EZRA LEVANT | Wab Kinew risks alienating Canadians over Indigenous veto in Alberta referendum process

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Rebel News Podcast — EZRA LEVANT | Wab Kinew risks alienating Canadians over Indigenous veto in Alberta referendum process

Date: May 28, 2026
Host: Ezra Levant (with guests: Stockwell Day, Sheila Gunn Reid, Lise Morrow, Franco Tarazano)
Main Theme:
The episode critiques the increasing influence of Indigenous veto power on democratic processes in Canada, especially as seen in a recent Alberta court ruling on referendums and the reactions of Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew. The episode also scrutinizes government spending by Mark Carney and transparency issues with CBC.

---

Episode Overview

Ezra Levant examines the controversy over Indigenous rights and legal vetoes intersecting with referenda processes in Alberta. The episode spotlights Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew’s stance on Indigenous consultation requirements, the reaction of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, and contrasting approaches to democracy and reconciliation in Canada. The show also features a panel discussion and caps off with an investigation into government spending on luxury travel and lack of transparency at the CBC.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Wab Kinew: Personality and Political Contradictions

Timestamps: 00:00 – 09:07

• Ezra describes Wab Kinew, Manitoba’s Indigenous premier, as “funny” and “jovial” but also accuses him of childishness and being divisive.
• Levant draws a parallel between the evolution of the LGBT movement—especially what he calls “overreach” on transgenderism—and the expansion of Indigenous rights in Canada (“when they go for the T, maybe they overplay their hand.” – [02:02]).
• He warns that “reconciliation” may have gone too far, endangering regular Canadians’ property rights and fueling polarization.
• Highlights a past “charming” speech from Kinew about Canada–US relations but contrasts it with recent allegations by Kinew calling Donald Trump a “pedophile” and making personal attacks ([05:46]).

Notable Quote:

“You don’t reconcile with someone by saying, I want your house.” – Ezra Levant [03:55]

---

2. Kinew’s Conduct in Manitoba Legislature

Timestamps: 07:45 – 08:24

• Audio clip: The Manitoba opposition leader rebukes Kinew for disrespectful behavior (“barking” and laughing while questions are asked).
• Ezra comments: “Can I get the fun, jovial, positive, constructive Wab Kinew back? Not the childish name calling, barking Wab Kinew, please.” [08:24]

---

3. Alberta Referendum, Indigenous Consultation & Court Challenges

Timestamps: 09:07 – 12:10

• Alberta Premier Danielle Smith explains her government will challenge a court ruling that imposes an Indigenous consultation requirement before referenda can proceed ([09:07]).
• Wab Kinew responds, defending the judge’s decision and emphasizing the duty to consult when Indigenous rights (like hunting and fishing) are at stake.
• Kinew calls for delaying Alberta’s referendum, urging pan-Canadian cooperation on big infrastructure projects.
• Ezra criticizes this logic, warning that allowing an Indigenous veto undermines democratic rights for all Canadians.

Notable Quote:

“If you’re celebrating the fact that a Trudeau appointed judge has invented a new right… that you can’t even petition your government if you’re a white man until indigenous people have consulted… do you see how corrosive that can be to the friendly reconciliation moving together as equals goal?” – Ezra Levant [12:10]

---

4. Panel Analysis: Referendums, Judicial Power, and Federal-Provincial Rights

Timestamps: 15:06 – 20:02

• Guest Stockwell Day: Praises referenda as a “pressure valve” for democracy but warns that courts sometimes override public will.
• Discussion on other provinces’ referendum laws: Saskatchewan’s are non-binding, and barriers are high ([17:15]).
• Day warns of “judicial activism,” straying from the original constitutional intent, and references the Alberta case as an example of overreach.

Notable Quote:

“It gets imbalanced when you have a judiciary that completely abandons the original intent of the balance of powers…” – Stockwell Day [18:12]

---

5. Quebec’s Perspective and Federal Response

Timestamps: 21:40 – 29:20

• Clip from Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon: Asserts Quebec’s right to consult its population in referendums without interference, framing this as “normal democracy” ([21:45]).
• Contrasts with Mark Carney’s dismissive take on Alberta’s referendum—Carney calls it a “joke” and says under the Clarity Act, it’s not binding ([23:28]).
• Carney is caught on a hot mic apparently calling Danielle Smith “stupid,” leading Ezra to characterize him as elitist and disrespectful ([25:05]).
• Stockwell Day outlines that the federal Clarity Act doesn’t prevent provinces from holding referenda ([27:52]).

---

6. Critique of Government Spending: Mark Carney’s Luxury Airline Meals

Timestamps: 31:50 – 41:20

• Interview with Franco Tarazano (Canadian Taxpayers Federation): Exposes nearly $200,000 spent on in-flight catering during Carney’s government trips ([32:00–35:50]).
• Outrage over luxury meals (“slow simmered beef with red wine reduction sauce,” “Scottish salmon filet,” multiple wines), with costs dwarfing even Trudeau’s travel expenses.
• Ezra’s incredulity over how government staff can bill so much on food, calling it “gross,” “a mystery,” and “maybe a police matter.”

Notable Quote:

“How do you spend $50,000 on a flight for food? … Even the fanciest airlines aren’t spending $5000 per customer in food.” – Ezra Levant [35:50]

---

7. CBC Transparency and Government Waste

Timestamps: 41:27 – 44:28

• Tarazano highlights the CBC spending $59,000 to legally hide subscriber data for its Gem streaming platform from the public, despite taking over a billion dollars in taxpayer funds.
• The federal finance minister hired outside help to write a budget speech for $12,000, despite a large communications team; Ezra speculates this is patronage spending.

