Canada’s Justin Trudeau quietly pushed through a $50K-fine, five-year-jail "fake news" law (Section 91.1 of the Elections Act) targeting critics like Rebel News, which won a court order to access leaders’ debates after being blocked by a Radio Canada-aligned commission. Lawyers David Elmelay and Aaron Rosenberg are filing affidavits in spring 2020, expecting the government to reveal emails or memos—possibly containing bias against right-wing outlets—while Trudeau’s past legal violations (SNC-Lavalin, drug admissions) could now face unchecked scrutiny. The law’s passage, with weak Conservative opposition, signals a broader crackdown on dissent, raising alarms about free speech ahead of the election. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I do something I probably should have done a month ago or even months ago.
I read through changes to the Elections Act that Justin Trudeau slipped in almost a year ago.
Now, how could he slip in changes?
I mean, they're done through Parliament.
Well, it was an obscure provision that the Conservative opposition didn't squawk about, didn't fight about, didn't oppose.
And no civil liberties groups did either.
I would say that's as close to slipping in a change to the law as I've seen.
Trouble is the law calls for censorship of criticism of politicians and has a five-year fine and a five-year prison sentence attached to it.
I'll give you all the details, give you all the details.
But first, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber.
You get the video version of this podcast.
Just go to premium.rebelnews.com.
It's eight bucks a month, and you get to see the video in addition to the podcast.
All right, here's the show.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau slipped in a new fake news law.
If you call him a substitute drowning teacher, you could go to prison.
I wish I were joking.
It's October 18th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
But why publish them?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
One of my favorite guys is John Carpe of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom.
He's a true civil libertarian, one of the few in this country who actually stands up for freedom of speech.
You won't hear a peep from the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression or Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
They're too busy championing Omar Goddard or demonizing Donald Trump to care about, you know, free expression or civil liberties.
They really should change their name.
But I think I need to pay a bit more attention to another public interest law firm that fights for liberty also.
It's called the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
Similar in name to Carpet's group, similar in focus.
You know, I actually served on their board of directors about a decade or so ago.
Anyways, I want to tell you about a lawsuit they filed just last month, and it's very relevant to the election we're in right now and all future elections.
It was a law passed by Parliament, written by Trudeau's cabinet.
It was one of a ton of changes to Canada's Election Act.
And I think this little change didn't get a lot of coverage at all.
Tell you the truth, I think it slipped into the law, slipped by me, because no one made a fuss about it.
I guess that's my job to make a fuss about things, but I don't see everything.
I didn't quite see this one go by, and the Conservative opposition didn't oppose it vigorously at all.
And the media, which is also supposed to be a watchdog in our democracy, well, they're on a leash now, most of them, as part of the $600 million media bailout.
So no one cared, certainly not the left-wing civil liberties groups, but not the Conservative Party of Canada either.
The Conservative opposition critic on this file was Calgary's Stephanie QC.
I never really saw her oppose anything that Trudeau or Karina Gould did on this file.
I actually watched a fair bit of the parliamentary committee on these changes.
And really, the only thing I got from QC and the Conservatives was they wanted Trudeau to move faster and harder.
That, and then just plain old personal compliments to the Liberals.
So I'm asking you, please, if you are ready in regards to the social media platform, willing to make the hard decisions, to take the hard actions, and not six months from now, but now, please.
Minister, always lovely to see you.
I love that necklace, by the way.
It's just beautiful.
Also, I want to say that I really enjoyed your speech yesterday at the AI.
And you know what?
It was very informal.
False Statements and Political Law00:10:47
And I think you should go with that format more when you come even to committees because you do it so well.
So I just wanted to compliment you on that.
Yeah, that's not really how you do opposition.
So the law is the law, and none of the watchdogs barked.
But I'm pleased to say the Canadian Constitution Foundation has gone to court to fight the law.
I'm pleased to say they filed their court application, their constitutional challenge, just last month.
We'll have to see if we can get an interview with them about it.
I'm excited about it.
I read it, and I'll tell you about it.
But first, let me tell you about the law that was passed.
Here's the text of the Elections Act as amended.
Now, I'm going to read this slowly, and then I'm going to go back through it again.
It's fairly plain English, but I'll elaborate on my second pass-through.
Here's the law.
Publishing false statement to affect election results.
That's the name of the section.
91.1.
