FAKE NEWS examines Trump’s alleged mask export block to Canada, debunked by Global News’ three revisions—3M masks temporarily halted, half released, rest pending—while exposing China’s diversion of Medicom Group’s supplies. Sam Goldstein, a Toronto civil liberties lawyer, clarifies provincial emergency powers (up to $10M fines or imprisonment) and federal safeguards under the EMA, warning of police overreach amid COVID-19 restrictions. Concerns over unemployment-driven instability clash with historical resilience, but skepticism lingers toward opaque modeling data and inconsistent messaging, questioning whether pandemic policies risk eroding public trust in governance. [Automatically generated summary]
Donald Trump was banning shipments of critically necessary face masks to Canada.
Yeah, I'm not sure if you saw the corrections to that.
And I'm not sure if you saw who's really banning face mask exports to Canada.
I'll give you one guess.
That's today's podcast.
Before I get to it, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of the show.
Go to rebelnews.com and get your subscription there.
I'd appreciate it.
It helps keep us alive.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, is Donald Trump really blocking the sale of face masks to Canada?
It's April 6th, 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 about why I published it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
I have two pieces of news to show you.
One is from the United States.
As you have surely heard, U.S. President Donald Trump has personally interfered with Canada's supply of face masks.
It's outrageous.
And isn't it just like Donald Trump?
The media party reported it, and you know they are always accurate and fair when it comes to Trump.
So within hours of these reports, it was a unanimous chorus of condemnation of Trump and his anti-Canada bigotry.
Here's Doug Ford.
And I just can't stress how disappointed I am with President Trump for making this decision.
I understand.
He's thinking, I got to take care of my own people, but we're connected.
But even in saying that, I'm not going to rely on President Trump.
I'm not going to rely on any prime minister or president or any country ever again.
Our manufacturing, we're gearing up, and when those assemblies start, we aren't going to stop them.
And here's Jason Kenney.
As a Canadian, I am insulted by the decision announced today to block the export of critically needed medical equipment that we need to fight the pandemic here in this country.
And I think it's short-sighted because the United States ultimately is a net importer of this kind of equipment.
But it also underscores why we must produce our own critical equipment here at home because apparently we can't even count on our closest friend and ally to be a supplier.
As you know from the media, Trump ordered the noble company called 3M to simply stop sending masks to Canada.
He ordered them to tear up their contracts with Canadian hospitals.
Except that's not quite true.
It all started last week when the head of Florida's emergency management office told Tucker Carlson on Fox News that 3M was giving him the runaround and selling their masks for cash to the highest bidder, including to folks shipping them back overseas.
Here's a clip of that.
3M has lost total control.
And so what I asked 3M is that, are they aware that their authorized distributors, U.S. companies, are telling me that the reason why our orders are being pushed down is because foreign countries are showing up with cash to purchase the orders.
And when I told 3M that, not only did they not dispute it, I asked them if they've put out any guidance to prevent the behavior, and the answer was no.
And so when I asked 3M, you know, what is your production, they said they're making 10 million masks a week.
And when I said, great, I have money.
I'd like to purchase some of those, they said I couldn't, that they have no masks to sell me.
Now we know that's true.
For months, China has been buying up North American supplies of masks, including masks imported to America from China, and then sending them back to China, not just in North America.
I think I showed you this clip from Australia before, too.
In an almost military operation, massive numbers of surgical masks, thermometers, antibacterial wipes, hand sanitizers, gloves, and Panadol were stripped from the shelves and shipped to China.
Now, Canada is not involved with any of this.
This is about Donald Trump not wanting masks sent back to China.
And in fact, when asked about this, Trump's White House trade advisor, Peter Navarro, made it clear he was not talking about Canada or Mexico.
Here, listen to him for yourself.
3M is basically going to be helping the American people fight this battle.
There will still be some exports from the United States factories to our friends in Mexico and Canada.
But as for the rest of 3M's production around the world, we're going to try to get our fair share.
We will get our fair share of that.
Oh, well, hang on.
Didn't the media report that 3 million masks at the U.S.-Canada border were sent back to America?
I'm sure I saw that.
So what really is happening?
It sure is hard to find out.
This story published by Global News that initially blamed Donald Trump has changed three times today alone.
Now saying that 3 million masks were blocked at the border, but half a million have been released and the rest are expected to be.
What's really going on?
I'd like to know whether you have spoken to the Americans in your recent discussions about the fact that pulp and paper used to produce those N95 masks comes mainly from Canada and the Naimo BC.
Have you talked to them about that?
Have you reflected on that with them?
Yes, we have pointed out to the U.S. all the different materials and services that flow back and forth across the border.
