EZRA LEVANT | Danielle Smith challenges Ottawa as immigration tensions reach boiling point

Summary

---

Rebel News Podcast Summary

Episode: EZRA LEVANT | Danielle Smith challenges Ottawa as immigration tensions reach boiling point
Date: February 23, 2026
Host: Ezra Levant
Key Guests:

• Michelle Rempel Garner (Federal Conservative Immigration Critic)
• Barry Neufeld (Former Chilliwack School Trustee, interviewed by an unnamed Rebel News reporter)

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on two major stories:

1. Danielle Smith's announcement of a provincial referendum on immigration policy in Alberta, challenging federal management and the status quo.
2. A deep dive into the recent British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fine against Barry Neufeld for his public stance on gender ideology, exploring free speech implications and judicial fairness.

Ezra Levant and his guests dissect the evolving landscape of immigration debates in Canada, the constitutional tensions between federal and provincial powers, and controversies surrounding free expression and legal activism in cases of gender ideology.

---

Segment 1: Danielle Smith’s Immigration Referendum ([00:00]–[04:55])

Main Points

• Danielle Smith’s Announcement (Premier of Alberta):
  Smith lays out five referendum questions aimed at reshaping Alberta's approach to immigration and social services, seeking direct public mandate for significant policy change.

  • Key Concerns: Alberta's perceived unfair burden under federal transfer payments, rapid federal immigration inflows straining provincial resources (healthcare, education, etc.), and prioritizing Alberta residents and Canadian citizens in economic opportunities.

• Five Referendum Questions:
  (Highlights, paraphrased)

  1. Should Alberta take greater control of immigration to decrease levels, prioritize economic migrants, and ensure Albertans get first access to jobs?
  2. Should access to provincially funded services be restricted to Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and those with specific immigration status?
  3. Should non-permanent legal residents be required to live in Alberta for 12 months before accessing social programs?
  4. Should a fee be charged to non-permanent immigrants for healthcare and education?
  5. Should proof of citizenship be required to vote in Alberta provincial elections?

Notable Quote

• Danielle Smith ([02:23]):

  "Alberta taxpayers can no longer be asked to continue to subsidize the entire country through equalization and federal transfers…This is not only grossly unfair…but also financially crippling and undercuts the quality of our healthcare, education and other social services."

Commentary

• Ezra Levant ([04:55]):
  Emphasizes that these are questions for direct democracy, and predicts overwhelming public support.

---

Segment 2: Michelle Rempel Garner Interview on Immigration Policy ([05:29]–[22:28])

Key Discussion Points

Frustration with Federal Immigration Policy

• Rempel Garner ([05:47]):

  “It's been incredibly frustrating to watch the Liberals completely ruin Canada's immigration system for everybody...They've brought too many people in too fast for housing, health care and jobs to keep up.”

• She notes growing cross-partisan provincial pushback, not just in conservative jurisdictions but among liberals as well, demanding Ottawa address the system’s failings.

Provincial vs. Federal Powers

• Ezra points out the constitutional reality: immigration is primarily federal, but provinces can influence health, education, and voting ([07:12]).

Policy Solutions

• Rempel argues for:
  • Lowering immigration to “sustainable” levels.
  • Reforms to birthright citizenship and the asylum system.
  • Better enforcement against expired or expiring visas – nearly 3 million people implicated ([07:43], [11:24]).
  • Removing “temporary” visitors when their status ends, per the law.

Debate over Enforcement and Stigma

• Ezra asks if the Conservatives are prepared to face accusations of racism for support deporting 3 million people, many of whom are visible minorities ([09:51]).
• Rempel ([11:24]):

  “If you are in Canada on a temporary visa, temporary means temporary under our law… at the end of your visa, you need to leave.”

Social Services and “Common Sense” Polling

• Rempel discusses Canadian public skepticism toward Liberal immigration strategy:

  “Polling has shown that immigration is the number one issue that the Liberals are weak on” ([15:04], [17:35]).

• Emphasizes Canadians’ openness to immigration but not at current volumes or under present conditions.

Military Recruitment and Foreign Soldiers ([17:35]–[19:06])

• Ezra raises the Liberal proposal allowing non-citizens to serve in Canadian Forces.
• Rempel ([18:02]):

  “Serving in Canada's armed forces is a wonderful opportunity for any Canadian. But I think…where the Liberal government should first be asking is why more Canadians…aren't choosing the armed service.”