---

Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

• “You don’t reconcile with someone by saying, I want your house.” – Ezra Levant [03:55]
• “Let the Epstein class fight the Epstein War.” – Wab Kinew (quoted by Ezra) [06:32]
• “Can I get the fun, jovial, positive, constructive Wab Kinew back? Not the childish name calling, barking Wab Kinew, please.” – Ezra Levant [08:24]
• “If you’re celebrating the fact that a Trudeau appointed judge has invented a new right… do you see how corrosive that can be…” – Ezra Levant [12:10]
• “Anytime you tell somebody who’s really burning up to ask a question to shut up… you’re just going to create huge problems.” – Stockwell Day [15:19]
• “How do you spend $50,000 on a flight for food?... It’s almost a police matter.” – Ezra Levant [35:50, 41:19]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment/Topic | |----------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 00:00–05:16 | Introduction, Wab Kinew’s character and past speeches | | 05:46–06:59 | Kinew’s attacks on Trump, criticism of rhetoric | | 07:45–08:24 | Manitoba legislature conduct, Kinew’s disrespect | | 09:07–12:10 | Alberta referendum court case; Smith vs. Kinew clash | | 15:06–20:02 | Panel analysis: Referenda, judicial power | | 21:40–29:20 | Quebec vs. Alberta—federalism, referenda, Clarity Act | | 31:50–41:20 | Carney’s government travel spending exposed | | 41:27–44:28 | CBC transparency issue, government waste |

---

Tone and Language

The discussion maintains the sharp, irreverent, and combative tone characteristic of Ezra Levant and Rebel News. There is frequent sarcasm, incredulity at government action, and a framing of issues as battles between ordinary Canadians and elites. The language is direct and polemical.

---

Takeaways for Listeners

• Ezra Levant sees the current expansion of Indigenous consultation laws as a dangerous overreach that risks democratic engagement and reconciliation.
• The Alberta case is seen by panelists as judicial activism, potentially setting a worrying precedent for the entire country.
• Mark Carney and other government officials are lambasted for lavish spending and elitist attitudes, with a call for more transparency and accountability.
• The episode positions referendums as vital democratic tools, while warning against undemocratic hurdles or elite dismissiveness.

---

For Further Listening

• Extended interviews with Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon and Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s Franco Tarazano offer more insight into Quebec’s perspective and ongoing taxpayer advocacy efforts.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hello, my friends. What do you think of WAB kanu? That's the Indigenous premier of Manitoba. I like certain things about him. I won't lie. I think he's funny and can even be fun sometimes. Rare for a politician, but he can also be childish. And I think he can be a bit racist in his own way. I'll take you through it and let you see. But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News. Plus, that's the video version of this podcast. Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click, subscribe and. And not only will you get great video content, I got a ton of video clips I want to show you. But you'll support Rebel News because we take no money from the government and it shows.

[B]

You're listening to Rebel News podcast.

[A]

Tonight. I've got some thoughts on Wob Canoe, the premiere of Manitoba. It's May 27th, and this is the Ezra Lebant Show. Shame on you, you censorious bug. You know, the LGBTQ2SL movement, I think they made a strategic mistake probably about 10 years ago when they really had total victory. I mean, gay marriage, gay adoption, gay pride month. Every last wall fell. I mean, a lot of it was done through the courts, so there was no democratic consent. But I think public opinion sort of shifted towards it, and they. They really won the cultural battle. But instead of declaring victory, the massive gay rights movement said, well, let's focus on the next frontier. Not just the LG and the B, but the T. Let's get all our energy behind transgenderism. And not just someone who in their private life dresses up as the other gender, but someone who wants to inject it in schooling into girls, sports, someone who's a real activist. And I think they went too far. In fact, even in the United States, you can see support for LGBT movements are falling. And it's not because of the L and the G and the B. It's because of the T. I think there's other movements that play their hand too far, go too far, and one of them in Canada, I fear, is that of Indigenous rights. I think every Canadian believes that there is some moral debt we have to First Nations. At least, I think so. And at the very least, we should attend to the social ills and the dysfunction of our own indigenous population. Perhaps before we bring in other newcomers or perhaps before we give foreign aid to strange countries, there are some problems we need to deal with. And I think Canadians are generally okay with that. But like the L, the G And the B, when they go for the T, maybe they overplay their hand. And I think that's happening in British Columbia, where land acknowledgments that were started off as a free feel good way to show respect to first nations is being taken literally and they want their land back. And a combination of radical politicians and radical judges are making Indigenous title a real thing. Recent cases in British Columbia have thrown into doubt whether or not homeowners actually own the land upon which their houses are. And this could cause tremendous dislocation. Many people. The home is their only investment. It's their retirement savings. It's what they want to be bequeathed to their kids. And now Canadians who've done nothing wrong to Indigenous people are at risk of losing their homes to people who had nothing done wrong to them. It's part of a race based system. And I'm worried that reconciliation has gone too far. That was the phrase a decade ago, truth and reconciliation. And who could be against those things? But you don't reconcile with someone by saying, I want your house. And I think that they're making the transgenderism mistake of pushing it too far. And I think of Wab Kanu, the premier of Manitoba. And in some ways it's wonderful. I mean, he's got that big smile and he's got a jovial personality and he says he loves Canada and there's a lot of things to like about him. One of my favorite clips was early in the trade spat with Donald Trump. He said, we'll Never be your 51st straight, but will be your number one best friend. Here's a little clip of that. I thought that was a great line and he delivered it well.

