EZRA LEVANT | Mark Carney announces he’s going to take another shot at passing Trudeau’s censorship laws

Summary

Rebel News Podcast Summary

Episode: EZRA LEVANT | Mark Carney announces he’s going to take another shot at passing Trudeau’s censorship laws
Date: April 9, 2026
Host: Ezra Levant (Rebel News)
Guests: Alexa Lavoie (Rebel News correspondent), Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (Leader, Parti Québécois)

---

Overview

This episode centers around the breaking news that Mark Carney’s incoming government intends to revive and push forward internet censorship laws previously championed by Justin Trudeau but never enacted. Host Ezra Levant delivers a critical analysis of these developments, scrutinizes the makeup of the new government-appointed “expert advisory group” on online safety, and explores broader questions about Canadian identity and the future political path of various provinces, especially Alberta and Quebec.

The episode also features an extended, exclusive interview (with dubbed translation) between Rebel News’ Alexa Lavoie and Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, likely the next Premier of Quebec, covering issues from government efficiency to independence, the welfare state, immigration, and secularism—offering perspectives that challenge the narratives in mainstream Canadian media.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Return of Censorship Legislation (00:00–16:54)

• Main Theme: Mark Carney’s government is set to reintroduce internet censorship laws similar to previously failed bills (Bill C-36, C-63) under Justin Trudeau.

• Ezra Levant's Perspective:

  • Views this as a significant threat to free speech, describing the appointees as “the worst people in the country” for crafting such policies.
  • Criticizes the undemocratic nature of such measures, drawing a broader analogy to the way historic Canadian symbols have been removed or sidelined without public input.
  • Highlights the shift from an older, more unified Canadian identity to a fractured, ideologically driven one.

  Notable Quote:

  • “The emotional nostalgic argument for Alberta to remain in confederation is what we used to all love about Canada. But... the Canada of 100 or 50 or even 15 years ago is not the Canada of today.” – Ezra Levant (03:00)

• Examination of New “Expert” Panel:

  • None of the appointees represent free speech or civil liberties causes.
  • Panel is filled with activists and academics aligned with progressive and censorship-friendly politics.
  • Ezra critiques specific individuals and their backgrounds, challenging the legitimacy and objectivity of their “expertise.”

  Notable Quote:

  • “There’s not a single free speech activist in this group.” – Ezra Levant (10:11)

• Government Framing:

  • Legislation is couched as protection for children but Ezra calls this a “Trojan horse” for political censorship of adults.
  • Cites international parallels (Ireland, UK, New Zealand), arguing these are all “about the same thing—cracking down on ideas.”

• Outlook:

  • Mark Carney is described as more aggressive or technocratic than Trudeau, citing his past calls for seizure of truckers’ bank accounts and labeling of dissent as sedition.
  • Rebel News' independent status is highlighted as a reason for likely targeting by these new laws.

2. Exclusive Interview: Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (16:54–34:52)

Introduction of the Interview (16:54–18:13)

• Alexa Lavoie:
  • Explains the interview format (dubbed from French), topics to be covered, and thanks the Parti Québécois leader for his openness.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon on Media, Free Speech & Democracy (18:14–21:01)

• Plamondon’s View on Media Openness:

  • Accepts media from left or right if intellectually honest.
  • Notes street prayers outside Notre Dame Basilica as an under-reported issue.
  • Suggests a healthy democracy requires rigorous, balanced, and honest questioning.

  Notable Quote:

  • “All questions, as long as there is intellectual honesty in the approach, have value in a democracy.” – Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (19:11)

Political Positioning & Public Services (21:01–23:10)

• Plamondon’s Spectrum Placement:
  • Leads a coalition party, generally center-left, but says issues are increasingly not “left or right”—it’s about naming and addressing real problems (e.g. overgrown bureaucracy).
  • Strongly supports public services and basic rights for children and seniors.

Quebec’s Fiscal Situation and Government Reform (23:10–30:42)

• Debt and Bureaucracy:

  • Quebec’s debt-to-GDP is not dire compared to other provinces or Europe.
  • Criticizes the provincial deficit as driven by misallocated resources (esp. bureaucracy).
  • Argues that nearly half of Quebecers' taxes go to Ottawa, funding duplication and ideological federal projects rather than services.
  • Suggests Quebec independence is a way to reallocate those funds more efficiently, especially by eliminating overlapping bureaucracy.

  Notable Quote:

  • “Someone who believes there is too much overlap... should support eliminating one level of government.” – Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (25:44)

• Independence Transition Costs:

  • Argues transition costs (e.g., creating defense department) are manageable by reallocating Quebec’s proportional contributions to federal budgets.
  • Comparisons made to smaller European militaries like Denmark's and the overstatement of Canada’s military shield for provinces.

