Ezra Levant’s secret recording reveals Elections Canada investigators, Tim Macken and Paul Couture, grilling him over The Libranos—a bestselling book criticizing Justin Trudeau’s corruption—while refusing to disclose the complaint or confirm who filed it. They falsely claimed his lawn sign was political advertising, then pivoted to the book’s timing, despite legal exemptions for literary promotion. Levant’s lawyer, Aaron Rosenberg, calls this selective enforcement undemocratic, noting 23 pro-Trudeau books escaped scrutiny while free speech groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association remain silent. The case exposes a chilling attempt to censor conservative criticism, with Levant vowing legal resistance and urging public support at saverebelnews.com. [Automatically generated summary]
It's footage, but you'll obviously have the audio, of when I was interrogated by two federal investigators about my book, The Labranos.
Just shocking.
I really want to encourage you to see the video version of this because I brought a secret camera in with me as I was interrogated.
So you can hear it, of course, but it's a little muffled.
We have subtitles on the video version.
To get the video version of all my shows, become a premium subscriber.
It's eight bucks a month.
That's not bad.
Go to premium.rebelnews.com.
Premium.rebelnews.com.
Okay, here's the podcast version.
Tonight, I was interrogated by two federal investigators for my book about Justin Trudeau.
Little did they know, I videoed the whole thing.
It's January 29th, 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 to the government about why I publish this book is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Hello, and I'm sorry that tonight's show was posted a little bit late.
We've been working feverishly on it all day.
It's in the main a hidden camera video of when two federal investigators grilled me at their Ottawa headquarters about my book, The Labranos, and the promotion of that book.
We have a special video presentation for you based on that hidden camera video of my own interrogation.
And then I sit down with one of my favorite lawyers, our free speech lawyers that fought against Trudeau's debates commission in October, and he'll give me advice on how to fight back against this intrusion by Justin Trudeau.
So sit back and enjoy, if that's the word, an extended video from the interrogation and then my conversation with Aaron Rosenberg.
Here are those.
I wrote a book called The Labranos, what the media won't tell you about Justin Trudeau's corruption.
During the election, it hit number two on the Amazon bestseller list with rave reviews.
Justin Trudeau did not like that.
So over Christmas, I received this letter from the government by registered mail accusing me of breaking the law and demanding that I meet with investigators.
And if I didn't, I'd get in deeper trouble.
You can read that letter for yourself at saverebelnews.com.
So last week I went to Ottawa to be interrogated at the high security headquarters of Elections Canada.
I was curious, were they really serious?
Were they really going to investigate me and prosecute me and fine me, maybe even jail me for writing a book that criticized their boss during an election?
Yes.
The senior investigator actually told me that by choosing to publish my book during the election, that made it an illegal campaign activity.
Here, take a look.
You did a blurb online that I watched, and you speak about, of course, that it was released in time for the election.
Which, if that's your position today, that wouldn't allow you to have the exemption for advertising for a book.
Yeah, I think I know why they told me I wasn't allowed to videotape my interrogation.
And just to be clear, because of the security features in this area here, I know a video recording will be allowed.
Thanks for the suggestion, but one thing I've learned from kangaroo courts is that no one will believe how bad they are unless they see it with their own eyes.
So instead of telling you how it went, let me show you.
I recorded almost an hour of footage, so I'll put it online in a series of videos.
This is the first.
I'll put the rest up at saverebelnews.com.
And while you're there, please consider helping me cover my legal bills because these guys are deadly serious.
They have at least five federal investigators on the case.
How many investigators are on this file?
So far, it's four people that have been in touch with me from your office plus an anonymous email.
How many people do you have on this project?
It adds and flows.
It all depends.
So it might even grow larger than four people?
I'm not sure.
I'm not sure how many there actually are on the file.
We've been asked today to meet with you and to collect the facts that we'll go back to the main investigator, which is Luis Panton, who will write up her report based on the knowledge that we have so that she can inform the commissioner so he can make an informed decision as to if there was in fact a breach of the law.
