kingston Native Centre, explained the rationale plainly during the council meeting: “Changing a road name won’t change history, but I think it’s a clear signal to Indigenous folks that not only the city cares, but council does."

That is the entire argument. Not that the name was hateful. Not that residents demanded it. Not that it would improve anyone's life in any measurable way. The argument is that it sends a signal. That it proves someone cares. And if the people who actually live on the street have to update their mailing address, their driver's licences, their business cards — well, that's just the price of the signal.

The CBC, predictably, has been enthusiastic about this outcome. They have been building toward it for some time, framing opposition to the change as retrograde and quietly cheering the activists pushing for it. The taxpayer-funded broadcaster knows whose side it's on.

This pattern is not unique to Kingston. Across British Columbia, municipalities have been renaming streets and landmarks at a steady clip. In Toronto, Yonge-Dundas Square was rechristened Sankofa Square — after a Ghanaian concept — because Henry Dundas was deemed insufficiently enthusiastic about abolishing slavery, despite the fact that he was a reformist who did eventually support abolition. The irony that the Sankofa people of West Africa were themselves deeply involved in the slave trade was, of course, not discussed.

Sir John A. Macdonald was stripped from the ten-dollar bill. His statues have been toppled. Queen Victoria was pulled down outside the Manitoba legislature. A Champlain statue is reportedly next in Quebec. Each removal is framed as progress, as healing, as reconciliation. But the people being asked to accept these changes — the residents of Indian Road, the Kingstonians who voted against this at every opportunity — don't feel reconciled. They feel overruled.

There is a Washington Post poll worth recalling here. The Post — not a conservative outlet by any measure — surveyed Native Americans on the Washington Redskins name controversy. Nine in ten said they were not offended by it. Nine in ten. And yet the team was renamed anyway, to the Washington Commanders, a name that inspires no one and belongs to nothing.

The people who demanded these changes were not, by and large, the people the changes were supposedly made for. They were activists, grant-funded organizations, and media outlets looking for a cause. The actual communities in question — whether indigenous residents of a Kingston street or Native Americans surveyed by a major American newspaper — were mostly fine with the names as they were.

The question that never gets asked is a simple one: if you genuinely cared about improving the lives of indigenous Canadians, wouldn't you start with the Indian Act? It is still called the Indian Act. It has been called the Indian Act since 1876. It establishes different rights and restrictions based entirely on race. It has done more harm to indigenous communities than any street name in any city in this country.

But reforming the Indian Act is hard. It requires legislative effort, political will, and decades of follow-through. Changing a road sign is easy. It costs almost nothing — except to the residents who live there, who have to fight their own city council to be heard, and who lose anyway.

It is about the performance of caring, done at someone else's expense.

GUEST: Peter McIlvenna on Rupert Lowe's rape gang inquiry report. 

GUEST: Gage Haubrich, Prairie Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation on the Saskatchewan Heritage Fund]]> Elon Musk and the clash between masculine ambition and feminized institutions People criticize Musk because he represents a set of values — building, risking, competing, ignoring consensus when consensus is wrong — that a particular institutional culture has spent decades trying to replace. People criticize Musk because he represents a set of values — building, risking, competing, ignoring consensus when consensus is wrong — that a particular institutional culture has spent decades trying to replace. Ezra Levant https://assets.nationbuilder.com/therebel/pages/153771/meta_images/original/ELS-JUN-15-SOCIAL.jpg?1781567567 2026-06-15T20:04:00-04:00 https://www.rebelnews.com/ezra_levant_show_june_15_2026 ezra_levant_show_june_15_2026 Zjbqk5jY CrII5gCw+U9tF5RsT News:News AnalysisShow:Ezra Levant ShowNews:TOP STORYRegion:CanadaBeat:LifeElon MuskNews:Video-35:29 Article by Rebel News staff

Here is an actual headline published by Canada's self-declared newspaper of record, the paper we are all apparently supposed to treat as the gold standard of serious journalism: "Opinion: SpaceX IPO makes Elon Musk the first trillionaire. Here's how to properly hate him."

After a full day of being mocked mercilessly, the Globe quietly changed the headline and issued a brief note: "The previous headline on this article did not meet The Globe's editorial standard. It has been replaced." It took them an entire day to figure that out. They weren't sure. That tells you everything.

Opinion: SpaceX IPO makes Elon Musk the first trillionaire. Here’s how to properly hate him https://t.co/qAQVdquwCP

— The Globe and Mail (@globeandmail) June 11, 2026

The new headline asks: "SpaceX is set to make Elon Musk the first trillionaire. Is that a bad look for capitalism?" The word "hate" was swapped for "despise" inside the article itself. The Globe apparently decided that "despise" is more respectable than "hate." It isn't.

The article is an embarrassment on the facts, too. It gives examples of billionaire excess — super-yachts, conspicuous consumption — but the examples aren't of Elon Musk, because he doesn't have those. He doesn't own a yacht. He dresses plainly. All he seems to do is work. So to make sure readers come away with the appropriate contempt, the Globe talked about other rich people's excesses and hoped no one would notice the bait-and-switch.

Then there is the claim that Musk "bought" political power and sits "at the centre of government." Really? Which part of government? Musk helped launch DOGE — the Department of Government Efficiency — which found a significant amount of fraud before being wound down in less than a year. It was never a cabinet position. Total staffing never got much above 100 people, in a federal government of two million. When Musk complained publicly that his ideas weren't being followed, President Trump dismissed him immediately. That is not what it looks like when someone is "at the centre of government."

As for the accusation that Musk gorges on government contracts — he sells services to the government. He sends more cargo into space than every other space company or country combined, times ten, at a fraction of the cost because he pioneered reusable rockets. Without Musk, China would be the dominant space power on Earth, unchallenged. NASA knows it, and has resented him for it for years.

Now, consider who is delivering this lecture. The Globe and Mail is owned by the Thomson family, Canada's wealthiest dynasty, worth more than $80 billion. And how did the Thomsons earn their billions? They inherited them. From a grandfather who built something. Today's Thomsons, whose sole accomplishment was being born after their grandfather rather than before him, are the ones telling you to despise a man who just completed the largest IPO in history — money raised not from manipulated politicians, but from ordinary investors who believed in what he built.

That IPO, by the way, made the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan roughly $11 billion in a single day. 

And the Thomson family's newspaper — despite being backed by one of the richest fortunes in the country — still collects annual media bailout subsidies from the federal government because it cannot run a newspaper profitably. Their grandfather made money in newspapers, and now his descendants need Liberal handouts to keep the lights on. These are the people explaining how capitalism is a bad look.

Elon Musk is a real-life Bond villain https://t.co/ArBReYYGsv

— Financial Times (@FT) June 12, 2026

The Financial Times joined in as well, calling Musk a "real-life Bond villain" and accusing him of "stoking racial hatred in Britain." The FT has long billed itself as the newspaper of UK business. Going woke and despising the man who just did the biggest IPO in history is a curious way to serve their readership.

This is nothing more than envy. And, given the climate in which a health care executive was assassinated on the streets of New York City as part of an explicit murder campaign against millionaires, whipping up personal hatred of wealthy individuals is not merely stupid. It is dangerous.

GUEST: National Firearms Association Executive Vice President Blair Hagen to speak on the Liberals' extension of their gun ban.

GUEST: Northern Irish journalist Richard Inman on the fallout after the attempted beheading by a Sudanese man in Belfast]]> Honouring the worst of government: Kris Sims breaks down the 2026 Teddy Waste Awards The Teddy Waste Awards may have winners on paper, but in reality, the losers are always the same: hardworking Canadians. The Teddy Waste Awards may have winners on paper, but in reality, the losers are always the same: hardworking Canadians. Sheila Gunn Reid https://assets.nationbuilder.com/therebel/pages/153375/meta_images/original/META-THUMBNAILS-1200X628-Re026.jpg?1781131859 2026-06-10T21:00:07-04:00 https://www.rebelnews.com/the_gunn_show_june_10_2026 the_gunn_show_june_10_2026 Bhn5vDZw CrII5gCw+WxOFtVKD Region:CanadaNews:News AnalysisNews:TOP STORYShow:The Gunn ShowBeat:EconomyNews:Video-28:35 The federal government says it's tightening its belt. Canadians know better.

There is a giant soccer tournament underway in North America right now, with international teams and referees descending on cities across Canada and the United States. One of those referees is Omar Artan, a Somali official who was supposed to travel to Florida for a pre-tournament training camp.

He was blocked at the border. American authorities denied him entry.

The reason? The United States says Omar Artan has ties to al-Shabaab — the Islamic terrorist organization responsible for mass killings across the Horn of Africa and beyond.

So what did Canada's political class do with that information?

Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow says Omar Artan, the Somali referee who was denied entry to the U.S. ahead of the World Cup, would be welcome to officiate in Toronto.
“Toronto believes in fairness, inclusion, and giving talent the opportunity to shine. He would be welcome to referee… pic.twitter.com/bhabrdwLHl

— 6ixBuzzTV (@6ixbuzztv) June 10, 2026

Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow immediately issued a public statement saying Artan would be welcome to officiate in her city and pledging to write to FIFA on his behalf. Within hours, British Columbia Premier David Eby offered an identical message. Two senior Canadian politicians, racing to the microphone to vouch for a man the United States just flagged as having terrorist connections.

It gets worse. The Republic of Somaliland — a breakaway state that has actively distanced itself from Somali Islamist extremism — went through Artan's old social media posts and translated them. In one post, he wrote that Jews target Muslims and Arabs and suck their blood.

Why would Western countries take people who are affiliated with terrorists, who are violent, who are antisemitic, or hostile to any other group? It's hard to say, but that seems to be the Canadian way.

GUEST: Rebel News' extended coverage of last weekend's Walk With Israel in Toronto. 

While it is being sold as a child protection measure, critics ask whether it is another Trojan horse for broader internet control, censorship powers and digital ID frameworks.

Reports indicate the legislation will impose new restrictions on social media access for users under 16, alongside the creation of a federal digital regulator tasked with setting online safety standards and determining which platforms are compliant. Platforms that meet those requirements would be allowed to operate under the new framework, while others would face penalties or restrictions.

As always, the pitch is simple: it’s for the kids.

That's the thing about making kids under 16 prove their age.
It's a back-door way to make everyone over 16 provide their ID, too.

Canada's authoritarian government wants to track everything everyone does online.

They're just pretending it's about kids. https://t.co/Nx5V8MLkvt

— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) June 8, 2026

This has become a familiar pattern. Previous attempts to regulate online speech in Canada have bundled child protection measures with broader powers over content moderation and so-called online harms. The effect is to make criticism politically toxic. Question the censorship framework and you are positioned as being against protecting children.

The tactic is not subtle. It is effective because it shifts the debate away from the scope of government power and toward moral accusation.

There is no serious dispute that parents are concerned about children spending too much time on social media or being exposed to harmful content online. Those concerns are real and widely shared. But the existence of a concern does not automatically justify federal control over how the entire population accesses the internet.

The practical issue is enforcement. A ban on under-16 users cannot function without age verification systems. That means platforms must find a way to determine who is allowed to access their services, which in practice pushes toward identity checks for all users. What begins as a restriction on children quickly expands into a requirement for everyone to prove who they are before participating in online spaces.

That shift is not incidental. It is the central consequence of the policy.

It also raises the obvious problem that age-based restrictions online are already easy to circumvent. Teenagers have been misrepresenting their age on digital platforms for as long as those platforms have existed, and there is little reason to believe that will change because of new regulatory obligations imposed on companies.

🇦🇺 Meanwhile in Australia on the U16 Social Media Ban

Little Girl:- “It’s a bad idea because we’re gonna find alternates anyways”

Tyrannical WEF Shill Oz PM Albanese:- “yeh that will get found out too” pic.twitter.com/dmzTWwsDQZ

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) December 11, 2025

Parents already have access to extensive tools to manage their children’s online activity. Screen time limits, app restrictions and content controls are built into every major device ecosystem. The government is not introducing a missing capability. It is stepping into a space where parental tools already exist and reframing it as a matter requiring federal oversight.

At the same time, the legislation is expected to expand into broader requirements for platforms to mitigate harmful content and address risks associated with artificial intelligence systems. While there is a legitimate debate to be had about how emerging technologies such as AI should be handled, these measures also extend regulatory reach further into how digital communication is structured and governed.

‘A massive surveillance undertaking, and it should alarm people.’

Deputy Editor at Spiked, Fraser Myers, believes Keir Starmer’s proposals to technology companies, including a potential social media ban for under-16s, could lead to restrictions for adults. pic.twitter.com/fRAlRbCpBO

— GB News (@GBNEWS) June 9, 2026

GUEST: Independent journalist Caryma Sa'd on the policing this past weekend at the Walk With Israel

It started with journalism. For two weeks, Ezra Levant and the team at Rebel News have been exposing a straightforward contradiction: Tim Hortons publicly claims to be prioritizing Canadian hires, even launching a splashy PR campaign to rebrand itself as a homegrown institution ahead of Dunkin' Donuts' planned expansion into Canada. Yet at the very same time, the chain was actively posting listings for Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) on the federal government's own job board — 93 locations, by Rebel News' count.

So, we visited Tim Hortons locations still advertising for foreign workers and asked managers to explain the discrepancy. One manager denied any knowledge of the TFW postings — while Ezra held the restaurant's own government listing in hand.

Shortly after, the chain issued a nationwide ban on Rebel News journalists entering any of its properties. Tim Hortons' lawyers sent Rebel News a formal threat letter warning that any further questions asked of managers or franchise owners would result in trespass reports to police and the pursuit of "all available remedies, including charges under the applicable act and civil action."

But we kept reporting, just from public sidewalks. Tim Hortons called 911 three times. Police attended each time and took no action, since we were well within our rights on public property.

Now Tim Hortons has opened a new front. The chain's legal team filed a trademark complaint against Rebel News with Shopify, seeking to have our merchandise store suspended from the platform.

The item at issue is a satirical T-shirt: "Make Tim Hortons Canadian Again." The shirt does not use Tim Hortons' fonts or official branding, and no reasonable consumer would mistake it for an official product.

In Ezra's view, the complaint has no legal basis. Under Canadian trademark law, criticism and satire are expressly permitted uses and do not constitute infringement. Passing off — the actual offence trademark law is designed to prevent — requires intent to deceive consumers into thinking they are purchasing the genuine article. A T-shirt criticizing a corporation plainly does not meet that threshold.

Nonetheless, Shopify's complaint process required Rebel News to retain trademark counsel and respond within 48 hours, or face having its store suspended — and potentially its entire account shut down.

Tim Hortons is owned by Restaurant Brands International, which is controlled by 3G Capital, a Brazilian private equity firm. Despite the chain's Canadian marketing, it remains the single largest user of the federal Temporary Foreign Worker program among Canadian restaurant chains.

A lobbying letter sent by Tim Hortons to Immigration Minister Marc Miller, which has since become public, acknowledged that the chain's business would "struggle immensely" without access to international workers, and called for higher TFW caps, expanded work hours for international students, and a permanent foreign labour pipeline — all for entry-level positions that have historically served as first jobs for young Canadians.

We have launched a five-part response campaign. Rebel News reporters will continue their on-the-ground coverage of Tim Hortons' labour practices. Meanwhile, we're building a legal defence fund to fight the trademark complaint and any further litigation the chain pursues.

We are also on the lookout for tips from workers, franchise employees, and anyone with knowledge of human rights violations or immigration abuses involving the TFW program at Tim Hortons locations, which can be sent to [email protected].

We will keep fighting these bullies until they stop lying and live up to their false promise to hire Canadians.

To sign the boycott petition or donate to Rebel News' legal defence fund, visit TimsBoycott.com.

GUEST: Ezra reports from Walk for Israel in Toronto.

NB-embed:tims_boycott_donate

Jon Domanko, Vice-President of Legal for The TDL Group Corp. — the corporate entity that licenses and controls Tim Hortons restaurants across Canada — has sent Rebel News a letter accusing its personnel of "demonstrating a pattern of attending Tim Hortons restaurant premises and confronting team members and guests on camera, without consent and without warning."

Except that has never happened. When Ezra Levant visited a North York Tim Hortons recently, he immediately identified himself, stated who he was with, and asked to speak to a manager. When asked to leave, he left. David Menzies did similarly.

After receiving the notice, Tamara Ugolini visited a Tim Hortons location while remaining entirely off the property — and the company still called the police. Officers responded promptly, assessed the situation, and left without interfering. Because nothing illegal was happening.

None of that mattered to Tim Hortons' lawyers. The letter now permanently bans Rebel News Network and all persons acting on its behalf from every Tim Hortons restaurant, drive-thru, parking lot, distribution facility, and corporate office in Canada.

And not just for journalistic purposes. David Menzies is apparently banned even from buying a coffee.

The letter also contains this remarkable line: "Legitimate inquiries about Tim Hortons can be directed to our communications team at any time." So Tim Hortons' corporate lawyers have appointed themselves the arbiters of what constitutes a "legitimate" journalistic inquiry. Questions about TFW hiring practices apparently do not qualify.

Here is what does qualify as legitimate: at least 90 Tim Hortons locations are still actively recruiting Temporary Foreign Workers, according to the federal government's own job bank. Some of those postings are for entry-level positions. Some are for management roles. This is happening at the same time Tim Hortons ran a public relations campaign announcing it was committed to hiring "local" workers — a word that, notably, carries no immigration status definition whatsoever.

Meanwhile, youth unemployment in Canada has climbed to nearly 15 percent. Tim Hortons' brand is built almost entirely on Canadian identity — the flag, the history, the mythology of hockey rinks and double-doubles. The gap between that marketing and its actual hiring record is exactly the kind of story that journalists are supposed to investigate.