Public-Private Partnerships & Infrastructure Corruption (28:45–32:04)

• Public–Private Debate:

  • Is pragmatic: open to private sector involvement if it leads to cost savings and better results (infrastructure projects often cost less when managed via Quebec’s pension fund, Caisse de dépôt).
  • Cites issues where private involvement has led to overbilling (nurses via staffing agencies).
  • Systemic corruption (Charbonneau Commission) and collusion have driven up construction prices in Quebec.

  Notable Quote:

  • “Your stop sign or traffic light shouldn’t cost a million dollars.” – Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (30:36)

• Healthcare:

  • Committed to universal accessibility, opposes American-style systems with insurance gaps.

Federal Bureaucracy and Critique (32:04–34:52)

• Chronic Federal Government Growth:
  • Notes explosive 43% federal bureaucracy expansion under Trudeau, with declining service quality.
  • Insists provincial discussions ignore the growing inefficiency and cost of federal-level services and debt, which hits Quebec’s taxpayers.

3. Reflections & Audience Letters (34:52–End)

• Ezra Levant on Quebec Policing and Protest:
  • Praises Alexa and team’s physical courage; highlights deteriorating public order and government collusion with left-wing radicals in Montreal.
• Audience Letters Featured:
  • Criticism of MP Marilyn Gladu’s floor-crossing, seen as undemocratic betrayal of constituents.
  • Listener support for Alberta independence, citing dramatic changes under Liberal government as motivating factors.
  • Ezra likens potential Alberta or Quebec separation to amicable Czechoslovakian split, emphasizing ongoing friendship despite political divergence.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Canadian Identity & Nostalgia:
  • “Can you tell me which Canada you mean? The Canada of your childhood... or the Canada of your children’s childhood?” – Ezra Levant (05:22)
• On the Advisory Panel:
  • “There’s not a single free speech activist in this group.” – Ezra Levant (10:11)
  • “They explicitly refuse to look at hatred from the left, from antifa, from Islamic extremists. They are 100% focused on conservatives.” – Ezra Levant (12:04)
• On the Threat of Censorship:
  • “If you don’t control all the media, you don’t control the media because people will find those alternative views.” – Ezra Levant (15:29)
• Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (on democracy and journalism):
  • “If I see intellectual honesty…that’s healthy for democracy.” (18:37)
• On Quebec Independence:
  • “It’s incredible to see the Quebec Conservative Party oppose what I’m saying and defend that federal bureaucracy because that’s where the most waste is.” – Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (26:12)
• On Alberta Independence:
  • “We would all be friends and family and grown-ups about it. We would just have federal decisions being made in Alberta rather than in Ottawa. Frankly, who wouldn’t want that?” – Ezra Levant (End)

---

Important Timestamps

• [00:00] – [03:18]: Ezra Levant introduces the topic—return of censorship and shifting symbols of Canada
• [03:18] – [05:22]: Clip of MP Leah Gazan on Indigenous issues; Ezra’s commentary on changing Canada
• [05:22] – [16:54]: Deep dive into Blacklock’s report on web regulation, critique of “expert panel”
• [16:54] – [18:13]: Alexa Lavoie introduces exclusive interview with Paul St-Pierre Plamondon
• [18:14] – [21:01]: Plamondon on intellectual honesty and journalism
• [21:01] – [23:10]: Plamondon’s personal politics and value of public services
• [23:10] – [30:42]: Quebec’s debt, the welfare state, independence, bureaucracy, and military spending
• [30:42] – [32:04]: Infrastructure, corruption, and private-public partnerships
• [32:04] – [34:52]: Federal government critique; inefficiency and tax waste
• [34:52] – End: Ezra’s reflections, Quebec policing, audience letters on floor-crossing and independence

---

Tone & Style

• Ezra Levant: Irreverent, combative, passionately skeptical of mainstream narratives and government power, particularly regarding censorship and Canadian unity.
• Paul St-Pierre Plamondon: Earnest, nuanced, pragmatic; focused on honest debate, social justice, fiscal realism, and an independent Quebec with efficient governance.

---

Conclusion

This episode is a broad, often impassioned critique of current Canadian governance—with a focus on free speech, the risks inherent in new federal regulation, and the tectonic shifts in Canadian identity and federalism. Through long-form interview and direct-to-listener address, it captures both the anxieties of dissenting Canadians and the rising provincialist sentiment in Quebec and Alberta—all set against looming legislative battles over censorship and national direction.

Transcript

[A]

Hello, my friends. We have it in black and white in writing. The Mark Carney government is going to bring back the censorship bills that were introduced but not passed by Justin Trudeau. I think this is really bad news, and the people who are going to be crafting it are the worst people in the country. I'll take you through their list of names, but first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus. It's the video version of this podcast. Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe, and it's eight bucks a month, which may not sound like a lot to you, but, boy, we need that here because we don't take any money from the government and it shows. Hey, one more thing.