Will Liberals Pivot on Immigration? ([19:06]–[22:03])

• Ezra asks whether the Liberals, fearing electoral loss, will adopt tough immigration stances.
• Rempel points to her private member’s bill barring judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences for serious crimes — a direct test for Liberal “rule of law” credibility.
  • Quote ([20:14]):

    “Are [Liberals] going to listen to … special interest groups or lawyers who profit off the system or are they going to uphold the rule of law and the spirit of Canada's immigration law?”

---

Segment 3: Human Rights Tribunal Fine Against Barry Neufeld ([22:35]–[40:33])

Background ([22:35]–[23:27])

• Barry Neufeld, a former Chilliwack school trustee, was fined $750,000 by the BC Human Rights Tribunal for comments on gender ideology.
• Discusses legal process, support for his legal defense, and the involvement of multiple advocacy legal groups.

Neufeld’s Perspective

• Neufeld ([23:27]):

  “I was a little surprised that the tribunal went along with it. But…$750,000 really made a lot of people sit up and take notice. What the heck? Why are they doing this to this guy?”

Key Issues Raised

• Tribunal’s logic: Refusing to believe gender identity is distinct from biological sex constitutes “existential denialism” and is “hate” ([27:19]–[29:10]).

• Neufeld: Maintains his views reflect majority opinion and defend free speech, indicating judicial bias and procedural failures.

  • Quote ([27:53]):

    “I believe they exist. But I think they're deluded. You're either male or female, and they took that as a hateful remark.”

• Discussion with a protester outside a related event underscores public division and the chilling effect on dissent due to massive penalties ([29:10]–[31:18]).

• Neufeld claims the tribunal system is overloaded with spurious, ideological complaints, leading to unfair delays ([31:11]–[32:01]).

Chilling Effects and Broader Impact ([33:37]–[37:21])

• Neufeld argues this sets a precedent to silence dissenters, particularly those with assets.
• He brings up his decision not to apologize or settle, stating he couldn't “live with [himself] if [he] told a public lie” ([37:21]–[37:28]).
• Asserts the importance of fighting for free speech on behalf of children and future challengers to gender ideology.

Appeal Plans and Support ([39:06]–[40:33])

• Determined to pursue appellate review, with help from supportive organizations.
• Directs supporters to his website for legal fund contributions.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Danielle Smith, on referendum rationale ([02:23]):

  “Alberta taxpayers can no longer be asked to continue to subsidize the entire country through equalization and federal transfers…This is not only grossly unfair…but also financially crippling…”

• Michelle Rempel Garner, on expired visas ([11:24]):

  “If you are in Canada on a temporary visa, temporary means temporary under our law… at the end of your visa, you need to leave.”

• Barry Neufeld, on tribunal ruling ([27:53]):

  “I believe they Exist. But I think they're deluded. You're either male or female, and they took that as a hateful remark.”

• Michelle Rempel Garner, on upholding the law ([20:14]):

  “Are they going to uphold the rule of law and the spirit of Canada's immigration law?”

• Barry Neufeld, on his motivation ([33:37]):

  “It's not just, I'm not doing this just for Barry Neufeld. I'm doing it for children...I believe in a creator and I believe that God doesn't make mistakes.”

---

Timestamps for Critical Segments

• [00:00]–[04:55] Danielle Smith’s referendum announcement and context
• [05:29]–[22:28] Michelle Rempel Garner interview: federal/provincial tensions, policy specifics
• [17:35]–[19:06] Military recruitment debate
• [22:35]–[40:33] Barry Neufeld interview: tribunal ruling, legal fallout, free speech battle

---

Key Themes & Tone

• The episode is unapologetically critical of federal Liberal immigration policy and, in the tribunal segment, of “woke” ideology in public institutions.
• Ezra Levant adopts a combative, often sarcastic tone, framing topics as issues of grassroots rebellion against entrenched political/media consensus.
• Both Rempel and Neufeld articulate calls for “common sense,” legal rigor, and resistance to what they characterize as ideological overreach.
• There is a recurring motif of “referendum,” “direct democracy,” and calls to let “ordinary people” decide contentious issues.
• The climate is marked by urgency and frustration, coupled with vows to keep fighting for reform and free speech.

---

Summary Takeaway

This episode is a study in rising populist backlash against Ottawa’s power, Dominion-wide immigration anxieties, and free speech disputes in an era of progressive human rights tribunals. Whether advocating policy reform via referendum or defying ideological judgments, the speakers cast themselves as champions of ordinary Canadians’ interests, critical of federal inertia and of what they see as a censorious, activist legal culture.