We do not want to start limiting our exports or the services that we provide to the United States.
Oh, well, it's good to bash Donald Trump.
It's good for business.
It's good for politics.
It's good for the media.
Even conservatives like Doug Ford and Jason Kenney know that it will impress the media party.
I mean, just the other day, the Toronto Star said they were very, very impressed with Doug Ford.
And I guess this just cements this, I guess.
Trudeau let the state broadcaster suggest that perhaps Trudeau could fight fire with fire and ban Canadian exports to the United States, including in the Naimo BC, there's this forestry processing plant which apparently makes specialized paper products for masks.
That's what the media party said.
Alas, that's not true.
That's not what is used in at least the N95 face masks.
N95 means they take out 95% of particles.
Those masks use synthetic materials, not paper products.
But it still felt good to talk tough about going to trade war with Donald Trump, then everyone was feeling pretty butch.
Now, I've seen this happen before.
Trudeau and the Canadian media are obsessed with Trump.
I guess we all are.
But the feeling is not mutual.
Donald Trump just doesn't think about Canada, or at least does so very rarely.
And that's lucky for us if he knew the constant slow burn, anti-Trump paranoia and personal smears emanating from Trudeau and his government and his state broadcaster.
I think he'd give us a smack.
But lucky for us, he's too busy dealing with America and dealing with things like a grown-up around the world seven days a week.
He hasn't decided to sleep in every day to self-isolate for a month, even though he neither has the symptoms nor has been found to have the virus.
Trudeau just likes staying at home.
It stops him from having to work so much, from making decisions, from answering questions.
He still has vacation beard.
You know, when Trump got his first virus briefing, Trudeau was still on his three-week vacation in Costa Rica with that beard.
Psychologically, Trudeau's still on vacation.
When Trump said foreign countries, whenever he says foreign, he really means overseas.
He really means China.
He practically thinks of Canada as part of the United States.
We're so integrated.
Like when Trump brought in steel tariffs, he meant to take aim at China, but he hit Canada as collateral damage.
Although, to be fair, some Canadian companies were being tricky.
They were buying cheap Chinese steel and just trans-shipping it to the U.S. Trump just doesn't think about Canada that much.
Now, a better Canadian prime minister and foreign minister would be gently working with the U.S. every step of the way here, low-key, to make sure we're in step with them, whether it's border crossings or emergency preparedness.
Alas, there are no grown-ups in Trudeau's government who could put aside their Trump hatred.
Name one for me if you can.
So much ado about nothing.
3M masks will be still coming to Canada, as always.
All the huffing and puffing about Trump was just good fun.
I know why Trudeau likes it, but if I were Doug Ford, and even more so Jason Kenney, who relies on Donald Trump to build the only pipeline into Alberta, the Keystone Excel pipeline, I'd fact check any accusations against Trump before repeating what Trudeau's CBC state broadcaster alleges.
So everything's going great, right?
Well, sometimes it pays to read some news media that's not generated by Trudeau's bailout media in Canada.
The Wall Street Journal can do some pretty good reporting, so good that it recently had journalists kicked out of China by the government.
So that's a very good sign, isn't it?
Now look at this story.
This is a story about a Canadian company headquartered in Trudeau's alleged hometown of Montreal.
The company's called Medicom Group.
They have three factories in China, including one in Wuhan, making face masks.
That's amazing.
I mean, wouldn't it be great to buy Canadian masks for Canadians?
I guess they're made in China.
Yeah, about that.
Take a look at this story.
Mask maker Medicom Group, based in Montreal, operates three factories in China, including one in Wuhan, where the epidemic emerged.
Its supply of materials in China has been diverted by government officials to produce masks for use there, said Kathy Lee, a senior sourcing manager for Medicom.
Ho ho.
Just taken.
Stolen, maybe diverted.
That's the word used here, commandeered.
And it's a way, in a way, that's understandable.
That's what countries sometimes do in a crisis, a panic, in an emergency.
They put their own country first.
Now, Trump was kind enough to include Canada and Mexico in his list of best friends, all in it together in this crisis, but not China.
No way, they don't care.
They'll literally take Canadian contracts for Canadian masks and just take it.
Funny though, not a peep from Trudeau or the media party about that outrage that really is going on, not the 3M fake news story.
Not a peep from Trudeau, not from the CBC, not even from Doug Ford or Jason Kenney.
It's odd because unlike the 3M story, this one isn't fake.
So why isn't it being reported anywhere here in Canada?
Emergency Powers and Public Welfare00:16:20
Stay with us for more.