[B]

Being a rebel today is simply being normal. So why not support normal news and look cool while doing it by buying yourself some rebel merch and [e-mail] and you can save by using coupon code

[A]

DREA10 when you do.

[B]

You're listening to Rebel News podcast.

[A]

Tonight, Mark Carney announces he's going to take another shot at passing Trudeau's censorship laws. It's April 9th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show. Shame on you, you sensorian. Bu. You know, I've been thinking a lot about Alberta and Canada. To me, the symbol of the whole thing is the $10 bill. Trudeau took Sir John A. Macdonald off of the $10 bill. He didn't campaign on that. He didn't ask anyone for their views. He didn't put it to a vote or even a debate in Parliament. He just. He just did it. I mean, he was a Marxist like his father before him, who hates anything Anglo. And Sir John A. MacDonald was born in Scotland. You'll remember Pierre Trudeau doing a mocking pirouette when he met the Queen during the repatriation of our constitution. But it's not just Trudeau. It's everything. It's all the parties, more or less. I mean, Doug Ford, the allegedly Conservative premier of Ontario, he was the one who abided the statue of Sir John A. MacDonald at Queen's Park. The provincial legislature being put in a wooden coffin for years, didn't quite have the courage to take it down, but he certainly didn't want people to see it, so they built like a sarcophagus around it. Queen Victoria's statue was torn down on Canada Day at the Manitoba legislature. And again, it was a nominally Conservative government at the time that abided it. Now, I mention this because I've been thinking that the emotional nostalgic argument for Alberta to remain in confederation is what we used to all love about Canada. But I'm not sure if that's the appropriate comparison. Because The Canada of 100 or 15 or 50 or even 15 years ago is not the Canada of today. I mean, which do you think better represents Canada today and the Canada of the future? Terry Fox and Juno beach or this?

[C]

When the budget was released, I was shocked to find out that Prime Minister Carney is cutting $7 billion between Indig Services Canada and Crown Indigenous Relations. They provided $0 to deal with the ongoing genocide of MMIWG2SLGBTQIA this is abhorrent. This is callous. This is callous because the very liberal government that has stripped organizations of life sustaining funding has now promised committed $13 billion. $13 billion on military spending. Who is paying for it? Indigenous women across this country, Indigenous women, girls to US LGBTQIA are not safe. In fact, rates of violence are increasing. And what is the Prime Minister doing? He is turning a blind eye on this violence. You know, the Prime Minister talks a lot about projects of national interest. What is in the national interest are the lives, safety, security and dignity not in the national interest of indigenous women and girls. Two SLGBTQIA is the prime minister okay? Having indigenous women, two SLGBTQIA family members and organization coming to Parliament begging time and time again to see our humanity? Is he okay with that? Well, clearly with his behavior the other day, laughing at a woman from Grassy Narrows who is suffering from mercury poisoning. Having her even having to beg for an apology is an example of how this Prime Minister has turned his back on Indigenous peoples, particularly Indigenous women and girls to SLGBTQIA and what does that look like? It looks like rates of violence increasing.

[A]