---

Transcript

[A]

Huge show today. Danielle Smith sets a new standard for immigration reform with her five powerful questions that she's going to put to a referendum of Albertans in October. Then we'll ask Michelle Rempel Garner, the federal conservative immigration critic, what she thinks about it. Huge show today. Thank you for tuning in. But first, I want you to get the video version of this podcast by going to rebelnewsplus.com it's eight bucks a month, which may not sound like a lot to you, but it sure adds up for us. It's how we pay our bills because we don't take a dime from the government and it shows.

[B]

You're listening.

[A]

Tonight, Danielle Smith sets a new standard for immigration reform and Michelle Rempel Gardner gives us her view on it. It's February 23rd, and this is the Ezra Levant Show. Shame on you, you censorious thug. Well, for decades, immigration was something you weren't really allowed to talk about other than to nod along and say everything was fine. I remember even the Conservative Party of Canada in, I think it was a 2021 election. The leader, when grilled by Rosemary Barton, said, oh, he just agrees with everything Justin Trudeau says. Can we please move on? It was terrifying. There was this political consensus that you couldn't challenge mass immigration, but I think that's falling apart. And last night, I think we heard one of the most bracing challenges to the immigration status quo ever by someone in a position of power. Without further ado, let me play for you an excerpt from Danielle Smith's address to the province last night where she said there's going to be referendum questions on immigration. And don't go away, because after I play those, I'm going to bring on Michelle Rempel Garner, the Conservative Party of Canada's immigration critic, to get her reaction to the declarations. Actually, not really declarations, because it's putting it to the people to the referendum questions of Alberta. Here, take a look.

[C]

The changes we need to make to immigration are a significant departure from the status quo, and therefore I am seeking a referendum mandate from Albertans to implement them. On October 19, 2026, we will hold a provincial referendum primarily focused on how Albertans want our government to deal with the issue of immigration, as well as steps we can take as a province to strengthen our constitutional and fiscal position within a united Canada. These were far and away the issues most strongly identified by Albertans during last year's Alberta Next panel town halls and online submissions. And in my view, it is time to act on them. The fact is Alberta taxpayers can no longer be asked to continue to subsidize the entire country through equalization and federal transfers, permit the federal government to flood our borders with new arrivals and then give free access to our most generous in the country social programs to anyone who moves here. This is not only grossly unfair to Alberta taxpayers, but also financially crippling and undercuts the quality of our healthcare, education and other social services. The October 19th referendum will therefore include the following number one do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purpose of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and ensuring Albertans have first priority to new employment opportunities? Number two do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law mandating only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially funded programs such as health, education and other social services? 3. Assuming that all citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring all individuals with a non permanent legal immigration status to be resident in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincially funded social support programs? Number four Assuming that all citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for public health care and education as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their families use of the healthcare and education systems? Number five do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card to be eligible to vote in a provincial election?

[A]

There you have it. Now, just to clarify, I sort of misspoke when I said that was her manifesto. No, those are the questions that are going to be put to Albertans in a vote. But if any poll over the last 10 years is accurate, I think each of those questions will be resoundingly approved by the people of Alberta. That's my prognostication. Joining us now via Skype is the official opposition critic for immigration, also known as the shadow Cabinet. Minister Michelle Rempel Gardner joins us now. Thank you so much for taking the time. You're so busy. I appreciate it.

[D]

Thanks for having me. As always.

[A]

Very interesting comments by Danielle Smith of Premier of Alberta. And to put it to the people is quite a dramatic move because I think that lets the people be the bad guy for challenging the consensus, not Danielle Smith herself.

[D]

Well, like, look, I'll just speak from the federal perspective. It's been Incredibly frustrating to watch the Liberals completely ruin Canada's immigration system for everybody, for Canadians who people, for people who want to come to Canada to build a better life and play by the rules. And, you know, they've, they've brought too many people in too fast for housing, health care and jobs to keep up. That's just the reality. And I. It's not just Premier Smith that is expressing concerns about that fact. It's premiers of all different political stripes across the country. And I think what you're seeing now, and not just in Alberta, is provincial governments challenging the lack of federal leadership in fixing the situation that they created. Right. We have an extremely weak immigration minister right now, and that's why the federal conservatives we've been putting forward, I know I've been on your show before, a lot of really bold and common sense proposals to restore order to Canada's immigration system because, yeah, like, we haven't seen any action or even acknowledgment from the Liberal government that they led Canada to this place. And now, of course, you see provincial governments, advocacy groups, and of course, official opposition saying, look, there needs to be, there needs to be action. And now it's kind of like over to you, Mark Carney.

