Behind The Canadian Curtain: Politics, Policies, And Public Disconnect

Prepare to uncover the hidden realities of Canadian politics, as we expose the controversies and potential corruption within the Canadian government. We're challenging the actions of the current federal Liberal government head-on, revealing questionable dealings, scrutinizing conservative versus liberal approaches to economic growth, and analyzing surprising responses from none other than Justin Trudeau. 

Amid the rising costs of housing and taxes, we question the government's role and their tactics in media control. Unmasking the effect of policies like Bill C-11 on our national identity, we're pulling back the curtain on the influence government wields over media and the narrative it spins. We don't stop there, as we also take a hard look at the federal ban on single use plastics and its implications on environmentally conscious products like the compostable bags offered at Calgary Co-Op, and the confusing treatment meted out to our veterans.

As we tread the rocky terrain of leadership succession within the Liberal Party, we take you on an exploration of the disconnect between government actions and the people's needs. We're pulling no punches when it comes to the alienating effects of the Liberal Party's progressive ideals and how it leaves even the most progressive voters feeling disconnected. So gear up, for an engaging, thought-provoking journey into the world of Canadian politics—an unfiltered, unapologetically in-depth look at the true state of affairs.

(No Guest)

Trampled Under Tyranny
Politically discordant, counter culture clothing for the discerning civil disobedient.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Whether we agree or agree to disagree, everybody's
got an opinion, and I'm about togive you mine.
So sit back, relax, buckle upand try not to get offended.
Welcome to This Canadian Thinks.
Canadians are not sufficientlyangry about the actions of the

(00:20):
current federal liberalgovernment on an assortment of
egregious fronts.
How they maintain support inany fashion at all is actually
quite baffling.
From contracting bribes, misuseof position, cronyism,
manipulation of the bank systemto the use of excessive force
against their own citizens and aseemingly ever-growing list of
other contentious offenses,you'd think that even the most

(00:43):
progressive Canadians wouldn'twant to be even remotely
associated with the LiberalParty at all.
The NDP coalition is somehowstill intact, although only
those privy know why.
How the shills in the NDP couldcontinue to support this thinly
veiled sham of a government isbeyond comprehension.
It's a mystery how anyone couldstill show any support for them

(01:04):
whatsoever, short of purecollusion.

Speaker 2 (01:07):
Today I'm announcing that the Liberal Party has
reached an agreement with thenew Democratic Party to deliver
results for Canadians now.
This supply and confidenceagreement starts today and will
be in place until the end ofthis parliament in 2025.
What this means is that duringthis uncertain time, the

(01:30):
government can function withpredictability and stability,
present and implement budgetsand get things done for
Canadians.

Speaker 3 (01:41):
But why not just continue to prop up the Liberals
on most motions, withoutselling your soul, as it were?

Speaker 4 (01:46):
According to our position, this is us forcing and
pushing in and using our power.

Speaker 1 (01:51):
According to the Canadian government's own
website, the most common typesor categories of corruption are
supply versus demand corruption,grand versus petty corruption,
conventional versusunconventional corruption and
public versus private corruption.
Misuse of position is a type ofpublic corruption.
Misuse of position is theimproper use of official time

(02:12):
and authority and of informationand resources to which an
employee has access because ofhis federal employment, to
include misuse of public officefor private gain and misuse of
non-public information, most, ifnot all, of which the majority
of Liberal Party members haveengaged in at one point or
another.
The WE scandal is just oneexample of misuse of position.

(02:34):
Members of the Liberal Partydid almost as well as certain
Trudeau family members didduring that affair, From paid
appearances to fancy trips andeverything in between.
We'll never truly know thesheer depths of the scandal.

Speaker 5 (02:48):
A maya culpa from the Prime Minister.
Today, Justin Trudeau addressedreporters for the first time
since his family's ties to theWE Charity came to light.
The charity was awarded amulti-million dollar contract to
administer the summer studentgrants program.
Abigail Beeman has more on theapology and the change in tone
from Ottawa.

Speaker 3 (03:08):
Weeks after questions about WE began, the Prime
Minister now says he shouldn'thave been involved in cabinet
conversations about granting WEa nearly billion dollar contract
.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
I made a mistake in not recusing myself immediately
from the discussions, given ourfamily's history, and I'm
sincerely sorry.

Speaker 3 (03:29):
His family's history includes three hundred and
twelve thousand dollars paid tohis mother for speaking events
over the past four years, fortythousand for his brother and a
fourteen hundred dollar paymentfor his wife in twenty twelve.
Monday afternoon the FinanceMinister tweeted an apology for
not recusing himself too.
His daughter works for the WEorganization.
The Prime Minister was notclear about whether he knew his

(03:52):
family was paid.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
I knew that my brother and my mother work as
professional public speakers andit is not surprising to me that
they got paid by WE, but I didnot know the details and, as I
said, I should have known thedetails.

Speaker 6 (04:08):
If he is in fact sorry, that he can demonstrate
that to Canadians by notinvoking cabinet confidence,
appearing and testifying atcommittee and releasing all
documents and the contractitself.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
SNC Lavellin is a huge company that tends to make
most of its money throughlucrative government contracts.
Accused of bribing officials inother countries on behalf of
the Canadian government, SNC wasin danger of becoming barred
from being able to apply forgovernment contracts in the
future.
That's when Trudeau began topressure then-Justice Minister
Jody Wilson-Raybould tointervene in making the problems

(04:43):
SNC was facing basicallydisappear.
When she refused, she was sentpacking.
No level of professed feminismon the part of the Prime
Minister could save her at thatpoint.
She might as well have had acommunicable disease, treated as
a pariah as she was at the time.

Speaker 7 (04:58):
Engineering giant SNC Lavellin is in the middle of a
legal fight of its own.
Lawyers will be back in aQuebec courtroom tomorrow as a
preliminary hearing picks upagain into the fraud and
corruption charges the companyfaces.
These are the same chargesformer Justice Minister Jody
Wilson-Raybould was allegedlypressured to drop by the Prime
Minister's office, sparking apolitical firestorm for the

(05:21):
Trudeau government.
Several senior managers at SNCLavellin have faced criminal
charges.
They are no longer with thecompany, but can the company's
tarnished reputation be restored?

Speaker 1 (05:32):
Why would the government go so far as to
attempt to coerce the JusticeMinister into absolving SNC
Lavellin of any wrongdoing,unless the government had a
vested interest in SNC Lavellinbeing able to continue to
operate as they have beendiscovered to have been doing?
Perhaps they benefit fromtrusts that profit from stock in
SNC Lavellin.
Perhaps the government even hada hand in directing them in

(05:55):
their dealings somehow, or atleast agreed to turn a blind eye
.
We'll never really know, though, because they place their
friends in charge of anypotential inquiry.

Speaker 8 (06:04):
Justin Trudeau continued to face questions
about a two and a half year oldscandal on the campaign trail
today.

Speaker 9 (06:09):
Have you ever personally been contacted by the
RCMP about the SNC Lavellinaffair?

Speaker 2 (06:15):
No, I have not.

Speaker 8 (06:16):
All sparked by accusations that the Liberal
government is covering up keydetails about the SNC Lavellin
affair by not releasing cabinetsecrets.
This according to excerpts fromJody Wilson-Raybould's new book
.
At the time of writing, thepolice assigned to criminally
examine the SNC Lavellin matterremain unable to access all
relevant information.

(06:36):
The ethics commissioner foundTrudeau improperly pressured his
former Justice Minister tointervene in a fraud trial
against the Quebec engineeringgiant in hopes of securing a
deferred prosecution agreement.
SNC Lavellin eventually pleadedguilty and was fined $280
million.