Four cops plus the boss.
And I really mean cops, former senior RCMP officers.
My interrogation was conducted by Tim Macken, a 30-year veteran of the RCMP, where he worked on terrorism cases.
And Paul Couture, also a 30-year veteran of the RCMP, who also worked on terrorism cases.
That's who was interrogating me.
They wouldn't give me their business cards, but I managed to take a photo of their ID.
So yeah, I have to lawyer up.
If you can help me, please do at saverebelnews.com.
Anyways, when we sat down, I actually asked the first question to the cops.
What exactly was the complaint against me?
I'd come all the way to Ottawa to defend myself against some complaint, but they hadn't shown it to me yet.
So I didn't know what I had supposedly done wrong.
Take a look at this.
Can I see the complaint against me?
The letter that you received?
No, I presume that your investigation complaint, yeah.
Oh, this is still part of the investigation, so we'll have to, once the investigation's been completed, the commission will have to make a decision.
And at that point, you'll have to decide if that is releasable or not.
It's not something that usually is released, no.
So it's a secret complaint?
It's not a secret complaint.
It's just a complaint that's part of the investigation.
And to keep the integrity of the investigation right now, you'll understand that we can't share everything that we have as well.
Well, I don't want everything that you had.
I just, if I'm here to meet a complaint, but you won't show me the complaint, how can I possibly meet the complaint?
How can I possibly respond to something that you won't show me?
Well, though, I think the letter was quite clear on what the infraction is alleged, and this is where we want to clarify with you.
Well, did you generate the complaint or was it from an outside party?
No, we didn't generate the complaint.
We did not generate the complaint.
So someone external to your office generated the complaint?
That is usually the case.
Is that the case in this case?
Yeah.
Yeah, we did not generate the complaint.
Okay, was it the Liberal Party that generated the complaint?
I didn't wanna do that, sir.
So you won't tell me who the complaint is?
The complainant is.
That's the CEO?
Yeah, no, no, not at this point.
So at what point do you tell me who this is?
The commissioner is the ultimate responsible person for the investigation and how this decided so.
So how do I know what conduct has been complained about if you won't tell me?
Now this went on for some time.
They kept referring to their Christmastime letter to me about the complaint, but not the complaint itself, if it even exists.
So I got a little bit lippy, I admit.
They were conducting a secret interrogation of me based on a secret complaint.
So I told them two could play at that game.
I have my secrets too, like my name.
My name is Paul Coutsu, spelled C-O-U-T-U-R-E.
I will ask my colleague to please identify himself in the recording.
My name is Tim Macken.
And sir, could you, just for recording, advise where you are?
Well, it's a secret.
I don't know if I can tell you that secret.
Just for the recording, we have with us Mr. Levant, who registered at the front office.
I saw when he registered.
I suppose I should have left the meeting right there.
It was obviously a trap.
These two cops kept saying the door was unlocked and I could just walk out.
I'm here under protest.
I believe that this is contrary to the statute, and I think it may actually be contrary to the Constitution.
I just want to understand for a second here.
I just want to put it on the other side.
You're here.
Under protest.
Do you understand that you can leave at any time, sir?
Yes, but I've also...
If you're free to answer or not the questions that we may have.
We're here to have a discussion to clarify the issues that were mentioned in the letter to your attention.
Do you have a copy of the letter in front of you?
I actually do, sir.
Thank you.
Okay, that'll save me from digging it up.
So understand that the door is unlocked.
You can leave at any time.
You're certainly free to stay or to leave.
We have no issues with that.
But I wanted to find out more from them.
I mean, who ever heard of an author being interrogated by police?
That's how they do it in China or Iran, not Canada.
So they wouldn't show me the complaint.
Okay, well, what documents did they expect from me?
Were they going to go through my editorial notes?
What did they want from me?
What documents, if any, do you want from me?
At this point, I'm not sure.
We need to have a conversation to understand what your point of view was on the actual signs and determine when they were actually produced and to what means.
And from there, we'll see later if you have any documentation that you want to provide us.