Yeah, that's a member of Parliament named Leah Gazan. I think that she is a closer summary microcosm example of Canada today and tomorrow than peace, order and good government or the troops of Juno Beach. I mean land Acknowledgments rule the day, not prayers. When the school starts, do they even say prayers anymore? So if you're saying how dare you want to be independent of Canada? I'd say, can you tell me which Canada you mean? The Canada of your childhood, which I love, or the Canada of your children's childhood and their grandchildren's childhood? Look at, look at this news story today from Blacklock's reporter, one of the few non governmental funded media companies in Canada. And that in itself is a statement about which Canada we're in, isn't it? So Blacklocks had this story Third try at Web Regulation Cabinet for a third time in five years, is reviewing federal regulations of legal Internet content, the Department of Industry said yesterday. Quote, details will be made public at the appropriate time, it said. The government of Canada is examining options for a future online safety regime that would focus on reducing the risk of harm on large platforms, said a department report to the Senate Social Affairs Committee. Unnamed experts will draft regulations, it wrote. I love how they say safety is, if you like, might cut yourself on something. I mean by harm, of course what they really mean is opinions they don't like. They mean censorship. Let me read a little bit more. Such regulatory approaches typically rely on expert regulators to set standards, monitor compliance and use enforcement tools where necessary, said the report. Reply and follow up Is there an expert on what I can and can't say other than me, like who are these experts in what you can say? Is there a degree you can get in that don't laugh, there probably will be soon. So here's a copy of the report that Blacklocks wrote about, and let me read a little bit more of an extended passage from them, they say. The government of Canada is examining options for a future online safety regime that would focus on reducing the risk of harm on large platforms, particularly for children and other vulnerable users. Such regulatory approaches typically rely on expert regulators to set standards, monitor compliance, and use enforcement tools where necessary. To advise on this proposal, the government has recently reconvened the Expert Advisory Group on Online Safety, whose members previously contributed to the development of previous online harms legislation to engage on new and emerging issues related to online harms. Any future legislative proposal would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and details will be made public at the appropriate time. You know, they always mention children because they know we all love children. And they do this because they always conflate political censorship of grown ups, which is their real purpose with protecting the children. Because who wouldn't want to be for protecting the children? But of course, children are already protected online in a variety of ways. And by the way, all the platforms they propose to regulate, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, they have an age restriction already. You're not supposed to be on those platforms if you're a child. They, they are not truly interested in children. They're just using that as a Trojan horse. By the way, I'm always more support, I'm always supportive of more ways to protect children. Just let me hear them. But that is not what this Online harms Committee does. That's not what the online harms acts that were already introduced and failed for reasons including the parliament was prorogued. It's not just here in Canada, it's in Ireland, in New Zealand, in the United Kingdom. I've read the versions of the law in these different jurisdictions. They're all about the same thing, cracking down on ideas, especially by the way on mass immigration. That seems to be one of the main focuses of this censorship. And the giveaway, if you still need convincing, is this group of censorship experts they have convened to do the dirty work. Here is a government press release about it. I'm not going to read the whole thing. It says the government of Canada reconvenes the expert Advisory group on online safety. There's not a single free speech activist in this group. Let me look at. I'm not going to read through all the names but Amarnath Amerasingam, you probably see him on CBC all the time. He is a major proponent of censorship. He believes that right wing hate groups are the problem in Canada. Not always say the group shooting up synagogues. Bernie Farber is the worst of the list. Founding chair of the Canadian Anti Hate Network. If you're wondering what that is, that is the liberal funded pro antifa group that calls itself anti hate. But that's false advertising. They explicitly refuse to look at hatred from the left, from antifa, from Islamist extremists. They are 100% focused on conservatives. They it's not, of course it's nothing about children and of course it's not about censoring the real source of hate in Canada these days. Shanae Parsons, community activist and youth engagement specialist. So I hadn't heard of her and I googled her and I quickly discovered her specialty has got nothing to do with kids. It's equity audits where she charges enormous fees to help you work through your hidden racism issues. You see where I'm going that this is all about censorship. David Moran, professor and UNESCO so he sponsored by the UN on the prevention of violent radicalization and extremism. Of course they are overwhelmingly focused on Canadian groups, not Islamic terrorist groups or antifa. This is international censorship. Emily Laidlaw, Canada Research chair in cybersecurity. Same sort of thing. Jada Hassan I'm not going to go through it. They're all basically in the anti hate experts. There's no such thing as being an anti hate hate expert. Hate is a human emotion and people can feel different emotions when they talk all the time. It's not necessarily a bad thing for people to be motivated by that human emotion. As long as when they act, they don't act in a way that's violent or discriminatory. I mean, you can't tell someone to stop having feelings on the anniversary of 9, 11 or when you see a horrific crime happen. You're going to naturally have a human reaction. Probably hate is part of it and it's actually healthy to express that rather than bottle things up. That's one of the purposes and outcome of free speech is people can vent with words rather than their fists. There is a direct correlation of countries in the world where you're not allowed to vent verbally, so they vent physically through terrorism. There's an absolute correlation between free speech and peace as opposed to censorship and violence. I'm not going to go through the whole list. All of them are committed to censorship, all of them within the Liberal Party's orbit. I see only one name that could plausibly care about children. Leanna McDonald, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. Yeah, so pretty sure she alone is not the center of this group. The main purpose is censoring grown ups, not children. So what does this all mean? Well, it means that Mark Carney is back with Trudeau's censorship plans for a third time. You might remember it was called Bill C36 and then Bill C63 and there's so many numbers to keep track of. It hasn't been introduced yet, but you have seen it in writing. Now it will be introduced again. Mark Carney has revived Trudeau's censorship committee. The same people, pretty sure they're going to have the same recommendations. It's going to be just as brutal or worse. Remember, Mark Carney himself wrote an op ed in the Globe and Mail during the trucker convoy, calling for the truckers to be charged with sedition. He was the one who suggested seizing the bank accounts. He's the former bank governor, who knows about how those things work. He already controls all the mainstream media through carrots, not sticks, through the media bailout. But he doesn't control us at Rebel News and maybe one or two other independent platforms. And that enrages him because if you don't control all the media, you don't control the media because people will find those alternative views. Rebel News has had record viewership, as you know, we had over 430 million views and impressions last year. And I can feel it when I travel around the country. I can't go anywhere without people saying hello to me as a rebel, and I've never met them before. And this is everywhere, every province. And you'd be surprised the demographics of the people that say hi. Don't think they don't know all about that. I showed you a couple months ago, the Reuters foundation and Oxford University study showing that after CBC and ctv, Rebel News is the most well known TV company ahead of Global news, which has been around for 50 years. I think that enrages the liberals. So, yeah, censorship's coming back. Absolutely. So that is Canada today, my friends. That is Canada of 2026, not the land of Courier Dubois and the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Stay with me. More ahead. Well, you know, I'm so proud of Alexa Lavois. She joined our team during the COVID times when Quebec was the most brutal of the lockdown jurisdictions. Remember that they had a curfew where you could not leave your house from 10pm till 5am Even if you were healthy, even if you were jabbed like you got jabbed. You did what you're supposed to. You were not allowed even to walk your dog, which is sort of gross when you think about it. I mean, if this is a health order, you can't go outside for your dog to do his business. Just crazy, crazy stuff. That's where we met Alexa Lavon. She's turned into a real star and her work has not gone unnoticed. And so surprising to me, the leader of the Parti Quebecois, which of course is the independence oriented party there that is now ahead or tied for lead in the polls. It could very well be the next government in Quebec. They asked or agreed to have a sit down interview with Alexa for an hour, the leader. And it was amazing. I think there's a real feather in our cap. I mean, we do talk to Premier Danielle Smith from time to time. And you know, I had the ambassador of the United States sit down with me a couple weeks ago. But for us to have this kind of progress in Quebec to me is really amazing, especially since the Partique Quebecois is typically a party of the left and we are more of the right. So I salute Alexa for her results. I want to show you an extended portion of that. Instead of putting on English subtitles, we used a dubbing, an automatic dubbing, so you'll hear it in English. Even so it's been like, like a movie that's been dubbed. I'm very proud of Alexa. I thought she asked really good questions. She does a real credit. And I'm, and I was watching online the total meltdown by the regime media who were appalled not just with Alexa, but that the leader of the Partique Bequa would sit down with her, and they were raging that he dared to talk to them. And that's the kind of reaction you're going to see from the Reg regime media when Carney brings in his next censorship bills. It's going to be all about silencing the few voices they don't control. So without further ado, here's Alex Lavoie with the leader of the Parti Quebecois,