Speaker 1 (06:55):
Imagine if you had the ability to have one of your
friends investigate your mostscandalous affairs instead of an
independent investigator,especially if they stood to
benefit from the position, andmore so if they had some
personal skin in the game.
It's the essence of cronyism, aprotect your own failsafe that
leads to the erosion ofaccountability complete.
After all, the inherentprotectionism created by doing

(07:15):
so allows for the forgiveness ofthe most contemptible actions
without any meaningfulretribution or penalty.
It happens far too often inthis Liberal circus.
Take, for example, DonaldJohnson, tasked with the duty of
special rapporteur.
It wasn't incredulous tobelieve that he would announce
there was no need to have apublic inquiry into the
attempted Chinese subversion ofCanadian elections.

(07:35):
It was near alreadypredetermined.
The moment the Liberalgovernment trotted out an
archaic and little understoodrole to fill with whomever it
would turn out to be, beforethey even announced who might be
eligible to fill it.
The mere title is meant tocause confusion and muddy the
water.
Entire news segments consistedof laboring to properly explain
and define what a specialrapporteur even was and what the

(07:57):
scope of inquiry would be.
It was pure political theatreaccomplishing nothing, only them
further distracting an alreadyattention deficit population.
Meanwhile it's on to the nextthing on their agenda, likely
more disagreeable yet than whatthey have you currently whipped
up in a frenzy over.
They'll let you know when it'stime to become enraged about the
next big thing.

Speaker 4 (08:18):
Would there have been any value in meeting with Mr
Johnson just to hear him out?

Speaker 10 (08:22):
No, he is Justin Trudeau's ski buddy, his cottage
neighbor, his family friend anda member of the Trudeau
Foundation, which got $140,000from Beijing.
He has a fake job and he'sunable to do it impartially.
He needs to simply hand it overand allow a independent public

(08:46):
inquiry into Beijing'sinterference.
I sent Johnson a letter saidhow are you going to investigate
foreign interference in theTrudeau Foundation when you were
part of the Trudeau Foundation?
He hasn't responded.
He didn't even respond to myletter on that obvious question.
So we need to get this specialrapporteur distraction behind us
and get on with a real, full,independent public inquiry.

Speaker 1 (09:09):
See, that's the whole point of the mass media machine
to cherry pick the things theychoose to amplify in order to
get the most traction.
Outrage is a very useful toolif you can make it work to your
benefit.
Thing is, the things you getupset about are the things they
provide for you to get upsetabout.
They don't allow you to getupset about anything they
haven't already precluded assomething tangible for the
purpose of an end objective.
They censor something justenough to give it the appearance

(09:32):
of being suppressed, when inactuality they want you to
obsess over it so you won't digdeeper into the reality of the
situation.
Then they flood the bandwidthwith the appropriate level of
propaganda to ensure you'refully ensconced in it.
The old bait-and-switch, as itwere.
You can't believe anythinganymore.
You are fed what they want youto see and hear, assisted by
algorithms that are fedinformation that you yourself

(09:52):
willingly, and sometimesunwittingly, provide If they
really don't want you to know orsee something you won't.
They tell you plenty far enoughahead what their plans are.
The more unbelievable andfantastic it is, the less you
believe it and the easier it isfor them to carry on as they
intended.
You don't have a chance to getangry until it is far, far too
late.

Speaker 12 (10:11):
Hello Mr Poilievre, a number of your own comments
and actions have beencharacterized as dog whistling
to the far right.
By who?
By who.
By a number of different, bywho, but I think it's been
characterized by that way, butare you trying to?

Speaker 10 (10:27):
I need to clarify.
Sorry, I just need to clarifyby who.

Speaker 12 (10:30):
By a number of different experts and a number
of different people who work inthis, I think it's been
established that this is aconcern.
Are you trying to court the farright vote?

Speaker 10 (10:42):
Sorry, who are these experts?
You say that there are expertswho are saying this.
Who are they?

Speaker 12 (10:46):
My question is are you trying to court the far
right vote?

Speaker 10 (10:49):
Sorry, your question seems to be based on a false
premise.
You can't even tell me whothese experts are.
It sounds like it's just a CBCsmear job.

Speaker 12 (10:58):
Thank you, but what about the question about whether
?

Speaker 10 (11:02):
The answer is that I have a common sense agenda to
axe the carbon tax, bring homepowerful paychecks, clear the
way to build affordable homes,to put people in housing that
they can afford.
That is a common sense,mainstream Canadian agenda and I
know that Justin Trudeau'ssupporters are so desperate to

(11:22):
distract from that because hispolitical career is falling
apart.
So we're seeing an attempt hereto distract and protect Justin
Trudeau from his extremelyunpopular carbon taxes and other
failing policies, but we won'tlet him or his or others
distract from that reality.
So thank you, so you're notgoing to answer that question.

Speaker 1 (11:43):
Criminals can't be politicians.
Yet politicians seem to be someof the worst criminals, having
the appearance of Teflon andbeing able to operate with
impunity, participants in alarge, elaborate heist against
the population, getting moreembroiled in their
Moffiasso-style hierarchy untilso entrenched that there is no
choice but to play along, tostay along.
Those with moral character weedthemselves out, showing

(12:05):
themselves the door, resigningdue to their unwillingness to
bend or break the rules in sucha manner as is expected of them
by those so engaged.
There is plenty for people tobe concerned about, and they
should, but most aren't.
It certainly doesn't help thatthe media tends to downplay or
avoid mentioning certainrelevant details on request of
the government.
After all, $600 million buysyou a lot of loyalty and

(12:27):
protection.

Speaker 2 (12:28):
You sometimes hear about liberal bias in the media
these days, how they'reconstantly letting our
government off the hook for nogood reason.
Frankly, I think that'sinsulting.
It's clear that they let us offthe hook for a very good reason
, because we paid them $600million.
You don't get stellar headlineslike these without greasing the

(12:52):
wheels a bit.

Speaker 1 (12:53):
The government not only subsidizes media outlets,
they also craft legislationspecifically designed to benefit
Canadian media companies overoutside providers, forcing all
providers in and outside of thecountry to air a certain amount
of Canadian content in order toqualify to be broadcast in
Canada.
Canadian content defines thatthe producer of the program must
be a Canadian citizen orpermanent resident and hold full

(13:16):
responsibility in overseeingdevelopment, creative and
financial control and financing.
Due to this, almostunbelievably, some Elvis Presley
songs are considered Canadiancontent, while some Brian Adams
songs are not.
Beyond that, however, is awhole host of complicated
considerations and formulas usedto decide what and who
qualifies and what can or cannotbe provided as content to

(13:39):
Canadians.
It's meant to protect Canadianarts and culture in a country
that has long since forgottenwho they are and what common
ties they have holding themtogether.

Speaker 17 (13:48):
When Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says his
country is a post-nationalstate and has no core identity,
no one should be surprised whensome start asking if Canada is
even a country.
But the identity crisis facingCanada is not only multifaceted,
it's serious.
Canada is in the midst of, asone writer put it, a

(14:10):
civilizational experiment that'stransforming a western nation
into a post-western nation, andthis revolution is centered
around the cult of diversity.

Speaker 1 (14:20):
That's the real teeth behind the Liberals' Bill C-11,
the often-named Internetcensorship bill.
While masquerading as a meansby which to level the playing
field for Canadian mediacompanies against tech giants
like Twitter, google and Metathe former, whom own Facebook
and Instagram it's really ameans through which the
government can better controlthe overall content that you are

(14:41):
able to consume.
Of course, almost comically,anyone with a slight
understanding of IP masking willrealize that it's still
possible to circumvent therestrictions.
That isn't the point or thecrux of the issue.
It's the fact that thegovernment is actively engaged
in any action restricting thecontent of outside information.
In a free democratic society inthe first place, that should be
front and center.