We'll be more than happy to accept whatever you want to provide.
Well, I don't want to provide you anything because I think this is an unlawful investigation.
I think it's political in nature.
I think it's probably unconstitutional.
So I don't want to provide you with anything.
I'm here under protest.
I didn't want to come here, but your letter made it clear that coming here would reduce any penalties.
So it makes sense for me to come here, but I come here under some duress.
So I'm asking you if you want any documents, and you're dancing around.
Do you want my documents?
I don't want to give you anything, but I'm asking you if you want my documents, and you won't say so.
Why are you being so strange about this?
Do you want any documents or not?
We don't know if we need documents or not right now at this point.
Okay, so you don't want any documents at this point?
Not today.
Do you know now if you will want documents at a later date?
I am not the lead investigator in this file, sir.
I'm here to give you some facts for today and report back to the lead investigator and if she determines that she would want to get an offering.
You don't know anything.
It felt like a Kafka-esque nightmare.
Why did they call me there?
It felt like they were playing games.
What do you think?
Who was pulling the strings?
30-year RCMP veterans, well, they sounded like errand boys for someone else.
I was getting a bit frustrated.
Will you subpoena my documents if I don't give them to you?
I can't speak on that, sir.
I'm not the lead investigator here.
So, you might subpoena my documents.
You won't rule it out.
Like I said, I'm not the lead investigator in this file.
It sounds like they sent the sandwich boy down.
Sounds like they sent the intern down.
Are you his boss?
Can you answer any of these things?
Like, do you want documents or not?
Why can't you just say that?
So, Mr. Levant, why don't we just cross the first portion, which is if you are representing Rebel News Network, because you said it was a secret.
Yeah, I'll tell you my secret if you tell me your secret.
And the thing is, you actually have an obligation to tell me your secret.
Your secret is, what's the complaint here?
How can I push back against the complaint you won't show me?
How do you think that's going to look in court when we take this to a judicial review?
You invited me down here.
You won't tell me what documents you want or if you even want them.
You won't tell me who complained.
You won't show me the complaint.
And you're saying it's a secret.
Do you know what that looks like?
I'm here to answer a secret complaint.
How can I answer it if I don't see it?
Do you want to take a break and get some permission from your mom or whoever to show me the document?
Do you need to meet with the boss?
Secret Complaint Revealed00:03:40
No?
So you've been instructed not to show me the complaint.
I said the complaint is part of the investigation, and it's not something that we release while the investigation is ongoing.
So how can I possibly respond to a secret complaint?
We have indicated what is part of the complaint.
There's not a word in here from the complaint.
This is your words.
Yes.
So frustrating, but here's the weirdest part.
We all know that writing books during elections is not illegal.
In fact, that's when many political books are published.
There were plenty of pro-Trudeau books published at the same time as mine.
The Election Act specifically exempts books and the promotion of books from the law.
And in their threat letter to me, they actually quote the section that proves I'm exempt.
Look at this.
I have never seen a letter of accusation, a threat letter before, from any public authority that contains within it a defense against the accusation.
I'm talking about the paragraph on the second page by Milain Gijou that says, as you may know, the definition of election advertising in the Act contains examples of some communications that could promote or oppose a registered party or candidate, but that do not constitute election advertising.
Among those examples, these examples is one that applies to the promotion of the sale of a book, if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of whether there is to be election.
So right in your letter, you show me that books and the promotion of books are exempt.
I've never seen a cop pull me over and say, you were speeding, but I got to tell you, my radar gun's broken, so you probably weren't speeding.
You say, you accused me of breaking the law, but right in your own letter, you show that I'm not.
So why am I here?
We're not investigating the book, nor the contents of the book.
You have the, and it says right here, or the promotion of a book, the promotion of the sale of a book is exempt.
We need to determine if the signage was actually promotion of the book, or was it political advertising?
There's three words on the sign.
There's three words on the sign.
You need help figuring out what they mean?
You can't understand what that sign means.
Look, we promoted the book in a dozen ways.