No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish during the election period, A, a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party,
or a public figure associated with a political party, has committed an offense under an act of parliament or a regulation made under such an act or under an act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an act or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offense.
Very wide-ranging.
Or B, a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications, or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.
By the way, the penalty for breaching this section is up to $50,000 in fines and incredibly up to five years in prison.
I've seen rapists, I've actually been in court, and I've seen rapists sentenced in this country to six months in prison.
But if you break this election rule and say a mean thing about a politician, you can get five years in prison.
All right, let me read it line by line now.
91.1.
No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish during the election period.
Okay, fairly obvious.
This means anyone, including other political candidates, is covered by the law, including journalists, including you on Facebook.
When you write something on Facebook and click OK or publish, that meets the definition of publishing, even if you just publish it to your friend.
So this law targets you, of course it does, because you're not already under the control of Trudeau.
You don't work for the CBC.
You're not at one of the bailout newspapers.
So this is to shut you up because you're the last person who isn't gagged.
Okay, I'll keep on.
A, a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offense.
Okay, so this protects just the political party class.
It's incredible, really.
Candidates or prospective candidates, as in someone who might become a candidate, what does that mean?
A public figure associated with a political party?
What does that mean?
If someone is a member of a party, just a member, are they covered?
If they're a former member, I mean, take, for example, Kim Campbell, the nutty former prime minister who just does nothing all day, apparently, but publish insane tweets against Donald Trump.
Oh, and she's also in charge of vetting Supreme Court Justice for Trudeau.
But is she associated with the party?
Or how about that old battle axe Sheila Comps, who is a full-time internet troll, just nuts these days.
Does she get this special legal protection now?
Because she's associated with the party?
What a weird law.
To give immunity from criticism, not only just to the elite political class, but just to political parties and their friends.
I'll read more of the law.
says a person has, I'm quoting now, committed an offense under, it's an offense to say a person has committed an offense under an act of parliament or a regulation made under such an act or under an act of the legislature of a province or regulation made under such an act or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offense.
That covers almost anything.
A regulation in a provincial law, maybe you're under investigation.
If you say any of these things, you're in jeopardy of five years in prison.
Well, look, right now, if someone slanders you and says you've committed a crime or something, you can sue them now.
Whether you're a politician, a prince, or a pauper.
The law is called defamation law.
That's something you have to hire your own lawyer for and go to court and convince the judge, a real judge, in a real court.
And there are defenses, fair comment, truth, things like that.
At the end of the day, if you're wrong, the person you sued, they get costs from you.
But if you didn't really say anything that hurtful, and not many people saw the defamation, you might only get a few bucks in damages.
I've seen damages as low as a dollar, not 50 grand, and not prison time.
There's no prison time for saying something mean now.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
I believe Justin Trudeau has committed criminal obstruction of justice in regards to the SNC Lavalan case and probably in the case of Vice Admiral Norman too.
Let me be crystal clear.
I believe Justin Trudeau broke the criminal code.
Can I get any clearer than that?
In the one case, he tried to get the prosecution to drop the case against a guilty party, SNC Lavalan.
In the other case, he tried to get a false prosecution.
He tried to frame an innocent man.
I think they're both crimes.
I think Trudeau himself broke the law, the criminal law.
Maybe other criminal laws too.
We know for a fact that he broke the law against illegal drugs.
He boasts about using drugs long before he legalized marijuana.
If Trudeau wants to sue me for saying those things, he can.
But if he does, I'll get to cross-examine him and get access to his records touching on those matters.
That's why he won't sue.
But not so under this new fake news law.
His buddies at Elections Canada can go after me on the public dime with investigators, and I don't get to cross-examine Trudeau or get to see his records.
He's delegating his political enforcement to a political office paid for with taxpayers' money.
And we know they're extremely partisan at Elections Canada.
A conservative MP donated too much to his campaign or something like that.
He gets handcuffed and sent to prison.
SNC Lavalan made $100,000 in illegal contributions to the Liberals again and again, similar to the Del Mastro story, and they get let off the hook for free in secret.
Yeah, I'm not trusting those crooks.
Oops.
Gonna send me to prison for saying that too.
Now, this next part is even crazier.
It's also illegal to make, quote, a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications, or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party, or a public figure associated with the party.
Really?
Okay, so Andrew Scheer said he was an insurance broker in Saskatchewan.
Turns out he wasn't.
He was an assistant to an insurance broker.