(15:01):
Canada isn't a free democraticsociety, however.
We're a social democracy, whichis the reason we do not have
the benefit of free speech andwhy we have legislation against
hate speech and elevatedsentencing penalties for
hate-based crimes, which istruly Orwellian stuff, really.

Speaker 18 (15:18):
I think that, allowing for the book being
after all a parody, somethinglike 1984 could actually happen.
This is the direction the worldis going in at the present time
In our world, there will be noemotions except fear, rage,

(15:40):
triumph and self-abasement.
The sex instinct will beeradicated.
We shall abolish the orgasm.
There will be no loyalty exceptloyalty to the party.
But always there will be theintoxication of power.
Always, at every moment, therewill be the thrill of victory,

(16:05):
the sensation of trampling on anenemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of thefuture, imagine a boot stamping
on a human face forever.
The moral to be drawn from thisdangerous nightmare situation

(16:27):
is a simple one Don't let ithappen it depends on you.

Speaker 1 (16:35):
The media helps push the narrative, even if it's
erroneous and even if they knowit to be so.
Later, when it's proven false,most people don't ever hear the
contrary information, they justremember the initial report,
like the mass graves alleged tobe found using
ground-penetrating radar at thesites where residential schools
once operated that turned out tobe underground rock formations.
Instead, the media proclaimsthe original supposition but

(16:57):
whispers the retraction.

Speaker 4 (16:58):
The distressing development is coming out of the
Seashell Nation on the southcoast of BC.
Its chief says an extensivesearch has detected 40 potential
unmarked graves of children.
We have to say we don't knowwhat evidence they have yet of
physical remains or that theyare children.
But this is a developing storyand we're working to get more of
that information as soon as wecan.

Speaker 1 (17:19):
Meanwhile, the tech corporations simply restrict
content to Canadians in the faceof the government's legislation
, to the disadvantage of theCanadian companies it was meant
to protect.
In trying to get faircompensation for companies in a
free advertising and potentiallyviral setting, the bill
actually forces them to insteadpurchase advertising from the
companies directly, instead ofbenefiting from the public
sharing their content to theirfollowing for free, which,

(17:42):
extrapolated even further, meansthe government's own propaganda
begins to be seen and sharedless, which would actually be to
the benefit of Canadians in theend.
But I digress.

Speaker 2 (17:53):
People have questions about whether they've lost
their homes, about whether theyneed to evacuate, about how
things are going, and that'swhere local news is so important
, and the work that people aredoing to share messages and keep
people informed with safe,up-to-date information is
unbelievably essential tokeeping Canadians safe.

(18:14):
That's why and I'm going tomake a comment on this it is so
inconceivable that a companylike Facebook is choosing to put
corporate profits ahead ofensuring that local news
organizations can get up-to-dateinformation to Canadians and

(18:37):
reach them, where Canadiansspend a lot of their time online
on social media, on Facebook.
Facebook made billions ofdollars in profits over the past
years, including off ofCanadians, and we recently
passed legislation that saysFacebook, if you're going to be

(19:00):
sharing news or work done byCanadian journalists or local
news, you have to make surethey're compensated for it
fairly Well.
Instead of making sure thatlocal journalists are fairly
paid for keeping Canadiansinformed on things like
wildfires, facebook is blockingnews from its sites.

(19:26):
In a larger picture, that's badfor democracy, because democracy
depends on people being able totrust high-quality journalism
of all sorts of differentperspectives and points of view.
But right now, in an emergencysituation where up-to-date local
information is more importantthan ever.

(19:47):
Facebook's putting corporateprofits ahead of people's safety
, ahead of supporting qualitylocal journalism.
This is not the time for that.
This is the time for Canadiansto continue to pull together and
be there for each other.
It's time for us to expect morefrom corporations like Facebook

(20:12):
that are making billions ofdollars off of Canadians.

Speaker 1 (20:16):
Recently approaching wildfires forced people in the
territories to evacuate theirhomes.
The legislation made it so thatthe news about the wildfires,
including location, evacuationzones, crisis centers and other
time sensitive and integralinformation for those affected,
was blocked and unable to beaccessed by those dependent on
social platforms operated byMeta.
Ironically, the government beganimploring Meta to reverse their

(20:38):
decision to block Canadian newsoutlets from Facebook.
It was laughable to watch JuanPablo Rodriguez, liberal
Minister of Transport andprevious Minister of Canada
Heritage, begging the tech giantto once again allow the free
sharing and access to news onMeta's social media platforms
for the good of Canadians.
The Liberal government couldreverse their own position for
the good of Canadians just aseasily, yet won't.

(21:00):
So why should Meta be anydifferent?
It only goes to prove that thelegislation itself doesn't
contain even the slightestspirit of what might be good for
the Canadian people.
The only issue at hand is indirect relation to liberal
legislation that is not onlyonerous to social media
platforms, but detrimental toCanadian citizens as well.
They could admit that theirpolicy is the cause of the

(21:22):
aggravation and take steps toaddress the problem.
Their position of power blindsthem to the needs of the average
Canadian and their cocksureattitude that they must be right
demands that they forceeveryone else to admit that they
are.

Speaker 14 (21:35):
Mr Rodriguez, you talked about it in French, but I
was wondering if you could justtalk a bit more, also about
those conversations that aregoing on with Meta because of
all the people who are affectedby these wildfires, who are not
able to see news about how toget out or about how they're
evolving, because of what Metais doing right now.

Speaker 19 (21:55):
Well, what I said is that what Meta is doing truly
unacceptable, and I warned themduring the conversations in the
past of the risk of blockingnews.
We've seen what happened inAustralia.
I told them this could happenhere.
They said that it would bedifferent.
It is not different.
So I'm asking them to go backon their decision and allow
people to have access to newsand information in Canada.

Speaker 1 (22:20):
The government would have you believe that they need
to be in charge of you.
In fact, most progressivesthink that the government should
pretty much do everything andprovide everything you need for
your basic survival.
They are far more content tohave someone making decisions on
their behalf, and they don'tmind paying handsomely for the
privilege.
Libertarians such as myselffeel quite a bit differently.
There should be far lessgovernment, and we should pay as

(22:42):
little as possible for it.
The government should be forcedto use its royalty from the
nation's resources, both naturaland manufactured, to invest in
and create businesses andcultivate the business market to
provide lucrative results forboth the public and private
shareholders alike.
The resulting public profitthen used to provide services
and critical infrastructure.

(23:02):
There should be no need fortaxation on personal income
whatsoever in that scenario.
Instead, they choose to taxyour money when you earn it and
tax it again every time youspend it, increasing the tax
rate as often as possible andthen adding taxes to taxes.

Speaker 10 (23:18):
So, Justin, how do you expect people to pay their
bills now?
You remember you told them thatdebt had no consequences, that
interest rates would be low forlong and people could borrow as
much as they wanted and there'dbe no problem.
And now, in the span of a year,interest rates have gone up by

(23:39):
four and a half percentagepoints a 19 times increase in
barely a year.
Canadians who believed JustinTrudeau enough to take on
monster million dollar mortgagesin order to afford the inflated
homes that they had to buy informerly affordable communities

(24:01):
now don't know how they're goingto make their monthly bills.
We already see Canadiansexperiencing $600 and $700
monthly increases in theirmortgage payments and, according
to the Bank of Canada, over thenext three years, a large share
of Canadian households will seetheir mortgage payments go up
by 40%.
I want you to think of whatthat means.

(24:22):
If you're paying three grand amonth, you could see your
mortgage payment go up by $1400.
That's over $15,000 a year fora family that brings home 80
grand after tax.
That vaporizes a quarter, or insome cases even a third, of
their entire take home pay, notfor mortgage payments, but just

(24:43):
for increases in mortgagepayments.
Now we have, after eight yearsof Justin Trudeau, the most
indebted households in the G7,over $2 trillion of household
debt.
In other words, household debtis equal to the size of the
entire Canadian economy today.
Think of what this meansmathematically.