[C]

Canada will never be the 51st state. Well, we could be your number one friend. We fought in world wars together. We defeated fascism and communism. We stand up for democracy. We have answered the call on fentanyl. And on the border, we don't want tariffs because we're so close together, it'll only raise prices for all of us. We're a nation of hockey players. We know how to stand up for ourselves. At the same time, we know how to go for a beer together. Once the game is over, the winds of change can blow through politics, but they'll never change geography. We will always be neighbors and we should always be friends.

[A]

I think Wab Kanu, when he's at his best, can come across as really likable. And he actually can be some proof of reconciliation. But I saw another side to him lately that made me wonder if I was right about that. You know, in recent weeks, he's been going a little bit extreme, calling Donald Trump a pedophile. Now, where's the friendly, jovial. Where your number one best friend, Bob Canoe. I want him back. And I want a little bit less of this conspiracy theorist. Take a look.

[D]

Let me be absolutely clear. When I say the Epstein clash should fight the Epstein War. I'm attacking Donald Trump.

[A]

You're not talking about.

[D]

I'm attacking Jeff Bezos. I'm attacking Mark Zuckerberg. I'm attacking Jeffrey Epstein. I'm attacking Sam Altman. I'm attacking all of these folks who have articulated progressive views and yet bow down in the face of extraordinarily damaging politics.

[A]

Today, not a single Canadian should ever be put in harm's way to try

[D]

and defend Donald Trump's foolish Iranian war. Now, go a step further, and I'll say no American either, no American child

[A]

from the blue collar or the middle class should have to die in Iran. Let the Epstein class fight the Epstein War.

[D]

I hope this war in Iran ends these. Gas prices are too high and kids are being killed for no reason. Even the Trump administration cannot explain why they're at war in Iran right now. And, I mean, like, the Epstein file seems to be as good of a reason as anyone else can figure out. So stop the war.

[A]

Yeah. I don't think you're helping things. I don't think you're helping to have cooler minds prevail. I think you're whipping things up and making it viciously personal. And frankly, if you know anything about Wab Canoe's own personal history, he shouldn't be digging into personal problems of the President. Let me just leave it that way. Wabkanu does certain things that are fun and friendly, but other things that are just weird and childish. The other day, the leader of the opposition in Manitoba was speaking, who, by the way, is a Muslim man. And I think he's doing a good job as a opposition leader. He's very sober minded, very thoughtful. He was making a thoughtful point in the provincial legislature, and Wapkanu just started barking at him. Here's a clip of that

[E]

again, you know, it's. I asked the premier numerous times to please be respectful while I ask a question for my Tobin's Order. This is unbecoming of the Premier. It is unfortunate. I'm out. And be respectful. I'm asking questions.

[A]

Ask a question.

[E]

And this is the behavior we're getting from him. It's. It's unfortunate. So the premier knows he can do it and pass it. So the simple question is will the Premier stop laughing?

[F]

No.

[C]

Nobody else?

[E]

No. I'm asking about the budget bill and the answer is no.

[A]

Yeah. Can I get the fun, jovial, positive, constructive wob Canoe back? Not the childish name calling, barking wob canoe, please. Anyways, the other day the Premiers had a get together, the Western Premiers and one of the issues raised was the Alberta referendum. Of course it was on everyone's mind and, and Danielle Smith was asked about the court ruling and I think she answered in a very mature, grown up kind of way. But WAB KANU thought he would correct her and attempt to embarrass her. And I think he got his facts deadly wrong. But when you're taunting and tormenting, not sure if you're getting towards truth and reconciliation. Watch the exchange and judge for yourself.

[G]

No, I mean the way we're going to seek clarity is through the court. We think that the duty to consult is meant to be looked at through a lens of major projects and we take that very seriously. We had an Indigenous roundtable yesterday where I shared with the Premiers how we're using our Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation to help underwrite major project participation to give revenues to Indigenous nations and how we want to continue engaging with Indigenous nations on that. But the issue I think in the court is whether that duty to consult should apply to citizen initiated petitions. And that's where I think that the court erred in judgment and I think it's also anti democratic the decision that they made. But we'll make the arguments in court about what the limits to duty to consult ought to be and we'll see how that conversation goes. There's a couple of rounds that we have to go through, obviously to Court of Appeal, probably also to the Supreme Court of Canada. But we want to make sure that we have a very clear understanding of what the duty to consult really means and what it doesn't mean. And I think at the moment there's a lack of clarity on that and you've talked a lot about.

[D]

Sorry, I'd like to respond. So I think we know that that is not correct. A lot of what you just said there, Premier Smith specifically, and we spoke about this, so I don't mind repeating this. It is not up to the petition gatherers to fulfill the duty to consult. It is up to you as the Alberta government to fulfill the duty to consult. And in this case when there's clearly going to be an impact on well established existing hunting and fishing rights by putting up an international border, if some would have their way. The judge ruled, and I would agree with the judge's ruling that that is going to infringe on rights. And so there is a duty to consult. Now to take a step further for the Albertan who's been frustrated over the lack of progress on pipelines. You've got the premier of B.C. announcing LNG, we're working on Churchill, we're working on northern trade corridors. This is a moment to get big things built in Manitoba. And I would say now is the time to work together. Why don't we hold off on this referendum talk for a year or two and see if we get these pipelines under construction? Because at the end of the day, we want Canada to succeed. We're all very proud of this place. I myself am very, very patriotic. And what I think it's important for us to say when we hear this sorts of discussion happening here in Alberta is for us to say, okay, thank you first nations in Alberta for hitting the pause button on this. Now the rest of Canada, let's work together and show Alberta just how appreciated they are in the rest of this country.