Rebel News has now sent Tim Hortons 17 detailed questions, including how many TFWs and international students the company currently employs, who is responsible for placing those government job postings, when Tim Hortons last lobbied the federal government and what it lobbied for, and whether the company intends to take down its remaining TFW job ads.

The customers on the street in North York had no problem answering a simpler version of the question: every single person asked said they believed Tim Hortons should be hiring Canadian workers instead.

Rebel News will continue to report on this story. A legal threat is not an answer, and "no comment" is not a press strategy that holds up when the public is watching.

GUEST: Western Standard's Cory Morgan on the backlash against his billboard.

NB-embed:tims_boycott_pledge

The records raise an uncomfortable question: Why was city hall treating the NCCM coalition as its primary stakeholder while appearing to give far less weight to Edmonton's Jewish community?

The controversy began after Driechel participated in a professional development trip to Israel alongside other North American police leaders. The trip focused on public safety, emergency management, cybersecurity and counter-terrorism.

Almost immediately, the NCCM, the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities and more than two dozen affiliated organizations launched a campaign against the chief, demanding answers and ultimately suggesting that, absent satisfactory responses, Driechel should resign.

Behind the scenes, the newly released records show Mayor Knack repeatedly directing police leadership toward NCCM.

"The best starting point for organizations to engage with is the letter sent by NCCM which lists out many organizations," Knack wrote to the police chief and police commission chair.

Knack did not merely pass along the coalition's concerns. He endorsed them.

"I think the three questions that community have raised are reasonable questions to be answers," he wrote, referring directly to the demands contained in the NCCM-led coalition letter.

The mayor also offered city hall's assistance in arranging a meeting between the activists, the chief and police leadership.

"Finally, NCCM would like to meet with Council and both of you all together. Our office is more than willing to help coordinate," Knack wrote, adding that "this would be hosted by NCCM" and that "they would be leading the meeting."

Knack went even further, recommending NCCM-connected figures as advisors to police leadership.

"Both were formally involved with the Edmonton and/or National parts of NCCM and have been taking calls and meetings non-stop since Tuesday and would have some excellent insight if there is interest," he wrote.

The contrast with the treatment of Edmonton's Jewish community is striking.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/therebel/pages/152913/attachments/original/1780608635/ATResponse.pdf?1780608635

The ATIP package contains extensive correspondence from the NCCM coalition, including letters signed by more than two dozen organizations and repeated communications pressing for accountability from the chief.

By comparison, the records contain a message from the Jewish Federation of Edmonton supporting Driechel and warning that "a small group of extremists" was targeting him simply for participating in a professional development mission to Israel. The federation also warned that antisemitic extremism frequently exploits anti-Israel activism as a vehicle for radicalization and the justification of violence.

Yet nowhere in the disclosed records does Knack direct police leadership to use the Jewish Federation as a "starting point." Nowhere does he describe the federation's concerns as "reasonable questions." Nowhere does he offer to coordinate meetings led by Jewish organizations or recommend Jewish community leaders as advisors to police leadership.

That omission is particularly notable given the broader context.

Since the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, Jewish schools, synagogues and community centres across Canada have faced an unprecedented wave of threats, vandalism and violence. Police services across the country have repeatedly acknowledged rising levels of antisemitic hate crime.

Despite that reality, the documents show city hall's attention focused overwhelmingly on the concerns of organizations objecting to a police chief visiting Israel, rather than on the concerns of Jewish organizations defending him.

Driechel ultimately refused to apologize. Speaking publicly, he defended the trip as a legitimate professional development opportunity and rejected the notion that activist groups should dictate where police leaders can seek training and operational knowledge.

The newly released records suggest that while the chief was standing his ground, Edmonton's mayor was treating the NCCM coalition as the primary voice guiding city hall's response to the controversy.

Guest: Daniel Pipes on the US House vote on the Iran war

I tried to ask Prime Minister Carney if we’re in a recession on his way out of the event today, but did not succeed. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/sxxC7GuLc1

— Laura Stone (@l_stone) June 1, 2026

That's simply the economist's term for a recession caused by two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. The qualifier doesn't make it any less painful for families struggling with rising costs, stagnant wages and shrinking opportunities. And it certainly doesn't change the fact that Canada is now the only G7 country in recession.

REPORTER: Do you think Canadians blame Carney or Trump for the recession?
POILIEVRE: You mean the fact that we're the ONLY country in the G7 that's in a recession? 🤨

REPORTER: Yes. 🤡

Proof that TDS either stems from low IQ or causes low IQ. pic.twitter.com/78J56Q5qPA

— Kat Kanada 🏴 (@KatKanada_TM) June 2, 2026

Joining me tonight is Kris Sims of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We'll discuss the Liberals' latest media bailout scheme, why taxpayers are still on the hook despite the streaming tax retreat, and whether Ottawa's attempts to rebrand a recession are fooling anyone outside the political bubble.

GUEST: Kris Sims, from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

There is a quirk of the British legal system that serves nobody except the people who want horrific crimes buried. In the United Kingdom, publication bans on criminal proceedings remain in effect until a trial is concluded and a sentence handed down. Reporters may sit in the gallery and take notes, but those notes stay in a drawer. No pressure on the system while it does its work — or fails to.

That is how the murder of Henry Nowak managed to grip the entire United Kingdom all at once, like a wave crashing without warning.

Henry Nowak was 18 years old — half Polish, half English, a British university student with his whole life ahead of him. Last year, he crossed paths with a man named Vickrum Digwa. There was an altercation. Footage surfaced of Henry, jokingly, calling Digwa a "bad man." Digwa responded: "I am a bad man."

What happened next is not entirely clear. But what is clear is that Digwa stabbed Henry to death with a kirpan — the ceremonial dagger carried by observant Sikhs — and Henry Nowak bled out on the ground.

The Digwa family immediately moved to cover it up. His mother allegedly hid the knife. His father told the arriving police that Henry had simply fallen over a fence. His brother had called emergency services and claimed they had been racially assaulted — by Henry. The white man dying in the street was cast as the aggressor.

"We've just been attacked by someone racially, this [REDACTED]... we've been attacked racially by some white person."
GB News has just posted the 999 call from Vickrum Digwa's brother. By framing innocent Henry Nowak as the white aggressor, it sets up the entire police response! pic.twitter.com/HbA6duyHdv

— Jack Hadfield 🇬🇧 (@JackHadders) June 1, 2026

And the police believed it.

The bodycam footage released this week, following Digwa's guilty verdict on Monday, is something that has now been seen by millions. Henry Nowak, bleeding out, handcuffed, told the arresting officer: "I've been stabbed. I've been stabbed."

The officer's response — words that have since ricocheted around the world — was: "I don't think you have been, mate."

Digwa was convicted and handed a life sentence with a minimum of 21 years — then had two years knocked off because of his age. He is 23.

The parallels to George Floyd are impossible to ignore and have not gone unnoticed. Both cases hinge on police conduct. Both carry as their tragic final words, "I can't breathe." Both have ignited a nation. The difference, of course, is the direction of the double standard.

Floyd's death — the death of a man with a serious criminal record, who was extremely intoxicated — was treated as a civilizational reckoning. Politicians across the Western world took a knee. Justin Trudeau, during a pandemic lockdown, attended a Black Lives Matter rally in Ottawa and knelt on the pavement.

Henry Nowak's death, where the victim was white and the perpetrator was not, is being treated very differently by the same institutions.

The British police are an anti-white institution. They circle the wagons to protect their own every time an officer acts contrary to the law.

It is far more crucial to put our efforts into ending anti-white thought within them, instead of laser-focusing just on a kirpan ban! pic.twitter.com/Jc0wGnC7VS

— Jack Hadfield 🇬🇧 (@JackHadders) June 3, 2026

Jack Hadfield was blunt about what that difference reveals: all of the anti-racist policies implemented by British police have only ended up being anti-white. 

He pointed to a cascade of institutional documents — the Casey Report, the Hampshire Police's Race Action Plan — that, in his assessment, explicitly direct officers to treat minorities better than white Britons. 

Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform Party, has since called out the two-tier policing by name. The New York Times, as of recording, had published nothing on the case. The BBC has, predictably, focused its coverage on framing the subsequent protests as violent far-right disorder, rather than engaging with the substance of what the bodycam footage actually shows.

Britain’s police are obsessed with DEI.

White people are not being treated fairly or equally under the law.

We must end two-tier policing. pic.twitter.com/JW5gTzrt37

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) June 3, 2026

Hadfield was at the Southampton protest, which drew three to four thousand people and marched peacefully from one police station to another.

Vickrum Digwa is going to prison. That much is settled. But the words spoken to a dying 18-year-old — "I don't think you have been, mate" — are not going anywhere. 

Britain is looking into that mirror now. What it sees there will define the next election.

GUEST: UK-based independent journalist Jack Hadfield. 

In a tightly scripted, carefully stage-managed speech at a synagogue on Monday, Carney finally said the quiet part out loud. "Across our country," Carney said, "antisemitism has surged to levels not seen in the post-war period." He admitted Jews make up just one per cent of the population yet face more than two-thirds of all religion-motivated hate crimes. 

For a moment, it sounded like a Prime Minister preparing to act. Carney painted a grim picture of a country where Jewish schools are shot at, synagogues are firebombed, and Jewish students are driven from campus.

Then reality set in. The speech wasn't broadcast live in full, wasn't delivered in Parliament, and wasn't open to media scrutiny. Reporters, including Rebel News, were locked out while a hand-picked audience watched another carefully managed Liberal production.

NB-embed:the_5_biggest_problems_with_mark_carney_antisemitism_stunt

Instead of stronger enforcement, tougher prosecutions, or naming who is responsible, Carney delivered bureaucracy. He bragged about six new pieces of legislation, including Bill C-9. But Canada already has laws against violence, vandalism, trespassing, stalking, harassment, threats, intimidation, and disturbing religious worship. The problem has never been a lack of laws. It is a total lack of enforcement.

Jewish leaders have begged for protection. Police say they are stretched to breaking point. Municipalities are pleading for help. Yet Ottawa’s response is not decisive action, but more committees, more consultations, and more bureaucracy, despite already having the powers needed to act.

Which brings us to Carney’s big announcement: a new Ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion, chaired by none other than Marc Miller. Yes, that Marc Miller. The same minister whose government got tangled in the Laith Marouf scandal, handing public money to a vicious antisemite.

Even though the speech was framed around antisemitism, this council’s mandate is far broader: fighting racism and hate in all their forms. Not antisemitism specifically. Everything. So a crisis hitting one community gets buried in the usual progressive laundry list of grievances.

Mark Carney outlined four priorities: reassess the drivers, coordinate responses, improve research and data collection, and measure outcomes. In other words: study, coordinate, research, and evaluate. After bullets, firebombs, and campus intimidation, the government’s answer is more paperwork.

The composition is even more revealing. Just one Jewish Liberal voice, Senator Marc Gold, stacked alongside figures like former cabinet minister Omar Alghabra and lawyer Avnish Nanda, who has defended pro-Palestinian campus encampments. If this is truly an emergency, why build a panel designed to balance political interests instead of laser-focusing on protecting Jewish Canadians?

INSANE.
Mark Carney’s combatting antisemitism committee includes the Islamist Omar Alghabra, who called for terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah to be legalized. It also includes notorious lawyer for Jew-haters, Avnish Nanda.https://t.co/7DjDIyEg0y
pic.twitter.com/R3Utza5wBp

— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) June 1, 2026

Most telling of all: Carney condemned antisemitism repeatedly but refused to name the source. He never identified the radical ideological movements, the university encampments, the street protests, or the aggressive anti-Israel activism that so often turns into outright Jew-hatred. Instead, he lumped it in with Islamophobia, transphobia, and attacks on churches in a vague, feel-good lecture about hate.

Carney correctly diagnosed the disease. He just does not have the courage to name the cause or the guts to fight it.

This committee is not a solution. It is the problem. It dilutes a specific crisis against Jews into a broader political project, produces reports instead of real enforcement, and proves this government would rather manage optics and balance interests than confront the actual people attacking Jewish Canadians.

Jewish Canadians are being told the government understands their fears. What they are still waiting for is proof this government is willing to confront the people causing them.

GUEST: James Manson, JCCF lawyer. He recently testified with Lisa Bildy and Mark Joseph on Mark Carney’s Bill C-9 and its threat to freedom of expression.

NB-embed:deport_hamas_donate

Just over three weeks ago, Ezra was banned from flying to London, where he had planned to cover Tommy Robinson's "Unite the Kingdom" rally. He received a cold, unsigned email from the UK Home Office — the kind you cannot reply to. His ETA, the electronic travel authorization that allows citizens of friendly countries to enter Britain without a full visa, was cancelled. No reasons given. No right of appeal.

Ezra did what any reasonable person would do: he took the Home Office up on their own suggestion and applied for a proper visa. He paid the thousand-pound super-priority fee, which is supposed to produce a decision within 24 hours. That was more than three weeks ago. Two emails have arrived since — both confessing the Home Office is running "a little late."

The legal challenge to the ban continues. Ezra has retained counsel in the UK and believes the Home Office's conduct is unlawful.

But here is the weekend update: the UK has now banned two more people. And this time, the press is paying close attention.

Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur were both blocked from entering Britain. They may not be household names in Canada, but in the United States they are prominent voices of the radical left. Both are of Turkish ethnicity, both are Muslim, and they are relatives — Piker is Uygur's nephew. Piker runs a streaming channel. Uygur's television programme is literally called The Young Turks.

Piker made headlines recently for travelling to Cuba to produce a propaganda video for the Castro regime, dressed in thousands of dollars' worth of designer fashion. Upon returning to the United States, he was charged with failing to register as a foreign agent on Cuba's behalf. He has also been publicly and proudly vocal about his enthusiasm for political violence against his opponents. He does not attempt to hide it.

Uygur, for his part, has a documented and obsessive fixation on Jewish people as a political scapegoat. He is also straightforwardly anti-American — which makes what happened next rather remarkable.

Both men took to social media within hours of receiving their ban notices. And both said the same thing: Israel did this.

the uk has revoked my visa as well. all at the behest of israel. the west is betraying "liberal values" for a genocidal fascist foreign government. soon we will all become israel. https://t.co/UqQG1dogOI

— hasanabi (@hasanthehun) May 31, 2026

Piker declared that the UK had revoked his visa "at the behest of Israel," and called it a betrayal of liberal values by a "genocidal, fascist foreign government." Uygur said he had been banned "for criticizing Israel." Suddenly, both men — who have spent years expressing contempt for Western values, cheering on its enemies, and mocking anyone who defends it — were draping themselves in the language of Western liberty.

Here is the problem with their theory. The person who signed those ban letters — Ezra's included — is Shabana Mahmood, the UK's Home Secretary. She is a pro-Palestinian Muslim politician. She attends anti-Israel rallies. She is, by any honest accounting, about the last person on earth who would be carrying water for the Israeli government.

Ezra received the same vague, infuriatingly non-specific letter that Piker and Uygur received. No specific reason was given. But for Piker and Uygur, Jewish people are the universal explanation for everything that goes wrong.

What makes this episode truly revealing is the press reaction. When Ezra was banned, along with roughly a dozen journalists, speakers, and associates of Tommy Robinson, the coverage was minimal. The general sentiment from legacy newsrooms was: those are just Tommy Robinson's crowd. 

Now that Piker and Uygur have received the same treatment, it is a five-alarm crisis. The "Israel did it" line is being repeated without scrutiny.

Two-tier outrage. The same selective indignation that produces two-tier justice.

To be clear: Ezra is not in favour of banning people for their ideas. Censorship is generally immoral and almost always counterproductive. Banning someone with a bad idea typically turns a boring bad idea into a dangerous, glamorous one. The same dynamic will likely work in Piker and Uygur's favour now.

If Piker has committed a crime — and a federal charge suggests he may have — then let him be charged, tried, and judged accordingly. That is not what a travel ban is. A travel ban is the government deciding, without due process or transparency, who is permitted to speak and where.

Ezra knows something about that firsthand.

GUEST: Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, on Newfoundland and Labrador dropping its court challenge against the federal equalization program.

Canada is officially in a recession. That means the economy has shrunk for two consecutive quarters (six months). GDP is shrinking.

The regime media are calling it a “technical recession,” as if that somehow makes it better — or not a real recession. That’s not surprising, given that it’s never a real recession for the CBC; they’ll receive more money this year than ever before in history, courtesy of the “private sector” media bailout.

In reality, Canada has been in a recession for years on an individual basis. GDP per capita has been falling since 2022. That’s one of the reasons Trudeau — and then Carney — went wild with immigration. By bringing in millions of people, the total size of the economic pie got a bit bigger, even though each of us got a smaller slice.

But now we’re in a real recession on a total GDP basis. It’s so bad that even mass immigration can’t hide it anymore.

How is this possible? You can’t go a week without Carney and his cronies announcing some massive new “investment.” Unfortunately, they’re just moving money around — from productive people to unproductive people. That’s not going to grow the economy.

When was the last time you saw a good news story about the economy — an actual company using its own money to invest and grow in Canada? Not a government scheme, but someone choosing to do business here instead of somewhere else?

It’s hard to think of one. In fact, Mark Carney is about to drive billions of dollars in tech investment out of the country by insisting on Bill C-22, which would allow the government to spy on any social media app.

But at the same time as the recession news, we got some good news from the oil and gas industry.