(25:05):
Every one percentage pointincrease in interest rates
equals 1% of our GDP.
A 2% increase, which is morethan the average annual growth
of our economy.
We've had a 4.5% increase inone year.
This is on the verge of becominga crisis and that is an

(25:28):
overused term, but I want you toconsider this.
The people who took outmillion-dollar mortgages in 2021
and 2022 will be up for renewalafter their five years in 2026
and 2027.
As these hundreds of billionsof dollars of debt collide with
the massive increases ininterest rates, there will be a

(25:48):
severe default crisis.
That is according to lastweek's report from the IMF,
which says that Canada is thesingle most at-risk country for
mortgage defaults of any countryin the G7.
Justin Trudeau, you and you'respending, you're out of control.
Debt and taxation are leadingus headlong into a full-scale

(26:11):
financial crisis.

Speaker 1 (26:13):
Take the carbon tax, for example.
It should be calculated on itsown and excluded from the
equation when calculating thegoods and services tax or GST.
Instead, carbon tax iscalculated as a subtotal with
the initial cost of the item towhich it is being applied.
After, to calculate the GST,the subtotal including carbon
tax is used.
This means GST is being appliedto the carbon tax and the GST

(26:36):
on the carbon tax combined Attax on a tax on a tax.
How is that even consideredacceptable by anyone, even those
in favor of a carbon tax?
Go check your gas or power billand you'll see exactly what I'm
talking about.

Speaker 20 (26:50):
The federal carbon tax hike kicks in Friday.
An increase of 25% up to $50per ton of emissions.
Ottawa figures that works outto an extra 2.2 cents per liter
of gas, bringing the totalcarbon tax cost to 11 cents per
liter for consumers.
Now this is going to hitmotorists in Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba andOntario in the wallet provinces

(27:12):
that don't have their own carbonpricing schemes in place.

Speaker 14 (27:15):
If they do notice it , they won't know for sure
whether it's caused by thefederal carbon tax or whether
it's caused by changes in crudeoil prices or wholesale prices
or just retail margins.

Speaker 20 (27:28):
But these types of increases push up the price of
other everyday things, from foodto household items.
The carbon tax as it is nowpushes inflation up by just
under half a percent.
For context, that's out of the5.7% annual overall inflation
rate.
In February, ottawa says fourout of five Canadians will end
up ahead financially because ofrebates claimed through federal

(27:50):
taxes, but the parliamentarybudget watchdog disagrees,
saying most people affected bythe carbon tax will see an
overall negative economic impact.
Now what it means for youdepends on how much money you
make your choices and where youlive.
The lowest income households inOntario will see a $150 carbon
tax benefit this year, while thehighest earners will be out

(28:12):
more than $1100.
In Alberta, that's $246 backfor the lowest income families,
while top earners will be out ofpocket nearly $2,000.
On Tuesday, the federalgovernment announced plans to
slash emissions by 40% by 2030to meet climate goals.
But in order to move away fromfossil fuels, consumers, already

(28:34):
dealing with the highestinflation we've seen in three
decades, will have to pay aprice.

Speaker 1 (28:39):
In a slightly different example.
When you buy a new vehicle, youpay GST on the full purchase
price.
When you sell or trade thatvehicle back to the dealership
and they in turn offer it to thenext customer, the next
customer pays GST, again on thefull used sale price, although
obviously less.
The issue is the tax has beenpaid on the initial point of
purchase, on the full value ofthe vehicle.

(29:01):
There is no tax required on anysubsequent purchase of the same
vehicle, or at least thereshouldn't be.
Next time you go buy a new toyou vehicle, tell the
salesperson you want thedealership to cover the tax.
Chances are they'll give itsome serious consideration if it
means you will actually makethe purchase.
It doesn't matter how much ofyour taxes the government tries

(29:23):
to offer you back in rebates.
They have your money for a timeand then appear gracious in
giving a fraction of it back.
It's as though they actuallybelieve they can use your money
and make better decisions withit than you can, and then bribe
you into compliance by givingyou some of it back.
There is no such thing as afree government benefit.
Canadians are paying for it insome way somehow.

(29:44):
The progressive manifesto,while daunting and utopian, has
actually one of laziness andincompetence.
An easy fix, short term,bandaid solution to what is, and
always has been, an ongoingtale of increasingly troublesome
predicaments, most of whichhave been created in no short
order by the Trudeau liberalsthemselves as of late.

(30:05):
Once created the penancea isoften worse than the ailment.

Speaker 10 (30:09):
The question was that he promised in 2015, and I
quote, we will make it easierfor Canadians to find an
affordable place to call home.
When he made that promise, theaverage monthly payment for a
mortgage in Canada was a modest$1400.
What is it today?

Speaker 2 (30:26):
Of course, situations vary across the country, but we
have stepped up with housingprograms in big cities like
Vancouver, toronto, montreal,but we've also stepped up in
smaller municipalities and ruralareas across the country that
need supports in housing.
Unlike the previousconservative government that
didn't feel the federalgovernment had any role to play
in housing, we stepped up intangible, concrete ways to

(30:50):
deliver more housing, to deliverrapid housing, to deliver
programs that foughthomelessness, that programs that
increase the rental stocks.
We will continue to beinvesting to support people,
alongside our partners in theprovinces and municipalities.

Speaker 10 (31:04):
He wants to compare with the conservative record.
I gave him a chance.
I told him when theconservatives left office, the
average monthly payment on a newhouse was $1400.
I asked him to tell us what itis today.
Either he doesn't know or he'stoo afraid to admit, but it's
gone up to over $3100.

(31:25):
That's over a 100% increase.
When the Prime Minister tookoffice, a two-bedroom apartment
in Canada's 10 biggest cities onaverage was $1100.
How much is it today?

Speaker 2 (31:38):
Over the past eight years, we've seen significant
growth in the economy.
We've seen more Canadiansgetting jobs than ever before.
We've seen more Canadianslifted out of poverty than ever
before because of the things wedid, from the very first
initiative, which was loweringtaxes for the middle class and
raising them on the wealthiest1% initiatives that
conservatives voted against todelivering a Canada child

(32:01):
benefit that puts more money inthe pockets of families that
needed, and stopped sendingchild benefit checks to
millionaires.
We've continued to move forwardin supporting communities,
supporting home builders,supporting homeowners and home
buyers.
We will continue to be therefor Canadians.

Speaker 10 (32:19):
He would have you believe that Canadians have
never had it so good.
We'll ask the nine and 10 youngpeople who believe they will
never own a home, the35-year-olds living in their
parents' basements because theycan't afford the new doubling of
the average down payment,mortgage payment or rental costs
.
And speaking of paychecks, whenhe took office the average

(32:41):
paycheck you only needed 39% ofthe average paycheck to make
monthly payments.
On the average house.
That number has risen to 62% byevery objective measurement.
Things are more expensive andCanadians are taking home less.
How did he spend so much toachieve so little?

Speaker 2 (32:59):
Across the country.
We've seen record job growth.
We've seen record number ofCanadians lifted out of poverty.
We've seen investments to fightclimate change and to put more
money in people's pockets.
We've continued to move forwardin growing the economy.
But it is only, Mr Speaker, theConservative leader, trying to
say Canadians have never had itso good, because we know
Canadians are struggling andthat's why we continue to step

(33:21):
up with investments in dentalcare, investments in low-income
rental supports two initiativesthat the Conservatives voted
against.
We will continue to be there todeliver for Canadians while we
deliver a better future foreveryone.