Well, those are some images, particularly from the United Kingdom, where their police forces are actually deploying drones to hector people, spy on people, record people, and shame people.
even for going for solitary walks in the countryside.
All the while, the tube in London remains packed.
Certainly not within social distancing guidelines.
We are in a unique crisis, not seen in centuries since the plague quarantined great institutions across Europe.
What is the best way for a government to respond?
How much power should we give them?
And how much infringements on our civil liberties should we tolerate?
So far, I must tell you, Canadians and Americans too have seemed a little bit too eager to give up their freedoms on the say-so of some well-meaning, but ultimately only partially informed public health authorities.
Well, joining us now to help make sense of it, especially in the context of Canada's emergency laws.
I'm delighted to be joined by Sam Goldstein.
We spoke with him a few weeks ago about his election as a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Today he is here as a concerned civil libertarian and lawyer.
Sam, great to see you again.
It's good to see you too.
I understand that we have to bring some order to the world if we're going to stop this pandemic.
But I don't want to become like China, where they treat people like ants, and human life is worth very little, ironically, in this pandemic pushback.
Why don't you take us through the Canadian legal situation?
I'll do my best not to interrupt.
I have so many thoughts on this myself, but you're the expert.
Why don't you take us through the different levels of law here of what politicians and public health officers can order us to do as citizens?
So, I mean, just put it a little bit of perspective.
I think the concept of giving powers over to a central authority are as old as going back to ancient Rome when they were able to, they had powers to elect what they called the tyrant to take over Rome and to deal with some sort of crisis.
And the most famous tyrant of all is actually is Quintus Cincinnatus, who was elected in about 458 BC to help Rome deal with the barbarians, defeated the barbarians, gave up his dictatorship, and went back to work in his farm.
So that concept of centralizing power in times of emergency is a very old concept.
In Canada, we have three levels of government, and so therefore we have three different laws.
So federal, we have the Emergency Measures Act.
Provincially, we have the Emergency Management and Civil Property Act.
And then there is also a city ordinance passed underneath the provincial law, which allows them to do that.
So all three levels have their own three pieces of legislation, which allows them to take control in times of crises.
Now, you know, we are really blessed, Ezra, despite the fact I have some concerns about civil liberties in Canada.
We're really blessed with a system of government that disallows anyone who can assume powers of a tyrant like Cincinnatus and doesn't simply rely upon Cincinnati's goodwill to give up those powers.
We have things like our natural divisions of powers and federalism and so on and built-in safeguards within these emergency acts, which limit the ability of centralized power to continue using it and to overuse it.
So federally, I think the biggest thing I'd like to get across to people is, you know, people are confused between who has more power, the federal government or the provincial government.
And as a matter of fact, while people are always asking Trudeau to enact what's now called the Emergencies Measures Act, and I'll talk about its background in a moment, it's in fact the provincial government that has the real powers and more powers than the federal government.
So the federal government has what I've called the Emergencies Measures Act, and it replaced what used to be known as the War Measures Act, and it was replaced in 1988.
And there's only three times, Ezra, that the War Measures Act was actually used in Canadian history.
It was in World War I, World War II, and the October crisis of 1971, dealing with the FLQ.
So the War Measures Act, what's important, and I'm going to sort of focus a little bit about the limitations on as well as the powers that it has, right?
So inside the War Measures Act, it makes it clear that this is a temporary emergence.
It's for special temporary measures, and it's to ensure the safety during national emergencies.
And those words are really important because what it does, as I'm already saying, is it builds in limitations as to what the government can do.
So the federal government could pass the EMA and impose, for example, a curfew on the country.
Sorry, it can't pose a curfew on the country, right?
It could only enact it, as I said, for certain limited reasons.
So those, and even in nuns, it even enumerates what those emergencies are.
So the emergence could be public welfare, like a natural catastrophe, like the Winnipeg Red River flood that happened, or lack magnetique and the train explosion.
Those can be natural catastrophes.
It could be for public order.
So a public order would be, in case you remember in the 50s, we had Amir Gazenko, who was the Russian spy who defected to Canada.
So if there was a fear of some sort of even like a coup of something like that, they can enact it for public order purposes, election tampering possibility, terrorism.
And then inside each of those categories of when they can enact the legislation, it specifies what it can do, the federal government, what it can do to address those situations.
So for example, let's go back to the issue of what we're happening now, which is a public welfare, a natural catastrophe.
It's dealing obviously with a disease, and that's specified underneath a public welfare in case of disease.
It has the limited powers to restrict travel.
We're doing that.
It can provide services and compensate people if it expropriates your property.
It provides emergency payments to people, which is what the government is doing now.
It could establish hospitals and shelter, distribute essential goods, restore structures.