[G]

And this is why we have the courts, because you can have politicians disagree and, and that's why you take it through the court, you take it through the appeals and you go to the Supreme Court. And ultimately, though I respect the difference of opinion that Premier Canoe has raised, I think we'll wait and to see how our court of appeals process goes and see what the courts have to say in the end.

[A]

That's what I mean. If you're celebrating the fact that a Trudeau appointed judge has invented a new right, that you can't even petition your government if you're a white man until indigenous people have consulted and you can throw out the will of 700,000 people who signed petitions, that's how many it is. It's not just the 300,000 for the independence petition. There's 400,000 for another petition. If you're smirking and rubbing it in and doing a kind of triumphalism because some newly concocted made up right was just discovered that you can't do anything without indigenous participation, do you see how corrosive that can be to the friendly reconciliation moving together as equals goal? If you can stop a referendum in the name of democracy at a certain point in time, I think that you will start to take on water the same way that transgenderism has done for the gay rights movement. And I like the fact that Wabkano is premier. I hate the fact that he's an NDP socialist. I hate the fact that he, he sometimes loses his grown upness and becomes childish. But I think he has the opportunity to be a great healer of race relations in this country. Like Obama had the opportunity, Obama squandered it. Instead he leaned into the Black Lives Matter racial theories of Marxism applied to race. I think under Barack Obama race relations reached an all time low even though his own election was proof that that America had become post racial. I'm worried that Wabkano could do the same thing. If he continues to endorse indigenous vetoes over democratic wishes. I think he's going to turn a lot of friends into enemies like transgenderism does. And you know, those are some of my thoughts today. And we've got a great interview with Franco Tarazano, the taxpayers federation coming up. But let me show you an outtake from the live stream I participated in today where we talked about Wabkano, Danielle Smith and other things. Stockwell Day was our special guest and of course Sheila Gun Reed and Lise Morrow. Here, take a look at this recording from earlier today. What do you think? First of all of referendums. The last big referendum Canada had, if I'm not forgetting anything, was the Charlottetown Accord which was, oh, I mean that was if I'm not mistaken, 1992. So you know, a whole generation ago the entire establishment was for yes, this was a constitutional reform. All the big parties supported all the media. This was in the pre Internet era. So I remember big full page ads were taken out in newspaper by every fancy person saying I support this, therefore you should because I say so. But it failed 60, 40 which I thought was wonderful. What do you think of referendums in general Stock?

[F]

Well there should be a place for them. Things can be accomplished through a referendum that maybe can't be accomplished in other ways. One of the main things it does, it's like a pressure valve and it allows people to at least ask a question. Anytime you say to I'm talking whether you're talking about raising your kids and you say you can't ask that question or if you get to university and the Prof. Says you can't ask that question, which actually happens quite a bit today. Anytime you tell somebody who's really burning up to ask a question to shut up and you can't ask the question, you're just going to create huge problems. There has to be a way for questions to be put. Referenda are a valid way of doing that structured along certain guidelines and they

[A]

should be permitted you know, I think sometimes politicians throw prickly questions to the courts precisely so they can avoid having to make a decision. Now the courts always tilt one way, so it's something liberals love to do. But in a way, a referendum is the same. Get off the hook for a politician, they could say, I'm gonna. This is a tough one. This is a big momentous thing. I'm not gonna arrogate unto myself the decision. I'm gonna let ordinary people do it. And I think the reason why so many in the elite commentary at. In Canada, like, I just think of Andrew Coyne and shut up. He explained, like that's what you're talking about Stock just telling people to shut up and calling names. It's not gonna persuade people. I think if anything, it's a safety valve for prickly issues. I mean, remember, it's not just independents that's on the ballot. Danielle Smith is putting immigration questions on the ballot. And that's something that every single pollster for 10 years or more has said. People want lower numbers, but no politician in office has seemed to have done it. What a great way to air out that question so politicians don't have to be the bad guy. I don't know. Are there any other. Does anyone know? Are there other provinces that have referendum or citizen initiative laws on the books? I think BC might, but I could be wrong on that. Do you guys know?

[H]

Well, I know.

[F]

Yeah, go ahead, sir, go ahead.

[H]

No, I was just gonna say I know for sure. Saskatchewan does. However, unlike Alberta, theirs is non binding. So. And the bar to get your referendum question on the ballot is very high, almost insurmountable. The last one they had, Lisa, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it was on debt. Yes, yes, on debt and debt spending. And of course naturally that did pass, but then they continued debt spending because it's non binding. So if the people of Saskatchewan want a voice in their future, our friend Scott Moe in Saskatchewan should consider making a referendum non binding and also lowering the bar so that putting a ballot question to the people is not so onerous the way it is there now. Sorry, no. And there's really, there's, there's no good argument for it. Sheila Gun Reid. There's no good. Sorry, Stockwell Day. You go ahead. I'm going to defer to you.

[F]

No, no, you've better insights on this more recent than I. I just want to reflect something Ezra said. Also, it's really important here on the judiciary. The original intent in constitutional democracies like Canada's, like the U.S. is to have a balance of powers. So you've got an executive branch, which is basically your cabinet, you've got the elected group, which is basically your legislatures or House of Commons, and you've got the judiciary. And that's actually done on the premise that people will not always make the right thing. People will not always do the right thing. You cannot trust one level of government. That is a very good, healthy perspective to have. And that's why there's a balance of powers. But it gets imbalanced when you have a judiciary that completely abandons the original intent of the balance of powers, is when all at the end of the line, the question, whatever it might be, would go to judges who would make a decision based on what was the original intent. Now, I realize a lot of people, and Ezra quite rightly mentioned these pontificators who roll their eyes, you know, when we, the mere masses, discuss these things like original intent. But that was the purpose of it. A judge or judges would then decide, well, based on the. Whether they like it or not, based on the original intent, this law can stand or it can't. And when you have judges defying that, as the recent judicial decision in Alberta or as the one just in Ontario, which says it's actually a constitutional right for you to have an encampment in a downtown city and not be moved when we get insane rulings that have nothing to do with original intent, you get a lot of unrest and it brings even more into light the need for referenda.