Speaker 10 (33:34):
He's trying to talk about everything but the housing
questions I asked, and it'seasy to understand why.
When he took office, housingwas affordable.
Now it's impossibly expensive.
In fact, it's much moreexpensive than around the rest
of the world.
Vancouver is now the third mostoverpriced housing market and
Toronto the 10th worst in theworld, worse than Manhattan,

(33:56):
than Singapore, than London, thecountless other places with
more people, more money and lessland.
In fact, the average houseprice last year in the United
States was barely was almosthalf less than it is here in
Canada.
Why is housing so much moreexpensive here than elsewhere in
the world?
Why?

Speaker 2 (34:16):
We have continually invested in programs and
supports for Canadians that haveseen millions of families
entering new homes, getting thesupports they needed millions of
refurbishments, millions ofsupports right across the
country.
But it's interesting tocontrast the Conservative record
on that.
In the last election campaign,the Conservative platform
promised on housing was to givetax breaks to wealthy landlords.

(34:40):
That was their approach onhousing.
What we contrasted withsignificant investments in
delivering for first-time homebuyers, delivering for people
facing homelessness, deliveringfor Canadian families to access
better housing.

Speaker 1 (34:55):
Take, for instance just this past week, Canadians
were encouraged to allowmigrants and refugees to occupy
empty rooms or homes in Airbnbsuites.
They've since walked out back,but eventually they'll find a
way to make it shameful thatmore people didn't jump on board
with the plan you know theinherent racism in Canada, or
something to that effect.
Then they'll figure some sortof tax to apply to empty spaces

(35:16):
as a punishment to encourage youto reconsider.
In Los Angeles, California,they are contemplating
legislation that would forcehotels to provide their
unoccupied rooms to the homeless.
It's not a far stretch tobelieve that the government here
would be willing to draftsimilar laws should things
continue in the general mannerin which they are.
While declaring record-breakingimmigration targets, which will

(35:37):
only further exacerbateCanada's growing housing crisis,
the government casually glossesover the overwhelming number of
refugees and migrants that aredaily entering Canada and
circumventing the immigrationprocess entirely.
They have been since Trudeautook to Twitter on January 28,
2017, carelessly tweeting;

Speaker 22 (36:00):
Canada will welcome you, regardless of your faith.
Diversity is our strengthHashtag welcome to Canada,

Speaker 1 (36:07):
the day after President Trump put out an
executive order banning refugeesand visitors from Muslim
majority countries Iran, Iraq,Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and
Yemen.
It wasn't the war-torn thatbegan to show up, though.
It was the dregs anddisenfranchised.
They were welcomed at RoxhamRoad by the RCMP, serving the

(36:27):
capacity of over-glorifiedbellhops for the
soon-to-be-minted New Canadians,especially if they were part of
a marginalized group that fitthe current agenda of the
progressive crowd.
It is these people to whom theempty rooms are intended, not
immigrants.
Immigrants already havesponsors or have proven their
assets as adequate to sustainthem for a period of time.
They don't need empty hotelrooms.

(36:47):
Migrants and refugees do.
Meanwhile, the government doesnothing to stem the tide of
illegal border crossings, at thesame time committing to
dangerous levels of immigrationto help in mitigating a global
crisis that is being made worseby their inability to
effectively address the verysame issues faced here in Canada
by Canadian citizens.

Speaker 9 (37:06):
Did you expect to be sleeping on the street when you?
Were no, no, no, I didn'texpect that.
Najib is seeking asylum inCanada.
Everything he owns gatheredaround this tree.
I came with this.
This is my luggage.
Toronto's shelters are full.
More than a third of the 9,000beds are filled by refugees and

(37:27):
asylum seekers.
Those who can't get in aresleeping on the street.
My friends from Kenya, tanzania.
Uganda.
Many of us from Nigeria, we arehere.

Speaker 1 (37:39):
Given the boreal forest and Canada's huge
expanses of carbon-consumingland, we are actually one of the
few low-carbon producingcountries in the developed world
.
Despite what the Canadiangovernment would have you
believe, Ever-increasing carbontaxation does nothing to curb
the alleged climate crisis, yetthey continue to pile it on More
tax on top of tax on top of tax.
It's unreal.

(38:00):
And all in the absence of anytangible solutions.

Speaker 10 (38:03):
But what most people don't know is that there is a
second carbon tax he plans tostack on top of the first one a
sneaky tax he calls a fuelstandard that will hit home
heating gas, our factories andcountless other higher costs.
So how much, how much and howmuch will Canadians pay in
higher gas and diesel pricesbecause of the second liberal

(38:25):
carbon tax?
Mr?

Speaker 21 (38:27):
Speaker, I am glad to hear the Conservative leader
actually talking about climate,Because the reality is the
biggest challenge our planetfaces and the biggest challenge
our economy faces is building aclean economy.

(38:47):
That is where the jobs are.
That is where the jobs will be.
We've invested $120 billion inour green industrial plan.
It is creating jobs today.
It will create jobs in thefuture.
The Conservatives would wreckall of that.

Speaker 10 (39:02):
The question was about carbon tax Two.
We already know what carbon taxOne.
The Prime Minister has put inplace a 14-cent-a-liter tax that
will rise to $0.41 a liter.
This raises gas, heat andgrocery bills.
But now they're sneaking in asecond carbon tax called the
fuel standard.
It has no rebate whatsoever butwill apply in every province

(39:24):
and territory across the country.
So she's so proud of her secondtax.
Why won't you tell us exactlyhow much it will cost in higher
diesel gas and household costsper family?

Speaker 21 (39:35):
Mr Speaker, the Conservative leader obviously
doesn't understand that whatevery industrial economy needs
is a plan to build a cleaneconomy of the future.
But I'll tell you who doesunderstand that.
An electrician called Jeff, whoI met in Mississauga in March

(39:55):
and I was there to talk with himabout the investments we were
going to make in electrifyingthe Canadian economy.
He knows that that means forhim jobs.
He told me I have the skills topay the bills and thanks to our
plan, those skills will be putto work and Jeff's across the
country will pay their bills.

Speaker 1 (40:15):
Calgary Co-Op spent an enormous amount of money and
research to source bags fortheir customers which would be
less impactful to theenvironment.
As a result, they now offertheir members bags that have
every appearance of a classicplastic bag, but are fully
compostable and break downwithin 30 days.
Furthermore, they contain noplastic whatsoever.
Despite this, the federal banon single use plastics ensnared

(40:36):
these particular items withinits legislation, making them
illegal under the new law.
This inspired a petition onchangeorg for the government to
issue an exemption for Co-Op'sbags.

Speaker 22 (40:52):
We're trying to find a solution to the pollution
caused by plastic grocery bagsand we heard you have a great
product that you were using thatis not only cost effective but
environmentally friendly.
Could you

Speaker 1 (41:03):
They are far more likely to throw the baby out
with the bathwater and outlawany possible solution on the
hasty attempt to have plasticsdisappear entirely, even if it
means banning products that havea resemblance to plastic, even
if they're not composed of asingle particle.
It's absurd.
At best, they could easilymandate that national grocers
switch to the new compostableand environmentally friendly

(41:25):
alternatives spearheaded byco-op, and smaller grocers would
catch up in time.

Speaker 13 (41:30):
I started thinking about it.
Just as you know somebody who'sraised a middle class kid.
One year, even though youdidn't have the job you have now
, even though you didn't get araise that year the difference
between having a job, having a5% raise or whatever, 3, 5, 7,
whatever it happens to be in theface of inflation price of the

(41:54):
pump although that's down everyday so far, but you know it's
like whoa.
I feel worse off.
But then again I didn't get acheck for eight grand from the
government.
They just, among other things.
Does that make any sense toanybody?
Or is it just me?