Pipeline company South Bow announced in a press release that its proposed pipeline has been fully booked, meaning enough customers have pledged to use the pipeline for it to be commercially viable. South Bow’s pipeline would run along the same route as Keystone XL, which was first proposed more than a decade ago.

They’re ready. Their customers are ready. The only thing left is politics — Mark Carney, and Liberal judges who like to invent new rights for Indigenous activists, including the right to stop 300,000 people from signing a petition.

The final go/no-go decision on the South Bow pipeline will be made in mid-2027. One year to live or die.

Will Carney kill it? What do you think he’s going to do?

GUEST: Mark Milke, founder and president of the Aristotle Foundation, on the Alberta separatism debate they hosted between pro-separatist lawyer Keith Wilson and former Alberta premier and pro-federalist Jason Kenney.

Was pretty bleak pic.twitter.com/LXKfxhBJMc

— Payton Alexander (@AlexanderPayton) May 28, 2026

In Toronto, a once-grand civic fountain now sits clogged with debris and covered in “Free Palestine” and “Free Gaza” graffiti, including the red Hamas triangle. Nobody cleans it. Nobody protects it. The decay is not only tolerated. In some circles, it is quietly celebrated.

This is not an isolated incident. The same pattern is repeating in cities across Canada, the United States, and Europe. The West is starting to resemble a civilization after a war, except no war ever occurred. No bombs fell. No foreign army invaded. This decline is entirely self-inflicted, driven by political choices, activist pressure, and a profound loss of will.

The statue most valued historic leaders Sir Winston Churchill has been defaced by far left pro Pally types.
On same day Green Party won a parliamentary election by appealing to a foreign block vote.

It is spiritual, as well as telling.

We will take back our country. ✝️🇬🇧 pic.twitter.com/RA7aXM7H7T

— Rikki Doolan (@realrikkidoolan) February 27, 2026

Compare Detroit’s once-magnificent Michigan Central Station, abandoned and left to rot for decades with no external disaster, to Hiroshima. After the atomic bomb flattened the city in 1945, Japan rebuilt it into a clean, modern, and thriving metropolis. Even Pripyat near Chernobyl shows the clear result of a genuine catastrophe. Western cities today have no such excuse.

Weekly reminder: Decline is a choice. pic.twitter.com/LeFsjFqg3R

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) May 28, 2026

In Canada, the destruction often feels deliberate. For years, the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald at Queen’s Park was boxed up as if it posed a danger. Toronto renamed Yonge-Dundas Square after activists declared historical figures morally unacceptable. Statues have been removed in Winnipeg, monuments vandalized in Victoria, and even Winston Churchill’s statue outside the British Parliament has been repeatedly defaced.

The goal is consistent: erase the symbols, erase the history, and sever people’s connection to their own civilization, then point to the resulting collapse as evidence that the old system failed.

What has replaced civic pride? More disorder, more crime, and more chaos. Public spaces are surrendered to encampments and vandalism, while courts increasingly treat such disorder as protected rights. Ordinary citizens are losing access to safe, clean parks and streets.

Activists from Antifa circles to Hamas sympathizers to the “decolonize everything” movement view Western civilization itself as the enemy. In their eyes, vandalism becomes activism, and maintaining order is portrayed as oppression.

This is not compassion. It is surrender.

Not every country has accepted this path. In Washington, D.C., monuments are being restored and public spaces cleaned, thanks mainly in part to U.S. President Donald J. Trump.

𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗱 𝗝. 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝟱.𝟮𝟴.𝟮𝟲 𝟬𝟮:𝟱𝟱 𝗔𝗠 𝗘𝗦𝗧

President Trumps posts image of how the new reflecting pool will look after his improvements pic.twitter.com/si93SP4k8K

— Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) May 28, 2026

The difference is simple: enforce the law, protect public spaces, punish vandalism, and take pride in your country instead of apologizing for it.

The West does not need a war to destroy its cities. It is achieving that through weak leadership, ideological activism, and a loss of civilizational will. The choice ahead is clear: protect what belongs to everyone, or watch it disappear forever.

Instead, the debate has been hijacked by celebrity opposition campaigns led by musicians like Corb Lund and George Canyon, whose province-wide citizen initiative petition seeks to override the wishes of the local community through a referendum driven largely by outside activists.

Picard argues this fight is about more than coal. It’s about whether rural Albertans still have the right to shape their own economic future without being steamrolled by urban activists, celebrities and political pressure groups who parachute in for the headlines and leave locals to deal with the consequences.

If “local voices matter” is more than just a slogan, why are the people of Blairmore being ignored after already voting overwhelmingly in favour of the project?

And why is Alberta’s resource economy subjected to veto campaigns, while the communities that depend on these projects are treated like their opinions don’t count?

Robbie Picard joins me to discuss the growing backlash from rural Albertans who are tired of being talked down to by people who don’t live there, don’t work there and won’t suffer the economic fallout if these projects are killed.

GUEST: Robbie Picard, energy advocate and founder of Oil Sands Strong.

It’s pretty common for social movements to score a victory — and then push things too far.

For the LGBTQ+ movement, that turning point came after victories on gay marriage, gay adoption and Pride Month, before moving on to the much less popular frontier of transgenderism. Now, support for the movement is declining. They just don't know when to quit. 

In Canada, the local movement that has gone too far is that of Indigenous rights. While most Canadians believe, to some degree, that we have a moral obligation to address the social ills and dysfunction affecting Indigenous communities — at the very least because they are Canadians, and our citizens should come first — it’s fair to say the truth and reconciliation movement has overplayed its hand. We can see this most clearly in British Columbia, where land acknowledgments went from a feel-good way to show respect to First Nations to literally giving them the land back. 

Recent cases in British Columbia have raised doubts about whether homeowners in Canada can actually count on owning their land. For many people, their home is their only investment. And now Canadians who've done nothing wrong to indigenous people are at risk of losing their homes to people who have had nothing wrong done to them. 

Now consider Wab Kinew, the first First Nations premier in Canadian history. In some ways, he's wonderful; he's got that big smile, a jovial personality, and he says he loves Canada. Early in the trade dispute with U.S. President Donald Trump, Kinew responded to Trump’s taunts by saying, “We’ll never be your 51st state, but we’ll be your number one best friend.”

He's likable, and for a time, Ezra couldn't help but think he would be an important part of real reconciliation in Canada. 

But, as it turns out, there is another side to him.

The other day, the premiers of the western provinces gathered, and one of the issues raised was Alberta’s referendum debate. Danielle Smith was asked about the court ruling.

Premier Smith explains her view that a judge's decision to block an independence petition for failing to consult with First Nations groups is "anti-democratic" before Premier Kinew jumps in to reprimand her, saying her belief is wrong. pic.twitter.com/7uRzoG4mwI

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) May 26, 2026

Smith handled the question professionally, but Kinew used the opportunity to try to correct and embarrass her over the issue of Indigenous consultation in the process.

At the end of the day, if you support overriding the will of 700,000 Canadians — who have signed petitions on both sides calling for a referendum — in the name of Indigenous rights, there’s a good chance that your movement will begin taking on water in the same way the LGBTQ+ movement has over transgender issues.

For Ezra, Wab Kinew remains a difficult figure to pin down. He likes that Kinew is premier, but dislikes the fact that he’s an NDP socialist with an occasional childish streak. At the same time, Ezra still hopes Kinew will seize the opportunity to become a genuine healer of racial divisions in Canada.

Barack Obama had a similar opportunity, but squandered it by embracing the radical ideology of Black Lives Matter.

Wab Kinew might do the same thing if he continues to endorse Indigenous vetoes over the democratic process.

GUEST: Franco Terrazzano, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, to discuss Mark Carney's exorbitant in-flight menu.  

After years of pushing some of the most radical and economically destructive policies in Justin Trudeau’s government, one of the worst cabinet ministers Canada has seen in modern times is finally on his way out. But don’t pop the champagne just yet. This could just be classic Liberal stagecraft.

Steven Guilbeault to resign as Liberal MP over the government's environmental policies https://t.co/O8FLRbqIG7 pic.twitter.com/5nDDb7hmCc

— National Post (@nationalpost) May 26, 2026

Guilbeault built his reputation as a professional activist. In 2001, he was arrested after climbing Toronto’s CN Tower as part of a Greenpeace stunt. In 2002, he joined activists who scaled the roof of Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s home to install solar panels, an arrogant provocation aimed at the province that powers Canada’s economy.

As Trudeau’s environment minister, and later minister of Canadian identity and culture, Guilbeault embodied the most extreme wing of Liberal environmentalism. He combined sky-high spending, endless international junkets and a deep enthusiasm for censorship. While forests burned and the economy struggled, Guilbeault jetted off to climate summits. That included COP30 in Brazil in late 2025, even after leaving the environment portfolio.

🚨BREAKING: We just crushed Trudeau’s minister Steven Guilbeault in court.
He illegally blocked us on Twitter. Today he was ordered to unblock us & pay $20,000 to Rebel News.

His lawyers tried to get me to keep the details secret.

Read the facts here: https://t.co/do3KQzDseW pic.twitter.com/3fkZzo71B4

— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) September 11, 2023

Guilbeault was also deeply involved in Trudeau’s censorship agenda, backing bills that threatened free speech online. One of his more infamous moments came when he suggested politicians should not be criticised. It provided a clear window into his authoritarian mindset and ego, one that Rebel News actively resisted and pushed back against.

Media reports are framing Guilbeault’s departure as a dramatic split with Prime Minister Mark Carney over energy policy. In November 2025, Guilbeault quit Carney’s cabinet after the government signed a memorandum of understanding with Alberta.

That deal included progress toward a new bitumen pipeline to British Columbia’s coast. It suspended the proposed oil and gas emissions cap and eased clean electricity regulations. Guilbeault called the Alberta deal “the last straw,” claiming Carney’s changes would make Canada’s climate targets impossible to meet.

But this “resignation” has been rumoured for months. And the idea that Guilbeault and Carney are ideological opponents is mostly fiction.

The two have worked together for years. In a 2022 speech, Guilbeault proudly noted that six major Canadian banks had joined the Net-Zero Banking Alliance under the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), an organisation chaired by Mark Carney. The alliance represented more than $130 trillion in assets.

In 2023, Guilbeault joined a high-level roundtable in New York alongside Carney, then serving as GFANZ co-chair, along with Bloomberg Philanthropies and other global climate actors to accelerate the global phase-out of coal. The overlap is not incidental. It is ideological.

Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, simply plays a smoother game. He talks about “too much regulation, not enough action.” He promotes carbon capture technology. He cuts deals with Alberta. But the end goal remains the same: net zero, capital reallocation away from conventional energy, and tighter climate controls.

Guilbeault was the blunt, hectoring activist. Carney is the polished financier who makes the same agenda sound reasonable to business audiences. Their public disagreements help the Liberals create the illusion of moderation, especially as they try to rebuild support in Alberta and among Canada’s energy sector.

This resignation allows Carney to distance himself from the most unpopular parts of the Trudeau era without changing course. It is political theatre designed to make him look like a pragmatic capitalist while the underlying GFANZ-driven agenda marches on.

Canadians should not be fooled. Whether it is Guilbeault or Carney behind the wheel, the destination remains the same: higher energy costs, constrained resource development and greater centralised control over the economy. Guilbeault’s rumoured exit changes the face of the government, but not its failed direction. The real solution is not a new Liberal in a better suit. It is rejecting the entire net-zero-at-all-costs ideology that has damaged Canada for years.

Important news for snackers across the country: Dunkin’ Donuts is returning to Canada. The U.S.-based chain has been popular internationally for years, with more than 14,000 locations across 40 countries. Now it’s making a major comeback north of the border, with plans for more than 700 Canadian locations.

At the same time — purely by coincidence, apparently — Tim Hortons has had a revelation. In a carefully crafted message leaked to The Globe and Mail, the company announced that it is moving away from — “moving away from,” not firing — temporary foreign workers and launching a campaign to hire up to 10,000 local workers.

The Globe and Mail notes that this marks a “stark reversal from its previous tenor,” considering Tim Hortons has been “one of the biggest proponents of the TFW program.”

Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI), Tim Hortons’ parent company, has also discovered the importance of preserving jobs for Canadian youth. According to The Globe and Mail, the company has pledged “to stop lobbying the federal government to expand the Temporary Foreign Workers program, citing the high youth unemployment rate.”

Their message is clear: they want you to know they care — and that it has absolutely nothing to do with Dunkin’ coming to town.

But, in reality, this is little more than propaganda.

Keep in mind that RBI has only said it is not lobbying anymore — and only for now. Its exact words were:

“We have not lobbied the government since last year and we won’t be lobbying them on TFWs any time soon given our commitment to hire locally everywhere possible,” said Duncan Fulton, chief corporate officer of Restaurant Brands.

Given how carefully that statement is worded, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that it isn’t true.

A search of the Lobbying Registry of Canada shows RBI CEO Joshua Kobza listed as recently as May 18, 2026. The subject matter: immigration.

They were lobbying seven days ago. They were lying. And now they’ve lied again.

But there’s more.

In a memo sent to the Liberal government in 2024 — obtained through an access-to-information request — RBI lobbied to increase the cap on the number of hours international students could work from 20 hours per week to 28–30 hours.

Do you see what they were trying to do?

There are already more international students working at Tim Hortons than temporary foreign workers, and international students are, in effect, a source of temporary labour that does not show up in temporary foreign worker stats.

So what difference does it make if Tim Hortons announces it is scaling back its use of temporary foreign workers while quietly positioning itself to hire even more international students?

Whoever is making these decisions to put foreign labour first has destroyed something that was once uniquely Canadian.

As you know, Tim Hortons was a real person. If he were still alive today, he would likely demand that his name be removed from this gross, deceptive and incredibly un-Canadian company.

GUEST: Juno News' Melanie Bennet on her latest reporting. 

NB-embed:tims_boycott_pledge

It was Margaret Thatcher who famously said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

That's what's happening right now with Zohran Mamdani in New York City, where plans for free everything are already driving away wealthy taxpayers. But what happens if you're a country small enough to avoid the consequences a little longer — and wealthy enough to keep funding bad ideas?

Well, that describes Ireland.

With a population of just over five million people, Ireland has become the European headquarters for countless major American corporations. While many maintain offices and staff there, the country's low-tax environment is a major draw. It's the same principle that led our own Prime Minister, Mark Carney, to structure Brookfield Asset Management's holdings through jurisdictions such as Bermuda and the Isle of Man to reduce tax burdens.

On paper, Ireland is one of the richest countries in the world, boasting a GDP of more than $160,000 per person. Unfortunately, that wealth has helped delay the consequences of a series of poor policy decisions, from government overspending to embracing mass immigration with few limits.

These issues are front and centre as Ezra reports from the city of Galway, where voters in Galway West are heading to the polls in a by-election today.

Interestingly, Ireland's current president once held this parliamentary seat. The by-election was triggered by her departure, and several intriguing candidates are now vying to replace her, including a number of independents known to be dissidents on those core issues. 

One of those candidates is Noel Thomas. Formerly a member of a mainstream party, he was expelled after criticizing mass immigration policies. Over the past two decades, Ireland has welcomed roughly one million newcomers. Today, approximately one in five people living in the country was born abroad — a remarkable demographic shift for a nation that fought so hard to preserve its distinct identity, including through rebellion against the British Empire.

Since leaving the political mainstream, Thomas has embraced a more anti-establishment message, recently standing alongside truckers and farmers protesting high fuel prices across the country.

The thing about by-elections is that they're so localized, and usually have such low voter turnout, that people feel more comfortable voting for a more radical or idealistic candidate. After all, they know a single seat isn't going to change the direction of the whole country. It's the perfect opportunity to send a message.

So will candidates like Noel Thomas — or some of the other freedom-oriented contenders — become vehicles for that message in Galway?

Unfortunately, after talking with people on the street, Ezra found that the views are pretty much unanimous: socialism, globalism, and open borders. From their perspective, if the country is wealthy enough, why not be generous? Why not align yourself with foreign migrants? It is, after all, a form of virtue signalling.

In the end, Galway is a great town, a beautiful tourist area... and an absolute slam dunk for the left-wing parties. That's Ireland in 2026.

NB-embed:the_truth_about_ireland_donate

NB-embed:irish_free_speech_donate

Now Cory is updating the handbook to answer the questions more Albertans are asking every day: What would sovereignty actually look like? And why are so many establishment politicians suddenly panicking about the debate?

We’ll also talk about our new collaboration, Alberta Fact Check, a new project from Rebel News built to push back against the flood of misinformation coming from Liberal politicians, activist academics, and the taxpayer-funded CBC about Alberta’s future.

The moment Albertans started seriously discussing independence, the spin machine kicked into overdrive. So Cory Morgan, Ezra Levant, and I decided it was time to build something fast, factual, documented, and unapologetically Alberta-first.

If you’re tired of being told what Albertans think by people in Ottawa and Toronto, you won’t want to miss this conversation.

GUEST: Cory Morgan, from the Western Standard.

And what does that mean for us in Canada? After all, Europe can sometimes feel like a kind of dystopian time machine. What happens in places like Marseilles, Paris, or London today may well be what happens in Canada in five years: mass migration, censorship, and related social pressures.

Ireland is a particularly fascinating case. It is a small country of about 5 million people that, until recently, was relatively economically poor. Today, it is among the wealthiest countries in the world, leading several economic indicators, while simultaneously leaping ahead on problems related to mass immigration and censorship.

Ezra has grown fond of Ireland, having visited at least half a dozen times in recent years, and has watched grassroots movements there push back against mass immigration. But unlike the United Kingdom, where political pressure has been partially translated into electoral momentum, and figures like Nigel Farage, Ireland has seen little meaningful political translation of those concerns.