[D]

Alexa Lavoie for Rebel News. And today I bring you an exclusive interview with Paul St Pierre Plamondon, who could become Quebec's next premier. We cover a wide range of of topics, including the economy, Quebec City's tramway project, public private collaboration, Alberta's proposed referendums, immigration, street prayers, secularism, the firearms buyback program, and medical assistance in dying. These are issues rarely discussed in mainstream media, yet they matter deeply to many of you. There were a lot of questions to fit into just one hour, so I want to thank the leader of the Parti Quebecois for his openness. And remember, we do not receive government funding, and our work comes with real risk. If you are able to please consider Supporting [e-mail] this video was conducted in French, so we dubbed the whole interview in English for you. Thank you. And now enjoy the interview. Hello, Mr. Paul St Pierre. Blair Mondon.

[B]

Hi.

[D]

First of all, thank you for agreeing to this interview. Since several politicians have refused to have a conversation with us, we are not entirely sure why, but it's important to have a discussion and also to understand your vision of Quebec's future.

[B]

To be very honest, whether a media outlet is on the right or the left, if I see intellectual honesty, meaning that what was said is reported faithfully and that questions come from either the right or the left, that's healthy for democracy. And to be very honest, last summer I wanted to comment. I was truly stunned by the street prayers in front of the Notre Dame Basilica. And as a politician, I'm not a journalist, so I was telling myself that there would soon be articles coming out documenting a phenomenon that would have been unthinkable just 10 years ago. And that is of public interest because it involves public space, religion, and so on. And that moment really stayed with me. To be honest, I didn't really know you at the time, but that was when I thought, okay, so there's only one journalist covering a question that is unquestionably of public interest, especially if we look at what's happening across the rest of the Western world. And it's also in that sense that all questions, as long as there is intellectual honesty in the approach, have value in a democracy. There are angles from the right, which I think is your case, and there are angles from the left, which I also submit to. And my only criterion is that I simply don't want what I said to be destroyed, distorted. And I don't think that's the case with you at all, obviously. So I accept and it's my pleasure.

[D]

You have been leader of the parti Quebecois since 2020, and you are the MNA for Camille Lorraine. You also have an impressive background. A certificate in international law from Lund University in Sweden, a law degree in Common Law from McGill University, and an MBA from Oxford.