Now, I honestly don't care.
But this law says to get that wrong is to break the law and risk prison.
Andrew Scheer also kept quiet that he's an American.
Again, I don't care.
He's not really an American.
He has American citizenship also because of his dad.
If I got that wrong, do I go to prison?
Trudeau lies about his background and credentials all the time.
He lies and lies.
He said he taught free lies.
He's made up so many stories about his CV.
Look, most politicians lie or embroider the truth.
It's not actually against the rules of parliament to lie.
Do you know that?
It's against the rules, in fact, to call out an MP for lying.
can't actually call an MP a liar.
That's politics for you, but now they want to stop us from calling out those liars?
Perfect example.
Mariam Monseff.
She lied about where she was born.
She committed immigration fraud and come to Canada and she lied her way into parliament.
Remember this?
So you were born in Afghanistan, correct?
I believe I was.
She was actually born in Iran, not Afghanistan.
She lied about that.
And if Bob Fife called her out on that before the truth came out, Bob Fife could have been investigated and even sent to prison under this law.
Even though, in fact, he eventually exposed the truth.
She was lying.
What kind of bizarre censorship rule is this?
What is this doing in the law?
One last quote.
Subsection one applies regardless of the place where the election is held or the place where the false statement is made or published.
So if you're in Prince Edward Island and you tweet about someone in BC, you're subject to the law.
Hell, it even applies if you're in America, but probably only if you're an enemy of Trudeau.
Elections Canada doesn't care about foreign meddling if it's pro-Trudeau, like Obama's endorsement of Trudeau or Greta Tunberg interfering.
So what did the Conservatives say to this law?
It's anti-free speech, it's meddling, it's so partisan and political, it treats a fancy partisan class as a protected class unlike the rest of us.
So what did the Conservatives say?
Well, the opposition Conservative critic Stephanie Kusey made one attempt to amend the law.
She wanted to add the word knowingly to the law, that you knowingly had to publish something false.
I suppose that's a baby step better than it is right now, but the law actually uses the word intentionally, so that's really the same thing.
And just tweaking the law is not opposing it.
She didn't fight against this law.
She didn't stand for free speech.
Neither did Andrew Scheer.
That's accepting this bizarre censorship.
And again, it's special censorship for the special political class because the conservatives are a part of this political class themselves, aren't they?
And you know, they probably want to protect themselves against people who criticize them.
Of course they do.
Their main objection to Trudeau's changes here is that Trudeau didn't go far enough, hard enough, fast enough.
I say again, freedom of speech is the number one issue of our time because without it we can't criticize any other issues in our society.
And the political class, including Andrew Scheer and Stephanie Kusey, well, they don't mind because they'll have their freedoms as MPs, won't they?
And now they'll have special protections, won't they?
This is the law of the land now.
They didn't stop it.
They loved it.
And who knows?
Maybe in three days' time, Andrew Scheer will be the one sending out enforces under the law to crack down on his enemies.
Doesn't make me feel any better about it than if Trudeau has the whip in his hand.
Stay with us for more.
Proudest Day Of Public Life00:04:56
My friends, I must tell you that last Monday was one of the proudest days of my life, my public life.
I've had so many proud private moments in my family, but for everything I've done in my life, I would put publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed definitely in the top.
But my day in the federal court of Canada with our crack team of legal eagles suing Justin Trudeau's debate commission for the right to attend the leaders debate,
winning that day, being there in alliance with Candace Malcolm's True North News and their reporter Andrew Lawton, succeeding getting Kian Bexty and David Menzies into the debate that night and then seeing that night our own reporters grilling the leaders, knowing that we made the decisions to do this and you, our viewers, paid for it.
I have to tell you, as I told our lawyers in court that day, it was one of the proudest moments of my life, and I mean that very truly, and even a little bit emotionally.
I did my best right after that court hearing to explain things.
As you know, I'm a former lawyer.
I had a sense of what was going on, but I thought, let's call in the legal eagles themselves, the men who worked all weekend and all day to get us that surprising victory.
Have them explain what happened and interesting to me, explain why we must continue with the lawsuit, even though the leaders' debates are over for the year.
Joining me now in studio is our legal team immediately to my left, Aaron Rosenberg and David Elmelay from ReLaw.
It's so nice to have you guys here in studio.
The dust has settled.
Your court win, I'll say our court win because we were all in it together, made front page news the next day.