Posters, coffee mugs, t-shirts, videos, fun lawn signs, a giant billboard.
And the law exempts it all.
Books and the promotion of books.
Now, several times these cops said that they weren't actually interested in investigating my book, just my promotion of the book that said buy the book.
But after initially denying it, these guys really did grill me about my book itself and even about our staff at Rebel News and how we hire them.
For example, they asked me about my planning for the book, not for the advertising, but for the book.
And that's something that you may want to discuss with us or not, to see if the book had been planned ahead of time or for the purpose of the election.
That's something that they're going to do.
No, planned ahead of time.
What's the basis for that question in the law?
The law says that the book is exempted, regardless of whether there was to be an election or available to the public.
Yes, so what's this planned ahead of time business?
Book Planning Controversy00:03:16
You just made that up.
It's right here, sir.
How can you publish a book without planning it ahead of time?
Do you think it just happens spontaneously?
With the timing of the elections, for the purpose of the elections.
You know we have fixed election days, more or less.
I certainly do.
So he's asking why I wrote my book when I did.
Justin Trudeau's police are asking me why I wrote a book about Justin Trudeau when Justin Trudeau was in an election campaign.
They asked me all sorts of questions about the book.
Can we speak about your communications plan for the book, your marketing for the book?
Well, I'll listen to your questions.
To see clarity?
I'll listen to your questions.
We just wondered if you had a communication plan or a marketing plan.
What was your marketing plan, sir?
Did you do it all yourself?
Did you have a team?
Remember, these guys weren't asking out of curiosity.
They were building a legal case against me.
But why only against me?
I've got a question for you.
I've answered a few of your questions now.
Have you investigated any of the other authors who published books about Trudeau at the exact same time as me?
Have you investigated John Iverson's book or Aaron Warry's book?
There's over 24 books that were published around that period.
You haven't answered my question.
Have you investigated John Iverson or Aaron Warry's books?
I haven't.
Have you?
I haven't.
Yeah, is anyone in your office investigating any other books about Justin Trudeau or just the book that's critical of him?
Today we're here about Rebel News Network Limited.
Oh, I know that.
And I'm just asking you to confirm that not a single other loving book of Trudeau is being investigated.
But once we're done, if you believe that there should be complaints that are...
No, because I'm not a censor like you.
I'm not a bully and a censor.
I'm not a bureaucrat looking to justify my budget like you.
I go out and earn my living every day, fella.
You call in authors to grill them about a book criticizing your boss.
Think about who you are.
We call the director of Rebel News Network Limited.
Yeah, who happens to be the author of the book.
I think there's going to be a chapter about you two fellas in the next edition.
Do you have any more questions there?
Certainly do.
Oh, he wasn't lying.
They weren't even half done.
They started asking me questions like, why at Rebel News do we hire people who criticize Justin Trudeau?
I'm serious.
All right, so moving forward.
So for the book, you seek volunteers that, and without going back to the tape to get the exact quote, that wanted to have a certain view on Trudeau and Gerald Butts and believed in free speech and that were embarrassed by the Prime Minister Trudeau in blackface and you sought that specific type of person.
Why We Wanted to Clarify00:09:15
Is that correct?
Why are policemen asking an author and journalist and broadcaster about the political leanings of our staff?
I want to go back when you were doing your recruiting for people and how you described them.
Can you go over that again for me, who you were, the type of people you were looking for?
So in that, were they, you were seeking these people for what purpose?
You explained to us the type of people you were seeking.
What was the purpose?
At one point, one of the cops told me, he has me dead to rights.
He said I'm guilty.
In fact, he told me exactly what I said that he thinks convicts me.
And he even offered me a chance to unsay it.
So when you came to your decision, you're going to author a book, release a book, in time for the election, and I don't have your own words, but online you, when you received a letter from Madame Gigou, you did a blurb online that I watched, and you speak about, of course, that it was released in time for the election.
Which if that's your position today, that wouldn't allow you to have the exemption for advertising for a book.
So that's why we wanted to clarify that with you.