[E]

Oxford.

[D]

You speak five languages?

[E]

Less and less, because I don't practice them anymore. But there was a time when, in Danish, I was formidable. I even gave an interview on Danish national Television a year and a half ago. And my host family, because I was hosted for a year by a family of a Lutheran pastor who had chickens. Anyway, they were blown away when they saw me on national television and it was a segment about the Parti Quebecois. And I explain everything in Danish, but over time you lose it.

[D]

I will start with a simple question that many people are asking. Where do you see yourself personally on the political spectrum?

[E]

You're talking about left and right, I assume, because, you know, on independence, I think everyone understands, you know. It's because I'm at the head of a historically coalition based party. Overall, it's more center left than center right. If you look across different periods, Lucien Bouchard is associated more with the center right. But the Leveque Landry, Paris O years, that's center left. Even Levesque ended his career being pushed around by unions who held a grudge against him because he tried to set things straight after certain excesses. I think at the time in the public sector. So there have been all kinds of episodes. Personally, I believe in basic public services. For me, a child who needs care should be treated, and they have the right to go to school. There are things on which you never compromise in a society. And as a wealthy society, we have the means. So I believe in public services, which places me more in the center left in principle. But we are in a period where the bureaucracy is growing three times faster than the population, while services are no longer meeting people's needs. So to go back to your earlier point, if we are not operating ideologically and are strictly committed to the truth, at some point you are forced to say that there will have to be significant cuts to the bureaucracy if we want basic services to survive. An aging population. And also the influx we've seen with 600,000 temporary residents suddenly arriving in Quebec. All at once, we can see that the systems are no longer keeping up.

[B]

It's a question of. I don't know if at this point

[E]

it's a matter of left or right anymore. It's about accurately naming where we are as a society. Some might say, you know, that it's not a big deal if not all seniors are cared for, or if not all children have access to school. I firmly believe that there are things we must deliver for everyone in society. But if we're not managing to do that right now, it's because there are problems elsewhere and we need to be able to name them. And if naming those problems leads some people to label me as being on the right, that doesn't matter to me at all.

[D]

The latest poll placed you neck and neck with the Liberal Party of Quebec. And everything suggests you could become the next premier of Quebec. You would inherit a significant debt, around 260 billions of dollars, with a projected deficit of 8.6 billion of dollars. We also have an inverted demographic pyramid, meaning fewer workers to support an aging population, which increases intergenerational inequality. In your view, have we reached the limits of the welfare state? What financial adjustments or reforms will you propose? And do you think the private sector should play a greater role alongside the public system?

[E]

Okay, let's go. Quebec's debt to GDP ratio is relatively stable. And while I've been critical of Minister Gerard regarding the nature of the deficits, meaning why $10 billion in terms of the debt to GDP ratio, compared to other provinces or to Europe, Quebec is not in a problematic position. It compares relatively well. It's simply that the reason for the $10 billion is. And we'll talk about adjustments or changes. It's like Pierre Fitzgibbon's checkbook being used in all directions. Funding companies we know very little about. In some cases, many are multinationals. Instead of supporting our own Quebec SMEs, there are scandals like Saaq. Click. So clearly, management issues and in general, the size of the state, meaning bureaucracy. And I'm talking about office jobs, not people delivering services to the population. Those jobs are growing much faster than the population, the budgets and the revenues. I don't think that's viable in the current system. For the following reason. If at least we had 100% of our budget, of our tax revenues, and we said we need to make certain adjustments if we want to ensure that people who have paid taxes on all their lives have the right to receive care in retirement, then in my view, that would be entirely feasible. But if half of your taxes go to Ottawa, and this is often overlooked, we tend to focus on the Quebec government, which, compared to other Canadian provinces, is not out of control in terms of debt. And we overlook the fact that the other half of taxes goes to a government that is engaged, engaged in ideological drift in all directions, duplicates what we already do, and provides very few services for that half of the taxes. So one half goes to healthcare, education, social services, and just about all the challenges in our society. And then you have the other side, the government of Canada, which says, I might send you transfers eventually, but generally I prefer to duplicate what you already do in order to exercise. Exercise power over you through taxation. As for your question, I don't think that if we remain within Canada and accept duplication and that level of waste in Ottawa, it leads to what's called fiscal asphyxiation. You no longer have the revenues needed for your responsibilities. And it's actually very surprising for your listeners, those who follow you and who are Conservatives from the pcq. It's astonishing to see that when I say Quebec independence would mean we cannot rehire all federal public servants, and that we would have to cut that bureaucracy if we want not only to deliver services, but probably also reduce the tax burden on people who are struggling. It's incredible to see the Quebec Conservative Party oppose what I'm saying and defend that federal bureaucracy because that's where the most waste is. So logically, someone who believes there is too much overlap, too much paperwork management, and not enough services for the taxes paid should support eliminating one level of government so that decisions are made in one place instead of three different ones where no one agrees, procedures multiply, and layers of control keep increasing.