[A]

You're so right. I mean, this one lone judge in Alberta, and it is relevant that that judge was appointed by Justin Trudeau, and it is relevant that that judge is originally from New Brunswick. I've got nothing against New Brunswick and I think there' place for liberals in society, believe it or not, but just Simply to have 700,000 petition signers, remember 300,000 who signed the independence petition led by Mitch Sylvester, and 400,000 who signed a pro Alberta. I mean, there's pro Canada ones. So 700,000 people want a referendum, at least that many more who didn't sign it for sure. And one judge says, no, I've invented, I've discovered a new indigenous veto on. I mean, these people hadn't even done anything other than say, hey, I'd like a discussion. No, shut up. She explained, you're not allowed. And by the way this goes, this feeds the underlying grievance of Alberta, which suggests that there's a two tier system in Canada because Quebec has had two independence referendums and none of this was thrown at them. To his credit, the Parti Quebecois, that's the provincial separatist party in Quebec, had a comment about this and I think it's a good time to play that clip, Olivia. And by the way, our Alexei Lavoie had a one hour sit down with the Parti Quebecois leader. So I appreciate him giving us the time of talking to us. I think it was an excellent interview. Without further ado, here's a clip of Mr. Blamondon, I don't think we heard your reaction since Daniel Smith announced that she'll start the process for a future and potential referendum.

[I]

How do you react about this?

[A]

What's happening in Alberta?

[J]

I'm kind of surprised at what Carney said. Mark Carney seemed to be willing to give many things to Alberta in exchange for some peace. And I think the premier of Alberta, Daniel Smith, is just doing her job as a premier, saying that of course they are free to consult their population. And of course they're a parliament free of making any laws that they deem fit, that the deem fit for their objectives. So for Mark Carney to all of a sudden start saying that it's a bluff, it's dangerous, I think it's really out of line and I'm not sure where that is heading. But let me make clear that in the case of Quebec, our laws are clear. The historic, the history of the two referendums are very clear. We are free to consult our population at any time and there's no blackmail or any comment that will change that principle. And I'm pretty sure that it's the same reasoning in Alberta right now.

[A]

I mean, again, he's just saying I can talk to my people, they can petition me and no judge is gonna stop it. And I think that would be called normal democracy. He was referring to a few comments by Mark Carney. And let me just play a couple more vids and then we'll go back to our super duper panel. Olivier, can you play the first one there where Carney says the referendum about a referendum is not binding. And I am frustrated that Danielle Smith watered it down to two referendums in a row. I don't think that makes any sense. I don't think he was justified. But she did it. Here's Mark Carney saying the whole thing's a joke. Take a listen.

[K]

I gave a very.

[A]

I gave a.

[K]

Sorry, just to be clear, the. Because it is a question about a question. I mean, it's doesn't. It's not a bi. It's explicit in the question that it's not a binding referendum. This is what I expected. But I, you know, as I said in French, that as prime minister and issues, particularly issues of a constitutional nature, I like to make sure I have the official advice before, which is why yesterday I was careful in terms of my.

[D]

No, it is not.

[K]

It is not. For under a Clarity Act. It is absolutely not. And I would just recommend that you read the Clarity Act.

[C]

It's very clear.

[K]

Not surprisingly, the Clarity act is very clear and a determination. And there's a series of conditions which I responded in the House.

[I]

For the record.

[G]

Thank you.

[A]

So a big win for Mark Carney. I don't know what Danielle Smith got in return. And just one more. Mark Carney had a hot mic incident where it sounds like he was calling Danielle Smith stupid, or at least her ideas stupid. And I mean, listen, we know he sneers at the west. We know he sneers at democracy. I mean, it's quite something to take lectures on democracy from someone who did not get a majority government. Voters deemed he should only have a minority government, but he undermined that election by bribing and giving gifts and promises to MPs to make them cross the floor. So I don't really think that we should take lessons from Carney on democracy. But here he is referring to a moment captured by, I think it was CTV where he was saying Danielle Smith is stupid for not letting the judge kill this thing. Take a listen.

[B]

Yeah. Prime Minister, I'm hoping you can clarify some remarks that you made after the scrum on Monday when you were leaving the press conference. You spoke with Minister Robertson. And I want to read what you set out. What are you doing? This is stupid. You've got an off ramp. Take it. That to me sounds like you're talking about Daniel Smith and the Alberta referendum question. But can you clarify what you were discussing at that point in time? Because the scrum was about what the Smith had done.

[K]

No, it was about Minister Robertson. Look, I have, I think if, if I'm going to, I'm going to take your question about the relationship with Canada and Alberta. Canada and the federal government and, and the provinces. And we're, we're practiced cooperative federalism. We work together. What we're focused on is making the federation work. We're doing that with Alberta with respect to a variety of aspects of energy. It's much more than a pipeline. It's nuclear. It's interconnects with British Columbia. It's a new industry of carbon Capture. It's restarting the renewable market. It's getting a carbon market that actually works, that other provinces can be able to join so we can broaden out a national carbon market. That's what we're doing there. We're here talking about defense industrial strategy, the benefits of the announcement we just made around the negotiations led by Secretary of State.

[C]

Yeah, okay.