[A]

You know, constitutionally, immigration is a federal matter. Obviously has to do with our borders. So for a province to wade into it is interesting. But she's not saying that she can stop immigration. What she can say is the things that are within the provincial jurisdiction, health and education and provincial voting she can take a stand on. Do you support her proposed use of, of those provincial powers to alter how mass immigration affects Alberta?

[D]

Well, you know, again, I'd point to other provinces as well, too, actually, municipalities. You know, Olivia Chao, hardly a conservative, proposed having to raise property taxes in response to the number of bogus asylum claimants that were flooding into the Greater Toronto area over the last several years under the federal Liberal governments, you know, abysmal immigration policies. Then you had, you know, we famously had the immigration minister in front of committee this year and she said, well, I don't consider health care when setting immigration levels. She said something to that effect. She sort of implied it. And of course, health care is a provincial responsibility. So when you have a federal government taking policy that's within their jurisdiction, but that massively impacts provincial jurisdiction, like health care, for example, or to a certain extent, housing, you are going to see people push back. And so again, I would just say how I've tried to address this issue in my role as shadow minister is come up with concrete solutions to see the federal government reverse some of these policies that have led to this sort of tension. Like we talked about birthright citizenship, we've talked about major reforms to the asylum system so that people who are abusing the asylum system can't get better health care benefits than Canadians do. For example, I could literally spend two hours talking to you about the proposals that we've put forward. But I think that you are going to see not just like, you know, I know that Premier Smith is going to get a lot of attention because she's a conservative premier talking about immigration. But frankly, it's been liberal premiers as well, too. And it's incumbent upon the liberal government and Mark Carney to take some of the suggestions that conservatives have put forward at the federal level to reform the system, but also Ezra massively bring down immigration levels, come up with a plan to remove the nearly 3 million people who have expired or expiring visas this year. Temporary needs to mean temporary. And yeah, it's a giant mess, but we will continue as a federal Conservative Party to push for reforms to bring back order and fairness.

[A]

You know, I saw an interesting debate online the other day between Candace Malcolm, the boss of Juneau News, and Jason Kenney, the former premier of Alberta and former federal immigration minister. And I think he was fairly well regarded as an immigration minister. He cracked down on some fraud, even though I would say the gross numbers were large. And they were quarreling over a debate that Candice Malcolm had had with someone from the Dominion Society, which is, I don't know if it's alt. Right. It's sort of one degree of separation from some racist guys in Diagonal. So I think that Jason Kenney was chiding that, but she said, look, the idea of sending home millions of people whose right to be here has expired, that's not racist at all. There's nothing racial about your visa running out and you having to go home. And there was a real argy bargy between the two of them. And, you know, we don't want to be racial. You could be an outstanding, loyal, patriotic Canadian of any color, of any religion. I truly believe that. But the idea of sending home 3 million people whose visas have expired will naturally touch people from foreign countries. Jason Kenny felt uncomfortable with that. Do you have the stamina and the tenacity to call for the deportation of 3 million souls, many of whom will be visible minorities even if you're called racist like we saw in that online debate?

[D]

Yeah. So I don't know. And I didn't follow any of the discourse that you talked about. But I'll just talk to the Federal Conservatives position on the issue of 2.9 million visas either expired or expiring on top of at least 500,000 undocumented persons in Canada. So the principles that we've been putting forward is this, if you are in Canada on a temporary visa, temporary means temporary under our law. And at the end of your visa, you need to leave. And the reality is the Federal Liberal government brought in way too many people without a plan to ensure that they leave at the end of their visas to the point where they've even said they don't even know if they can track them. So, of course, Conservatives, as we always do, are going to call for the law to be upheld. The Immigration Refugee Protection Act, Ezra, states that when somebody's visa expires, they need to do what they need to leave. That's the law. And Conservatives. I've been calling for this since I was reappointed as Shadow Minister for Immigration. And, you know, it was one of the first questions I actually asked Lena Diab in the House of Commons last May was, do you have a plan to remove these people? And the answer was, well, I don't know. And so, of course we're going to continue to push for that. And frankly, I think that if the Liberals don't deal with that, we're going to have a massive level of problems. Everything from, you know, we see AI disrupting the workforce. I wrote about that this week. You know, how are they setting. Why are they issuing hundreds of thousands of more temporary permits when they don't have a plan to have millions of people with expired visas to leave? And the other thing I'd say is this, Ezra, you've seen people from across the country who are on expired visas, you know, going to different rallies and whatnot, asking to stay. And I think the Liberals lied to them, too. The Liberals said they kind of wink in a nah. Was like, oh, yeah, you can stay here, right?

[E]

Yeah.