I want to say thank you to you guys.
It was an amazing day for me.
I'd like to hear, now that the pressure has receded a bit, some of your thoughts and then some of the questions I've just touched on.
Well, I have to say, it was an amazing, amazing experience.
I mean, to get that call Friday afternoon, the debate's happening Monday night.
We need to get our guys in.
This is a very, very unique situation, obviously.
And so much had to align in the right way for us to get this, to obtain this injunction.
Extremely, extremely rare to get this type of emergency injunction.
And we got that call.
We knew that we were being called upon for a much higher purpose.
This wasn't just about getting two of our guys into the debate.
This was about freedom of press.
This was about holding the government to account and government transparency.
And we think that we broke that.
We broke through on Monday afternoon, just hours before the actual debate.
And then we left it to the rebel staff, to the rebel reporters to do it, to ask those questions.
And I think everyone was shocked at just how well they did asking our federal leaders some tough questions that none of the other reporters were willing to ask.
Well, thank you for that, Erin.
And I agree.
You know, you made me think of a moment in court where Justice Russell Zinn, the federal court judge who was just handed the case that very morning.
I mean, he only had a few hours to read all the materials.
I found him very engaged in the courtroom.
He's obviously a very bright man.
He said a few things that stuck with me.
One of them was, well, there's so many reporters in there.
How many will really have a chance to scrum the leaders?
It's almost like winning a lottery.
And I thought, well, that's sort of right.
But wouldn't you know it, our guys won the lottery again and again and again and again because between the two debates, I think our guys, and Andrew Lawton, I'm calling him one of our guys, I think we had 16 questions for 16 questions, I think, of Trudeau and the other leaders.
So if Justice Zinn was watching, he must have said, wow, these guys really made the most of the court order.
Like, I think we lived up to them.
Yeah, and I don't think we could fairly say, because no one knew.
We couldn't fairly say, this is how many questions we're going to ask, because we're a scrappy little news outfit, but we asked some really tough questions.
And we couldn't say with a straight face how many questions we were going to ask, but we knew that given the right opportunity that just maybe we'd be able to put those questions and they did, and they were amazing.
Yeah, well, thank you for that.
Aaron, you and I know each other because you had an internship at the Old Sun News Network.
And so I got to know you that way.
And then, of course, now you're a crack lawyer, so it's a pleasure to see you again.
I had not met your colleague and your partner at ReLaw, David Elmelay.
David, I got to know you only on the day of the court.
Assuring Access to Key Documents00:15:43
Yes.
And you were eloquent.
You expressed complicated legal matters plainly, seriously enough that the judge took them seriously, but plainly enough that they were understandable.
You didn't get lost in the weeds.
It was outstanding.
We have probably a dozen lawyers who help the rebel out because we're always fighting something.
That was, and I'm not just buttering you up because you're here.
It was so eloquent.
I was very proud to have you as our lawyer in court arguing the way you did that day.
Thank you very much.
And it's a pleasure to be here.
And it was an absolute pleasure to argue on behalf of Rebel News and on your behalf.
And one thing I will say is that anytime we advocate in court, we're presenting a message.
And the message that day was so important that it was almost natural to argue.
And it was somewhat surprising that we had to be there in the first place to argue on behalf of a news outlet, a media organization.
Say, hold on a second here.
The Debates Commission is supposed to be independent.
Yet you received notice from the chief of the press gallery.
And that was one thing that the federal court was questioning the other side about.
Well, hold on a second here.
It says, in our view, rebel news engages in advocacy.
Well, who is this our?
Are they government?
Are they independents?
The lines were blurred.
And that was the message that we really wanted to get across to the judge, that there's a strong prima fasci case, that the commission was not acting independently.
So that was lesson number one that we wanted to convey.
The reason why, to go back to your earlier question, why, in our view, it's imperative that rebel news continue on this battle, is that we just won the first battle, but there's still the war.
And there are a lot of issues that still need to be hashed out in court.
Well, thank you for raising that because it was such a rush that day.
I mean, you guys rushed all weekend.
The judge, he got up that morning, knew nothing about this.
He came to court.
A deputy chief judge said, surprise, dropped it on his lap.
He read all the material like he went from zero to 100 miles an hour even faster than you guys did.
Absolutely.
And I thought he did it.
Obviously, I'm pleased with the result, but I found him very, very attentive in court.