Speaker 1 (42:12):
That's the progressive way; outlaw and
restrict in lieu of practicalsolutions or long-term planning.
It's now or it's never, all ornothing, and now.
Damn the torpedoes and fullspeed ahead.
Cars can idle while parkedaround the block and down the
street while waiting to use thedrive-thru at the local Tim
Hortons, but God forbid.
We talk about shutting down thedrive-thrus to help reduce

(42:33):
emissions.
How absolutely unreasonable itwould be to expect people to
vacate the comfort of their carsto place their order inside the
restaurant, as they at one timewere accustomed to.
I'd be curious to know how muchexhaust fumes are generated by
drive-thrus in general each yearin Canada.
We likely won't ever know theanswer though, the government
like- to- knows are far tooworried about the levels of
methane produced by cattle thanany reasonable ideas that might

(42:56):
actually prove beneficial to theprotection of the environment.
I've got my Tim Hortons, my TimHortons.
Agree with the Freedom Convoy ornot.
The fact that the governmentseized bank accounts without any
sort of precursors prior is adevastation to the face of

(43:18):
democracy in the Western world,and people are not nearly as
mortified as they should be orneed to be.
Additionally, spying onCanadians' cell phones and
tracking their movements, allwhile encouraging segregation
during the pandemic, should bestriking all the wrong chords
for people.
Freezing the assets and moneyof Canadians without any
semblance of due process sets avery dangerous precedent for

(43:40):
future governments.
No court cases, noinvestigation, simply a list of
names provided to the bankingsector from the government, with
the results being the immediateseizure of accounts.
If they can do this to thoseprotesting in Ottawa, they can
do it to you, and they will.
The Liberal government had nochoice but to reverse its
position on the matter themoment it looked like there
might be a bank run.
As you may or may not know,banks don't have access to

(44:03):
enough money to cover all themoney they owe to their clients.
In fact, not enough money evenexists to satisfy the total debt
.
Should the clients request theyall be compensated.
When they shuttered all thoseaccounts, people whose accounts
were not seized began to worryabout their own assets,
especially if they may havedonated a buck or two to the
convoy.
They went to their localinstitutions and they began to
withdraw funds at a rate thatalarmed the banks enough that

(44:25):
they made known to thegovernment that they could not
continue to seize accounts ontheir behalf and the government
was going to need to lift thefrozen assets immediately, to
which the government complied,but by that time it was already
too late.
The cracks in the system wereall too apparent.

Speaker 23 (44:40):
After weeks of protests, Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau was taking drasticaction to put an end to the
Freedom Convoy protests.
The time to go home is nowTrudeau invoking emergency
powers allowing the governmentto remove cars and trucks,
suspend their insurance and evenfreeze truckers' personal and
corporate bank accounts.
He says the powers will belimited in scope and that he's

(45:02):
not calling in the military.

Speaker 2 (45:03):
The Emergencies Act will be used to strengthen and
support law enforcement agenciesat all levels across the
country.

Speaker 1 (45:12):
Meanwhile, Tamara Leach, Chris Barber and Pat King
were all imprisoned in the samemanner no due process and no
trial, held without bail for theincredibly minor infraction of
mischief all for disagreeingwith the government and having
the tenacity to stand up againstthem in protest.
Black Lives Matters protestersmurdered people, looted and
destroyed buildings and setneighborhoods ablaze.

(45:33):
No charges.
Those involved were justexercising their right to
protest, after all.
Freedom Convoy participantsheld barbecues, fed the homeless
, set up bouncy castles andarranged shimmy games for the
kids in the area.
No one was hurt.
Yet the government took somepretty extraordinary steps to
shut them down, charging themand incarcerating them, in sharp
contrast to the BLM protests.

(45:53):
Do you wonder why?
It's because the Freedom Convoywas effective.
It encouraged similar protestsworldwide during a time when
world governing bodies were inlockstep with each other.
Unlike the BLM protests, it wasgaining momentum.
More people were joining theFreedom Convoy daily.
It was growing at anunprecedented rate every day.
As a result, the governmentsimply had no choice but to shut

(46:15):
it down.
Even the US government wasclamoring for the Canadian
government to do something toput an end to it as soon as
possible.
After all, copycat convoys werebeginning to gain traction
there as well.

Speaker 11 (46:28):
You'd be forgiven for thinking that this is one
big party.
But for two weeks now theseprotesters have laid siege to
this city.
The state of emergency has nowbeen declared in Ontario to give
police more powers to shut downdemonstrations, but most insist
they're not going anywhere.

Speaker 8 (46:46):
We can be here as long as it takes we're well
supported food-wise, fuel-wise,financially.
We're fully supported to behere for as long as it takes for
this government to realize thatthe people are the ones that
need to have the power.

Speaker 1 (47:00):
Rather than engage in dialogue with the convoy
protesters and attempt to reachcommon ground, trudeau chose
instead to ignore their requestfor a meeting and slander them
instead.
Even though he took a knee in avery public display during the
BLM protests and wouldn't miss aPride event, he simply would
not engage in any meaningfulfashion with the Freedom Convoy.
The government did everythingthey could to squash the protest

(47:22):
instead, in the end resortingto using UN personnel to strong
arm them into submission withexcessive force, pepper spray,
flashbangs and smoke bombs.
They trampled senior citizenswith horses and shot people with
physical disabilities withrubber bullets.
They took petrol away andeffectively left people without
heat in the depths of Canadianwinter.
They even threatened to havefamily services remove children

(47:43):
from families involved in theFreedom Convoy.
They did all this and more.
They needed very badly for youto believe that the convoy
protesters were the worst, mostcontemptible members of the
population, so you did not wantto be seen to identify with them
, even if you actually did.

Speaker 15 (47:58):
Canada's Justin Trudeau has done the impossible.
He has turned a fringe anti-vaxmovement in Canada into a
global campaign.
Freedom Convoy's are popping upall over the world now in
Israel, in Belgium, america,france, australia.
There are two takeaways fromthis movement.
Number one it exposes theWest's unscientific and arrogant
temperament.
And number two it exposes thehypocrisy of Western leaders.

(48:21):
Let me show you two sets ofpictures.
One is from Paris, the other isfrom the US.
There was tear gas, there wasintimidation, there were clashes
.
Do you know what was missing?
The lectures on morality.
Imagine if these pictures werefrom Baghdad or Cairo or New
Delhi.
Trudeau would have beenrallying on Twitter, Joe Biden
would have been lecturing fromthe White House.

(48:41):
But in this case, they are infull agreement.
The protests must end.
If Canada's blockades are legal, so are India's.
If Canada can use the police torestore daily lives, so can
India.
That is what the West mustrealize and accept.

Speaker 1 (48:57):
Now they would have you believe that a digital
currency should replace physicalmoney, a series of credits
taking the place of an actualphysical currency.
Can you imagine just for asecond what that would look like
and the power it would wield togovernments to track and
control a country's citizens ifthey could simply freeze your
digital credits whenever youdisagreed with something they
took exception to, or refused toagree to or support something

(49:18):
in their agenda?
If you disagreed withtransgenderism or wearing a mask
or what should be taught tochildren at your local education
facilities, for just a fewexamples, would it be fair to
just cut off access to yourearnings?
I certainly don't think so.
The Liberal Party is a sham, andthe Canadian people who did

(49:38):
support the Liberals are wakingup to this realization ever so
slowly in some cases.
The issue with the Liberalscannot be repaired by simply
changing out the leader.
The issues run deep, to thevery core of the party.
Decades of previous Liberalgovernments, the blueprint for
today.
Unfortunately for the Liberals,they are saddled with Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau, whoseactions are equally scandalous

(50:00):
to the party of which he isleader.