Perhaps you were misspoken when you spoke online.
So we're here to try to clarify.
So it's not about the signs anymore.
That was a misdirection and interrogation trick.
It's about the book.
That I dared to publish a book during the election.
So this cop says, I broke the law.
You heard him.
About 40 minutes into the interrogation, the one cop asked me why I didn't register my book with the government.
He said that.
I'll let you hear his exact words and my answer to him.
The knowledge that you would have or not have of the Election Act, the Canada Elections Act, when you are planning the book and you, the new third party rules, because I believe there's some comments on your stuff as well about that, did you give any consideration of saying maybe I should register as a third party for this circumstance, or maybe I shouldn't because of my interpretation of what I'm going to do?
Or did you not make that determination?
Tim, I appreciate the question.
Yeah, I absolutely did think about that at great length.
Do you want to share any of those thoughts?
I'll share some of them.
I mean, I thought the day I register with the government to write a book is the day we no longer are the True North Strong and Free.
And if Elections Canada's commissioners are stupid enough to prosecute me for writing, publishing, and promoting a book about an election during an election, then that's an important fight to have because we need to roll back these pencil neck bureaucrats and their blackface boss and we need to remind them that we're still a free country.
So I thought about it long and hard, Tim.
This cop asked me if I had any message to take back to his boss, the commissioner.
What would you have said?
Here's what I said.
I don't even understand what I've been accused of doing.
I don't understand who accused me.
I don't understand when.
So this is a, frankly, this is a star chamber that is illegal.
I'm here because really I wanted to ask a few questions about what you're going to do if I don't give you documents.
You wouldn't answer.
I wanted to ask who complained.
You wouldn't answer.
I wanted to see the complaint.
You wouldn't answer.
I wanted to check you guys out, learn a little bit of how many folks are on the file.
You didn't really answer, but I can count.
I guess my message to the commissioner is I don't even know who it is, to be honest.
But that'll change.
And I guess my message is every ounce of energy I have, every dollar I have and can raise, every trick of the trade I can deploy, I will deploy to smashing this law.
And I think you know that's true.
I think we'll have books and billboards and TV videos and lawn signs.
And we'll do all sorts of crazy things in defense of free speech and freedom of the press.
And we'll do it all.
And it's not what I really want to do.
I wanted to live my life and do my journalism.
But if you guys are going to put me through a trial because I wrote and published and promoted an election book during the election, I'm going to do everything I can to show you and the country that's not Canadian.
You're being un-Canadian by summoning an author to your offices.
You're being un-Canadian and you need a reminder.
All right, this video is too long already.
I'll do a second video with more excerpts from the interrogation.
But let me give you a quick glimpse of what's to come.
undertake not to raid the offices of Rebel News.
Do you know the country you're in, Paul?
Yeah, it got worse.
I'll have another video for you soon.
But look, I need help.
I thought this was going to be a joke.
No, I don't think so anymore.
You heard that one cop.
He told me twice that I'm guilty.
Once for choosing to write a book during an election and once for not registering my book with the government.
He's going to prosecute me.
I need to hire lawyers.
And I have.
The same legal eagles who beat Trudeau last time when the debates commissions tried to censor us.
Remember that?
Trudeau banned our rebel news journalists from the leaders' debate.
A federal court judge told Trudeau that's illegal.
But it still cost us $18,000 to win.
Now this fight is going to be bigger than that.
I think they mean to break me and to break Rebel News, one of the few independent voices left in the Canadian media.
Well, we'll see about that.
If you can help, please go to saverebelnews.com and chip in whatever you can.
We will need it for the legal fight.
Stay tuned.
We'll have part two of my interrogation video up soon.
Thank you.
I don't know, should I be mad?
Should I be scared?
Should I be, I don't know, happy that I'm in my element fighting censorship in Justin Trudeau.
I don't really know, but one thing I do know is that I need some help.
I went into this interrogation by myself on purpose because I wanted to see what admissions I could get from them when they weren't on their guard, which I know they would have been had I attended with a lawyer.