I felt like justice was done.
But for our viewers at home, they'd be thinking, okay, well, you guys got into the English language debate and you got into the French language debate and the election's almost over.
So why on earth are you proceeding?
Because, and I didn't even really get that until we talked a little bit afterwards.
We have, that was just a, hey, judge, please let us in now.
We don't have a time to have a full hearing.
If we miss this, we'll never get this opportunity again.
We have enough of a case to be heard substantively later, but let us in now.
What is that later substantive case that we're still chasing?
What's the big battle yet to come now that the debates are over?
Sure.
So the injunction proceeding in federal court at 3 p.m., the eve of the debate, literally that day of the debate, two and a half hours later after we got the judgments, that was about getting rebel news into the debate.
Because if they would not be there, you would suffer irreparable harm.
Because we'd never get that chance again.
You never get that chance.
You'd lose that opportunity to ask such important questions to the leaders.
Afterwards, now that the dust has settled, there still is that judicial review application where we're seeking declarations and orders that the commission acted unreasonably, unlawfully, unjustifiably, undemocratically.
And we want access to how the commission made their decision, how they let in over 200 other individuals.
Including Al Jazeera.
They let Al Jazeera three members of Al Jazeera that were there.
Other organizations that are clearly engaged in advocacy on its face.
National Observer, for example, yeah.
Absolutely.
We want to know why they were let in and you weren't.
We want to know what criteria the commission used.
We want to know how independent or not were they.
And it's important because this commission was established pursuant to an order in council.
The commission outlasts the debates.
There will be more debates in future elections.
And it's important for Canadians to understand how that process came about and why was it that reputable news organizations were shut out for criticizing governments when other organizations were let in for supporting the government.
You know, you just made me think of something.
You mentioned that the rejection letters that our journalists and that Andrew Lawton received, he's with True North News, came from the head of the press gallery, which is not part of the Debase Commission.
At the French language debates, Andrew Lawton, Keen Beck Steve, David Menzies were so took the initiative.
They were first, second, and third in line at the mics.
It was quite something.
And the president of the press gallery, who's a journalist for Radio Canada, that's the French version of the CBC, he didn't like that.
So he actually went to David Menzies and said, come on, you've had too many questions.
Don't be in line.
I want to show you this clip.
I don't know if you've seen this.
Here's a clip of the president of the press gallery, who happens to be our rival, who happens to be very friendly with the Liberals.
We had a court order to be there.
You guys, why not the court order?
And he was scolding Menzies for asking too many questions.
I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it.
Take a look at this.
Five CBC questions since there's many, many medias.
I think you're calling Ken.
That's my colleague Kim, right?
Yeah.
So.
I mean, just to make sure that every media gets a chance to ask questions.
Well, you're first in line, right?
Yeah, not for me.
I'm just asking for everyone else.
I think you're good to ask a question.
I'm not talking about me, I'm just talking about like, yeah, yeah.
What I'm saying is that everyone can ask questions.
But you only want us to ask one question.
Sorry?
Sorry, I'm not sure.
I'm just saying that there's a lot of media.
Two of you will have one question before I have mine.
That's his point.
Maybe.
Every media could have one before you have two.
Sure, well, we're just all in line, right?
It's one at a time, right?
Yeah.
But I'm saying that some medias won't have questions and you'll have two.
Kudo.
We just need we have none.
We had to get a court order, sir, to get it.
I understand everything.
I'm just saying that we're all here.
Oh, yeah, but we were never here.
That's the thing.
Are you here?
We are here now.
But you're telling me not to ask a question because there's two.
I'm not telling you not to ask a question.
I'm telling you, we can all play in the team.
Oh, 100%.
No, it's not 100% since you're not playing in the team right now.
Well, because some medias won't have questions.
That's what I'm saying.
You're too ahead of me in the line.
I'm not talking about me.
People here.
TV.
Okay.
Yeah.
Talking about other medias?
But we have been excluded, sir, from the entire campaign until you're here.
Is that right?
I am planning to ask a question.
Two questions.
Well, I don't know.
I mean, it depends on the question.
So that's a you are planning to ask two questions.
Well, as you know, the Prime Minister has a pension for non-follow.
It's a question of follow-up, right?
That's the rule.
That's what's going to happen?
Yes.
Question of follow up.
Okay.
I found, that irked me.
I'm glad Menzies held the line.