Speaker 16 (50:02):
My name is Brock Blaschek.
I'm a retired corporal with thePrincess Canadian Infantry out
of here in Edmonton, firstbattalion.
I served in the Canadian ArmedForces for seven years.
I deployed in Afghanistan backin 2009 until April 3rd, where I

(50:24):
was obviously severely woundedby a roadside bomb or InfoFies
explosive.
As you can see, I've lost myleft leg.
I have 58% soft tissue loss and88% nerve damage on my right
leg.

(50:46):
Back in August 24th 2015,.
You made the promise, and I'llquote it here no veteran will be
forced to fight their owngovernment for the support and
compensation they have earned.
Yet you are still currently ina legal battle with veterans

(51:06):
regarding equal support andcompensation to their peers.
As you can tell, we have twosets of two standard of veterans
who fought in the same war theones prior to 2006 and the ones
after 2006.
There are two standards One onthe old pension act and one

(51:29):
under this new lump sum or soonto be, lifetime pension option
which, by the way, mr PrimeMinister, by what you just said
here, through my owndetermination, I've still worked
, so technically, by what yousaid just a little while ago, I
don't qualify for.

(52:02):
So my question is to you, Mr.
Prime Minister, what veteranswere you talking about?
Because you have ISIL or ISISmembers coming into a
reintegration program.
You did a backdoor deal withOmar Qadar, with not even
stepping into the courtroom.
So, again, my question is whatveterans were you talking about?

(52:28):
Was the ones that fought forthe freedoms and values that you
so proudly boast about?
Or was it the ones who foughtagainst?
Because, honestly, Mr.
Prime Minister, I was preparedto be injured in the line of
duty when I joined the military.
Nobody forced me to join themilitary.
I was prepared to be killed inaction.

(52:49):
Where I wasn't prepared for, Mr.
Prime Minister, is Canadaturning its back on me.
So which veteran was it thatyou were talking about?

Speaker 2 (53:06):
Thank you, sir.
Thank you for your passion andyour strength and being here
today to share this justifiablefrustration and anger with me
and with all of us here.
Thank you for having thecourage to stand here and thank
you for listening to my answer.
On a couple of elements youbrought up.
First of all, why are we stillfighting against certain

(53:31):
veterans groups in court?
Because they are asking formore than we are able to give
right now.
They are asking for more thanwe.
Well, no, Hang on.
You're asking.

Speaker 1 (53:45):
More and more accusations are surfacing
regarding what Trudeau did toyoung girls when they attended a
certain school that he is knownto have resigned from.
His proclivity for teenagegirls is already well known.
Before the last election, greatlengths were undertaken to
censor any stories regardingthese matters, while working to
silence the minor he impregnatedwhen he was a teacher at that
very same school.
Meanwhile, Trudeau's wife isspeculated to have left him over

(54:08):
three years ago in a ratherpublic manner that was, as usual
, relatively dismissed by thegeneral media as unworthy of
coverage.
Sophie made an agreement tostay on board without first lady
duties, and she's beennoticeably absent from the
public spotlight ever since.
Now, in a strange twist, theTrudeaus have proceeded to
announce their separation in ascripted mutual post, while

(54:29):
asking for privacySophie will continue to go on
vacation with the family, eventhough they are officially
separated.
Of course, she'll stay on forthe tax-funded trips and
excursions.
Why not?
Because it's all the perks andnone of the slightest charade
that there's anything left of arelationship whatsoever.

(54:49):
Sounds like a win-win heavyproposition.
In fact, it was within weeks ofthe announcement of their
separation that they departedfor a family vacation in an
undisclosed location in BC.
It should be a pretty easy fakefor the Trudeaus.
After all, reports from Cubaduring one of the family's
vacations there in the last fewyears were that Sophie never
left the cabana, preferring toentertain herself alone with a

(55:11):
steady supply from the drinkcart, while Trudeau himself was
busy flirting with the youngboys and girls up and down the
beach.
While no major newspaperreported on it, many Canadians
bearing witness were appalledand none too shy about sharing
their stories about theestranged couple upon their
arrival back home.

Speaker 6 (55:27):
The Prime Minister and his wife, sophie Gregoire
Trudeaus, have released astatement announcing they have
made the decision to separateafter 18 years of marriage.
I'm going to read you thestatement that was issued on the
Prime Minister's Instagramaccount; Hello everyone, Sophie
and I, would like to share thefact that, after many meaningful
and difficult conversations, wehave made the decision to

(55:47):
separate.
As always, we remain a closefamily with deep love and
respect for each other and foreverything we have built and
will continue to build For thewell-being of our children.
We ask that you respect our andtheir privacy.

Speaker 1 (56:02):
Now they have the audacity to ask for privacy
After being happy to publiclyembrace any opportunity
available for exploitation prior.
That's pretty rich really, andjust goes to show the vapid
reasoning behind their feelingsof entitlement.
That's simply how out of touchwith the working class they
really are.
Thankfully, we won't have tosuffer through any more
impromptu spontaneous songs fromSophie at future public

(56:24):
appearances at least.

Speaker 24 (56:26):
I've heard my people busing through the crowd,
fellow human beings and friendshere today sing.
This is not planned.
Trust me, I'm going to step up,yes, and I'm going to sing you
a song that I wrote for mydaughter, ella Grace, at a
moment where I was going througha difficult time and where I

(56:46):
remind myself of all the hopethat there is in one's life and
all the hope that there is inlove and helping out each other.
It's called Smile Back at Meand it goes like this: Some
people doubt that angels can flyand some people fight without

(57:11):
knowing why.
Some people live without seeingthe light and some people live,
oh, no, no, no, no, but notquite, and I know that good will

(57:31):
prevail and I could conquer theworld with all the love that I
feel.
When you smile back at me, whenyou smile back at me, I see it
from the corner of your eye, theday that we will say goodbye,

(57:54):
but nothing will take awaywhat's between you and me.
When you smile back at me, whenyou smile back at me, when you
smile, when you smile, when yousmile, I love you, my child.

Speaker 1 (58:17):
Pundits are already speculating about Trudeau's
resignation.
But people need to understandthat this is not just a
shortfall on behalf of a poorleader, but rather a culmination
of the progressive ideologiesand actions of a terrible
government with an even worsevirtue signaling platform.
The Liberal Party entire hasbecome such a socialist monolith
that even the most progressiveLiberal voters must feel

(58:38):
alienated by them by now.
No doubt the fact that theprogressive conservatives have
slid so far to the left and thatthe platforms and forward
planning is looking verytempting to those who now feel
misaligned with the LiberalParty.
A simple change of leadershipis not enough to alter their
objectives.
Years of rebuilding that brandalone is all that remains now
for the beleaguered party toendure.

Speaker 25 (58:59):
But what I started to hear in the background from
very senior Liberals, they'retrying to make sure that Mr.
Trudeau understands that thisis his legacy mandate, that he's
going to get things like dentalcare done and perhaps pharma
care and health deals with theprovinces.
In other words, they're tryingto start greasing the skids
because they know that his timeis up.
Does he know that ChrystiaFreeland again sending signals

(59:22):
that she might want to go toNATO?
And last time she did that itseemed that whatever explicit or
implied deal she thought shehad with Trudeau for a
succession wasn't there anymoreand she was going to leave.
So she's one of his mostcapable ministers I would say
the most capable person aroundhis cabinet table and if she
leaves after Mark Garneau andafter others are already

(59:43):
starting to make noises, it'snot a good sign for Trudeau's
leadership or his future inpolitics, right?