[A]

We don't need any more of this baffle Gab. His real answer was laughing for about 30 seconds straight and then he just pivoted to talking about the new carbon capture industry and a carbon market that really works. Those are not real things, by the way. That's exactly what Enron got in trouble for, just trading B.S. trading hot air. There is no such thing as a market for carbon. I'm exhaling it right now. Plants inhale it. It's naturally occurring. There makes no economic sense to pipe to spend $10 billion pumping CO2 into the ground. It's just, it's a made up thing. So it's sort of weird that he pivots from. Let me laugh at Danielle Smith for a solid 30 seconds and then tell you the ways I'm undermining Alberta. It just tremendously disrespectful. Stock day. I'm wondering, is Mark Carney's tone the right one to convince Albertans? I mean, listen, right now the polls say Albertans would not vote for independence, but there's a big chunk between 30 and 40% right now who say they would. Mark Carney I think is an elitist who hasn't really spent any time in Canada for 20 years. And he naturally scoffs at questions he doesn't like, people he doesn't like, especially doesn't do well with women he doesn't like. What do you make of his tone towards Daniel Smith?

[F]

Yeah, he was clearly caught off guard and it was. He was. His parliamentary pants were down there. He was clearly exposed as thinking that Daniel Smith and the approach he's taking was a joke. He couldn't stop his nervous laughter, as you said, for 30 seconds and then just a stream of totally extraneous items that had nothing to do with the question. The fact is 1995, we know there was a vote in Quebec and it was 50.6% decided of Quebecers decided to stay. By the way, that clip you just played from the Quebec minister is brilliant. That's 100% the position provinces has the right to decide these after the 95. Then a reference was sent to the Supreme Court in 98 that was called the Quebec Reference and the Quebec reference didn't say whether a province could ask a question. They said, if a province is going to ask a question, here's some things they should take into consideration. That resulted in the Clarity act in 2000. The Clarity act lays out some things that says, here's what Parliament will have to consider after a vote has been taken. There is no suggestion a vote cannot be taken. There's no suggestion that whether it's first nations or any other nation can stop a vote. Provinces have the right to ask questions. Parliament may decide on those questions if they like them or not. But provinces have the right to put those questions in a referendum.

[A]

You know, I travel a lot around Canada and even occasionally overseas. So I'm on planes a lot. Sometimes I'm even bumped up. I get an upgrade to the front of the plane, which is pretty nice. And they have better food up there, but the food is still commercially affordable. So they don't serve you something really weird and exotic and they don't serve things that are hard to make on a plane. I mean, just think about it for a second. If you're on a 7 hour flight, or sometimes flights are even more than 10 hours, how do you get a hot meal 10 hours from now that's not overcooked or dried out? There's a whole science behind it. And the good news is that science has been figured out by the world's commercial airlines. So they are able to serve a meal to you whether you're in economy class or business class. That is pretty tasty. I mean, there's a joke about airline food, but it's not even that bad, especially considering it has to be done affordably and it has to, you know, stay in the, in the galley of the plane for up to 12 hours. The reason I tell you this is because there is an established science and art to airplane food. It's just a fact. So why is it that when Canadian officials fly on those private jets that the Canadian government makes affordable to them, not affordable, makes available to them? Why do they spend tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on meals that are so weird and so exotic that no airline, not even the fanciest first airline, first class airline would ever do? Why are they not satisfiable with merely business class or first class food? Even some of the most fancy airlines in the world, like Emirates Airlines, if the ticket you're buying costs you $10,000, obviously the super fancy meal you get is less than $10,000. So how is it that Mark Carney recently spent nearly $200,000 on food and wine. Here to take us through these statistics is our friend Franco Tarrazano, the boss of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. You know, Franco, this is a subject close to my heart because I fly a lot and I think about the meals I get and listen, it's not the most gourmet meals in the world. Everyone jokes about airline food, but it's pretty good. And it's obviously commercially affordable. Why? What?

[K]

Why?

[A]

Who? What?

[D]

Where?

[C]

Why?

[A]

When? How do we get to $200,000 for meals on airlines? Give me the answer to that.

[I]

Well, the price gets higher for taxpayers when the meals that you're getting on the airline. Our slow simmered beef with red wine reduction sauce or sauteed beef with, quote, world famous creamy sauce or Scottish salmon filet beef tenderloin with bordelais sauce. You know, Ezra, some of these food choices are so exotic, I'm not even sure I'm pronouncing them right. And also, don't forget about dessert, right? There was some luxury Normandy buttercups. You had blueberry cheesecake, creme brulee, chocolate mousse, and so much more. And, Ezra, here's the thing, right? Carney and his entourage racked up a taxpayer tab of about 195,000 bucks on airplane food. Ezra, that was just for three of Carney's international trips. Three trips, $195,000 bill to taxpayers for airplane food.

[A]

I've got your press release in front of me here. I'm just going to read one line, and I'm just. And just help me out. Carney and his entourage spent $93,780 on in flight catering during a trip to Rome, Italy. So that's one trip. Now, I don't know how many people would have flown with him. Let's say it's 20. Heck, let's say it's 50. I don't think he traveled. In fact, I know he doesn't travel with him. Let's say 20. 20 people for $100,000. For. Or 93,000. So that's five is my math right? That's $5,000 per person for. Did they do my math right?

[I]

Yeah, it's almost. It's more than 4,000, right? Somewhere between 4,000 to 5,000.