Well, it's lawyer in time and we've brought in the team that helped us beat Trudeau's lawyers in October.
You'll recall, Justin Trudeau's hand-picked debates commission kept out David Manzies and Keean Becksty of Rebel News, as well as our friend Andrew Lawton from True North, banned us from covering the campaign debate.
Well, we didn't stand for that.
We went to federal court on a rush basis, and we beat Justin Trudeau like a drum.
In fact, Trudeau had five lawyers.
And look at this news, literally out this morning.
Trudeau spent $131,000 of your taxpayers' money fighting us in court.
I'll tell you, we spent $18,000 and we won.
And one of those lawyers who won it for us joins me now today, Aaron Rosenberg from RELOW.
Great to see you again.
Always nice to see you, Ezra.
Thank you.
Well, thank you.
And, you know, I'm fine with your level of billing.
Don't feel any need to double your bills.
I think it's insane that the government spent $131,000 fighting us last time.
It was a 48-hour battle, so I literally don't know how they even managed to rack up $131 grand in bills.
I was pleased to pay you $18,000.
You guys worked non-stop all weekend, and you won, which is the most important thing.
$18,000 money well paid.
I don't even know how they spent $131,000, but we beat them.
Yeah, it's really unbelievable.
And of course, in hindsight now, it seems like it was money well wasted.
But, you know, it was a hard-fought battle, no question about it.
And it was a pretty close call, if you recall.
You were in the courtroom with us.
But, you know, of course, we're thrilled that it was a victory for the rebel and for free speech, freedom of the press.
But there's no question that there is a disparity between the government resources and the little guy, the rebel.
Backroom Elections Investigation00:08:32
And that's why we're just so thrilled to be working on these types of files.
Well, thank you.
And it's just coincidence that we saw that news today because today is the day we fight back on this crazy book investigation.
You have reviewed the video that we just released where I have clips from my interrogation there.
And there's just one thing I want to show you where one of the cops almost, it was like he was saying, do you want to unsay that?
Because I got you.
It was where I said, no, we chose to publish my election book during the election because that's when people want to hear.
He says that to me.
I felt like he was inviting me to get out of trouble, but I'm not going to lie.
Of course we published the book during the election.
Take a look.
So when you came to your decision, you're going to author a book, release a book, in time for the election, and I don't have your own words, but online you, when you received a letter from Madame Gigou, you did a blurb online that I watched, and you speak about, of course, that it was released in time for the election.
Which if that's your position today, that wouldn't allow you to have the exemption for advertising for a book.
So that's why we wanted to clarify that with you.
Perhaps you were misspoken when you spoke online.
So we're here to try to clarify.
So that's a 30-year RCMP veteran who's now working for Elections Commissioner.
He also said, like it felt like he was saying, I got you dead to rights on this.
And he said one more thing, and then I'm going to ask you to react to this.
He asked me, did I ever contemplate registering with the government for my book?
Take a look at that.
The knowledge that you would have or not have of the Election Act, the Canada Elections Act, when you are planning the book and the new third party rules, because I believe there's some comments on yourself as well about that.
Did you give any consideration of saying maybe I should register as a third party for this circumstance or maybe I shouldn't because of my interpretation of what I'm going to do or did you not make that determination?
All right, I'd like you to react to those two clips because that's their case.
I think, I mean, unless they're trying to misdirect me, their case is I broke the law by writing an election book during the election because I didn't like Justin Trudeau, and I should have registered my book with the government registry as like a campaign election party or something.
I think that's what they're arguing.
Yeah, I mean, it's pretty amazing.
The whole thing is incredible, the fact that you're in a back room in the election commissioner's office talking about, you know, freedom of the press.
It's essential, right?
You decide you want to write a book, you time it to coincide with an election, which makes absolute sense, not only from, you know, from a financial sense, but from the position of dealing with the politics and what's going on at the time.
It's very important for your voice to be heard during an election season.
So the fact that they're trying to hold you to account for writing a book and promoting a book during an election, in my view, is crazy.