Speaker 1 (59:48):
Should Trudeau choose to resign, who would take his
place anyway?
The party favorite would, ofcourse, be Chrystia Freeland.
There may be other leadershiphopefuls, but Freeland is the
one that appears to be beinggroomed for the position.
After all, she's the one doingmost of the heavy lifting while
Trudeau attends the never-endingpride parades.
Chrystia Freeland is a womanwhose best intellectual moments
have been scripted by others,whose book Plutoc rats: The Rise

(01:00:09):
Of The New Global Super-RichAnd The Fall Of Everyone Else,
outlined the hollowing out ofthe middle class to establish a
have and have-not society wherethe rich are responsible to take
care of the poor anddisadvantaged.
It's that ideology that is saidto have been the reason that
Trudeau convinced Freeland togive up her career as a
journalist to join the LiberalParty.
If you believe that Trudeauactually ever read a book on

(01:00:30):
anything of that topic in thefirst place.
More likely Katie Telford had ahand in it and presented
Freeland to the party as asuitable candidate.
That's far more believable.
At least, I mean, it likelydidn't have nearly as much to do
with her family's ties toUkrainian Nazis or her activism
against Soviet Russia in heryouth and young adulthood, for
example.
Bottom line, however, is thefact that, outside of her

(01:00:51):
current position, Freeland hashad less political experience
than even Trudeau had prior tohis election.
A running theme in recentCanadian leadership the results
of her book Subject Matter onCanadians echoes through the
middle class and those workinghard to join it, as they face a
higher cost of living than everbefore, however.
Costs that make it almostimpossible for average Canadians

(01:01:12):
to make ends meet.
All while billions and billionsin foreign aid is siphoned off
to places like Ukraine or Africaand issues such as homelessness
and poverty are stillunresolved problems here at home
.
It's hard to see how thegovernment in Canada even
remotely serves the Canadianpeople.
They are more aligned withworldwide organizations,
potential global governments andpolicies that make

(01:01:32):
considerations for people wholive in entirely different parts
of the planet than they arewith their own people.
The level of contempt theyappear to have for Canadians is
on display every day.
Their policies, agendas andlegislation speaks to it at
every turn.

Speaker 21 (01:01:47):
Of course.
Look, I think I want to startby really recognizing that I am
a very privileged person.
For sure, Like other electedfederal leaders, I am paid a

(01:02:17):
really significant salary and Iknow that that puts me in a
really, really privilegedposition.
And I really recognize that itis not people like me, people

(01:02:37):
who have my really good fortune,who are struggling the most in
Canada today.
The people who are strugglingin Canada today with today's
high prices aren't people likeme.
They're not federally electedpoliticians.

(01:02:59):
They are people across thecountry who earn a low income,
who really do find that today'shigh prices mean they have to
make difficult choices aboutwhat food to buy, about whether

(01:03:21):
to buy groceries or pulltogether the money to pay the
rent.
So I 100% recognize that.

Speaker 1 (01:03:29):
Meanwhile, migrants sleep on Canadian streets and
the government attempts to goadCanadians into opening their
spare rooms and vacant rentalsto them to mean to remedy the
situation.
It's absurd.
Would they have the homelessCanadians offer up their box or
shopping cart to them as well?
Don't fall for it.
Remember, you did not createthis mess.
The Liberal government did, andit should be up to them to

(01:03:49):
clean it up, not us.
The Liberal Party of Canada hasbecome a corrupted,
self-righteous shadow of itsformer self.
Their virtue signaling policieshave failed at near every turn.
Their only defensive move wouldseem to be in manipulating the
media into supporting theirnarrative and to silence any
opposition by any meansnecessary through censorship and
legislation, when that doesn'twork.

(01:04:10):
Like little children having acomeuppance in the playground,
they resort to name-calling andmudflinging instead of
level-headed, responsibledecision-making or meaningful
dialogue.
Is that really what you wouldconsider effective and
meaningful government?
Do they really represent youand what you believe?
Is this the face of Canada youwould like to present to the
world stage?
Probably not.
Enough is enough.

(01:04:31):
If you ever supported theLiberal Party in the past or are
foolish enough to still do so,it's time to let them go.
Like an unwelcome bedfellow,it's time that they were on
their way.
Their interests lie in far-offlands ruled by global
dignitaries that are appointedby association, so disgusted by
their fellow Canadians that theyspeak in condescending tones at

(01:04:51):
every turn, admonishing themfor their unwillingness to shed
their national or regionalidentity for a foreign legion.

Speaker 12 (01:04:59):
This is unrelated, but this past weekend I was
camping with my family and therewas a vehicle that was part of
our neighbors, basically and ithad a bumper sticker on it with
your name and an expletive whichI had to explain to my children
.
Given that you're trying to dosomething that has rarely been
achieved in Canada in history afourth mandate have you

(01:05:22):
considered the possibility thatyou have become a liability?

Speaker 2 (01:05:27):
Ever since the pandemic in particular, we've
seen an increase in polarizationand frustration and anxiety and
mental health pressures on awhole lot of people right across
the country.
Nobody has been unaffected bythat, and part of the challenge

(01:05:48):
we have politically is that weare seeing deeper polarizations.
But don't write off Canadiansjust because they choose to wave
a nasty flag.
Don't write off a neighbor whochooses to put a bumper sticker
that, unfortunately, you thenhave to explain to your kids.

(01:06:08):
People are hurting out thereand what we've seen every single
time there's been an emergencyor a challenge this summer is
neighbors stepping up to helpeach other.
This is who Canadians are.
We are a big, optimistic,diverse country with a diverse
range of political views, andit's one of our strengths.

(01:06:30):
Another one of our strengths ishow we pull together when times
are tough.
That's what we did during thepandemic.
That's what we do when we worktogether to invest in early
childhood education.
That's what we do when we workwith municipalities and
provinces to build more housing.
That's what we do when weinvest in our future altogether.

(01:06:57):
And politics is never going tobe a game of unanimous support.
It's about a whole bunch ofthoughtful, good people coming
together to try and figure outthe best way forward.
And, yes, there are people whoare hurting and there are people
who are lashing out and we needto be there to reassure them

(01:07:18):
that they're going to be able tosucceed, that their kids and
their communities are going tobe able to succeed, even though
the world is changing in veryscary ways.
So I'm not giving up on anyone.
I'm going to continue workinghard every day to build that
future that we all know Canadacan have.
We are the best country in theworld.

(01:07:41):
Let's keep making it better.

Speaker 1 (01:07:45):
Is it unreasonable to believe that our politicians
should be putting Canada, and,with it, Canadians, first?
Is it so unconscionable thatthey might concern themselves
with addressing the issues facedby Canadians in Canada instead
of those in other jurisdictions?
Instead of funneling billionsto Ukraine, maybe the government
could use that money to createmore affordable housing, lower
grocery, home heating andelectrical costs or lower

(01:08:08):
intuitions, increase theefficacy of care in the Canadian
health system.
The list goes on.
Why are Canadians always anafterthought to Canadian
politicians?
It's as though Canadians aresimply the coin purse and the
government is the pickpocket,robbing us blind, all the while
telling us how terribly blind weactually are and how badly we
need their help, if ever we wishto see again.
If they would just stop takingmore than we have to give, we

(01:08:31):
could likely find our way clearto see again on our own.
If we don't need the governmentto lord over our affairs and
given the terrible job theytypically do of it, we shouldn't
want them to.

(01:09:14):
If you have any topics you'dlike This Canadian Thinks to
cover, or ideas for guests thatmight be interested in appearing
in future episodes, be sure tolet us know we are also actively
seeking sponsors andadvertisers who might be a good
fit with our program.
If you'd like to partner withus, we'd be happy to hear from
you as well.
Thanks so much, once again, forlistening to this podcast.
We hope you'll be back for manymore episodes to come.

(01:09:35):
Until next time, keep your mindopen and don't forget to think.
www.

(01:10:09):
trampledundertyranny.
com