That makes Ireland a potential preview of what Canada could look like in the not-so-distant future — and a reason to pay attention now. And who better to help us understand Ireland than today’s guest, Dr. Eoin Lenihan, author of Vandalizing Ireland.

Dr. Lenihan will help us answer the question: Is the wonderful Emerald Island being vandalized, and can it be saved?

GUEST: Long-form interview with Dr. Eoin Lenihan on the state of Ireland.

Normally, Ezra would be preparing to board a flight to London, England, for Tommy Robinson’s “Unite the Kingdom” rally. Unfortunately, there has been no communication from the Home Office since yesterday.

The reasons for Ezra's ban remain unclear. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer went on a rant today, declaring that far-right agitators and extremists are not welcome in his country — though by that standard, he seems to mean just about anyone who criticizes him even slightly.

It appears Starmer is trying to manufacture a January 6-style moment around tomorrow’s rally. His public support is crumbling, and perhaps he believes a manufactured crisis — God forbid, one involving some kind of violence — could put him back on the political map. More likely than not, the attempt will fail.

The good news is that the Free Speech Union has now taken up Ezra's case. In its press release, the group points out that Ezra is a supporter of Israel, and that this may have factored into the decision to bar him from entering the country.

And while Ezra may be absent, Alexa Lavoie is more than capable of delivering excellent on-the-ground reporting from the rally, as she has done in the past.

GUEST: Lorne Gunter on Mark Carney's latest meeting with Premier Daniel Smith about pipelines.

A man with a clean record, no criminal history, not even a parking ticket, is now deemed “not conducive to the public good.” Think about that for a second. While small boats packed with fighting-age men cross the English Channel every single day with barely a shrug from the authorities, a journalist with a microphone and a camera from a fellow Commonwealth nation is treated like a national security threat.

This isn’t about Ezra. This is about what Britain has become under Keir Starmer.

As his Labour government haemorrhages council seats, over 1,500 and counting, they refuse to fix the borders, the streets, or the collapsing trust in institutions. Instead, they ban the reporters asking the questions voters are screaming about.

NB-embed:keir_starmer_bans_jewish_journalist_avi_uk

And it’s not just reporters. Multiple political activists, commentators, and even sitting members of the European Parliament have been denied access to the UK. The birthplace of parliamentary democracy is now in the business of silencing political dissent it finds uncomfortable.

Back home in Canada, the pattern is identical. A Trudeau-appointed judge just invented a brand-new procedural hurdle to block over 300,000 Albertans from even petitioning for an independence referendum, a barrier that was never imposed on Quebec. Same playbook: when the people start demanding accountability, the institutions simply move the goalposts.

Over 700,000 Albertans have now signed various petitions about the province’s future. This includes more than 300,000 who signed a petition calling for a referendum on independence, and roughly 400,000 others who signed a petition earlier this year expressing their desire to stay in Canada. While their reasons don’t always align, a growing number of Albertans clearly feel disenfranchised by Ottawa and want real change. This includes greater control over immigration, resources, and their justice system, or simply having a direct say on Alberta’s future through a referendum.

GUEST: Keith Wilson, King’s Counsel, breaks down the Alberta court ruling and what Danielle Smith and the province must do next.

Please go to LetUsReport.com to help me out — if you can chip in to help me sue Keir Starmer, I’d be grateful! Wish me luck!NB-embed:let_us_report_uk_donate

On tonight’s show, I’m joined by Tracey Wilson of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights to break down the bombshell documents exposing the Liberals’ baseless gun grab and what it means for lawful firearms owners across Canada.

We’ll talk about why Ottawa keeps targeting licensed gun owners instead of tackling repeat violent offenders, border smuggling, and catch-and-release bail policies, and why taxpayers are now staring down a multibillion-dollar boondoggle with no proof it will reduce crime.

And while we’re at it, don’t forget the CCFR AGM is happening in Mississauga on May 23, where yours truly will be delivering the keynote address. If you care about property rights, civil liberties, and pushing back against bad policy disguised as public safety, you won’t want to miss it.

GUEST: CCFR's Tracey Wilson.

Both women were targeted by the CBC because they reject the view that John A. Macdonald was genocidal, instead viewing him as a nation-building hero.

So the CBC launched an elaborate sting operation: creating fake companies, assigning staff fake names, and attempting to get close to Shepherd and Widdowson under false pretenses. They misled them into believing they were allies, all while secretly filming and provoking them in hopes of capturing an incriminating reaction.

I found out recently that I was deceived by social activists in an elaborate scheme dating back to January. A production group with what I now know has a fake name and fake identities gave me a friendly interview about my book A Day with Sir John A, and about Sir John A… pic.twitter.com/ncLB0rABzt

— Lindsay Shepherd (@NewWorldHominin) May 12, 2026

These are not powerful figures who need to be “held to account.” In Lindsay Shepherd’s case, especially, she is a journalist, but mostly a quiet young mother. Frances Widdowson is also vulnerable; during a recent university appearance, where she was discussing Indigenous relations, she was physically attacked. Imagine watching an elderly woman being assaulted and concluding that she still needs to be taken down a peg.

This was a stunt designed to embarrass them, humiliate them, and deceive them. Widdowson sensed something was wrong and recorded part of the interaction on her cellphone with the main provocateur. The entire spectacle is as disturbing as it is embarrassing.

My interrogation of "Mr. Smarmy" (Igor Vamos) - a set-up by a made up company called "Forge Media", which pretended that I would be doing an interview for a "docuseries". This outfit is evidently connected in some way to @CBC. pic.twitter.com/4xwbT03kfd

— Frances Widdowson (@FrancesWiddows1) May 11, 2026

Not to mention the cost. By the look of it, hundreds of thousands of dollars may have gone into this operation. Nearly 25 people appeared to be involved.

If this was supposed to be comedy, it was deeply unfunny.

Some people, like Sacha Baron Cohen, are famous for elaborate and genuinely humorous hoaxes that target wealthy or powerful public figures — people like Donald Trump, for example.

But what happens when the targets are not billionaires or world-famous politicians? The CBC instead went after a professor who was fired and routinely threatened, and a young mother with children. At that point, the joke stops being funny.

And then when you remember that this was paid for by the government, it's not funny at all.

GUEST: The Democracy Fund's Mark Joseph discusses an independent investigation into Canadian church burnings and synagogue attacks. 

The ATIP request asked Public Safety Canada for “all analysis from the department on the efficacy of the assault style firearms compensation program and its effect on crime rates/public safety.”

The department’s response was pathetic in its honesty: “Please be advised that no information related to your request exists within Public Safety Canada.”

Despite the lack of evidence supporting the program’s effectiveness, Ottawa has already committed at least $742 million toward the confiscation scheme in Budget 2025. Independent estimates suggest the final cost to taxpayers could exceed $6 billion once collection, compensation, storage, destruction, administration, and enforcement costs are fully accounted for.

“If the government can’t show taxpayers this program will work, then taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for it,” said Canadian Taxpayers Federation Prairie Director Gage Haubrich. “Ottawa needs to listen to police officers who say the gun ban and confiscation won’t work.”

The Fraser Institute has warned the cost of the confiscation scheme could rival or exceed the long-gun registry fiasco, which ballooned from an estimated $85 million to nearly $2 billion. Fraser Institute senior fellow Gary Mauser estimates the total cost of the current gun confiscation program could range between $2.6 billion and $6.7 billion.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/therebel/pages/151198/attachments/original/1778623043/PS_ATIP.pdf?1778623043

The report also notes Ottawa had already spent more than $67 million on the program before collecting a single firearm.

Meanwhile, violent firearm crime has continued increasing since the Liberals introduced the ban in 2020. Statistics Canada data cited by the Fraser Institute shows firearm-related violent crime rose from 12,614 incidents in 2020 to 13,937 incidents in 2022.

Police organizations across the country have repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of the program.

“We know that the gun buyback program is going to have, essentially, zero impact on the crime in Toronto,” said Clayton Campbell, president of the Toronto Police Association.

The National Police Federation, which represents RCMP members, has also criticized the confiscation scheme as a “misdirected effort when it comes to public safety.”

Dozens of police forces have declined to participate in the federal program, while every province except British Columbia and Quebec has refused involvement.

Critics argue the Liberal government is targeting licensed firearms owners because they are easier to regulate than violent criminals.

Licensed gun owners already undergo mandatory background checks, safety training, secure storage requirements, and continuous RCMP eligibility screening. By contrast, most firearm crime in Canada involves illegally smuggled guns and repeat offenders already known to police.

Even Statistics Canada has acknowledged that firearms used in homicides are “rarely legal firearms used by their legal owners.”

Critics say Ottawa is choosing the path of least resistance: targeting lawful owners instead of reforming bail laws, securing the border against gun smuggling, and keeping repeat violent offenders behind bars longer.

The Liberal government maintains the confiscation program is necessary to improve public safety, despite admitting it possesses no internal analysis proving the program will achieve that goal.

And that should be enough to end this expensive madness.

GUEST: Sam Cooper of the Bureau joins the show to discuss his latest op-ed on foreign interference.

NB-embed:hands_off_our_guns_petition

Nate is the MP for a Toronto riding called Beaches–East York, which is, demographically, one of the whitest districts in the city. He decided, as the whitest MP in the whitest riding, to run for the leadership of the provincial Liberal party under the endorsement of Mark Carney. He assumed his political success would extend to a place like Scarborough Southwest, which, according to the 2021 census, is just 37% white.

Scarborough Southwest, today’s the day. Voting opens in 30 minutes, and closes at 4:00 pm. Come out and vote at Birchmount Collegiate Institute, 3663 Danforth Ave. Thank you for your support. pic.twitter.com/HcgWeB3pzX

— Nate Erskine-Smith (@NateForOntario) May 9, 2026

Nate went full Trudeau-style, playing cultural dress-up, but that kind of performative diversity doesn’t work when white people make up only a third of the riding’s population. As it turns out, migrants don’t look up to you as some kind of benefactor for giving them a nod and a wink. They wonder what the hell is wrong with you — and then they run themselves, which is exactly what happened.

10 years of celebrating the Bengali New Year in our shared East End. Shuvo Noboborsho! pic.twitter.com/ONOisHHSOI

— Nate Erskine-Smith (@NateForOntario) April 20, 2026

Nate’s rival, Ahsanul Hafiz, was an entrepreneur who allegedly owns 30 pizza franchises — which, if true, means he’s done more economic building in Ontario than Nate has done destroying.

In the nomination vote, Nate ran up against 718 supporters backing Ahsanul. He could only muster 699 people.

He was stunned. Listen to him, in shock, moments after the results:

NEW: Nate Erskine-Smith, in a rainy scrum, says he needs to do a “full debrief with his team” about the voting process. Said those in the room told him they “had never seen anything like it.”Says he wants to talk to his team to see if there is a legitimate reason to challenge. pic.twitter.com/cTZbu0S0Pu

— Laura Stone (@l_stone) May 9, 2026

Nate happily voted for a decade of mass immigration, bringing in more than five million people — some with very few skills, many with no cultural affinity to Canada. But he always assumed they were beneath him; they would be servants, Uber drivers, and delivery boys.

But in reality, once they were here, there was no need for him anymore. Why have an errand boy when you can take the power yourself, as Ahsanul Hafiz did?

Until now, the only people who suffered from replacement immigration were young Canadians, who have been pushed out of entry-level jobs by temporary foreign workers and international “students.” It never seemed to cross Nate’s mind that replacement immigration might affect his job too.

Nate Erskine-Smith thought he’d be on top — that the millions of migrants he, Carney, Trudeau, and Harper brought in would remain below him in the pecking order. 

It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

Many of these crimes might appear to be random, but they are far more than one-off opportunities. These are planned, terrorist-style events. After all, there are 700 members of the IRGC that the government of Canada knows about in this city. That’s not including pro-Hamas activists and other latent antisemites who have arrived through Canada’s open-door mass immigration policies.

Unfortunately, Mark Carney has simply done the math. There are about 350,000–400,000 Jews in Canada, and about 2 million people who hate Jews in Canada. It’s clear which side his bread is buttered on.

Toronto, for so long, was such a hospitable place to be. Jews were truly part of the fabric of this country and this city in particular. But now, those days appear to be coming to a close.

During a wide-ranging discussion with British commentator Jack Hadfield, the growing fragmentation of UK politics is impossible to ignore. What was once a contest between Labour and Conservatives has become a chaotic struggle involving Reform UK, the Greens, independent Muslim candidates and a rapidly declining Tory establishment.

One of the most striking developments is the emergence of explicitly Muslim political activism independent of Labour. In areas with large Muslim populations, candidates are increasingly running under openly sectarian or Gaza-focused platforms rather than relying on traditional party brands. According to Hadfield, Labour’s long-standing electoral coalition is beginning to fracture as many Muslim voters abandon the party for independent candidates or the Greens.

At the same time, Britain’s migration crisis continues spiralling. Illegal Channel crossings have surpassed 200,000 arrivals, while public confidence in the government’s ability to control the border has evaporated. Even Labour’s attempts to appear tougher on migration have produced little tangible success.

The vacuum created by this instability has fuelled the rise of Nigel Farage and Reform UK. Once dismissed as outsiders, Reform now increasingly appears to be the primary vehicle for voters angry about immigration, cultural change and political elites.

Meanwhile, Britain’s Green Party has become an unlikely coalition of radical left activists, pro-Gaza campaigners and socially conservative Muslim blocs united largely by hostility toward Israel and opposition to the political establishment. This alliance is deeply contradictory and unlikely to hold together long-term.

What happens next in Britain matters beyond its borders. For Canadians watching from afar, the UK increasingly looks less like a foreign political drama and more like a warning about where unchecked demographic change, political cowardice and cultural fragmentation can ultimately lead.

GUEST: Jack Hadfield joins Ezra to discuss the state of UK politics.

The controversy has caused leftist tears to flow from pro-Palestinian activists, especially after Yemini suggested preferences from the party could ultimately benefit right-wing populist parties like One Nation led by Pauline Hanson.

Is it political satire? Electoral gamesmanship? Or a brilliant exposure of a system the left was perfectly happy to exploit until someone on the right learned how to play too?

Avi breaks down the backlash, the strategy, and whether this political grenade could actually reshape Australian politics.

GUEST: Rebel News contributor Avi Yemini.

The clip is about New York City, but really, it's also about the state of Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Montreal, and other cities in Canada too. It's about young people and ebbing support for capitalism and free enterprise, as people under 30 grapple with being shut out of the housing market on one hand and being trapped by student loan debt from useless degrees on the other. 

It’s also about Zohran Mamdani, the city’s newly elected mayor, who drew support from both the Marxist vote and, as a Muslim immigrant, the foreign-born vote. Mamdani presents himself as speaking for the poor and the working class, but he is himself wealthy; his father is a professor at Columbia University, and his mother is a Disney filmmaker.

The clip features Mamdani’s announcement of one of his latest economic policies: a new tax on the very wealthy, unveiled directly in front of local billionaire Ken Griffin’s home.

The tax is unlikely to raise enough money to deliver what he promised in his campaign, such as abolishing transit fares or opening government grocery stores. The purpose of this tax, like the purpose of the attack ad on Griffin, is punishment, demonization, and an appeal to resentment.

It is his way of pandering to those young people who believe capitalism is not for them and that it has given them nothing.

But moves like this risk driving businesses out of a city en masse. Ken Griffin himself has already responded by doubling down on his intention to relocate his business to Miami.

Zoran Mamdani risks damaging New York City — not only through the tax itself, but through the signal it sends to wealthy job creators, builders, investors, and developers that they are unwelcome, hated, and will be targeted and demonized in his city.

Unfortunately for him, they will take the message to heart, and they will leave — and much of New York City's prosperity will go with them. 

GUEST: The National Post's Tristin Hopper on his latest regarding Canada's failure to track illegal immigrants in the country.

Arbour’s career spans the Supreme Court of Canada and the United Nations, where she served as High Commissioner for Human Rights. For many, that global pedigree is impressive. For others, it’s a red flag. Her time at the UN in particular is being scrutinized, not just for what she did, but for what she appeared willing to overlook.

There's a noticeable pattern: praise for regimes widely considered repressive, paired with harsh condemnation of Western democracies. Arbour publicly commended Cuba’s “positive engagement on human rights” at a time when the country remained one of the most restrictive in the Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, she labelled the United States a “torture country” over its use of waterboarding, despite that practice being legally reviewed domestically.

That contrast reflects a broader ideological tilt rather than balanced judgment.

Her record on Israel has also drawn renewed attention. Arbour supported an Arab human rights charter that ridiculously described Zionism as racism. She also defended the idea of academic boycotts of Israeli institutions as legitimate “public debate,” while simultaneously expressing concern about speech that might offend religious beliefs, a double standard that continues to fuel debate.

All of this matters because the governor general’s role is not to shape policy or push ideology. It is to represent the Crown, currently King Charles III, and act as a stabilizing, non-partisan figure within Canada’s constitutional framework. The office is unelected and carries significant symbolic authority, which makes neutrality not just ideal, but essential.

At a time when public trust in institutions is already under strain, this appointment risks deepening the divide.

GUEST: Keith Wilson joins the show to discuss the state of Alberta since the petition drop off yesterday.

While three hundred thousand signatures is a significant effort, as previously stated, it still represents only about 17% of those who voted in the last election. It’s enough to start the job, but not enough to finish it.

As you know, last week our third-party group, Act for Alberta, commissioned a large 3,000-person poll on this very question. About 60% of respondents said they would vote to stay in Canada, while only 28% said they would vote for independence. Another 12% were undecided.