[D]

And it just goes to show what a crisis of humanity this is. But our. The Conservative Party's position that we are continuing to maintain is the law says that if you are here on a temporary visa, you need to leave. And now it is incumbent upon the Liberal government to come up with a plan to get people to do so. This is. It's just common sense. It's what the law says and it's what Canadians expect. So that's what we're focused on.

[A]

You know, I think you're right. I Think some of these folks who came over were lied to by immigration consultants, frankly, were lied to by some of these diploma mills who said, come here as a student, stay forever. And there's all sorts of tricksters showing them tricks to get around the system. Here's what I keep trying to wrap my head around. In the United States under Joe Biden, the number I keep hearing that came in was 13 million. Now they came in illegally, unlike the legal entry of students and temporary workers here. 13 million. That country's 10 times bigger than ours. So that would be like 1.3 million. We're dealing with a number twice as big as the Americans and it's tough for them. I mean, look at ICE going to try and find individual people. It's causing friction in the streets. Do you think Canadians have the stomach for that or do you think it's the way Danielle Smith is suggesting, don't use muscle, just turn off the flow of the free stuff and many of them will go home on their own. Like ICE is a heavy handed way, you could say, compared to just no more free stuff, which Alberta is saying. What do you think?

[D]

Well, I guess I just look at our own context. But maybe start, if you'll indulge me, with the United Kingdom. You know, a stat that really woke me up last year was there's a lot of debate in the United Kingdom right now on immigration. It's, I think, the top voter issue. I know that you, you covered that politics a lot. But there's actually more per capita and absolute asylum claim numbers or asylum claims made in Canada over a same period that there were in the, in the United Kingdom. And look at how big the debate is there. Right here's the reality. Like I think the Canadians, you know, we had a consensus on immigration that it was durable across different levels or across different political stripes for many years up until the Liberals took power about 10 years ago. And then what happened was the Liberals brought in too many people too fast for housing, healthcare and jobs to keep up. So, you know, for me, I think that the average Canadian, average permanent resident look around and go, well, wait, we have a youth jobs crisis. Why are we still bringing in massive levels of temporary foreign workers or foreign students on work permits? Why are we allowing bogus asylum claimants to stay in Canada for years? Why are we allowing non citizens who've been convicted of serious crimes in Canada to avoid deportation? Because they're getting more lenient sentences by judges by virtue of their immigration status. These are all questions that Canadians have that I've tried to respond to with private members bills, amendments to bills, but we've seen the Liberals just completely ignore this. And I will say this. Public opinion polling has shown that immigration is the number one issue that the Liberals are weak on. And it's because they refuse to listen to common sense Canadians across a political stripe that are like, yeah, we will be open and welcoming to immigrants, but not in these numbers and not under these conditions. And so restoring order through common sense proposals I think is something that everybody's expecting us to do and everybody's expecting Mark Carney to do so. You know, I don't think that anybody who's saying we don't have the housing, health care and jobs to keep up with the numbers that the Liberals are allowing are reasonable. In fact, they're right. And restoring that principle is something that of course, Conservatives stand behind at the federal level.

[A]

I got two really quick snappers and then I'll let you go. I really appreciate you spending so much time with me. Here's the first one which came out of left field to me is the Liberal government proposing that we bring in foreign nationals to be our soldiers. And I just thought the word mercenary jumped into my head. I mean, they say there would be background checks and security checks. What do you think of the idea of bringing in foreigners because were not able to recruit soldiers from Canada?

[D]

Well, I think that serving in Canada's armed forces is a wonderful opportunity for any Canadian. But I think that where the Liberal government should first be asking is why more Canadians, we have a youth jobs crisis in Canada. Aren't choosing the armed service or being processed into the armed service as our armed forces as an option. That's where I would start. I don't think that they have good answers on that. I just, just as a sort of stay tuned spoiler alert on this. I do have questions for, for the government on this, but I mean, you know, our conservative leader Pierre Poliev has been very blunt about the fact that Canada needs to restore a warrior culture within the armed forces as opposed to the woke culture that we've seen. I think that's part of it. But let's start with Canadians who want to serve. And then I have questions on the other part. So stay tuned on that. Maybe an appearance for another show.