They're implying I was interfering in the election.
I believe I was participating in the election, not as a candidate, but as a journalist and a citizen.
I have those views honestly held about Justin Trudeau.
It's no secret.
I've been criticizing Trudeau even before he was the leader of the liberals.
I want my elections Canada cops to be going after people who try and vote illegally, people who try and vote twice, people who try and vote deliberately in the wrong place, people who steal money.
I want them to go after crimes.
I can't believe they're putting five people minimum on the case of a book writer.
And I started to go through the cases that they've prosecuted.
I've never seen anything like this.
Like, they actually have been going after bad dudes, people who falsify their ballot, ask for a second ballot.
Go after those bad guys.
I've never seen them do this before.
Well, that's right.
I mean, you know, clearly that can't be the intention.
What you're bringing about, what you're bringing to the public sphere, dealing with the issues of the day of holding our government to account.
These are critical issues that need to be aired during an election.
So if the law, if the intention of the law is to prosecute people like you that are going out and educating people on the situation, the leading governing party, then that's a real problem.
And so if they do choose to prosecute you, then I do think it would likely be a worthy battle because we can't have laws on the book that stifle freedom of speech, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and your ability to go out there and talk about the issues.
One of the things that I said to the cops is my plain reading of the law is that I didn't break the law.
And this is the weird thing.
When they sent me their threat letter over the Christmas break, it included a paragraph that outlines the exemption for books and the promotion of books.
So this going after author business was on the minds of Parliament when they wrote this law because they said, oh, right, we better have a free speech carve-out for books and the promotion books.
That's the words in there.
And Elections Canada put that in their threat letter to me over Christmas.
So obviously they know, of course they know their own law.
What I don't get, Erin, is why they would proceed against me and my book, The Libranos, in the face of that clear exemption, but not go after 23 pro-Trudeau books that were published at the same period.
To me, that shows bad faith on the part of the investigators or the prosecutor.
Maybe bad faith is the wrong word, but it sure is a huge question mark.
Why?
Well, that's absolutely right.
I mean, you know, it's quite telling that one book out of 25 some odd books that deal with issues surrounding the election during the election period is the one that's now being investigated by the Elections Commissioner.
So I do sense that there are some problems here, and I think that there is some issues that we need to look into.
I mean, certainly it raises some concerns on my end, but ultimately, whether it's you or anyone else, I don't think we want the government or government bureaucrats reviewing books, reviewing authors, reviewing publishers, because they're publishing books during the election.
It goes, in my view, against the intention of that exemption, and it goes against the basic fundamentals that we operate under in a democratic country.
I am certain, Erin, that if this were 10 years ago, and if it were Stephen Harper, who was the prime minister, and his election office were calling in left-wing authors who had wrote critical books about him, I think this would be front-page news across the country, top of the news on the CBC broadcasts.
People would be calling for his resignation, the resignation of Elections Canada officials.
But because it's Justin Trudeau and I'm a conservative critic and the rebel is not the favorite of the media party, I think it's going to be silenced from the CBC, from the media party, and from all the free speech civil liberties groups that would normally be squawking.
Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Penn Canada, Canadian Association of Journalists.
Silent Investigations?00:05:00
They're all utterly silent, just like they were silent when you and I and True North went to court over the elections debate.
I think the other media don't actually care because they're liberal.
Well, you know, what I can say is that it's pretty clear that the effort to investigate this issue is happening in what appears to me a pretty backroom scenario.
It was literally a back room.
There were no windows in that room.
Yeah, I think that, you know, your reporting on this is very important because otherwise I imagine that these types of things do happen behind closed doors.
That's what's troubling about it.
But as I said before, I mean, I think this raises very serious concerns about the sorts of investigations that are being taken on.
And in particular, the issues that arise when selective complaints are investigated.
I think this is a very serious issue that you're bringing forward, and we're just thrilled to be part of it.
Well, thank you.
I like your fighting spirit, and I was there in court when you and your colleague David just, it was like watching a beautiful symphony.