But that makes me think, David, what were the emails back and forth?
What did they talk about?
And this battle to come, this big judicial review you're talking about, we would have access to the internal documents relevant to our case.
Is that right?
That's correct, yeah.
I mean, we're going to uncover everything that was going on behind the scenes, all the decision-making that was going on, the materials that were before the decision-maker, that were for the commission.
Who was making the decision?
Who was influencing the decision?
We don't even know that right now.
We don't know any of that.
And like David so aptly said at the hearing of the injunction motion, something smells here.
Now, if I looked at the pleadings filed by the government, there was the Debates Commission itself, and then there was the Attorney General, right?
So one is the Debates Commission, the other is Justin Trudeau's Justice Department.
I think there were five lawyers on the front of the pleadings by name, and I think there were four in court.
That's a lot of firepower on the other side.
That was just for the emergency injunction.
If we take on the Debates Commission substantively, seriously, at this judicial review, I think they're going to throw everything at us but the kitchen sink.
If they had that many lawyers, I think there were four in court, five on record for the government, they're going to want to stop us.
They're going to do anything to stop us from seeing how they made those decisions, who they talked to, who really pulled the strings.
I would imagine that embarrassment would be something they would do anything to stop.
I think so.
I think it's all about protecting the various power players.
As you said, there are a lot of people that seem to be interested in keeping rebel news out.
From an objective perspective, from a non-media person, it's quite startling the efforts that go into keeping right-wing media outlets such as Rebel, such as True North, out of these types of events.
And so it's horribly frustrating to watch.
And what's fascinating about the president of the press gallery using sort of soft power, cajoling Rebel.
Isn't that fascinating that once the major tools are out of the toolbox, we have a court-ordered injunction, like Keem Becky said to the leader of the Black Émécois, well, we have a court order, so I'm going to continue asking the questions.
That's the spirit that needs to be continued, and that's why we're so excited to continue on with this.
Well, I'm glad you are so in sync with us.
David, let me ask you, and I haven't even asked you this privately because I think we're all still excited what happened a week and a half ago.
What's the next step?
So the emergency application is over.
We won that.
That was great.
What happens now?
Do we have to exchange documents?
Is there other legal pleadings?
Is there a, well, just tell me the steps in the court case.
So it's a great question, Ezra.
It's going to be a battle.
We're just getting started.
Hard as that is to believe because of all the effort and unfortunately the legal fees that were involved in going into this.
It is incredibly expensive to fight the government.
Incredibly expensive.
We're going to need to put in a full record, further affidavit from you, volumes of materials.
We're going to get volumes of materials from the other side.
What kind of materials?
So we're going to put in the notice of application for judicial review that has already been before the courts.
We're going to put in a further detailed affidavit from you outlining again a lot of the things that were before the courts, but we're not going to just have one day to do it.
It's going to be more expansive.
And what do we expect the government will file?
Because they put together their response also on that weekend in a speedy way.
Will they have to, I mean, I haven't practiced law in a long time, but in a lawsuit, parties have to disclose emails, internal memos, in a list of records, a list of documents.
Will they have to do that in the same way?
They will.
So what's going to happen, we're going to file our materials in the next couple of weeks.
They're going to have about a month to respond, and they're going to put in the information that was before the Commission when they made the decision, the rationale, the reasons, the emails, the memos back and forth.
Let me ask you a question.
We do a lot of access to information requests and we're frustrated because they hide things from us and we often have to appeal the information commissioner and months and sometimes years go by because they're not giving us what they ought to under law.
I am worried, and this is the political bones in me talking, I'm worried that they will try to obscure or hide or, God forbid, even delete their chatter because I think when they didn't realize we were looking at them, they probably said incredibly inappropriate things.
They probably were very disparaging towards Rebel, our journalists in particular, Andrew Lawton.
I think they said things in private emails that they would almost die from embarrassment if they came to light.
And I think they'll be so motivated to keep those from coming to light, I think they would actually consider defying the courts and deleting them.
I don't want you to give away any secret moves in public, but how can we be sure that we get all those chatty, catty conversations that they would have had?
So there are mechanisms in place in the court proceedings in order to identify the key documents.
The first step is to get their records, see what they do disclose.
We're going to have access to cross-examine them.
And then we can ask again, from start to finish, the chronology, when was the decision made?
Who was involved?
Can we have access to those emails, to this, to that?