[A]

Last question and thanks again. I agree with you that immigration is the number one issue. And by the way, I think it impacts many other issues from housing to crime. And by the way, crime within immigrant communities as we see out there in Surrey, for example. Now, the Liberals are smart and if they believe in anything, they believe in winning. And Mark Carney, who was the, you know, zero emissions guy for the longest year, he shocked everyone, including the Conservatives by scrapping the carbon tax, the one thing you wouldn't have expected he did to win. And I think that was a major reason that he won. Not all, but as part of it. Do you think, think the Liberals, if they're staring at the kind of public opinion that you've referenced that I agree in, do you think they would ever adopt your ideas or do you think they're just too beholden to, you know, machine politics based on ethnic vote banks? And this is how they talk by the way. Do you think this is something they could flip because it's such a powerful issue? Maybe they'll pull a carbon tax move on you. What do you think?

[D]

Well, I will say this. They're going to have an opportunity to answer your question in just a few short weeks. So I have a private members bill in front of the House of Commons. It's a very simple one line amendment to the criminal code that would prohibit judges from using somebody's immigration status to give them a more lenient sentence if they've been convicted of a serious crime to avoid deportation, which is a very standard practice right now. So there is a bill in front of the House of Commons. It's my bill, there will be a vote on that in just like a couple of weeks basically. So they're going to have an opportunity to answer your question with their, their feet whether or not they're going to vote for that or not. When we debated this bill in the House a couple of weeks ago or sorry, last month one of one of the senior Liberals, they got up and said, well it's not like you know, any judge is giving special consideration to rapists. And then I got up in the House of Commons the next day and talked about how a judge gave special consideration to somebody, a non citizen who had raped and impregnated a 13 year old girl twice. So these cases are happening and you know, I would just say in answer to your question, look at, let's look and see what the Liberals do in response to my common sense bill which I think Canadians of any political stripe agree with. Are they going to listen to, you know, very far left special interest groups or lawyers who profit off of the system or are they going to uphold the rule of law and the spirit of Canada's immigration law? So stay tuned to that. I would love to be on your show again after that. Vote happens. And I would encourage liberals who are watching this to be like, look, if you actually care about this country, or even as Ezra said, if you care about winning, this is a no brainer bill that I hope that they'll support.

[A]

All right, well, I look forward to seeing that result. Thanks again for spending so much time with us. Very interesting. I agree with you. This is the number one issue, even if it's not always on the front page and even if it's sort of hidden or downplayed by the regime media. I think this is the number one subject of the under news. As Mickey Kaust would say, the news that people talk about even if they're not allowed to. Michelle Garner, Rempel Garner, thanks so much for spending time with us. Us.

[D]

Thank you for having me.

[F]

Three quarters of a million dollars. That's how much the former Chilliwack school trustee and staunch critic of gender ideology in school, Barry Newfield in British Columbia, was just slapped with by the province's Human Rights Tribunal. He has to pay $750,000 to the Chilliwack Teachers association, in short, for not believing in trans people. At least that's the allegation. I have the full document. It's a large ruling. It's going to take some time to go through and I'll link that in the written article for this report, which you can find in the description box. But for now, hear my interview with Mr. Neufeld himself about his reaction to such a massive penalty and what's next.

[B]

Well, I was pretty sure I was going to lose because the B.C. human Rights Tribunal is not a fair, just system and I knew that the teachers were asking for $750,000. I was a little surprised that the tribunal went along with it. But you know what? It's actually turned out to be a good thing. If they had only fined me $75,000, nobody would have been interested and all those protesters outside wouldn't have been yelling at me as much. But $750,000 really made a lot of people sit up and take notice. What the heck? Why are they doing this to this guy? And Twitter has gone crazy. I've come to the attention of some major movers and shakers in the United States. And of course I talked to my lawyer this morning. This is my first public statement after it happened. We are filing an application for a judicial review. That's sort of like an appeal. But you know, when I was desperate and I didn't have any lawyer at all, my first day in front of the Tribunal. The only representative I had was Carrie Simpson. She's an activist at from Langley. And now all sorts of law firms are willing to represent me and take me on. But you know, when one thing I was down and out, James Kitchen believed in me and I'm sticking with him. But there are others that are going to jump in and help. Lisa Bilde, who represented Amy Hamm with the Nurses Professional association is going to help out. Justice center for Constitutional Freedoms may be a intervener. The Democracy Fund may be an intervener. So we're going to have quite a team when we head in there. But of course the BC Teachers Federation will also have their buddies in there. And in the past they've been joined by Egay and probably the Attorney General of British Columbia, certainly the Human Rights Office, Kasseri Govendor, I believe her name is. So normally a judicial review of a human rights tribunal, it takes only about half a day in court. But this file is so massive, there's so much material that my lawyer thinks it could be up to three days. The first day he will argue my case. The second day the B.C. human Rights Tribunal will argue their side of it. And the third day will be a chance for all each of the interveners to put in their views on the matter. The only thing that the court looks at is if there was any errors in law. And I was an officer of the court for 25 years, I could not believe the legal shoddiness that the tribunal used. They refused to allow witnesses to speak. They shut down testimony before it was done. They made arbitrary decisions that had no basis in law or there was no rule book or precedent set. They were flying by the seat of their pants and we could tell that they had already made up their mind what they were going to decide. They were just going through the motions.