There is still a great deal of persuading left to do.

In the meantime, the success of the petition — 300,000 signatures collected by grassroots people with no big money, no big media, no major political backing — is sure to mobilize activists in Ottawa, including the media.

Don’t be surprised if federal institutions begin releasing a steady stream of warnings and position papers about the risks of independence.

Look for the CPP to warn seniors they’ll be cut off, as if you have to live in Canada to get your CPP benefits.

You’ll have banks warning about higher interest rates.

You’ll have the military threatening to shut down bases in Alberta — as if the Liberals haven’t been doing that for years already.

Some Albertans have grown comfortable with the status quo. After all, while Alberta may have been knocked down by Ottawa, it is still performing better than most other provinces.

We'll see. And we'll be there to tell the other side of the story.

GUEST: Marc Morano, Climate Depot founder, speaks on King Charles' rebuke of Trump. 

That was nearly a decade ago now. Since then, Rebel News has had countless run-ins with Yaniv, which have involved his assault of close to half a dozen Rebel News reporters — most recently Drea Humphrey.

A few years back, Yaniv even attempted to sue Rebel News in civil court. That case was dismissed as a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation), and Yaniv has since been wise enough to stay out of the real courts.

However, more recently, he's returned to his roots: the activists of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, perhaps the stupidest — or most cunning — quasi-judicial tribunal in Canada.

Recently, Yaniv has filed a spate of vexatious complaints with the Tribunal against any media that criticize him or his views on transgenderism. Who knows — maybe Yaniv has been emboldened by the fact that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has been on a roll lately, including its decision to fine former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld $750,000 for his criticism of gender ideology in schools. 

Targets of Yaniv's complaints include outlets such as the Western Standard, Juno News, Rebel News, and our friend Barbara Kay from the National Post, who joins the show tonight. 

GUEST: Barbara Kay, columnist for the National Post. 

If a referendum were held today, separation would fail. Not narrowly, either. The data shows roughly 60% of Albertans would vote to remain in Canada, while just over 28% would choose to leave. Even among those sympathetic to independence, hesitation is obvious. Support softens when the question becomes real, immediate and consequential.

But that gap tells a deeper story: this movement hasn’t yet answered the questions that matter most.

Concerns about pensions, borders, trade and mobility aren’t fringe worries, they’re central. And right now, too many voters feel those questions are either unanswered or brushed aside. Compare that to Quebec, where sovereignty debates have been refined, tested and publicly dissected for decades.

But the problem isn’t just policy, it’s presentation.

The faces and voices leading the charge haven’t connected beyond a narrow base. Whether it’s overly aggressive rhetoric or questionable strategic decisions, the campaign has struggled to resonate with mainstream voters, particularly the suburban and undecided demographics that ultimately decide referendums.

Yet focusing only on the headline result misses the bigger picture. Because beneath the rejection of independence lies something far more potent: frustration.

Nearly half of Albertans believe they are treated unfairly by the federal government. Similar numbers want greater provincial control over immigration. A significant portion also supports taking charge of criminal justice issues.

This isn’t a province content with the status quo, it’s a province looking for leverage and that’s where the independence movement may be misreading its own opportunity.

Framing separation as a fully-formed, immediate nation-building project invites scrutiny, doubt, and fear. But framing a referendum as a democratic pressure tool, a way to send a clear, unmistakable message to Ottawa, changes the equation entirely.

Quebec understood this. Even without achieving independence, their referendums forced concessions, recognition and political weight.

Alberta could do the same.

Because for many voters, this isn’t about creating a new country tomorrow. It’s about demanding respect today. And if that’s the message,  not utopia, but leverage, the numbers might start to look very different.

GUEST: Cosmin Dzsurdzsa on his latest for Juno News where he received leaked Canadian Armed Forces files revealing a Quebec officer training platoon had 83% permanent residents. The program descended into ethnic infighting between West African factions, "lack of respect" for women and a 48% grad rate.

NB-embed:independence_reports_donate

Wilson walks us through the real-world implications: what a successful petition triggers, and what legal hurdles still stand in the way. No fluff, no wishful thinking, just the mechanics of what it would actually take to turn independence talk into something tangible.

Wilson explains why this movement may just be getting started and how the pressure building right now could shape Alberta politics for years to come.

Either way, the next phase won’t be quiet. And it won’t be theoretical anymore.

GUEST: Constitutional lawyer and Alberta independence advocate Keith Wilson.

A recent Wall Street Journal headline reads: “SpaceX IPO will help Elon Musk consolidate power. Investors welcome it.”

The strategy is familiar. Musk is structuring things to maintain control — much like he has with Tesla — while tying his compensation and influence to extraordinarily ambitious milestones.

At Tesla, that means a $1 trillion compensation package contingent on hitting massive targets: an $8 trillion valuation, 20 million cars on the road, 10 million fully self-driving vehicles, a million robotaxis, and a million humanoid robots. If those goals aren’t met, he doesn’t get paid.

For SpaceX, the bar is just as high — if not higher. Musk is aiming for a $7.5 trillion valuation, roughly five times its current level. On top of that, he’s targeting the creation of a permanent Mars colony with at least one million residents, along with the development of space-based, orbiting data centers.

Will he really be able to hit these milestones? One thing is for certain: There's only one country in the world in which it could happen, and that's the United States of America.

GUEST: Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom's lawyer Hatim Kheir joins the show to speak on their latest legal notice issued to the city of Ottawa.

At the centre of it is the National Observer, a Vancouver-based climate outlet that has positioned itself as “independent.” But the figures tell a different story. Through a combination of wage subsidies, federal funds, and even government-paid subscriptions, the outlet has received well over $2 million in public money ... supposedly funding the equivalent of 23 staff positions.

That alone would raise eyebrows. But the deeper issue is how this funding was distributed. Under the federal Local Journalism Initiative, grants are processed by a media lobby group, with decisions influenced by industry insiders. In this case, the National Observer’s own CEO, Linda Solomon Wood, sat on a panel responsible for reviewing and allocating funding, while her organisation repeatedly secured grants.

We’re told she “recused” herself from discussions involving her outlet. That’s meant to reassure the public. It doesn’t. These are tight-knit circles where everyone understands the game. Formal recusal doesn’t erase informal influence.

More troubling still is the structure of the funding itself. The program covers up to 100 per cent of selected journalists’ salaries, creating a system where survival depends not on audience support, but on continued government approval. That changes incentives. It doesn’t just risk bias, it practically guarantees it.

Then there’s the question of audience. The National Observer claims millions of readers annually, yet relies on forced government subscriptions worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Strip that away, and it’s fair to ask whether the operation could stand on its own.

Compare that to independent outlets like Rebel News that survive, or fail, based on whether people actually choose to engage with their content. The contrast is stark.

This isn’t about one publication. It’s about a system that rewards alignment and punishes dissent. When media organisations become dependent on government funding, they stop being watchdogs and start looking a lot more like beneficiaries.

GUEST: Director, Lisa Bildy of the Canada Free Speech Union joins Ezra Levant to speak on their latest fights.

Unlike countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and even Norway — all of which built their funds from large surpluses with capital to spare — Canada has no comparable wealth to finance such an endeavour.

So will the new Canada Strong Fund really "invest alongside the private sector" to "create wealth for Canadians today and our kids tomorrow" — or will it be just another slush fund steering Canadians' dollars toward favoured Liberal projects?

You probably already know the answer. 

But Carney wants you to know that it will be easy to invest a little bit of your "extra money" in the fund. The real question is: Are you interested in investing alongside Mark Carney in his latest government-run scheme?

GUEST: Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation weighs in with their latest on Carney's sovereign wealth fund.

Connected insiders stand to pocket millions from a deeply questionable federal deal — one that local residents vehemently oppose.

I spoke with Marie Lumsden, a local activist who has been tracking this project closely.

She’s not only worried about the spaceport’s impact on the local community and environment, but about what the entire project represents.

In her view, it has all the markings of something far more troubling.

She believes it may be an elaborate Ponzi scheme.

Watch the full report and see the site for yourself.

NB-embed:rebel_field_reports_donate

But something has shifted.

The change hasn’t come from the people who built those communities. Rather, it appears to stem from a mix of cultural, political and institutional failures. On one hand, there’s a strain of ideological hostility emerging from academic and activist circles, where identity politics reduces complex realities into simplistic “oppressor versus oppressed” narratives. In that framework, even a diverse nation like Israel is cast as a villain, fueling broader hostility toward Jewish people.

On the other hand, there’s a conversation unfolding around immigration and integration. When large numbers of people arrive from regions where antisemitic attitudes are widespread, it shouldn’t be surprising that some of those views persist. Ideas don’t disappear at the border.

Yet the deeper issue isn't the presence of these tensions, it’s the response to them.

Or rather, the lack of one.

Incidents that would have once shocked the nation, vandalism targeting schools, open celebrations of violence, or blatant hate speech, are increasingly met with muted reactions. Worse still are institutions meant to protect the public are failing to act impartially. When journalists are harassed or even assaulted while documenting events, alongside bias within policing ranks, it raises serious concerns.

GUEST: Toronto Sun columnist Joe Warmington joins Ezra to discuss recent antisemitic incidents and more.

Sounds dramatic. Sounds definitive. But is it true?

Joining me tonight is Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition Canada, who says this headline-grabbing claim is built on shaky foundations, selective data, and assumptions the federal government has long known about.

We’ll ask the obvious question few in the media seem interested in: how do you even calculate a “global average temperature” in the first place?

The Earth doesn’t have one thermostat. It has oceans, deserts, mountains, forests, cities and polar regions, all with radically different conditions. What gets sold to the public as a precise global number is actually a statistical estimate built from scattered measurements, adjusted records, sparse northern coverage, satellite inputs, and modelled gap-filling.

That may make for clean press releases. It doesn’t make for simple certainty.

So why are politicians presenting complex estimates as settled fact? And are taxpayers being pushed into costly policy based on numbers most people never get to question?

If the science is solid, it should survive scrutiny.

If the data is flawed, Canadians deserve to know.

Gavin McInnes, the guest on today's show, is often cited as an example of the personal fallout. He told Ezra that allegations tied to “hate group” designations by the SPLC had real-world consequences, from social ostracism to vandalism and reputational damage. How much influence do these labels carry, and how rigorously are they applied?

And when these "anti-hate" move beyond observation, funding or amplifying fringe actors to demonstrate the very threats they warn about, they need to be completely exposed as fraudulent. They start a fire, then raise funds to put it out.

Kash Patel on the Southern Poverty Law Center: "They used their donor network to raise money to purportedly dismantle violent extremist groups, however the SPLC ... used the money they raised from their donor network to actually pay the leadership of these very groups." pic.twitter.com/JBlYFZVrjI

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) April 21, 2026

And it doesn’t just stop in the United States. Similar patterns occur internationally, including in Canada, where government-linked or grant-funded organisations monitor extremism. These networks can drift into “mission creep,” expanding their scope as their original purpose diminishes.

At the heart of the issue is incentive. If public fear of extremism drives donations, grants and influence, then maintaining that fear becomes valuable. Then the system an industry — one that thrives not on solving problems, but sustaining them.

The SPLC controversy raises a deeper philosophical question: can institutions built to combat a problem remain objective if their survival depends on that problem continuing to exist?

Pollak’s analysis is clear: this is not a hesitant or fragmented campaign, but a coordinated and effective strategy led by the United States. With the U.S. Navy enforcing a powerful blockade and restricting Iran’s ability to trade, the economic pressure on the regime is mounting rapidly. Iran, heavily dependent on maritime routes for its oil exports, now faces severe financial strain, with inflation surging and access to global markets shrinking.

From Pollak’s perspective, the results speak for themselves. He describes the operation as a decisive success so far, one that not only limits Iran’s capabilities but also reinforces American strength on the world stage.

The geopolitical ripple effects are equally significant. Pollak points to a growing alignment between Israel and several Gulf states, particularly as Iran’s aggression extends beyond its immediate targets. Nations that may once have taken a more neutral stance are now recognising Iran as a broader regional threat, strengthening informal alliances in response.

At the same time, the conflict is reshaping global power dynamics. One key outcome highlighted by Pollak is the impact on China, which has long relied on discounted Iranian oil. By restricting that supply, the United States is not only confronting Iran but also applying strategic pressure on one of its primary global competitors.

While critics often speculate about optics and political fallout, Pollak suggests the opposite effect may be more likely. Historically, successful military actions have reinforced public confidence in leadership, and he sees this conflict following a similar trajectory, provided its momentum continues.

At first glance, the story sounds like a win. Stronger enlistment numbers suggest renewed confidence, a bolstered defence force, and progress toward meeting international commitments. But the details reveal the true story, one that calls into question both the sustainability and integrity of this approach.

Senior defence officials have openly acknowledged that recruitment efforts now include non-citizens. On its own, that’s not unprecedented. Many countries allow limited pathways for foreign nationals to serve. What’s different here is the admission that screening requirements have been reduced to accelerate intake.

That raises huge questions. What safeguards have been weakened? What risks are being accepted in exchange for better-looking statistics?

Military recruitment isn’t just about filling quotas. It’s about trust, cohesion and shared commitment. Lowering the bar, particularly when it comes to background checks, risks undermining all three.

Concerns grow sharper with reports that some recruits lack proficiency in either English or French. In a military environment, where clear communication can be the difference between success and failure, that’s not a trivial issue. It has direct implications for operational effectiveness and safety.

There are also troubling claims about infrastructure being developed to house recruits who don’t complete training, suggesting a system more focused on intake than outcomes. It points to a deeper problem: a recruitment model built around optics rather than readiness.

Meanwhile, the broader narrative surrounding defence spending adds another layer of scepticism. Announcements touted as new investments often trace back to earlier commitments, repackaged for political impact. Combined with inflated recruitment figures, it creates the impression of progress without the substance to match.

None of this is to dismiss the real challenges facing military recruitment. Like many Western nations, Canada is grappling with declining interest among young people and increased competition for talent. But meeting those challenges by lowering standards is a risky trade-off.

GUEST: Veteran Jeff Evely joins the show to discuss Supreme Court of Nova Scotia's ruling striking down the province’s woods ban as unconstitutional.

And let’s be honest about what makes this so politically toxic: it is not merely the cost. It is the class signal.

No serious person denies that aircraft can be useful tools for executives or government leaders. A small working plane for getting around a massive province on a tight schedule is one thing. A luxury intercontinental jet is something else entirely.

The Ford government says this purchase is about travel. But a Challenger 650 does not look like fiscal restraint. It looks like a politician who has been in power too long, surrounded by too many people telling him he deserves the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

That is a far cry from the Doug Ford who once boasted, in 2019, that he refused to use the premier’s plane. As reported by CHCH News and highlighted again by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Ford used to present himself as the rare politician who did not need that kind of pampered treatment.

What changed?

Not the average Ontarian’s finances. Those have only gotten worse. Housing is brutal. Debt is crushing. The cost of living has done real social damage, especially to younger people trying to start families and build anything resembling a middle-class life.

And Ontario is hardly swimming in prosperity. The province’s industrial base has been weakening for years. The auto sector is under pressure. Manufacturing has been hollowed out over decades. Yet somehow, amid all that economic anxiety, the province has found room in the budget for a premier’s luxury aircraft.

That is why the issue cuts deeper than an aviation procurement story. This is about transformation. Doug Ford was elected as a blunt instrument against elite entitlement. But after years in office, he increasingly looks like another politician who has learned to love the comforts of power.

There is also the simple common-sense test. If the purpose were purely practical — quick regional travel, security, efficiency — a smaller working aircraft would be easier to defend. Ontarians can understand the case for a tool. What they are being asked to accept here is a status symbol.

And once governments buy status symbols, taxpayers are expected to suspend all instincts and trust that the thing will never be abused, never become normalized, never be folded into the culture of insiders, handlers, entourages and political vanity. That requires more faith than this government has earned.

GUEST: Noah Jarvis to talk about the purchase, the hypocrisy behind it and why the symbolism matters just as much as the sticker price.

This is not just a story about a plane. It is a story about what happens when a politician who once campaigned against the gravy train decides he belongs in first class.

NB-embed:the_gravy_plane_petition

Speaking before a House of Commons committee, Rebel News' Sheila Gunn Reid delivered a sharp, unapologetic defence of truly independent journalism defined not just by editorial freedom, but by complete separation from government funding and influence. Representing the Independent Press Gallery, she made the case that independence means refusing both state money and state control.

WATCH: @SheilaGunnReid tells the heritage committee about challenges independent media face in Canada, detailing how the gov't refuses to answer questions.
"If you're not approved, you're not entitled to answers," she says, noting "the same pattern exists at the political… pic.twitter.com/cDH74MQZIv

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) April 16, 2026

The contrast inside the hearing room was striking. While independent voices argued for autonomy, many other witnesses, including representatives tied to large media organizations and unions, focused on securing more public funding. Some even went further, openly calling for increased regulation of dissenting or critical outlets. Does the media establishment now see government oversight as a feature, not a threat?

That tension cuts to the heart of a broader credibility crisis. Public trust in mainstream media has been steadily declining and moments like this help explain why. When journalists rely on the same government they are meant to scrutinize, the line between reporting and advocacy begins to blur. For viewers, the conflict of interest is hard to ignore.

Sheila also highlighted structural barriers facing independent reporters, including exclusion from official press galleries. Without accreditation, access to politicians, press briefings and even public events can be severely limited. The result is a closed loop, subsidized media gaining privileged access while outsiders are locked out, further entrenching a system that many Canadians already distrust.