[D]

Because it does cost money. If Quebec were to become independent, there would be cost to create departments that don't. Don't currently exist.

[B]

Those are transition costs.

[D]

The military?

[B]

No, because what we do when we draft the budget of an independent Quebec is that we take the share of what we already pay for the military, and we say with that money. So $20 billion for the Canadian military, our share would be about 20% of that. So $4 billion. What can we do with $4 billion? We already have infrastructure on our territory, we have trained personnel, and we can look to countries like Denmark, which have recently stood up to the United States and operate with roughly that kind of budget, though of course they don't have the military capacity of the U.S. exactly.

[D]

Because the U.S. military countries rely on it for protection. If we didn't have the United States as a neighbor, our own military, geopolitically, indeed, it would be almost impossible.

[B]

Exactly. But the point is Quebec has the means to have a contributing military. It will never be the size of the United States. But at the same time, when I hear politicians suggest that Canada protects us from Trump, that's not serious. If the United States makes decisions, which

[E]

by the way, is unlikely to happen,

[B]

the idea that the Canadian military is a defensive shield for Quebecers has been completely overstated. I'm confident that like any European country of our size, we would do the same. We would develop our own areas of expertise.

[D]

Don't you think that public private collaboration, like in health care or infrastructure, for example roads, could be a solution? I don't know if you have had the chance to drive in Montreal, but it's very clear that our infrastructure, our assets, are deteriorating.

[B]

So let's come back to healthcare, because the question was, does it work? It doesn't work if you have one level of government too many. And at the level of the Quebec government, there is a real discussion to be had. If you have too much bureaucracy, you

[E]

inevitably have fewer resources to deliver services.

[B]

Now a second issue, which is different. Infrastructure. Because in the Quebec government's budget, there are operating expenses, healthcare, education, etc. And then there are infrastructure expenditures. And if we don't acknowledge that building in Quebec costs two or three times more than anywhere else, and let's bring back the Charbonneau Commission, because all of this is connected. If we don't fix that, nothing will change, whether it's public or private. In fact, when projects go through the private sector via the ques de depot, they cost less. And then we started asking questions.

[E]

How is it that when you handle

[B]

the same project, it costs less? They told us we're more predictable, we don't change direction 20 times, we're more organized and therefore there is more trust. There are also competition issues. If there aren't enough players competing, and if, as in the time of the Charbonneau Commission, there was collusion and price fixing through political dealings. I'm not saying that's still the case because I don't have proof, but back then there was proof. All these factors mean that right now Quebec might pay $175 million for a school that would cost $75 million in Ontario. And if we want to maintain our basic infrastructure, your stop sign or traffic light shouldn't cost a million dollars. That was, I believe, what was revealed in Longueuil.

[D]

If we fix that corruption.

[E]

Yes, but historically that has often been the role of the Party Quebecois. When Rene Levesque's PQ came to power, they made announcements that swept things clean. They went after the Liberal Party's briefcases full of cash.

[D]

That's easier said than done.

[E]

But they have had. The state will never be perfect. And private companies won't be either. By the way, you also have to understand that often when we turn to the private sector, but with public funds, private companies are not more Catholic than the Pope. They are just as capable of overbilling. I'll give you an example. In health care, since that was your topic, we turn to the private sector for nurses, private staffing agencies. Essentially what they did was recruit nurses who were already working five days a week, sometimes with overtime. They offered them positions of three days a week at locations chosen by the agency. But the agency overcharged and kept a large profit margin, which was passed on to the state. And suddenly we ended up paying $2 billion more for nurses because of these private agencies, for less work and with terrible working conditions, where people left and only a few remained, constantly working overtime. The private sector, you have to define which one and whether it makes sense or not. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

[D]

So we are not closing the door on it?

[E]

No, it depends. I'm very committed to public accessibility in the healthcare system. I don't want to live in a society like some others, our neighbors to the south, where 8% are uninsured. And if you don't have the money, you're stuck with your health problem. I think we have the wealth to offer that. But there are conditions. And the first is that resources should be allocated to those delivering services, not to bureaucracy. In fact, Sainte Quebec, that's going to be quite a debate. Because if you create. If your ministry is still there and you create another structure alongside it, like you have Mobilite Infra and this Ministry of Transport.

[D]

You were skeptical about that.