[F]

Now I want to circle back to some of what seemed outrageous as part of how they came to their decision. I'm going to actually just read from it. This part here, it says, the B.C. human Rights Tribunal says that if a person elects not to believe that gender identity is separate from sex assigned at birth, then they do not believe in trans people and that this is a form of existential denialism. What do you think when you hear that?

[B]

Well, they explained it to me very carefully. I said very clearly there are only two sexes, male and female. There's nothing else. And they said, well then you are denying the existence of the many other genders and the non binary people who are neither gender. And I said no, I believe they Exist. But I think they're deluded. You're either male or female, and they took that as a hateful remark. Now, what's interesting is it's exactly what the President of the United States believes and has said publicly. So I'm in pretty good company there. But. And I would say that 90% of all ordinary Canadians would believe the same. But they are determined. They are on the cutting edge of a new social justice movement and they are putting people's feelings as more important than physical safety or physical, well being. Keeping people feeling safe is the most important thing for them.

[F]

Well, earlier you mentioned this report. You said the people outside there. That's because there's a protest happening outside side of an event. That's different. And we're covering that separately. But you're right. When I asked the protesters why are they protesting this Action for Canada event, one of the ladies brought up your name. Let's show that interaction. Well, you said you were here kind of in part because you. You wanted me to talk to Mr. Neufeld. What did you want me to ask him?

[E]

I wanted to ask him how he's. Is he going to pay the $750,000 ruling?

[B]

Well, I'll have to wait until the end of the month when my ship comes in.

[D]

Yeah. Yeah, right.

[E]

Good luck to you.

[B]

Okay.

[E]

I hope, I hope you get a lot of donations tonight.

[B]

Oh, they're not giving anything to me.

[F]

Well, do you think that was a fair judgment? I mean, like 11 years ago?

[A]

Yeah.

[F]

When. I just want to say something. Like 11 years ago, when someone said, hey, what's your gender? They'd usually say man, female. Nobody thought it was hateful to do so. And now the ruling is saying, you know, if you believe that identity is attached to biological sex, you're denying trans people. You think that's a bit extreme?

[E]

You don't think that if you've gone. Actually, you know what? I already know how you feel, so it's not the point.

[F]

I'm asking how you feel about that.

[E]

How I feel is that it's a fair judgment because the actual fine is only a portion of that 750. The rest is legal fees. He costs the court in time and money and dream dragged it out. It didn't need to cost this much to anybody. He could have come out of this a lot less under in debt than he will be.

[F]

Would you believe we should have the right to go through courts and things like that or to have free speech?

[E]

Yes, I do believe in the court process, but I also believe in Showing up when you're supposed to and not dragging things out. And I think when you hold, when you are elected official, you have a responsibility to your constituents. And he broke that. And that as an average citizen, say what you want. When you're an elected official, you're serving somebody else.

[F]

She was basically saying, you deserve to pay every cent of that penalty because you've dragged things through the process. What do you make of that?

[B]

I certainly didn't drag things through it. They were slow, they'd have one hearing and then we'd have to wait a year and a half for them to get back to it. Frankly, since this diversity, inclusion and equity thing has happened in all the human resources offices, the Human Rights Tribunal is absolutely swamped with the most crazy and bizarre complaints. I'm sure you're familiar with Jessica Yanov and or Jessica Simpson and the crazy complaints that they accepted. So they're swamped with all this nonsense.

[F]

And I'm just going to stop you there. Two of those complaints are actually against Rebel News. Jessica Serenity Simpson, also known formally as Jonathan Yaniv, had already had the attempt to say that what we reported on this individual, a very violent individual, criminal, convicted many times, but slap on the wrist, assaulted our reporters, threatened my family. We've brought this type of news to you and in a real court, the court said, no, there's nothing defamatory here. They're practicing journalism and this is a matter of public interest. So now this individual is getting to go through this court that's giving you this huge penalty with two cases against us for our journalism. And what's so crazy about that is section seven of BC's Human Rights Code, for which Simpson is coming at us for, doesn't say whether or not we're getting the facts right. It's not about that. It's about whether or not anything we report on an individual who's been, for example, sexually inappropriate and text message with minors, if we report on something that could cause, you know, people to be hateful or have contempt, that is actually what they are assessing. It's very concerning. What do you think is the main issue, over and above the massive penalty, but the fact that you could get hit so hard from simply having a belief that was very mainstream, potentially still mainstream, what's the big message that that sends?