Yet despite these challenges, independent media continues to grow. Demand for alternative perspectives is rising, fueled in part by frustration with legacy outlets perceived as out of touch or overly aligned with political power. Ironically, the very efforts to marginalize independent voices may be accelerating their appeal.

If the parliamentary hearing revealed anything, it’s this: the battle over the future of journalism is no longer theoretical. It’s happening in real time and the outcome will shape not just the media, but the public’s trust in it.

But before that story could be fully told, CBC rolled out its own version. In The Ostrich Con, the public broadcaster leaned heavily on local critics, amplifying their claims with little skepticism while casting the farm itself as suspect.

Humphrey says that’s where things went off the rails.

Instead of scrutinizing all sides equally, she argues CBC gave a platform to outspoken detractors, some with axes to grind, while brushing aside firsthand accounts and failing to seriously examine the underlying research claims. In other words, skepticism flowed in one direction only.

In this interview, Humphrey walks us through what she uncovered on the ground, how the story evolved, and why she believes the public was served a narrative instead of an investigation. She also responds directly to CBC’s framing, pointing to key omissions and unanswered questions.

Because this isn’t just about ostriches.

It’s about whether taxpayer-funded media applies the same journalistic standards across the board, or whether some stories get the benefit of the doubt, while others get buried under it.

NB-embed:ostrich_documentary_donate

More than 100 churches across Canada have been vandalised, damaged, or burned in recent years. Some dismiss individual incidents as isolated: old buildings, accidental fires, abandoned sites. But at a certain point, coincidence stops being a convincing explanation. Patterns emerge. And when they do, the refusal to seriously investigate them becomes a story in itself.

The deeper issue isn’t just the attacks — it’s the silence. Coverage has been minimal. Questions go unasked. Authorities appear reluctant to even acknowledge the scale of what’s happening, let alone explore why. Whether it’s negligence or discomfort, the effect is the same: a story fading into the background that arguably shouldn’t.

At the same time, on the global stage, something far more visible, but just as underreported, is unfolding.

In Washington, direct talks between Israel and Lebanon have quietly broken decades-old taboos. For the first time since the early 1990s, representatives from both sides are meeting face-to-face, discussing what could become a lasting peace arrangement. That alone signals a major geopolitical shift.

What makes it even more telling is who isn’t in the room.

France, once a dominant influence in Lebanon, is absent. Despite its historical ties and frequent commentary on Middle Eastern affairs, it has been sidelined in favour of a more direct, American-led approach. That absence speaks volumes about where real influence currently lies.

Meanwhile, European powers are floating ambitious post-war plans: missions to secure shipping routes, rebuild regions and stabilise economies. But many of these proposals come with a catch: they only start after the hard part is over. After conflict subsides. After others have done the heavy lifting.

That disconnect, between rhetoric and action, is becoming harder to ignore.

GUEST: Alexa Lavoie reports from Ireland as nationwide protests rally against rising fuel costs and government inaction.

NB-embed:save_our_churches_petition

The church stood at the heart of its community for generations. Long before government services dominated daily life, institutions like this were everything: daycare, food bank, gathering place and spiritual anchor. In towns across Quebec, churches weren’t just buildings, they were the centre of identity itself.

Travelling through the province, that history is impossible to miss. Small towns, often named after saints, are still visually defined by their churches—grand structures that speak to a time when faith shaped public and private life alike. Their scale and craftsmanship hint at the devotion and sacrifice that built them.

But today, that legacy appears increasingly fragile.

A historic church, originally built in 1893 and standing for over a century, was destroyed by flames Monday evening in Saint-Romain, between Beauce and Estrie in the province of Quebec. pic.twitter.com/uyq0K1cjx2

— Alexandra Lavoie (@ThevoiceAlexa) April 14, 2026

Authorities have not yet determined the cause of this latest fire, and arson has not been ruled out. Still, the response feels familiar. Caution is urged, speculation discouraged and yet, when viewed in isolation, each incident seems to fade quickly from public attention.

Taken together, however, the pattern becomes harder to dismiss. Across Canada, more than 100 churches have been vandalised or burned in recent years. Some incidents have been confirmed as arson. Despite this, there has been no unified national response, no urgent political focus and no sustained media scrutiny.

It raises the obvious question, seemingly too uncomfortable for many to consider: would the reaction be the same if other religious sites were targeted at this scale?

NB-embed:save_our_churches_petition

In this episode of The Opposition Podcast, Avi Yemini and Rukshan Fernando unpack a growing divide between two allied nations.

The U.S. has unveiled its naval blockade strategy to take control of the Strait of Hormuz as global supply chains and energy markets hang in the balance. But where does Australia stand?

While the U.S. sharpens its military focus, with figures like Pete Hegseth openly advocating for the removal of woke DEI initiatives in favour of combat readiness, Australia appears to be heading in a very different direction. The Australian Defence Force has just appointed its first female army chief, a historic move that raises broader questions about priorities within the ranks.

Is the ADF focused on strength and deterrence ... or symbolism? While America shifts toward hard power and a more assertive war footing, Australia  continued emphasis on cultural initiatives, welcome ceremonies and diversity targets.

If the U.S. moves to enforce a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, would Australia even be able to assist? Would it be capable of contributing meaningfully?

With the Prime Minister suggesting no request has been made, the discussion turns to whether Australia is becoming an afterthought in global defence ... or simply an unreliable partner.

The poll comes amid growing frustration in Canada over issues like cost of living, crime and immigration policy. But it seems less as a serious constitutional proposal and more of a symbolic statement ...an expression of discontent with the current political direction and, in particular, with perceived alignment or opposition to figures like Donald Trump and broader North American politics.

Ezra was recently in Ireland, where fuel-related protests and blockades have highlighted tensions around carbon taxes and rising living costs. During a brief visit, one commentator described striking similarities between Irish demonstrations and Canada’s own protest movements in recent years, including the trucker convoy. In both cases, participants argued that rising fuel costs and government policy had pushed them to breaking point.

Back in Canada, polling data is also interpreted through a partisan lens, with debates over which political party leads on issues like crime, immigration and affordability.

Ultimately, the EU poll has become less about Europe itself and more about what it represents: dissatisfaction, identity, and the search for political alternatives.

They’re protesting against their government, just like Canada’s truckers did. Farmers are joining in, too. Bus drivers.Thousands of grassroots Irish people who are fed up with being ignored and mistreated by their government.

Fuel costs are the issue that seems to have sparked this. But it’s been simmering for a while.

Seeing those big trucking rigs and major farm equipment, in peaceful protest really reminds me of what Canada went through in 2022. Those brave Canadian men and women helped save the country by standing up against the government.

Maybe it will be the case in Ireland, too! But there’s a dark side to it. Ireland’s police — called the Gardai — bizarrely, has a deputy commissioner who is Canadian.

And — just like Canadian police four years ago — she was threatening peaceful Irish protesters with a brutal response.

In fact, it looks like Ireland is using the Canadian playbook. They’ve even gone further, calling in the military.

Will they invoke martial law? Will they seize bank accounts of peaceful protesters? Will they arrest peaceful truckers and farmers, and put them in solitary confinement?

That all sounds crazy, but that all happened in Canada under Trudeau. And it looks like a Canadian cop is running the show.

The ordinary Irish people — farmers, truckers, bus drivers, and all of their supporters — have taken to the streets to protest the high fuel taxes. They've blocked highways, a port, a refinery and even streets in Dublin, Ireland's capital.

Tonight, you'll hear from the actual protesters to give you the real story.

They’re regular people with few friends in powerful places. Everyone’s against them — the political class, the media, Ireland’s countless NGOs. That’s the dangerous part: angry politicians, backed into a corner.

Everyone’s against them, except the people and independent journalists like Rebel News.

Will that happen to these lovely truckers and farmers? We’ll find out soon if the politicians blink and lower their fuel taxes — or if they’re just toying with the farmers. Rebel News will keep you informed.

NB-embed:the_truth_about_ireland_donate

A useful symbol of that shift is the ten-dollar bill. The removal of Sir John A. Macdonald was not put to voters, debated in any meaningful national forum, or tested through an election. It simply happened, another quiet but telling signal of a country redefining itself without broad public consent.

That decision reflects a wider cultural trend. Across Canada, historic figures and monuments have been sidelined, boarded up, or torn down altogether. In some cases, this has occurred under governments that claim to stand for conservative values, highlighting how widespread the shift has become.

This raises an important question for provinces like Alberta: what exactly is being preserved by remaining within Confederation? Appeals to unity often rely on nostalgia, a vision of Canada rooted in shared history, sacrifice, and tradition. But that version of the country is increasingly at odds with present realities.

Modern Canada appears to prioritize something very different. Foundational narratives are being replaced, civic traditions abandoned, and ideological frameworks have infected public life. The contrast between past and present is no longer subtle ... it is stark.

That transformation is especially evident in current federal policy discussions. Ottawa is once again aiming to censor online content, marking a third attempt in recent years. The stated goal is to reduce harm, particularly for children and vulnerable groups. On its face, that objective seems to many to be palatable.

However, the proposed approach raises huge concerns. The framework relies on “expert regulators” to define harmful content, enforce standards and ensure compliance. This inevitably leads to a critical question: who determines what constitutes harm?

The province has introduced legislative changes aimed at restricting MAID to those with terminal conditions — effectively pushing back on what’s known as Track 2, which allows euthanasia for individuals whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.

The move also reinforces Alberta’s opposition to expanding MAID to cases of mental illness, a federal change currently delayed but still on the horizon.

The policy shift comes amid growing concern that Canada’s euthanasia system is being used in cases where the primary drivers are not physical pain, but social and psychological distress.

On tonight’s Gunn Show, I speak with Amanda Achtman of Physicians for Life and the creator of Dying to Meet You, a project focused on engaging directly with individuals considering euthanasia and telling stories of hope in the face of suffering.

Achtman says many of the people she encounters are not motivated by unmanaged pain, but by isolation, loss of purpose, and a sense of being a burden.

She argues that framing euthanasia primarily as a response to suffering misses a deeper issue — what she describes as a “human crisis” rooted in disconnection and lack of meaning.

Her work focuses on addressing those factors at the community level through direct engagement and support.

The Alberta government’s move reflects a broader shift in the debate, raising questions about whether current MAID policies adequately distinguish between medical suffering and social vulnerability.

As Ottawa continues to consider future expansions to the program, including for mental illness, provinces like Alberta are increasingly asserting their own boundaries.

The conversation is no longer just about access.

It’s about what kind of suffering a society is willing to treat — and how.

NB-embed:maid_the_dark_side_of_canadian_compassion

They chant for genocide against the Jewish people. They display swastikas. They carry replica hand grenades (at least we hope those grenades are harmless replicas.) And they even cosplay as Sinwar, the terrorist mastermind of October 7, as they invade Jewish neighbourhoods.

What’s unfolded during that time isn’t just a story about protest, it’s about tolerance, inconsistency and the uneasy feeling that not all causes are treated equally under the law. Demonstrators have marched through Jewish neighbourhoods, at times displaying hateful imagery and chanting extreme rhetoric. Yet the official response has often appeared muted, even accommodating.

It’s hard not to notice the contrast. Imagine a different group, say, an openly racist organisation, marching into a minority community. Few would doubt that authorities would respond swiftly and decisively. And yet, in this case, the leniency has left many wondering where the line is actually drawn.

That’s why a recent arrest for public incitement of hatred stands out. After years of seeming inaction, police finally moved against an individual accused of displaying antisemitic messaging and directing slurs at counter-protesters. It was a notable shift, but also one that raises an obvious question: why now?

The timing has led to speculation that the change in approach may be more symbolic than substantive. In recent weeks, there’s also been a visible increase in police presence across the city, from transit hubs to public venues and places of worship.

Behind the scenes, there are whispers that this heightened visibility serves a broader narrative, one that emphasizes rising tension and public danger. Such a narrative could be used to justify tougher legislation around speech, security and firearms. Whether that’s a reasonable concern or a leap into cynicism depends largely on how much trust one places in institutions.

That trust hasn’t been helped by a lack of transparency. Questions around past interactions between political leaders and police officials remain unanswered, with access to information requests denied and explanations scarce. In an environment already charged with suspicion, secrecy only deepens the divide.

GUEST: Sneak peek at Tamara Lich's speech at the University of Calgary.

NB-embed:rebel_field_reports_donate

More than 170,000 Albertans have already signed a petition to trigger a vote on independence. The referendum is set for October 19. That alone makes this one of the most important democratic moments in modern Canadian history.

And yet, the very idea of Albertans voting on their future is already being attacked. That’s what makes this campaign necessary.

If you believe Albertans should be free to decide their own future, and free to hear both sides of that argument, join us.

We believe in referendums because they force political questions into the open, especially the ones politicians are too afraid to touch. For years, concerns about Alberta’s treatment within Confederation have been dismissed, mocked or ignored. Now, they can’t be.

Why is it acceptable for Quebec to hold referendums on independence, even coming within a fraction of victory, while Alberta is condemned for asking the same question? Why is one province’s democratic expression treated as legitimate, and another’s as dangerous?

These are not abstract concerns. Alberta’s economy has been hit by cancelled pipelines, blocked resource projects, and federal policies that disproportionately affect the province’s core industries. Tens of billions of dollars leave Alberta every year, while other provinces benefit and in some cases, actively work against Alberta’s ability to export its own resources.

At the same time, Albertans are expected to accept decisions made in Ottawa that shape their livelihoods, often without meaningful input. That frustration isn’t new ... it’s been building for generations.

This referendum is a chance to address it directly. We’re going to campaign our way, with professional advertising, digital outreach and yes, our signature billboard truck. We’re going to make the case clearly, forcefully and without apology.

Because the “no” side will be massive. Governments, publicly funded groups, legacy media and political parties, including federal Conservatives, have already signalled their opposition.

That’s exactly why this campaign matters.

Albertans deserve to hear the case for independence, not just the arguments against it. They deserve a real debate, not one filtered through institutions that already have a stake in the outcome.

Go to ActForAlberta.com now for more. 

It’s not often that Canadians are forced to look in the mirror on foreign policy. We prefer to think of ourselves as helpful, principled and engaged. But lately, that image is getting harder to maintain, especially when compared to the outsized role played by the United States.

Take the tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. As threats to global oil shipping intensify, the U.S. has once again stepped in to patrol one of the world’s most critical waterways. But this time, Washington isn’t just acting, it’s asking. Asking allies to contribute, even symbolically, to a shared problem.

And what’s the response? A collective shrug.

Countries like the UK and France are offering excuses dressed up as strategy, while others simply sit it out. Canada, for its part, isn’t refusing outright ... it’s worse. We couldn’t meaningfully contribute even if we wanted to. Years of underinvestment have left our military lacking the equipment needed for modern conflict. Sending a Canadian naval vessel into a high-risk zone wouldn’t be helpful, it would be a liability.

Yet, despite that reality, Canadian officials still show up to international meetings, projecting relevance without offering results.

Meanwhile, the United States continues to shoulder the burden. With troops stationed across Europe and Asia, and naval forces stretched across key global chokepoints, America effectively underwrites the security of its allies, including Canada. Through NORAD and its broader military dominance, it protects North America in ways Canadians rarely acknowledge.

This is where the frustration from figures like Donald Trump and Marco Rubio begins to make more sense. Their argument isn’t subtle: why should the U.S. continue acting as the world’s security guarantor when its allies won’t even offer token support in return?

It’s a fair question and one Canada doesn’t have a good answer for.

GUEST: Rebel News' Alexa Lavoie joins the show to discuss her reporting on the continuation of Islamic street prayers in Montreal, Quebec.

Investigative journalist Sam Cooper, founder of The Bureau and one of Canada’s top reporters on foreign interference, has highlighted serious concerns about Liberal MP Michael Ma’s aggressive defence of China in Parliament.

During a recent House of Commons committee hearing, Ma repeatedly challenged a witness on forced labour and child labour in China, demanding short answers and questioning her personal observations despite well-documented evidence from Human Rights Watch and other credible sources.

Cooper detailed how Ma, who defected from the Conservatives to join Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals and travelled with him to China, previously served as a director of the Chinese Canadian Conservative Association — an entity linked by the respected Jamestown Foundation to Beijing’s United Front Work Department.

Chinese state media celebrated Ma’s performance and attacked the Canadian witness. Ma later apologized, but Carney continued to praise him at a fundraiser.

Cooper warned that the incident reveals deeper infiltration efforts targeting both major parties, raising fresh questions about the Carney government’s pivot toward closer ties with the Chinese Communist Party, including plans to import thousands of Chinese-made electric vehicles.

In sectors like food service and retail, where the program has become routine, that oversight is long overdue.

The federal government doesn’t even track how many temporary foreign workers are working in some of these industries. Alberta is stepping in anyway.

Other provinces could do the same. They haven’t — Alberta has — and that raises a bigger question about who the labour market is really working for.

GUEST: Alberta Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides joins the show to talk about Bill 25 — Alberta’s new law on political neutrality in classrooms, including banning activist displays and refocusing schools on academics.

We break down how the arguments haven’t changed, just the target. The same claims about environmental devastation, the same selective outrage, and the same refusal to acknowledge modern reclamation and regulatory realities. If it feels familiar, that’s because it is. First, it was the oilsands. Now it’s coal. Next, it’ll be whatever industry dares to keep the lights on and people employed.

And then, because Canadian politics never disappoints, we pivot to the recent NDP convention, where activists crowned Avi Lewis as leader. Yes, that Avi Lewis. Leap Manifesto cheerleader. Climate crusader. And, not insignificantly, a wealthy, well-connected insider now leading a party that claims to represent the working class.