[A]

They had 20, 50 or 20. Like, like. Okay, let's say it to how. See, that's my point is, even on the fanciest gourmet airline, there's some airlines that their first class is considered amazing. They're not spending 5,000 bucks per person on meals. I don't know how you even do that, other than if you have really weird, exotic demands or if you're drinking, like, super expensive wine. I just don't even get that's how much it costs to charter a whole jet, let alone give you food. Something deeply wrong there. Like, maybe they're ordering something that's just not meant to be served on an airline, and the airline says, well, that's crazy. It doesn't work. But if you're willing to pay an extra 50 grand, we'll give it to you. I just. It doesn't even make sense to me. Like, if you said this with first class travel, I'd say, okay, that's a little bit rich, but this is insane. 100 grand for food in one flight?

[I]

Well, Ezra, obviously, I've never been on one of these flights, right? However, we do have the receipts, right? These documents were from Access to Information Requests. They contained the invoices, and they contain the menu options. You ask, how does it, you know, come into the tens of thousands of dollars on airplane food in flight catering? It's because you are getting gourmet multi meal menu options, right? For lunch, for dinner, even breakfast. Like, some of these breakfast expenses, I mean, they're crazy, but that's how the tab goes up so high. But you know, Ezra, let me hone in on this Italian trip. $93,000 spent on airplane food on a trip to Italy. Okay? Number one, that's more than what many Canadian workers make in an entire year salary, 93 grand. Let's not forget about that. Number two, Carney just outspent Trudeau. Okay, so in 2024, Trudeau goes to Italy. Trudeau and his entourage spent $43,000 on airplane food. Carney spent twice as much on airplane food just one year later. Okay, so the guy who keeps promising to spend less just spent more than the guy who is famous for spending too much.

[A]

You know, let's say I see in your report here, Carney and his delegation spent $52,610 on airplane food during a trip to London. So I've taken that trip before. It's seven hours. So basically, there's one meal and one snack. So let's say the meal is 100 bucks because it's a really nice meal, and the snack is 25 bucks, and it's a really nice snack. And let's say there's 20 bucks for soft drinks. And let's say 50. Let's just throw in another 50 bucks. So you're at $300 for a really classy first class meal on this flight. 300 bucks. How do they get from there to 52,000? Because this is not an entire airline, commercial airline with 300 people in seats. Like, I just, it feels like someone's being ripped off. And I know that someone is taxpayers, but I just, I don't know. Like, there's no airline in the world that does this, frankly. That's what I'm saying. No airline in the world. Not even the fanciest. Fanciest airlines are 5000 bucks per customer in food. You can't. I don't even know how you would eat 5,000. Even if you had 5,000 bucks worth of caviar, you couldn't consume it all. I don't get it. I don't get what they're doing here.

[I]

So. So Ezra, you said the trip was what, about seven hours auto to London?

[F]

Yeah.

[I]

All right, so you're talking about thousands of dollars an hour is what they're chomping through when it comes to get it. Yeah, thousands of dollars an hour. I mean, it's just complete disdain from, from. For the Canadian taxpayers who are paying these bills. Right. And you know, let me just really nail that home. Okay, so three trips alone, $195,000 on airplane food. Okay, so in three trips, Carney spend more on airplane food than what the average Canadian family will spend on groceries in a decade. More like could you be out of touch?

[H]

Right.

[I]

Ezra, as a Prime minister, as anyone, you shouldn't need a focus group to tell you to maybe ease up on the airplane food when you're billing taxpayers, what, tens of thousands of dollars per these trips. Especially when we hear story after story about grocery price inflation, you know, food bank lineups. Like what is going on within the Prime Minister's office right now.

[A]

You know, I can see why Doug Ford, the Ontario Premier, had an idea of getting a private jet of his own. He wants to keep up with Mark Carney. Now, in the end, there was a miraculous reaction. The entire province at once said, that is the dumbest thing we've ever heard. And he was really grouchy about it, but he blinked and he was complaining about how small minded Ontarians were that they didn't allow the Premier to be in the big leagues. But it was at least, I mean, at least there was a public reaction. Why is it that this insanity, like what you're describing here, I don't even know if a private. I don't know how you could get 50 grand worth of food on a private jet. Like, I'm just trying to figure out, what the heck is that? Like, even the fanciest wagyu steak from Japan, you know what? Wagyu, that's that. The cows that they gently massage. Like, I don't know how you spend 50 grand on a flight. I just. Like, I just don't even understand it. I can condemn it. I can criticize that. You guys are doing a great job. I don't even fathom it. Like, it's a gold leaf or something. I don't know how they can even spend that. And I don't know how they can spend that with a straight face. Like, how can they say that they are stewards? Like, this is the kind of thing an Auditor General should look at. You guys are like an independent citizens Auditor General. But I'm serious. I think the Auditor General ought to say, well, how the heck do you spend this much on. I don't even know. Like, I know I'm repeating myself, but I just don't know how you spend 50 grand, 100 grand on food in one flight. Just don't know how.

[I]

I mean, look, on one of these flights, they spend hundreds of dollars on bread rolls, right?

[B]

Just.

[I]

Just bread rolls. Hundreds of dollars right on bread rolls. It's just, hey, it's other people's money, you know? Party on, man. Like, on some of these trips, too, they had four different wines that they could choose from as well. Like, it was just. It's almost like at every corner, you have these government bureaucrats who are stalking these airplanes. You. Obviously, the real accountability has to stop or end with Prime Minister Mark Carney. But it almost seems like at every opportunity, they're just looking for ways to go out of their way to spend taxpayers money on the most lavish stuff that they can get their hands on. That's what it feels like to me reading this.