[B]

You know, I think they're aware there's no way I can in my lifetime ever come up with three quarters of a million dollars. But it sets a precedent and there are a lot of people that believe the same as Me that own a house, have a good job, and since the precedent has already been set, you get nailed with three quarters of a million dollars, that will scare a lot of people into shutting up and not speaking out against this gender ideology. I feel like I've sort of been called to do this. I could have shortened the process by settling out of court, but what I would have to do would be to lie, to say that I was wrong. Initially, the complaint was a little different. You know, initially the complaint was that I was creating a toxic work environment for their workers. Well, anybody who knows anything about how school districts work, trustees don't go into classrooms and tell teachers what to do and criticize them for their gender behavior or whatever. We sit in an office and we formulate policy, and once the policy is done, we hand it to the superintendent, and he makes sure that happens in the classroom. So we have no direct contact with teachers. And so there's no way I could have contributed to a toxic environment in the classroom. And then about three years in, they decided to amend their complaint that I was guilty of hate speech. And of course, the hate speech, the only way they can define that is by me saying there's only male and female. So they've done a very good job of scaring a lot of people into silence. But on the other hand, they've stirred up a lot of people to agree with me. I have never heard so many people publicly say that they agree with me and publicly make statements on social media, in meetings with opinions that agree with me. So I feel like I was put here for this reason. It's important that I appeal the decision and make every effort to overturn it, because there are going to be a lot of people coming after me that will be affected by this decision. It's not just, I'm not doing it just for Barry Neufeld. I'm doing it for children. One of the reasons they feel so strongly about this is that many adult people who have transitioned, they think that I was always intended to be a girl, but I was born with male sex parts. And what they need to do is find children that will say, earlier and earlier, I was born in the wrong body. And that's why they keep pushing this gender ideology on younger and younger children. It's to make themselves feel better about themselves, that it wasn't the trauma or all the other things that happened to me in my life. I was born this way. And so I need to find some little kids that. That also think that they were born this way. I do not believe that we anybody is born in the wrong body. I believe in a creator and I believe that God doesn't make mistakes. And if you're born born with boys parts, you're always going to be a boy. If you're born with girls parts, you're always going to be a girl.

[F]

Do you have any fear saying that? And would you have done anything differently now after receiving this penalty?

[B]

I've made a few mistakes along the way, but they're minor and they're off the topic. No. When I first heard about this in the summer of 2017, I knew I could not abide it. I knew I had to speak out and I knew I could never back down. I was offered a settlement and I was covered by indemnity insurance. It wouldn't have cost me anything. All I had to do was say publicly an apology and say that I was wrong. And I could not do that. I just couldn't feel that, couldn't live with myself if I told a public lie like that. I talked to my lawyer, James Kitchen, this morning. It's the first time we had a chance to talk since the decision came down. And we're both very determined that we're going to apply for judicial review. That's kind of like an appeal, and it may take as long as three days. James will argue on my behalf. But also there's some freedom organizations that may step in and help us. One of them is the Free Speech Union, represented by Lisa Bilde and also the justice center for Constitutional Freedoms. I've worked with them in the past near the beginning of my troubles, and the Democracy Fund, and we're hoping we can interest some other organizations that stand up for traditional family values.

[F]

Now, you're not giving up on the fight. You said it's very important that you try and appeal this. And you just had a talk with your lawyers. You said this is your first statement that you're going to make. Tell us what's happening, what's next with the fight.

[B]

Well, you were there the day that I turned myself into court on another matter. And that stirred up so much interest that donations started to come in. And my lawyer is completely paid off for everything he's done so far. And we have a few thousand dollars extra for this appeal. I've been very humbled by Billboard Chris. He's been tweeting out the how to support me. There's a link on my webpage, which is Barry Neufeld, all one word. B, A, R R Y N E U F E L D dot com. And on there, you'll find a link to the Rights and Freedoms Fundraising Society. And you can, you can e transfer money, you can pay by credit card, you can mail a check, the address is there, or I don't really want the money passing through my hands because I'm not doing this for the money. I'm doing this to try and protect future generations from this toxic ideology.

[F]

You heard how you could support Mr. Neufeld. And also, if you have it in you and you want to protect our journalism in the same area with the same tribunal, please go to stopyanve.com.