You two and then the lawyer for True North, I loved it.
You guys were outgunned and outspent by the feds, and you won.
Okay, let me ask you a question, and I want to preface it by saying, you're our lawyer, so you give us some advice sometimes that's private, and it's subject to solicitor-client privilege, which means the government can't know about it.
And I don't want you to divulge any secrets online because I know they're watching me.
They told me they watched my videos in the government.
What can you say, though, that doesn't give away a solicitor-client privilege about how we'll fight back?
And the reason I'm asking is a lot of our viewers, they want to sort of know the battle plan.
My hunch, and we haven't talked about this much, is that right now I really don't have a lot of remedies because they haven't really done anything other than ask me some dumb questions.
But they're implying they might subpoena documents, they're implying that they might charge me.
There's a lot of things they're hinting at.
They won't even show me the complaint, which I think is so or welling.
Is there anything at this stage to do, or do we have to wait till they actually pull the trigger?
Well, ultimately, I think it depends on how willing of an investigated party you're willing to be.
I want to fight tooth and nail.
Yeah.
Like every inch.
I want to do everything I can.
I think you know that.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
I mean, I know how you fight, and I love it.
I think that, you know, even based on the letter, right, and I think it's clear to see that there's an implication that there's a way out if you play nicely.
That's why I went down there.
They said if you're smart, you'll come and talk to us.
Yeah, and so I think that by pushing back a little bit, you're causing a little bit of a dilemma for them.
But ultimately, I think the idea is to fully participate in the investigation to the extent that they require you to.
It is, you know, it's a serious investigation, as you described earlier.
They go after serious offenses, and they can give out some pretty serious, some pretty serious punishments.
So it's important to cooperate in the investigation, but at the same time, it is important to push back, to fight back, and ultimately to prevail upon what, in our view, appears to be an undemocratic law.
All right.
I have a few ideas I want to talk to you about privately, because they might be dumb ideas, they might be smart ideas.
I think you and I should talk privately, and if we have a letter or an application that we're going to file, we'll show our viewers the finished product because I don't want to give Trudeau's cops early warning of what we're doing if we're going to slap them with some sort of suit.
I want them to get that not one minute earlier than they deserve.
So let's you and I have a private conversation, but I wanted to show our viewers how seriously I'm taking it, that we're dealing with the law firm that beat Trudeau like a drum, but that's also affordable, thank you, and that believes in freedom.
So we'll talk more off camera, but I wanted to prove to the viewers that we were lawyering up, that we were doing it smart, that we're not going to roll over.
And look, we spent 18 grand with David and Aaron in October.
Well worth it.
I think, depending on how hard these guys fight, this could be more, like if they go away, obviously there's no cost.
Helping Aaron Fight Free Speech Battle00:01:40
But if this goes to a full fight, like your bill, and like I say, it was barely 10% what the government charged.
It could be 50 grand if this thing goes to like a week-long trial.
Well, that's right.
I mean, and again, we're dealing with the same power dynamic, the power imbalance.
They'll have six, seven, eight lawyers.
They had five lawyers against you at the Debates Commission.
Yeah, well, that's exactly right.
And so that's what I think is going to be the big difference.
It's always an uphill battle when you're fighting against a bureaucracy, a government with endless resources.
That's the challenge.
And that's why it's so important that we keep fighting.
Well, thank you for that.
My friends, if you want to help, go to saverebelnews.com.
And by the way, if you have an MP or an MPP or an MLA who claims to believe in freedom of speech, maybe ask him about this.
Maybe if the Conservative Party or Canadian Civil Liberties Association asks you for a donation, maybe you can say, well, if you go fight for free speech, otherwise, maybe give it to Aaron and David to help us fight this one.
I think that this is the civil liberties fight of 2020.
This is how Justin Trudeau is going to play.
So if you can help us out with even 10 bucks, I'll have Aaron and his colleague David, who's not here today.
I'll have them on whenever we have news.
I'll email you if we have updates.
And so help me, God, we will push back against this little censor named Justin Trudeau.