If push comes to shove, if you are of the view that there are other documents or there may have been, but we didn't get, then we have access to the courts and we can use that route.
One thing that you've demonstrated to your constituents is that you will not sleep until you get justice.
You will, no matter what the cost, you will pursue justice.
You are an advocate for the freedom of the press.
You are an advocate for democracy.
You are somebody that your readership looks up to.
And, you know, the short time that I've come to know you, you know, with the conversations we've had, you said, David, do what you need to do to get justice.
There are ways that we can go about doing that.
So I just wanted to, you know, assure you and to assure the listeners that we will do what we need to do to get the key documents that we need in order to succeed.
Excellent.
Getting us in the debates was almost miraculous, and we used that opportunity.
And credit to Kian and David and Andrew.
Having this moment of truth where we pull back the veil and see how this debate commission worked will have a longer lasting effect.
It'll reveal if there was any bias or tampering, and I'm afraid there is, but I only have a hunch will reveal it.
You said months to come.
It's almost November.
Do you think, when do you think the actual hearing of this case, will it be the spring of 2020 most likely?
Debates Unveiled00:08:18
I mean, our people want, I mean, I know the wheels of justice grind slowly, but do you think we'll have our hearing in the spring?
I think so.
That's what seems to be on track when we look at the procedural steps.
Now, of course, the wheels of justice turn slowly, and so there's potential that matters will be delayed and certain steps will require a little bit more time than what's provided for in the statutes.
But ultimately, what we want to do is we want to get to justice as quickly as possible.
And part of that is really keeping the commission's and the government's feet to the fire on this and making sure that we proceed as expeditiously as possible.
All right, fellas.
Well, let me tell you, seeing is believing.
I saw you guys in action on Monday.
I also have to compliment the lawyer for True North, who I thought did very well.
And in fact, the two of you, all three of you, but David, you did the bulk of the speaking.
And the lawyer for True North, very well balanced.
Do we know if they're going ahead?
Do we know if they're going to continue the appeal?
It appears that they will.
We haven't received formal confirmation.
We're going to be able to do that.
I'm pretty good friends with them.
We'll check it out.
Okay, now let's get down to business.
When I retained you on the Friday afternoon, you were very candid.
You said, Ezra, we're just going to throw aside everything else.
We're going to work all weekend.
In fact, you came and met me.
I was with my kids at Canada's Wonderland.
You came there for me to sign a document.
I've never had that kind of attentive service before.
It's amazing.
So you guys worked all weekend late into the night.
I remember we were talking quite late at night.
You had to study everything, write everything, and then all day Monday.
You said, Ezra, I need $10,000.
We sent it to you right away on the Friday.
And then you did so much work, the two years, your support staff, that the total bill, if I'm not mistaken, was just over $18,000.
So we still owe you $8,000.
And I want to say to our viewers, that is absolutely a moderate bill for the kind of effort and time spent.
Believe me, we get legal bills.
So I thank you for keeping it light.
Thanks, fellas.
So we owe you $8,000 for the success.
It's the happiest check I'll ever cut.
But going forward for this battle royal, I just need you to tell me.
Because we crowdfund our money.
We're not like the government.
We don't have an endless resource.
I believe we'll get it.
I believe our people were so enthused by the win and we'll see the opportunity of not only having a permanent blow for justice, but smoking out what really went on behind the scenes.
I think that's incredibly valuable.
Just give it to me plain.
And I'm not going to hold you to the precise number because I know if the government tries any tricks, it might make the cost go high.
But if you had to ballpark it, a normal fight of this sort, other than the 18 we've already incurred, what are we looking at to go the distance?
I mean, it's a very tough question, but in In matters like this that we've handled in the past, I'd say easily 50,000.
I think it could go as high as 75,000.
There's a lot of work that needs to go into it.
The legal issues are nuanced.
We're looking at a full day hearing itself, but you could also have as many as two or three days of cross-examinations and the records.
That would be my estimate.
I have to tell you, I believe you will spend more time trying to hunt down those emails because I think they're going to do their best to hide them.
I should tell you that the numbers you've quoted me, although they are staggering to a normal person, I have been through enough lawsuits usually defending our freedom here at the Rebel, to know that those, and I'm not looking for you to jack up your fees at all times, but I can tell you that that is on the modest side of what we pay.
We spent $350,000 on lawyers last year.
Wow.
And almost all of that was defensive.