[E]

Well, I still am. I'm very much in favor of measuring each region of Quebec. So there's some, what we call benchmarking. Sorry for the anglicism, but evaluation metrics. And there are things Sante Quebec does. But someone will have to explain to me in what parallel universe we're going to have both a Ministry of Health and a Sante Quebec trying to coordinate, and a minister who, depending on what's advantageous, sides with one or the other, or sometimes as We've seen washes their hands of it by saying, that's not me, that's Sante Quebec. So the level of bureaucracy is an issue. But I reiterate that the worst place for bureaucracy and duplication is the federal public service, which under Justin Trudeau has grown by 43% over eight years, while the few federal services provided to the population have declined in quality. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that's where it's worst. And I find that in the Quebec conversation, it's as if we treat it like it's not our country, so it doesn't concern us. But I remind people that nearly half of their taxes go not to Quebec, but to Ottawa. We should sometimes scrutinize what's happening there just as much as what's happening here. I'll give you one last example. Sorry to insist with Saaq.

[B]

Click.

[E]

We made a huge scandal out of it, and rightly so. It was terrible. Over a billion dollars. In a political and managerial fiasco, the federal government had its equivalent $6 billion not long ago. It lasted barely 24 hours in the media. After that, no one talked about it anymore, as if it never happened. But it's still our taxes. It's like when we talk about federal debt, we talk about it as if it's not our debt. It is our debt. And they are indebted us far more than the deficit you're talking about. In Quebec, it's $9 billion. But what the federal government adds to Quebec's share is, is about $16 billion per year. And what do we get from the federal government? At least Quebec provides services. They are at the core of people's daily lives.

[A]

Well, what do you think of that? I tell you, I am bursting with pride at Alexa's work. I really think she's doing a great job in a very difficult setting. I mean, in some ways, Quebec has some conservative instincts, but in other ways, it's quite radical. There's antifa ruling the streets in Montreal. I really think it's terrible. And the police have been scared into standing back. They were sued. And I don't know if you know this, the mayor of Quebec settled and sort of said, we are going to confess. We're going to pay millions of dollars to the protesters. So if you're a cop and you want to stand up for the rule of law, but your mayor says, no, we're guilty and we're going to pay the bad guys, you're not going to put your neck on the line to uphold the law. The mayor's ordered you not to do so. She's in league with Antifa and we've seen that before. Anyways, I really respect Alexa and Guillaume Roy, our videographer, just for the physical courage of going out and about in Quebec. Hey, before I go, let me read some letters from you to me on the floor crosser Marilyn Gladue. Just outrageous. Lynn o' Neill says totally disgusting. No scruples whatsoever, no conscience, not ethical, not even embarrassed. You know, she was quite a right wing mp. She was pro life, she was pro civil liberties, pro free speech and she just torched Mark Carney including just a few weeks ago, torching some of the floor crossers. And you know, I don't know if you remember this, but a few years ago Justin Trudeau said if you're not a pro choice person, you're not allowed to run. Now he obviously exempts Muslim MPs but no Catholics were allowed to have a pro life position. And here's Marilyn Gladue. I wonder if, I mean. And she also was a friend of the truckers. Now does this mean that, that the Liberals are a big tent for ideas? Of course not. They're only about power. And what really bugs me about this is that an outright majority of people in her riding voted Conservative, which is, you know, that's quite a high level in our multi party system to get. I think she got 53% more than all of the other parties combined. But to frustrate the will, to ignore the will, to overrule the will of the majority and say no, no, we have a secret backroom deal by which we can void the results of a legitimate election. How is that not a form of democratic corruption? I say again, there are occasional reasons why someone would cross the floor on principle if there's some crisis, but that's not the case here. You have sheer opportunism on both sides. And I thought it was really gross. Acnh, Celeste says. I wish I could sign the independence petition and vote every day in support for Alberta separation. Since immigrating here 12 years ago, so much has changed under the Liberal party rule. And Alberta's most recent imported voters from Ontario is the final straw. If separating doesn't happen, sadly there's an exit plan in place. You know, Canada has been added to. I mean provinces have joined Newfoundland, the most recent. I mean land is traded, sold, swapped. It does happen. That doesn't mean you're no longer friends. I mean Czechoslovakia, the Czechs and the and the Slovaks are still friends. They just have their different legislatures. They're still neighbors. They didn't physically move. My vision if there was an independence, Alberta would still be physically where it is. Obviously the TransCanada highway would still go and the the railway, the CP Rail would still go. I mean, we would all be friends and family and grown ups about it. We would just have federal decisions being made in Alberta rather than in Ottawa. Frankly, who wouldn't want that? Anyway, let me know what you think about that. I've had some people strongly disagree with me. I'd like to hear from you. Feel free to send me a letter to ezrabelnews.com until tomorrow when I have a special surprise for you. Good night and keep fighting for freedom.