You couldn’t script the irony better if you tried.

We talk about what this means for Canada: a federal NDP doubling down on ideology over affordability, energy reality, and economic survival. Because when the guy who wants to “leave it in the ground” is calling the shots, you can bet he’s not the one worrying about heating his home or putting gas in his car

It’s a conversation about energy, hypocrisy, and the widening gap between political elites and everyday Canadians.

Stellantis, the multinational auto giant that absorbed the legacy of Chrysler, has been part of Canada’s industrial backbone for a century. With roughly 10,000 workers across the country, its footprint is significant, though still smaller than some of Canada’s oil sands heavyweights. Yet unlike those energy companies, which have faced years of political hostility, the auto sector is now being reshaped by government decisions that may prove just as damaging.

At the centre of the issue is a reported plan for Stellantis to partner with a Chinese firm, Zhejiang Leapmotor Technology Co., to produce electric vehicles in Canada, potentially at an idled plant. On paper, it sounds like investment. In practice, it raises serious concerns about who actually benefits.

This development follows a recent agreement that would allow up to 49,000 Chinese-made electric vehicles into Canada annually. The stated goal was to open trade, but the reality appears lopsided. Instead of expanding Canadian exports, the deal risks flooding the domestic market with foreign vehicles. Vehicles that, crucially, cannot be sold into the United States.

That limitation matters. Canada’s auto industry has long depended on access to the U.S. market, a relationship dating back to the Auto Pact that has generated tens of billions in economic activity. Undermining that access in favour of a narrow domestic market is not just risky, it’s potentially devastating.

Proponents argue that joint ventures could create Canadian jobs and supply chains. But that optimism glosses over hard truths. Chinese firms operate under vastly different labour, regulatory and cost conditions. Competing with domestically produced versions of the same vehicles, made cheaper in China, would be a steep uphill battle. And there’s no guarantee that jobs would truly stay local, given China’s track record of relying on its own workforce in overseas projects.

Then there’s the question of trust. The notion of “trusted partners” becomes murky when dealing with companies ultimately tied to the Chinese Communist Party. Concerns around data security, industrial espionage and economic leverage are not hypothetical — they are well documented.

In the end, this strategy risks trading long-term economic stability for short-term political optics. If Canada opens its doors too wide, it may find itself losing not just jobs, but control over a key sector of its economy.

GUEST: Melanie Bennet of Juno News.

Avi Lewis didn’t just inherit politics ... he inherited a family throne. His grandfather, David Lewis, led the Ontario NDP. His father, Stephen Lewis, took the federal party helm and later became Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations. And now Avi Lewis carries the torch, making it three generations in a row. Rare in any party, this succession looks less like democracy and more like royalty: an elite dynasty masquerading as populist socialism.

Yet while the NDP claims to fight for the underprivileged, Avi Lewis’s upbringing tells a very different story. He spent his formative years at Upper Canada College, Toronto’s priciest private school and a grooming ground for Canada’s elite. In the 1990 essay collection Old Boys: The Powerful Legacy of Upper Canada College, Lewis reflects on those years ... not as a student of modest means, but as one among the privileged. He describes classmates who “would run this world in their purest state” and recounts escorting Prince Philip during the school’s sesquicentennial.

Despite this, Lewis frames himself as a victim of wealth and privilege. He repeatedly emphasizes how “gifted” he was and how persecuted he felt, ignoring that he had access, opportunity and every material advantage imaginable. He paints the schoolyard as a microcosm of corporate ruthlessness, yet he personally benefited from the very elite networks he claims to disdain. This is the hallmark of the “champagne socialist”: lecturing the working class while living among the rich and insulated.

The NDP under Lewis reflects the same contradictions. Once the party of farmers and union workers, it now prioritizes identity politics, equity initiatives, and “race cards” in party procedures, an Orwellian twist that rewards activism over merit or experience. Lewis himself advocates public ownership of the means of production while comfortably ensconced in wealth, married to activist Naomi Klein, and surrounded by lifelong left-wing elites.

GUEST: Stockwell Day joins the Ezra to discuss the NDP leadership result.

Over the weekend, reports spread rapidly across social media claiming Israeli authorities had blocked a prominent Christian leader from accessing one of Christianity’s holiest sites, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The narrative quickly gained traction, fuelling accusations of anti-Christian discrimination at a sensitive time in the religious calendar.

Yet the reality appears far less clear-cut.

The temporary restriction came amid heightened security measures in Jerusalem’s Old City, where authorities had limited access to multiple religious sites due to ongoing missile threats. The restrictions were not unique to Christians. Jewish worshippers were also affected, with the Western Wall reportedly closed to the public under the same precautions.

Within hours, the situation was resolved. Senior Israeli officials intervened, and the cleric was ultimately granted access, with scaled-down observances proceeding under tighter security conditions.

Despite this, the initial claims had already gone global.

Online platforms were flooded with posts portraying the incident as evidence of systemic anti-Christian bias. The speed and scale of the reaction raised concerns about coordinated amplification to inflame tensions between religious communities.

GUEST: Preview of Rebel News' Scarlett Grace's coverage of the Bathurst & Sheppard dueling Toronto protests, after police claim to ban residential neighborhood demonstrations.

But he also suggested Canadians are increasingly being pushed toward a broader debate: whether to deepen that partnership — or begin looking elsewhere.

That includes, controversially, growing openness in some quarters to closer economic ties with China — a direction Hoekstra warned has already proven damaging in both the United States and Europe.

“Have the debate,” he said in the interview, pointing to the economic and strategic consequences of past Western engagement with Beijing — including lost industries, intellectual property theft and long-term dependency.

The ambassador also addressed political dynamics within Canada, including recent efforts by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre to reframe the relationship with the United States after a campaign in which even conservative politicians felt pressure to distance themselves from Washington.

While careful to remain non-partisan, Hoekstra suggested there are signs Canadians may be beginning to re-examine the fundamentals of the relationship — including its economic benefits and strategic importance.

Beyond trade and politics, the conversation touched on deeper concerns: rising anti-Semitic violence, threats to public safety, and the growing pressure on Western democracies to confront both external adversaries and internal instability.

Hoekstra also confirmed that issues like free speech legislation and online censorship proposals in Canada are being closely monitored by the United States — part of broader reporting on democratic norms and civil liberties.

At the same time, he emphasized that cooperation remains not just possible, but essential — particularly on defence, law enforcement and the fight against cross-border threats like fentanyl and terrorism.

The stakes, in other words, are far higher than day-to-day political rhetoric might suggest.

The question now is whether the relationship between Canada and the United States can be steadied — or whether short-term political incentives and media narratives will continue to drive the two countries further apart.

Watch the full interview to hear Hoekstra’s candid assessment — and judge for yourself what comes next.

The meeting was meant to address a motion from Councillor Chris Leahy calling on the federal government to notify municipalities when high-risk offenders are granted unescorted temporary absences. It’s a modest proposal ... too modest. Most residents would agree: it’s not just about knowing when, but where these individuals are being released.

Yet despite the urgency, the motion was never even brought to a vote.

Why? Because councillors spent four hours bogged down debating comparatively trivial issues, from roundabouts to sunlight affecting traffic lights. By the time they got through the agenda, a procedural time limit forced the meeting to adjourn. The vote is now delayed until next month.

For the many residents who attended specifically for that issue, it was a slap in the face.

But the dysfunction didn’t stop there.

Earlier in the month, Leahy attempted to introduce another motion, one that would have prevented the town from awarding contracts to companies participating in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. That proposal was swiftly shut down, with some councillors reacting with outright hostility. Councillor Victoria Bozinovski labelled it “garbage … xenophobic … racist,” though how race factors into a policy about labour programs was never clearly explained.

After the meeting, attempts were made to ask Bozinovski for clarification. Instead of engaging, she walked away without comment.

What followed the next day was perhaps even more troubling.

Several mainstream media outlets ran stories framing the interaction as a serious confrontation, even suggesting safety concerns and police involvement. But video of the exchange tells a very different story, one in which the only physical escalation came from a security guard, not the reporter asking questions.

GUEST: David Menzies catches up with the CCFR Calendar Gun Girls following the Toronto Sportsmen show.

It’s only Wednesday and somehow this week already feels like it should come with overtime pay. Between technical issues that refused to cooperate, scheduling that kept shifting under my feet, and a pile of House of Commons committee hearings that needed covering in real time, things got … busy.

And then came the Order Paper Questions.

If you know, you know. Those things don’t just arrive neatly packaged. They show up like a paper avalanche, full of buried details, half-answers, and the occasional gem that takes real digging to uncover. It’s important work, but it’s not exactly quick work.

So instead of pretending I could power through all of that and still bring you a polished, fully-produced show, I did something better.

I handed the mic to you.

Today’s episode is built around your feedback, your comments and your takes on the stories we’ve been covering. Because honestly, some of the smartest, funniest and most insightful perspectives I see all week come straight from you.

And let’s be real, if I’m going to be buried under documents, at least I can come up for air and share what you’re saying about it all.

So think of this as a midweek reset. A chance to check the pulse of the audience, highlight what matters to you and maybe even find a few stories hiding in the comment section that deserve a deeper dive later.

You did half my job for me today.

Don’t get used to it.

Within hours of the tragedy, Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau delivered a public statement. It was subdued, emotional and clearly delivered by a man running on little sleep, thrust into crisis management in the darkest of circumstances. He spoke in English, with French subtitles provided — a practical decision given the urgency and gravity of the moment.

But for some politicians, that wasn’t good enough.

Rather than showing restraint, figures like Mélanie Joly and Mark Carney seized the moment to criticize Rousseau for not speaking French. The implication? That in the immediate aftermath of a deadly crash, linguistic optics somehow outweigh leadership, coordination and compassion.

It’s hard to overstate how misplaced that reaction is.

At that moment, Rousseau wasn’t preparing a polished bilingual address for political approval, he was dealing with a catastrophe. Families needed answers. Emergency responses needed coordination. Facts were still emerging. The idea that he should have prioritized delivering a second-language statement, one he is not fluent in, borders on absurd.

Even more striking is Rousseau’s documented effort to learn French. By his own company’s account, he has invested roughly 600 hours into improving his proficiency. That’s not indifference, it’s commitment. Yet in a moment of crisis, that effort was dismissed as insufficient by critics eager to score points, particularly in Quebec.

And that’s what this looks like: opportunism.

GUEST: Buffalo Roundtable table featuring Sheila Gunn Reid, Keith Wilson and Jeffrey Rath.

The day after I announce we’re going to campaign against Mark Carney in the upcoming by-elections, by properly registering with Elections Canada, as a third-party group, Elections Canada writes to me telling me they’re going to audit me for last year when we did the same thing.

What are the odds that they send that audit threat letter to me on the very next business day after I announce we’re going to be criticizing Carney!

They’re abusing their auditing powers. They’re making it partisan. They’re using it for revenge. It’s like when they seized personal bank accounts of the truckers in the Freedom Convoy — something Carney personally supported.

Don’t take my word for this — read their insane threat letter yourself.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/therebel/pages/147938/attachments/original/1774395192/Audit_Email_from_EC_Redacted.pdf?1774395192

Oh, by the way: we were already audited for our third-party group we had last year.

Not only did we do the accounting in full compliance with the law, we paid an external elections lawyer to advise us, and then an external, independent auditor reviewed our accounting. It was extremely expensive, but we did it to comply.

You can see our full audit right here.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/therebel/pages/147938/attachments/original/1774395187/ForCanada_EC20228_Audit_Package.pdf?1774395187

So you can see, we’re in full compliance, and have been the whole time. And not a word from Elections Canada in nearly a year.

And then suddenly, right after we announce we’re going to take another crack at Carney, Elections Canada sends us a threat.

This is just political punishment because we’re on Carney’s enemies list.

And get this — for those of you who know about audits, you’ll find this shocking. The letter came from a government bureaucrat named Luiz Quiroz.

He’s demanding all of our expense invoices, bank statements and cancelled cheques — to be delivered within one week. For a campaign we did a year ago.

Now, Quiroz is obviously just the bureaucrat they’ve sicced on us. I’m sure he’s been directed to do this by his boss, Stéphane Perrault, the CEO of Elections Canada, who was appointed by Justin Trudeau.

Perrault is the head of Elections Canada who has done two very important things.

First, he refused to investigate the eleven ridings that the Chinese Communist Party interfered with, in support of the Liberal Party. China’s dictatorship tampered with our elections, including busing in foreign nationals to participate in a candidate selection.

Perrault also turned a blind eye to manipulation of the Liberal Party’s leadership vote, where the majority of ballots were discarded for irregularities — the leadership vote that installed Mark Carney as our PM.

He’s like a sleeping lifeguard, when it comes to investigating the prime minister’s friends.

Instead, Perrault spent five years, and more than a million dollars, prosecuting me for publishing my book, The Libranos, that criticized Justin Trudeau’s corruption.

So now Elections Canada is coming for me and Rebel News again. I just can’t get over that one week deadline — that’s such an admission of bad faith. They’ve waited almost a whole year to spring this audit on us, even though we’ve already passed an audit.

This is exactly what it looks like it is.

This is Mark Carney’s revenge against us for daring to ask questions about him that the regime media won’t.

This is selective punishment.

This is a message to others: don’t you dare cross the Liberals.

I need your help to fight back — legally, of course. We’ve got to pay an accountant to comply with this malicious audit to meet the artificial and prejudicial demands of Elections Canada.

I don’t have a lot of nice things to say about Justin Trudeau, but I’ll say this: at least he never audited me or Rebel News.

If you can help us fight back against this abusive audit, by hiring an accountant to prove that this is nothing more than a political vendetta, please do.

I promise to keep you posted — and I promise we’ll fight the bully Mark Carney every step of the way.

Read their threat letter, and our audit, and please help us fight back!

GUEST: Tom Mavin, Ontario Director at the National Firearms Association joins the show to discuss the Liberals' controversial firearm 'buyback' program.

NB-embed:audit_abusers_donate

Driven by that curiosity, I went to see the site for myself. What I found wasn’t quite the dramatic inferno suggested by early images. The church, located near Fredericton, had indeed been burned, but not destroyed. The fire appeared to have been contained quickly, likely thanks to its proximity to nearby homes and a main road.

But the real story isn’t just about the fire. It’s about what the building had become long before the flames.

This was no longer an active place of worship. The church had been abandoned for years after flooding damage made it unusable. Its stained glass and religious items had already been removed. In practical terms, it was an empty structure, vulnerable not just to decay, but to vandalism or arson.

But what we do know, however, is that context rarely stops media outrage — except when it does.

In recent years, Canada has seen numerous churches vandalised or burned. Yet these incidents often struggle to gain sustained national attention. Contrast that with how quickly and intensely the media responds when other religious sites are targeted, and the disparity becomes difficult to ignore.

This isn’t about diminishing any attack on any faith. It’s about consistency. If a pattern of mosque burnings emerged, it would dominate headlines, and rightly so. But when churches are repeatedly targeted, the response feels muted, almost reluctant.

At the same time, there’s another uncomfortable layer. Attacks on synagogues, for example, present a dilemma for narratives shaped by political sensitivities. When the facts don’t align neatly with preferred storylines, coverage often becomes cautious, or disappears altogether.

Back in New Brunswick, the quiet remains. Not just at the burned church, but around it ... no urgency, no investigation making waves, no broader conversation.

In the end, the most striking part of this story isn’t the fire damage. It’s the indifference. A historic church, standing for over a century, reduced to an afterthought.

And perhaps that’s the real reflection of where things stand today.

GUEST: Franco Terrazzano, Federal Director at the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation.

NB-embed:save_our_churches_petition

But official records tell a different story.

According to documents from the Privy Council — effectively the administrative arm of the Prime Minister’s Office — Carney did not proactively raise issues of human rights or foreign interference during those meetings.

“Topics of human rights and foreign interference were not brought up proactively by the Canadian prime minister,” the records state.

That’s not a minor discrepancy. That’s a direct contradiction of what Carney told the public — and one documented by his own government.

Then there’s the issue of Canada’s so-called oil reserves.

Amid rising global oil prices, Carney suggested Canada could help stabilize markets by releasing millions of barrels from reserves. But Canada doesn’t actually maintain strategic oil reserves in the way importing countries do — because it is itself a major oil exporter.

In other words, there are no reserves to release.

Yet the claim was made confidently, without qualification — despite being fundamentally inaccurate.

And the pattern extends beyond Carney himself.

In the aftermath of an Iranian strike on a base housing Canadian personnel, Defence Minister Bill Blair initially claimed he only learned of the incident through media reports. He later revised that statement, saying he had in fact been informed immediately.

So which version is true?

These are not isolated gaffes or slips of the tongue. They point to a broader pattern: saying one thing, then another — sometimes both — without accountability.

Even compared to Justin Trudeau, whose approach often relied on evasions, vague talking points, or rhetorical fog, Mark Carney appears different. He doesn’t simply dodge questions — he answers them directly, but with claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Whether it’s Canada’s role in global conflicts, its military capabilities, its relationship with China, or even basic facts about energy policy, the contradictions are mounting.

At some point, Canadians are left with a stark question:

Are these just shifting narratives — or something more deliberate?

According to the documents, fewer than 5% of Canadians watch CBC television, with that number declining year after year. In an era where digital platforms, streaming services and online media are booming, the CBC stands out for moving in the opposite direction. Even as population growth surges and media consumption increases, the public broadcaster is shrinking.