And it also has a fine, a summary conviction of $5,500 or less for six months or six months jail.
Or if on an indictment, it's a $5,000 fine and not less than five years jail if you don't comply with the government.
So as you could sort of see, and the other important aspect of the Emergency Measures Act is that for a public welfare declaration of emergency, the parliament has to meet again in 30 days, which is in fact it's doing, and it then has to renew it.
So you could see that, and then also any, if 10 senators or 20 or more MPs decide that they want to revoke the declaration of emergency, they could actually sign like a petition, bring it to the governor general, and say, we want you to recall parliament.
And it gets debated as to whether they should continue or not.
So there's a lot of built-in limitations in terms of the federal legislation to limit the government from expanding its power.
So any 10 senators or any 20 MPs, they could be opposition MPs.
They could say, this is out of control.
Governor General, please call Parliament back.
Let's see if they really have the will of the people.
Yes.
Now, one other interesting aspect about the Emergency Measures Act and the built-in powers that limit it is right in the preamble of the Act itself, it says that the Emergency Measures Act should be governed in accordance with the Charter of Rights, the Bill of Rights.
And listen to this, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a UN document.
And why that's so interesting is because Diefenbaker, one of my favorite Canadian prime ministers who came up with the Bill of Rights, was concerned about the internment of the Japanese in World War II, which was underneath the War Measures Act.
And inside the Bill of Rights, it talks about a protection against, get this, exile.
And the reason why Diefenbaker put that in is because during World War II, not only were we interning the Japanese, but we're actually sending them back to Japan.
So Diefenbaker was very conscious of that.
And that's why he put in, you can't exile people.
That's an important right because you heard Trudeau talking underneath the Aeronautics Act, which is another piece of federal legislation, of not allowing Canadians back into Canada.
And that you could possibly challenge that underneath the Bill of Rights.
Now, we don't have to go there, but I'm just sort of, there's a lot of different interplay between the different acts.
And as again, we still have the Bill of Rights, and it has some rights that the Charter doesn't, which conflicts sometimes with these other pieces of legislation in Canada.
But again, the other thing about the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is why they alluded to that or why they built that into the preamble of the Emergency Measures Act, is because the ICCPR talks about compensation.
And the Charter doesn't and the Bill of Rights does.
And as you've heard me say, one of the aspects of the Emergency Measures Act is it says if the federal government expropriates your lands for a purpose to address the national crisis, then you have the right to compensation.
So very interesting little limitations and balances of power that we have in the EMA.
That's very interesting.
And I'm pleased to know that there is that safety valve that opposition parliamentarians can use if necessary.
It's also good to know, by the way, can you tell me, is there an expiry date?
Is there a time limit?
Did you say every 30 days?
Is that what you said?
Yeah, so it depends upon what the emergency is for public, sorry, for what we're doing, public welfare, it's 30 days.
For other ones, declarations, it's 60 days.
And I believe in time of war, it's 120 days.
Got it.
All right.
So you always have people have.
It's good to know that there's some built-in checks and balances there.
Now, that's the feds, but so much of the heavy lifting here is being obviously done by the provinces, including the premiers.
I think that some of that is because they are often men of action, and Justin Trudeau seems to be fairly hands-off.
I've never heard of a national leader self-quarantining for a month, even though he had no symptoms and didn't take the virus test.
It's so odd to me.
But put that politics aside, you've got Francois Legault, Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, John Horgan really leading the on-the-ground efforts.
That's where the hospitals' jurisdiction is, provincial schools' jurisdiction.
Tell me a little bit about what powers the provinces have in these emergencies.
So really, because of our division of powers in Section 91 and 92, what I like to continue calling the British North American Act of 1867, you know, civil and property rights is with the province.
And that's really in a situation such as this, that's where the real powers are required.
So we have, I can't remember when I referred to it earlier, but it's called the Emergency Management Civil Protection Act.
Every province has a version of this.
In Ontario, it used to be called the Emergency Plans Act, but after the ice storm of 1998 and actually the Y2K crisis and 9-11, it was overhauled in 2002 and it became the Emergency Management Act.
And then this is really important.
And then 2006, after SARS, it became what it is now.
But it was only in 2006.
Listen to this.
It was only in 2006 that the definition of emergency included disease or health risk.
So if it was but for 2006 amendment, we would not be able to use the provincial powers.
So what it does is it allows us, and now you'll clearly be able to see some of the powers because you'll see what Doug Ford's been saying.
So the provincial legislation prohibits movement within any specified area.
It evacuates people and animals and property.
It could establish shelters and hospitals.
It could close public places or businesses.