[A]

The fact that you compared him to Justin Trudeau and he's spending twice as much as Trudeau is shocking. You know, Mark Carney used to be the chairman of Brookfield Asset Management, which is a very large company, but at least when he traveled ultra fancy, he was using their money. And if you didn't like it as a Brookfield shareholder, you could sell. I think he's bringing that absolute luxury that he's used to at Brookfield and just he thinks he's the king or something instead of a Prime minister. I think it's really gross. I'm not begrudging a guy, you know, a big seat. If he's flying seven hours. You know, I'm not saying that the Prime Minister should be in a. In a squishy economy class seat when he has to get off the plane and do important business. I'm not saying that. But how you get from that to $100,000 for. For steaks and wine is something I really think. Like, it's almost a police matter, because I just don't believe it's possible to do that in a fair business way.

[F]

I.

[A]

Maybe I just don't know what they're eating, but it sounds crazy to me. Frank, what else you guys working on in the Taxpayers Federation these days?

[I]

Well, a couple other things. Okay, so the CBC is spending tens of thousands of dollars, $59,000 going to court to keep its gem subscriber numbers hidden from the public, even after the information Commissioner ordered the CBC to release the documents, right? So get this, folks. The CBC takes more than a billion dollars from taxpayers like you every single year, right? At the very least, they owe you transparency. But the CBC is now wasting tens of thousands of dollars going to court to keep you in the dark, to keep those records hidden from you. Ezra, one other great story that we dug up here. The finance minister spent 12 grand contracting out speechwriting for his own budget speech. Now, hear me out, okay? If Winston Churchill could find some time to write his own speeches when he was fighting the Nazis, I'm pretty sure Champagne can write his own speech without billing taxpayers an extra 12 grand.

[A]

And why does he have to contract out? There are so many civil servants, so many people. He's got probably 20 communication staff. And when I say 20, I'm not exaggerating. I mean, between communication director and writers and editors. And, like, why he has. I think that's just throwing a bone, throwing some cash to a liberal supporter, because there's no way that there is not enough bureaucrats to write that. And especially, it's not a partisan thing. A budget speech is the kind of thing that the department would write. Why he needed to pay an outsider. Do we know who got that $12,000 contract?

[I]

Oh, sorry, Ezra, I don't have it. But let me say one other thing. Now I'm starting to think the finance minister doesn't even know what is in his own budget. Okay, because in the budget, the government promises to cut costs on consultants.

[A]

Yeah, right. The civil service has never been bigger. And yet he's still throwing a bone to his. But I'm sure that's what that is. I think he's throwing a bone to his Friend. Now, let me just tell our viewers you used a word earlier that I think most of our viewers don't know. You said. Gem, G, E, M. We all know what a gem is, but it relates to a very obscure project by the cbc. That's their attempt at like a streaming system, right? That's their answer to Hulu or Amazon prime or Netflix. Right? Because so few people even know what that is. And that's sort of the point. They want to hide how tiny their audience is because they would be embarrassed. That's why you do it. You don't. If it was huge, they would be boasting about it. It's a total failure. They just don't want people to know.

[I]

Right, well, and Ezra, you know what's really infuriating about all this, right? The former CEO of the cbc, Catherine Tate, when she was in committee getting grilled, she was bragging about Jem. Right? Okay, well, if you're bragging about it, you know, release the numbers, right? Show us. If you're saying that this is what is providing taxpayers with service, then we have at the very least the right to see what type of numbers you're talking about here. And Ezra, let me just say, when I got some good news to share. I like to brag, I don't spend tens of thousands of dollars going to court to keep that hidden.

[A]

Yeah, it's all about the secrecy at the CBC when it comes to things they're embarrassed about, which is quite a lot. Franco Tarrazano, the taxpayers. Great to catch up with you. You've puzzled me so bad with this airline stuff. I mean, I just, I just keep thinking there's gotta be a typo there, but I know there's not. It's a mystery how to spend a hundred grand in food on a flight. And you know, we need Agatha Christie or something, or Hercule Poirot. We need an old fashioned detective to find out how you can blow 100 grand on food. Great to see you, my friend. Keep up the fight.

[I]

Thanks, Ezra.

[A]

All right, stay with us. Your letters to me. Next.

[G]

Foreign.

[A]

Hey, welcome back. Your letters to me. These are from the live stream earlier today. We call it the Buffalo. The first is from R.W. coco, who says Wabcano is very ignorant. How did he ever get elected to government? So sad. Well, you know, the pendulum swings back and forth and the conservatives have been in office for quite a long time and I. I think that he actually was a figure of some hope. But I think he has to govern himself a little bit more maturely. I Hope he does. P Buttercup says the Liberals promised electoral reform on Trudeau's first platform. Anyone else remember we never got that reform? Carney. Imagine saying that a democratic exercise like a referendum is anti democratic. You're sort of showing your authoritarianism, don't you think? Prairie Prospecting says Mitch Sylvester's question passed the Clarity act in court. Danielle was given the keys to the car, then claimed that she didn't know how to drive. I don't understand Danielle Smith's approach. I know that from a poll that act for Alberta did about a month ago. And I did a monologue on this. More than half of UCP members, that's the ruling party, the Conservative Party in Alberta, more than half of them are independence oriented. And I think the premier was taking a really thoughtful line of saying, well, I'm not going to campaign for independence. I'm not for a strong Alberta within Canada, but I'm going to allow that democratic exercise because I'm not going to tell a million Albertans they're wrong. I thought, wow, that is a really thoughtful path and I think it's fair to everybody. But I don't know why she just decided to euthanize the referendum rather than to fight. I think she caved in, not just in an anti democratic way, but I think she gave strength to the kind of indigenous veto we were talking about earlier today. We'll see. Listen, I like Danielle Smith and I, I think that she can do good things, even great things, but I think this was a misstep. That's our show for the day. Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World headquarters, see you at home. Good night. And keep fighting for freedom.