Yet what’s striking is not just the decline, it’s the CBC’s apparent indifference to it. Rather than focusing on viewership, trust, or impact, the internal presentation leans heavily on spending as its primary measure of success. The broadcaster proudly highlights its share of national media expenditures, boasting that it accounts for a significant portion of spending on news, drama, and entertainment.

This obsession with scale over substance raises uncomfortable questions. If success is measured by how much money is spent rather than how many people are actually watching, what incentive is there to improve? With approximately $1.4 billion in annual taxpayer funding, making up the bulk of its nearly $2 billion revenue, the CBC operates in a financial reality far removed from its private-sector competitors.

That imbalance has broader consequences. By simultaneously receiving public funding and competing for advertising dollars, the CBC effectively crowds out independent media. Private outlets must fight for revenue in a market where their largest competitor is backed by the state.

The documents also reveal a sprawling organisation: thousands of employees, dozens of platforms and international bureaus. But scale alone does not translate into influence. In fact, the data suggests the opposite. Subscription revenues are falling, viewership is declining, and newer ventures like its streaming platform struggle to gain traction against global giants.

Perhaps most concerning is what the documents don’t address. There is little mention of audience satisfaction, public feedback, or editorial balance. The CBC has become increasingly out of step with large segments of the population, particularly on political and cultural issues.

In the end, the contradiction is stark. A broadcaster with unmatched resources and reach is steadily losing relevance among the very public that funds it.

Saskatchewan is proposing a policy designed to insulate licensed gun owners from criminal liability tied to federal prohibition orders and confiscation schemes coming from Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government. Firearms owners know these sweeping bans have little to do with crime and everything to do with targeting people who already follow the law.

Tracey and I discuss what Saskatchewan’s plan could look like in practice, including how provincial authority over policing and prosecutions could be used to shield responsible firearms owners from the fallout of Ottawa’s gun grab.

We also touch on several major developments affecting Canada’s firearms community. Tracey previews the upcoming rally in Halifax, talks about the importance of the Toronto Sportsmen’s Show as a gathering place for Canada’s hunting and shooting community, and explains what’s at stake in Thursday’s pending court decision on whether the courts will hear the CCFR’s challenge to the federal gun grab.

Finally, we discuss the Liberals’ continued refusal to recognize a meaningful right to self-defence for Canadians, and what that means for lawful gun owners going forward.

NB-embed:hands_off_our_guns_petition

There’s a statistic that should make every Canadian stop and think. Medical Assistance in Dying — MAID — is now one of the leading causes of death in Canada.

Roughly one out of every twenty deaths in this country now happens through assisted suicide. Just stop and think about that for a second.

In less than a decade since MAID was legalized in 2016, it has expanded so quickly that it now accounts for about 5% of all deaths in Canada.

Belgium and the Netherlands — the countries everyone pointed to during Canada’s assisted-suicide debate — took more than 20 years to reach that level.

Canada did it in about five. That speed alone should make policymakers pause.

And now Alberta is stepping in with legislation meant to slow down a system that has been expanding at a remarkable pace.

The bill is called the Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act, and the goal is to establish a provincial framework around MAID with stronger safeguards than what currently exists under federal rules.

The biggest change is that Alberta would limit assisted suicide to what’s known as “Track 1 MAID” — cases where a patient’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable.

In practice, the legislation defines that as a situation where death is likely within roughly 12 months. That’s a significant shift from current federal law.

In 2021, Ottawa introduced “Track 2 MAID,” allowing assisted suicide even when a person’s natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.

In other words, people no longer have to be dying. They can be chronically ill, disabled, or living with long-term suffering the system considers intolerable.

Alberta’s bill would prohibit Track 2 MAID entirely in the province. The legislation also explicitly bans MAID where mental illness is the sole underlying condition.

That line matters because federal policy has been moving toward allowing assisted suicide for people suffering solely from mental illnesses like depression, PTSD or severe anxiety.

These are conditions that millions of Canadians struggle with and recover from every year. Alberta’s bill says that line should not be crossed.

The legislation includes several other new safeguards as well.

MAID would remain prohibited for minors. It would also be prohibited for people who lack decision-making capacity at the time the procedure is performed.

And the province would ban advance requests, meaning someone cannot sign paperwork years earlier authorizing doctors to end their life after they lose mental capacity.

Alberta’s legislation would also restrict physicians and nurse practitioners from referring patients outside the province for MAID assessments.

That rule is designed to prevent people from bypassing Alberta’s safeguards by simply being referred elsewhere.

The bill introduces mandatory education and training requirements for MAID assessors and providers, including training on recognizing coercion, evaluating capacity, and identifying alternatives such as palliative care.

And it introduces mandatory sanctions for physicians or nurse practitioners who violate the province’s MAID rules.

Another major change involves how MAID is discussed with patients.

Under the proposed law, health-care professionals would not be allowed to initiate conversations about assisted suicide unless the patient raises the topic first.

The province says that safeguard is meant to ensure that MAID decisions are patient-driven, not influenced by suggestions from doctors or health-care institutions.

The legislation also protects the rights of doctors and health-care facilities that object to assisted suicide.

That’s the line Alberta says it is trying to draw.

The province’s legislation attempts to re-establish limits around assisted suicide and slow the expansion that has taken place over the past several years.

The broader national debate over MAID is often framed as a question of personal autonomy.

But it also raises a larger question about the role of a health-care system when people are suffering.

Should the priority be expanding access to assisted death?

Or finding better ways to help people live through illness, disability, and hardship?

Given how quickly MAID has risen to become one of the leading causes of death in Canada, it’s a question the country may have to confront sooner rather than later.

NB-embed:maid_the_dark_side_of_canadian_compassion

For many Canadians, the honour is obvious. Cherry’s decades-long career championing hockey, veterans, and unapologetic patriotism made him a household name. His contribution to Canadian culture is undeniable.

Yet, as always, the backlash has been swift and revealing.

Critics, including Bruce Arthur of the Toronto Star, have attempted to recast Cherry as unworthy of recognition. Their argument leans heavily on selectively framing his outspoken style as disqualifying rather than defining.

But that’s precisely the point: Cherry was never meant to be bland. As the face of Coach’s Corner, he wasn’t just a commentator, he was an entertainer. For years, those segments were among the most-watched minutes on Canadian television. His flamboyant suits and blunt opinions weren’t flaws, they were the brand.

Arthur’s critique even suggests Cherry is a relic remembered only by “a certain age.” That claim doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Cherry remained active well after his television exit, producing hundreds of podcast episodes and continuing to engage a loyal audience. Figures don’t linger that long without resonance.

More broadly, the criticism reflects a deeper trend: the urge to retroactively disqualify public figures who don’t align with 'modern sensibilities.' Cherry’s views, on patriotism, immigration, or national identity, echoed the sentiments held by millions of Canadians.

Cherry’s legacy endures. Even his harshest critics concede as much. And perhaps that’s the ultimate irony: in trying to diminish him, they only reinforce his relevance.

Because in the end, figures like Don Cherry aren’t erased, they’re remembered.

A reserve is oil that has been proven to exist and can be produced economically with today’s prices, technology, and regulations. A resource, by contrast, is oil we know is there but can’t yet produce profitably.

Alberta’s oilsands hold about 170 billion barrels of proven reserves, an astonishing figure. But the actual oil in the ground is far greater: roughly two trillion barrels of resources waiting for technology or market conditions to make them viable.

So Canada isn’t short on oil. Not even close. What we are short on is political will.

Canada’s energy minister recently suggested the country could help stabilize global markets by “releasing reserves” as tensions in the Middle East threaten shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. But that comment reveals a misunderstanding of how the industry actually works.

Canada doesn’t have a massive strategic petroleum reserve like the United States. We don’t have giant stockpiles sitting underground ready to release during emergencies. If Canada wants to supply more oil, there’s only one way to do it: produce more oil.

And producing more oil requires something Ottawa spent the last decade obstructing: pipelines.

Even if Canada suddenly ramped up production, the next problem appears immediately: how do we get that oil to world markets?

Right now, much of Canada’s crude can only reach buyers through the United States. That effectively makes America our single dominant customer, a classic economic situation known as a monopsony, where one buyer holds enormous leverage over the seller.

The result? Canadian oil often sells at a discount, allowing U.S. refiners to profit while Canada leaves billions on the table.

Worse still, Canada can’t easily ship oil to Europe or Asia without selling it to American intermediaries first.

The tragedy is that it didn’t have to be this way. Projects like Energy East, Northern Gateway and Keystone XL could have diversified Canada’s export markets. Instead, regulatory barriers, political opposition and shifting federal policies killed them one by one.

Meanwhile, other countries race to expand production and dominate global energy markets.

Canada could have been leading that race. Instead, we’re standing on top of one of the world’s largest energy treasures ... while pretending we can’t reach it.

GUEST: Senior columnist Lorne Gunter joins the show.

It has now come out that a Canadian military installation was attacked by Iran two weeks ago. Thankfully, no Canadians were hurt. But Carney kept it quiet. And when finally asked about it, his answer was not outrage, not retaliation, not even a serious condemnation. His answer was that Canada would not take part in “offensive actions.”

Offensive actions?

Canada was attacked.

Retaliating against an attack is not “offensive.” Keeping it secret and then scolding reporters for asking about it is not leadership. It is weakness.

And Carney is not alone.

Gregor Robertson, now a federal Liberal, managed to invoke the war with Iran not to condemn terrorism, not to denounce the regime, but to explain away Canada’s housing crisis. Apparently Iran is now to blame for home prices too.

It was absurd. It made no sense. But it revealed something important: to these people, Iran is not chiefly a terror state. It is a political talking point, a prop to excuse their domestic failures.

Evan Solomon was no better. More vague talking points. More mush. More attempts to fold Iran into a generic Liberal message about affordability and “plans.” Not a word of seriousness about the regime itself, or the fact that Iran has agents operating in Canada.

Then there is Doug Ford.

Back in 2018, Ford said he would not tolerate Al-Quds Day in Ontario — the annual hate march created by the ayatollahs to glorify the destruction of Israel and spread anti-Jewish hatred in the West.

And yet for eight years, he tolerated it.

Only now, on the eve of this year’s march, did Ford suddenly announce he was seeking an injunction to stop it. Not months ago. Not weeks ago. Not even a few days ago.

The day before.

It was completely unserious.

Any court application launched at the last minute was almost certain to fail on timing alone. Ford knew about these annual marches for years. He did nothing. And then, with cameras rolling and the event already imminent, he decided to perform toughness.

The police are unserious. The Ontario government is unserious. The federal government is unserious. And in a country this full of Iranian regime sympathizers and agents, that is becoming dangerous.

Canada now has leaders who cannot even say plainly that Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, that it has attacked Canadians, and that its supporters openly organize in this country.

That is what they really think about Iran.

They think it can be managed. Delayed. Spun. Used. Soft-pedalled. Folded into some other message.

They do not treat it as the threat it is.

And that may be the most dangerous thing of all.

GUEST: Conservative MP Garnett Genuis joins the show to discuss the 84,000 jobs lost in Canada in February and what that says about the country’s failing economy.

Mark Carney has picked up the censorship baton that Justin Trudeau first wielded, and the consequences for free speech are already visible. At Rebel News, we've seen firsthand how independent voices are targeted.

Tonight's guest Andrew Laughton and Rebel News were both banned from federal leadership debates in 2019: a battle we fought in court and miraculously won. But by 2021, the government had reverse engineered a new, more legally defensible ban. Yet against all odds, we prevailed again.

These battles illustrate a critical truth: independent media, civil liberties groups and the public must remain vigilant. We have consistently been at the pointy edge of the spear, challenging government overreach, holding politicians accountable, and reporting perspectives mainstream outlets ignore.

Whether it’s cabinet ministers banning conservative journalists from X, or the debates commission restricting questions from independent media, these attacks disproportionately hit those willing to push boundaries.

Today, the debates commission, led by Michel Cormier, testified before Parliament. Conservatives asked sharp questions, yet much of the session exposed how unelected bureaucrats dictate which journalists are “peripheral” and which questions are allowed, a troubling precedent for democracy.

Carney’s administration is now building on Trudeau-era censorship momentum, reviving bills and policies designed to stifle dissent. This is not just a partisan issue; it’s about the fundamental Canadian right to speak freely. The fight is ongoing, and it’s up to all Canadians to resist the quiet erosion of free expression.

Freedom of speech has never been a spectator sport. At Rebel News, we don’t just report ... it’s a cause we live. And as the government doubles down on censorship, that fight has never been more necessary.

GUEST: Andrew Lawton, former journalist turned MP.

NB-embed:donate

The ruling declared that Aboriginal title can exist as a “prior and senior right” to other property interests, even where government-issued titles already exist. That conclusion stunned legal observers and property owners alike, because British Columbia’s land system has long operated under the Torrens model, where a registered title is meant to provide final and conclusive proof of ownership.

Stirling’s article digs into the historical evidence behind the case and raises questions about whether the court relied on fragile foundations. Drawing on research by historian Nina Green, she examines key documents cited in the ruling, including records from the 1800s that she says are missing or exist only through later references.

If those documents are unreliable, Stirling argues, then the factual basis for declaring Aboriginal title in this case may deserve closer scrutiny.

But the implications go far beyond one legal dispute.

If the decision stands, critics say it could introduce uncertainty into B.C.’s entire property system, raising questions about mortgages, land transactions, municipal authority, and how private property rights coexist with historic Indigenous claims.

Stirling walks us through the evidence, the legal arguments, and why she believes Canadians should pay close attention as the Cowichan decision moves through the appeal process.

Because when a court ruling potentially reshapes how land ownership works in Canada, the consequences reach far beyond one corner of Richmond.

NB-embed:end_land_grabs_petition

So many Canadians, especially baby boomers, bought the hype: Carney as the adult in the room dealing with Donald Trump on trade, and the strongman against the “existential threat” of China.

Eleven months on, and we've got no trade deal with our biggest partner in sight. Carney seems to go out of his way to provoke Trump—recognizing the fake state of Palestine, flipping five positions on the Iranian war in five days.

China? Suddenly not an existential threat, but a trade partner. Cheap Chinese EVs are coming, supposedly to help our struggling auto industry. (A steak dinner to anyone who can explain that one.) TikTok keeps operating under Chinese ownership. Sweet.

Carney's lived up to his name — like a carny on the midway, all rigged games and bluster. All talk, no cattle, as they say out west.

Yet polls show the Liberals surging. 338 Canada notes recent momentum, with Léger showing them at 49% to the Conservatives' 35%.

In Ontario, the Liberals lead the Conservatives 52-36; in Quebec, 48-20, with Tories in third behind the Bloc.

Former NDP leader Jagmeet Singh's scorched-earth pension chase has them at 5%, doomed to irrelevancy or worse.

By every measure — unemployment, inflation, food banks, tent cities — the Carney Liberals are all sizzle and no steak. Trillions in oil and gas wealth sit untapped.

But boomers, those born 1946-1965, make up nearly 25% of the population and vote reliably. Young voters lean Conservative, but their turnout is low.

The Liberals aren't stupid. Their boomer base is aging out — with the oldest entering their 80s. That's why they're all-in on mass migration, with Canada welcoming over 1,000 permanent residencies per day this year.

Anchor babies, loopholes, “humanitarian” stays. Protests in Brampton by “temporary” foreign workers chant “no one is illegal on stolen land” while slamming Canada as racist.

Non-citizen crime stories are piling up. Fentanyl busts, child abductions, stabbings tied to Khalistani disputes. Yet the mainstream media barely notices.

All the while, the Liberals bend rules: non-citizens are influencing party nominations, they're planning for foreigners in the military (even IRGC members?), Chinese police stations on Canadian soil remain largely untouched.

Carney declares “Muslim values are Canadian values.”

Importing the world's poor will cost a fortune, and guess who pays? Boomers' primary residences could face capital gains tax once their votes depreciate.

Wake up, boomers. Loyalty means nothing when the base is dying off. The joke's on you.

On February 20th, 2026, the federal government quietly signed a Rights Recognition Agreement with the Musqueam Indian Band of Vancouver, a group of roughly 1,500 people. Under this deal, the Musqueam claim Aboriginal title over Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, parts of Coquitlam, Surrey and Delta, land where more than two million Canadians of many ethnic backgrounds live.

At first glance, the Musqueam chief reassured the public that private property wouldn’t be affected. Yet the agreement explicitly grants Aboriginal title, which Canada’s Supreme Court has repeatedly defined as ownership of the land itself, not a symbolic gesture. The secrecy surrounding the negotiation only deepens the concern. For an agreement of such magnitude, affecting millions of citizens, transparency is not optional — it's mandatory.

John Carpay, executive director of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, joins Ezra on the show tonight, warning that this deal effectively creates a race-based third order of government in Vancouver. The Musqueam will have a formal political role alongside federal and provincial authorities, a framework unprecedented in Canadian law. This undermines the principle of equality before the law and risks stoking divisions among the city’s population.

The historical parallels are troubling. Canada has long opposed racially segregated laws abroad, notably apartheid in South Africa, yet this agreement introduces a form of governance that explicitly privileges one racial group over all others. While intended as a reconciliation measure, the Musqueam agreement threatens to inflame racial tensions rather than heal them.

Furthermore, the role of land acknowledgments in schools and public life appears hypocritical if such agreements continue to be enforced quietly. A statement of respect is meaningless if the underlying laws grant disproportionate control and privileges based solely on ancestry.

The takeaway is simple: Canadians deserve transparency, fairness and equal rights. Laws and agreements that privilege one racial group over others erode social cohesion and threaten property rights.

GUEST: John Carpay, Founder and President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

NB-embed:end_land_grabs_petition