It can distribute aid and good and services.
It could fix prices.
And it has a fine of not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for a year if you're doing for an individual.
Or a director of a corporation is $500,000 penalty or one year.
Or a corporation is $10 million.
So you could see that.
And there's a, now the thing about the provincial legislation is interesting is there's also a basket clause, which says that it could take any such action as it considers necessary.
Let me say that again.
It could take any such action as it considers, as the province considers necessary.
So that's a tremendous, big, huge basket clause, which you could already see allows our premier to have very, you know, I don't want to say unlimited powers, but let's say a broad range of powers within the sphere of federalism that he has.
So it too, and it too has built-in limitations.
As you may have heard, the province has to come back to the legislature to extend the powers every 28 days.
Now, he has the power.
The premier has the power for 14 days, and then the lieutenant governor could extend that power for another 14 days if the lieutenant governor is convinced that the same emergency is still in effect.
And then after a second two-week period, he has to come back to legislature.
So I think they're coming back next week to decide whether they should extend the emergency powers underneath the provincial legislation.
Legislative Limitations Debate00:04:49
Now, I want to get back to one thing about Trudeau enacting the federal legislation.
And what's also interesting, another limitation is that there's another act, another piece of federal legislation, which is the Emergency Management Act, not measures, but management.
And the Emergency Management Act allows the government to start immediately turning on the federal spigots and having all this money flow to the provinces to enable the provinces to do and carry out the programs that you've just heard me enumerate.
Why that's important is because you could only enact a federal piece of legislation, the Emergency Act, if the provinces, plural, or province is unable to deal with the situation.
So one of the problems the federal government has in enacting the federal legislation is it has to show that the province is unable to deal with the situation.
And that would mean that you could say, well, Mr. Prime Minister, what measures did you take underneath the Emergency Measures Act?
How much money did you give them?
Right?
So the provinces, if they wanted to push back on any federal incrusion on their territory, if any individual wanted to challenge the federal government, they could say, well, before you can enact the Emergency Measures Act, the AMA, you have to tell me what you did underneath the Management Act.
So I thought that's just kind of another interesting limitation on the power and how different pieces of legislation could interact with each other.
Well, let me ask you a practical question.
This is very illuminating to me that all these powers are there.
And you're right, there's these basket clauses, these grab alls that really look quite unlimited.
One of the few limitations, as you say, they have to be interpreted with the charter in mind.
Well, good luck getting into court on a speedy basis for this.
But at least they have 14 or 30-day checkback periods with the parliaments.
But let me ask you in a real life way.
So let's say in a flourish of bureaucratic and political overreach that some politician somewhere says you can't leave your house.
And I tell you, it feels like we're inches away from that right now.
Well, good luck telling 37 million Canadians they can't leave their house.
Who would enforce these laws?
Would it be the RCMP?
Would it be the provincial police in places like Ontario and Quebec?
Would it be local city cops?
Can any police officer enforce any or all of these laws?
Yes.
Again, I just want to give one more limitation in the provincial legislation, just like the federal legislation, the province could only enact the Emergencies Act.
Again, if there's a serious risk that if they delayed enacting the legislation, it could possibly cause problems in society.
So again, that's another limitation.
But to address your specific issue, a lot of the ability to protect civil rights in situations like this are post hoc.
So they're always sort of after the fact.
That may be unfortunate, but you could also sort of understand in an emergency type of situation, you're sort of giving the benefit to the state with the limitations that it may have in terms of extending the power.
Frankly, you know, I think as a civil libertarian, my concern is not so much with when these things are being enacted.
I think the real concern for civil libertarians and people like yourself, Ezra, and your viewers is when, and what we're seeing now is when health officials get on television and they start saying, well, we recommend that you put on masks or we recommend that you do this or that or stay six feet away from people.
The problem with that is that's not a law.
That's where the confusion is.
And I think if there's any criticism of our politicians, and I actually think they've been doing a good job more or less, both federally, provincially, and municipally.
But the one criticism that I have is people are not clear as to what's a recommendation and what a law is.
And why that's problematic is number one, we don't want our health officials are not elected people.
They don't have the authority to start telling us what to do.
And I think that causes problems.
And the second thing is you want to know what a law is and what is just simply a recommendation because, and this is a very real thing that happened on my street is that there's a neighborhood family that owns a restaurant.
And that restaurant is that family's entire sole livelihood.
Police Authority and Rights00:04:20
And they want to know when they have to close it down.
So obviously Doug Ford came out and said we want businesses, restaurants, or not essential services.
They have to close down.
And they closed down.
But up until that point, they were not sure what to do.