It was either pre-publication defamation review, fighting against the censorship of the Alberta government.
So if you're telling me that it's the $18,000 we've already incurred, we owe you $8,000, and then another $50,000 to $75,000, to take on this debates commission, to smoke out their collusion with Parliamentary Press Gallery, I would say that's probably the best legal money we're going to spend in the next six to 12 months.
So I would look directly to our viewers and say, if you believe that these two fellas who nailed it in federal court, and I mean nailed it, if you believe they're the ones to do this, as I do, and if you agree with me that $50,000 to $75,000 is reasonable, I know it's crazy, but welcome to the world of lawsuits, I need your help, my friends.
Go to letusreport.com, letusreport.com.
If you can chip in $10 or $100, we've got to get these guys going.
Because we were able to be in that debate, we asked the questions that no other journalists would.
I think we made a difference and will continue to do so, not just for us, but for freedom in general.
Fellas, I really appreciate you coming in.
I say again, that was one of the more meaningful days of my life being there.
Let me give you each a final thought.
I mean, we're very enthusiastic, all three of us here, our viewers are too.
Give me a closing thought, whether it's legal or political or journalistic.
Let me just leave it with you, Aaron, and then David.
Well, you know what?
To be perfectly frank, this has been an honor of a lifetime.
And it really has.
It's very unusual for a lawyer to have this type of opportunity to fight a legal case in such a short period of time and to have such success.
It's just been wonderful.
And we owe you a great deal for that.
But what we're really excited about is the Second Act.
And the Second Act is going to be very, very interesting.
I can't wait to find out more about the situation.
We're just starting to peel the onion, so to speak.
Isn't that the truth?
David?
You know what?
I just wanted to echo what Aaron said, but also I wanted to say that it's rare in the life of a lawyer to be on a case where you're on the right side of the case, no pun intended.
The law, the facts, but more importantly, the lasting legacy.
And what we're going to do going forward is, with your help, we're going to try and send a message not only to governments, not only to the elected officials of our country, but to every single Canadian that diversity of opinion matters.
The dissenting voice matters.
Your voice matters.
And it doesn't matter whether you're critical of government or not.
That's not a reason to not accredit someone to attend one of the premier events of an election cycle.
And to be able to participate in that process, have a client like you who fights daily.
Like we do this occasionally when we have these types of cases.
You do it every single day.
And it's truly an honor and a privilege to represent you and Rebel News.
And we're just looking forward to what's to come.
Well, that's amazing.
I'm very grateful for your kind words to both of you and for the great success.
Well, thank you for spending some time with our newest legal hotshots, David Elmele and Aaron Rosenberg.
They're with the firm Re-Law and they gave us the great victory last week.
And as you heard, we have plans for the second bigger battle.
I would ask you to help me cover their legal bill.
I think you'll agree with me that it is worth every penny, not just for rebel news, but for the state of freedom in our country.
You can ship in what you can at letusreport.com.
And we are doing the work that used to be done by groups like Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Penn Canada, Canadian Association of Journalists, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Not one of them was in the courtroom that day, but these two fellows were.
Let Us Report Together00:01:37
Let me close it on that.
Go to letusreport.com and let's fight for freedom a little bit, my friends.
Thank you.
Hey, welcome back.
Let me share with you some final thoughts.
At the beginning of the show, I told you about a very under-reported change to the Elections Act.
It's already law right now.
That fake news provision is the law of the land right now.
But it's not really a ban on fake news.
It's only a ban on fake news that affects and insults the political class.
Politicians can still lie about you.
You just can't lie about them.
And what is a lie about a politician?
If you said that Maryam Monsef lied about where her immigration was from, well, you would have been against this law until the facts had come out.
This is a terrible law.
But the worst thing about it is that the Conservatives were fine with it.
That's what makes me nervous about an Andrew Scheer win if it does happen on Monday.
Andrew Scheer did not vocally oppose the revival of Section 13, the censorship provision of the Human Rights Act, that the Liberals have proposed.
Andrew Scheer has not vocally opposed Trudeau's plan to censor social media with a 24-hour knockdown notice of any hurtful tweets or Facebook posts.
I'm worried about that.
I think free speech is the key issue of our time.
And the fact that the Conservatives are really identical to the Liberals on this is something that should cause all of us concern.
Those are my thoughts for the day.
I'll see you on Election Day on Monday.
Until then, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home.