Of course, they want to be sensitive to the health crisis.
But on the other hand, they have a livelihood that they have to make for themselves.
So those confusions, I think, are what the problem is.
The other aspect is with the police in policing these issues.
So just the other day, very much like those pictures you showed earlier on, is my niece was stopped by a York Regional Police Officer on the street, and she was asked what she was doing.
Now, all she was, is she was out walking her dog.
She stopped for a moment to check her phone and send a text message.
And the police officer started asking her questions.
Now, I don't know if the police officer understood that as of yet, it's not, and she was alone.
So as of yet, the province just simply said police officers can stop you and they could ask your name, address, and date of birth.
But they have to see you.
There has to be a rational connection to why they're stopping you.
And that authority would be not breaching the five or less five or more people.
So she was by herself.
So the police officer had no authority to say anything to her, really.
I mean, obviously police officers could come up to anyone and start talking to them.
But if the officer would have asked her, you know, identify yourself, I want everyone to know that all you have to do is give them your, if you see and you suspect that they're, that they're stopping, they're questioning you in relation to one of these emergency laws, then, you know, you have to give them your name, date of birth, and address.
But you don't have to, you do not have to provide documentation.
You have to satisfy the officer that you're identifying yourself, but you have to provide your birth certificate or your driver's license to the officer.
And interesting today, Interesting, just today I was out at Hyde Park and I was walking my dog and a bylaw officer came up to me and he was asking me why I was walking my dog in the off-leash on the on-leash area.
And I just kept walking because I know that the bylaw officer was not investigating me for anything underneath the provincial legislation.
And so I don't have to stop.
I just kept, I said to him, thank you very much.
I didn't bring it today.
I'll bring it tomorrow.
And I kept on walking, right?
So unfortunately, not everyone has the wherewithal to understand, you know, what pieces of legislation give officers what rights and what powers.
But that officer didn't have the authority to stop me or ask me to identify myself.
Yeah.
Part of me feels sympathetic towards police officers who are, you know, it's their job to carry out the policies of politicians and laws.
And they surely are unfamiliar with these laws, even though I guess it's their job to bone up on them.
Part of me wants to be grateful to anyone in uniform these days who's doing the hard work out there.
But I think that there is a certain kind of police officer, and I hope it's not too numerous, who would rejoice in this new power.
You referred to the Roman emperor as a tyrant, his official title.
You can be a tyrant for two years.
I would hope that police don't, out of ignorance of the law or enjoyment of their superpowers, go around and basically bully people.
And hopefully people like that are not part of our police force.
But it irritates me that we're going towards that stereotypical scene in those World War II movies where the German police officer encounters some French resistance person on the streets and says, watch our papers, I a papirin.
You know, that's not who we are.
And that's actually not doing a bloody thing to stop the virus.
Yeah, I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that those who trade their liberties for security ends up being fools.
Vigilant Citizens00:05:20
And I'm very, I always remind myself of that phrase.
I think it's up to Canadians to guard our civil liberties.
I mean, I think the police are doing a good job more or less.
As I said, the police or the our politicians are doing a good job more or less.
But that's not to say that we shouldn't be vigilant.
You know, we always should be vigilant.
We should know our rights.
We should, you know, in a polite way, we should exercise our rights.
I thank the officers, the bylaw officers this morning, as I just kept walking by them.
But, you know, I think I was polite, wasn't rude to them.
And I think we have to do the same thing.
There's nothing wrong with saying, well, officer, why are you detaining me?
And if they give a reason, then you, you know, you cooperate.
But there's nothing wrong with asking why an officer is stopping you and asking for an explanation.
Certainly nothing wrong with that.
And not only are you protecting yourself, but you're also protecting your rights for everybody.
One thing you should also know is, as I said, a lot of these, sorry, guys, are you about to say something?
No, you continue your thought, and then I'm going to ask you about jail.
So go ahead.
Okay.
So, I mean, one of the things, again, in terms of the limitations, is provincially, the premier has 120 days after the revocation emergency act to provide a report to the legislature.
And so, you know, and in that 100 day, after the 100 days in that report, that'll show, you know, the reasons why he did what he, you know, the decisions he made and why he made them.
I think it was really amazing and fantastic for Doug Ford and a little bit of a mistake for Trudeau to not give over the information with respect to the modeling because ultimately that information, the modeling, would become very important in any charter challenge or any challenge to the law.
So I think Doug Ford, not only in a legal purpose of providing the justification, but I think by providing that information, you're really...
Well, we had a bit of an internet hiccup there, which is how things sometimes go these days, but we're going to pick it right back up.
We've got Sam back on the line, civil liberties lawyer in Toronto, criminal lawyer, also elected as a bencher in the Ontario Law Society.
Sam, you've given me some encouragement to tell me that there are some built-in checks and balances with all of these laws.
There are roles for the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor to step in, for opposition MPs, at least federally, to force a return of parliament.
There are reporting rules that have to come afterwards.
That's all encouraging, including the remonstration that these emergency powers must still respect the charter.
And you've also reminded me that, listen, the cops are the good guys, but we can still resist their overweening authority, like when they try to stop you walking your dog or tell your niece she can't be out alone.
Let me ask you sort of a quirky question.
If they're letting convicted prisoners out of prison, including violent offenders, like they're emptying the prisoners, the prisons, in the name of coronavirus, what would they do with someone that they arrest?
So they're letting violent criminals out of jail, but you're walking your dog when you're not supposed to.
What would they actually do with you?
Yeah.
Good question, Ezra.
The reality is, is that there's an enforcement problem in this situation.
It is unlikely they're going to take you to jail.
More likely what they do is just give you a little ticket saying, you know, show up in three months and we'll deal with your court system.
So we're really relying upon the goodwill of the Canadian public right now.
I can't, as you pointed out, you know, they're only really detaining people with major crimes.
Even in Toronto, as I'm a, you know, I do some civil liberties.
I'm primarily a criminal lawyer.
Those people who are being held for bail hearings are really the serious crimes, the ones where you're found with the drugs, you're found with the gun.
Those are the types of crimes they're doing bail hearings for.
But the vast majority of situations now, if you get arrested, they'll give you what's called a promise to a peace officer and a Form 11, an undertaking to a police officer, which says, you know, don't, you know, stay away from that person or stay away from that store.
And they'll just release you.
So it's really the only serious crimes.
This is not a serious crime if you're caught with five people or more.
Likely, as I said, you'll just get a ticket and the ticket will say, come back sometime now.
The courts are not expected to open up until June.
So sometime in June, you'd have your court appearance.
Well, hopefully things will be back on track then.
My own homemade math, until we get the formal stats, I was just calculating the number of people who've applied for employment insurance divided into the labor force.
Worries About Unemployment Impact00:07:02
When I checked a few days ago, we were at 16% national unemployment.
I think the stats have actually gone up by another percent since then.
The worst it ever got under the Great Depression was 19%.
I think this could theoretically be worse.
And here's my last question to you, Sam.
Right now, we're all sort of stunned by this at once.
For some people, it's sort of stay at home, watch Netflix, have some fun, because the reality hasn't sunk in yet.
But some people can work from home, but for millions of people, this is going to go from a novelty to a personal disaster very quickly.
And you just said, We're all relying on goodwill and good behavior.
I'm worried that if we have 20, 25% unemployment for weeks or months, that you will see a breakdown in civil society.
You will see lawlessness.
You'll see vigilantes.
You'll see people scoffing at the law and saying, why are you coming at me for walking my dog when my neighbor was robbed yesterday?
And I'm more worried about the economy than I'm worried about the virus at this point.
And I hate to say, but a month from now, I think I'm going to be more worried about the anarchy than about the economy.
Well, certainly, Ezra, I share your point of view with respect to being worried about the economy.
While I might be a lawyer, the courts are shut down and in effect I've been put out of work.
So, you know, as again, I share that concern about the economy.
I don't necessarily share your same concern for anarchy in the streets given high levels of unemployment.
The reason why I don't is, you know, Ezra, you're sounding kind of like Karl Marx there.
He predicted, you know, he predicted there'd be anarchy in the streets and types of situations like this.
But historically, you know, even when we went through the Great Depression, there might have been the Winnipeg general strike, but by and large, Canadian society still remained stable.
So I think, you know, I still think that as long as our fundamental, we believe in fundamental principles of liberalism and we buy into that, those principles, I think we'll be okay as a society.
I don't share the view that just because you're going to have mass unemployment that you're going to necessarily have anarchy in the streets.
I think, again, as long as people understand why the civil liberties are being taken away from them, if there's a buy-in, and as I think, again, I'm going to congratulate Doug Ford on releasing those information and statistics on his modeling, people can see why our politicians are making the decisions that they're making.
I think generally people will understand that, look, I know that there's a high unemployment, but we have to do this because of the health risks at stake.
And that's why I think it's a real mistake for Trudeau to hide that information.
I accept your criticism that saying poverty or unemployment equals crime is a Marxist concept.
I accept that.
I guess what I'm worried about is when people have been ordered not to work, when companies have been ordered out of business by political action.
Like the Great Depression was a result of big strategic policy errors, but no one ordered companies to close.
This feels a little bit more like when Trudeau cancels pipelines in Alberta or when the government ordered the cod fishery to close, even though that was a result of a biological, you know, there just weren't any fish.
I guess, I mean, I don't want to be a pessimist.
I just am worried if you have police who can't put people in jail, if a greater proportion of police themselves call in sick, if police are now harassing your niece or you for walking the dog or going for a walk,
and Joe Lunchbucket cannot work even though he wants to work and his boss wants to work, that's what I'm worried about, is you see the disconnect between the people who are paying the price and this elite class of bureaucrat politician who can't even make up their minds as to whether or not masks work or not.
I guess, I don't know.
I mean, I'm lucky to still have a job, Sam, but I'm worried about other people saying, not only do I not have a job, but that idiot on TV told me I can't have a job, and it's because of him that I can't have a job.
I'm worried about the source of this unemployment being a political decision.
Anyhow, maybe I haven't thought this through well yet, but I'm nervous about how things will be in a month.
Last word to you, Sam.
Well, listen, has anyone ever accused of being a Marxist before, Ezra?
Yeah, no, never.
No, look, look, I'm one of the, I'm Joe Bucket right now, Ezra.
I'm unemployed.
And, you know, with some embarrassment, I have to tell you that I had to apply today for the $2,000 a month because I'm not working.
But I think, you know, I'm buying into, for now, I'm buying into the fact that I'm being deprived of livelihood.
And, you know, keep in mind that I have business expenses as well as home expenses.
And the $2,000 isn't necessarily going to cover everything.
And it's certainly not going to go towards putting money away for my retirement.
I'm just sort of barely to get by on it.
But I'm willing for now, at least, to put up, to accept that I have to do this for the good of everybody.
And if it takes, you know, we'll just see.
I mean, I can't, you know, if at 18 months, you know, I think the federal government will be called on and the provincial government will be called on for more, you know, to do more.
And we'll, you know, we'll take every day at a time and see how it goes.
But for now, as someone who's Joe Bucket, who's out of a work because Trudeau or Premier Ford is telling me that I can't work, I'm accepting it for now because I understand the crisis that we're in.
I have my suspicions and my skepticism about things.
And I certainly question what the politicians tell me and I question what the health authorities do.
But I'm, for now, the evidence is there for me to justify, in my own mind, giving up my livelihood for now.
We'll see in a couple of days.
We'll see what happens in 18 months.
But, you know, if it's going to go to 18 months, I could only assume that the numbers are going to be really bad.
But for now, Ezra, I think I'm willing to give up my livelihood for the good of everybody.
Well, I hope you're right, Sam, and I think you've got a great attitude.
And God willing, we'll all be through this soon and things will get on the mend, not only in terms of health, but also in terms of the economic health and personal liberty of our country.
Hope For Safety00:02:23
Thanks so much for sharing your wisdom.
I learned a lot from you, not just about our laws today, but about the election or selection of a tyrant, as he was called, in the Roman Empire.
I'm going to study a little bit more about that.
Take care, my friends.
Stay safe.
You too.
You too.
Bye-bye.
Thank you.
There's our friends, Sam Goldstein.
We first spoke to him a few weeks ago about his principle-based, conscience-based campaign for the lost side of Ontario, and he joins us today to talk about these emergency powers.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue Friday about effective drugs to treat the coronavirus that Trump promoted.
Chris writes, Seems like this virus will burn through the population long before a vaccine will be presented.
The government continues to expose the Canadian population to this epidemic with overseas flights coming in one after the other.
Yeah, I thought that maybe the flights were done, but I went online to yvr.ca, that's the Vancouver airport's website, and to TorontoPearson.com, that's Toronto's airport.
Both have flights from China landing today.
Kurt writes, if only the mainstream media would report on issues like Rebel News does, you guys keep impressing me daily.
Keep it up, and hope you and all your viewers are safe.
Well, thanks very much.
We'll do our best.
On my interview with Mark Murano, Zuzana writes, I sure hope Mark Morano is right and Trump will soon realize that this whole COVID-19 situation is a subversion of our basic rights and freedoms.
I don't even know if Justin Trudeau is in control or in command.
He's certainly not fully engaged.
He's lazing around in his PJs at home all day.
He's letting other cabinet ministers make the decisions or other public health officers.
But a public health officer is not an elected accountable politician.
It's an advisor, fine, but a decider has to make the decisions.
And I am terrified that we're just sort of floating along, doing everything weeks or months late, taking leadership direction from the World Health Organization, which really means from China.
I think we're having the worst of all worlds.
Well, folks, that's our show for today.
On behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.