Dr. Theresa Tam’s January 2020 WHO votes—blocking a COVID-19 emergency declaration despite China’s border lockdowns in Wuhan—sparked accusations of complicity in Beijing’s cover-up, while her mask advice for healthy individuals clashed with Taiwan’s strict travel rules. China later admitted underreporting cases, yet Tam remained silent, raising questions about her allegiance to Canada or the WHO amid Justin Trudeau’s avoidance of parliamentary accountability during the pandemic. With lockdowns disproportionately harming younger populations and Rebel News challenging fines, the episode frames COVID-19 policies as a potential erosion of civil liberties, urging resistance against unchecked government power. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through a very interesting story in a UK newspaper about a roaring debate the World Health Organization had in January, January 22nd and 23rd to be precise, about whether or not they should tell the world that the virus was an international emergency.
China won the vote that day, but according to The Guardian, they had Western countries supporting them.
There were only 15 people on that panel.
One of them was Dr. Teresa Tam.
Whose side was she on?
That's the question I get into in today's show.
Hey, before I get into that, let me invite you to become a paywall subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus.
It's $8 a month.
That's only $2 a week, you know.
$8 a month.
You get the video version of the podcast and you support the Rebel.
It's winning all around.
All right, here's the podcast.
Tonight, a bombshell question that needs to be answered.
Was Teresa Tam part of China's WHO cover-up?
It's April 20th, 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'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
We've told you why Dr. Theresa Tam, Justin Trudeau's hand-picked chief public health officer, needs to go.
I can think of four reasons off the top of my head.
Why Teresa Tam Needs to Go00:03:48
Number one, she called people who were concerned about the virus.
She called them racists back in January, even when many of those people who were concerned were Chinese people themselves.
Number two, she gave bizarre advice against using masks.
So our advice right now is there is no need to use a mask for well people.
Three, she said that closing borders to the virus doesn't work, even though China itself sealed off Wuhan.
If it's a pandemic, do we close borders?
Do we shut things down like other countries are doing?
It may be sort of anti-intuitive for people to understand this, but the more countries that are impacted means that your border measure is going to be much less effective and definitely not feasible.
Yeah, that's so weird.
Taiwan has some of the strictest rules against global travel, and it kept its death toll in the single digits, even though it's very close to China.
Number four, what irks me the most of all is that of all the weirdness I mentioned above, it's absolutely word for word the propaganda that the Chinese Communist Party uses and managed to get the World Health Organization to pair it.
They called concern about the virus racist.
They claimed the virus wasn't contagious, so you don't need to wear masks.
They wanted countries to keep accepting airplane passengers from China, especially from Wuhan.
So really, why bother having a Canadian health officer in Teresa Tam?
Why not just read the latest spin on the WHO website?
If you do not have any respiratory symptoms such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask like this one.
Mask alone can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly.
Masks should only be used by healthcare workers, caretakers, or by people who are sick with symptoms of fever and cough.
Why?
Because healthcare workers and caretakers are in close contact with ill individuals, so they're at higher risk of catching COVID-19.
Well, as I showed you last week, Teresa Tam doesn't just follow orders from the WHO.
She works for them right now.
At the same time as she purportedly works for us Canadians.
Here's her official biography on the WHO website.
She has a biography there because she serves as one of seven people on this committee, the Emergency Program Oversight Committee.
I mentioned this to you before.
It was her job to oversee emergencies.
Let me read a bit from the job description of the committee.
I hope this doesn't sound boring.
It's actually the key to things.
It tells you what Teresa Tam was supposed to be doing over there.
The main purpose of this seven-person committee is, quote, to provide oversight and monitoring of the development and performance of the program and to guide the program's activities, the program being, you know, the World Health Organization fighting against health emergencies.
But it gives more specific details.
Here's the job description.
I'm going to read a few points.
Assess the performance of the key functions in health emergencies.
Determine the appropriateness and adequacy of financing and resourcing.
Provide advice to the Director General.
Review reports on WHO's actions in health emergencies.
Review reports on the state of health security adopted by the Director General for submission to the World Health Assembly through the Executive Board and to the United Nations General Assembly.
So these are her to-do items.
That's another way of saying you're the auditor.
Not a financial auditor checking receipts and things like that.
You're not an accountant checking for financial fraud, although you're on the lookout, I guess.
You're a health auditor, checking to make sure the WHO is doing the right thing, telling the truth about health emergencies.
Voting Against China's Truth00:08:25
And we know that China didn't do that.
Now, everything I've shown you here so far, I've touched on in the past week or so.
I don't know if you saw it, but last week I recorded a video called FireTam.com, and it's been seen about 400,000 times.
It's amazing.
People are really frustrated with her.
And in that video, I made most of the points I've just made here so far.
But I've learned something new since then, and I think it's a blockbuster, maybe.
And I've just sent an email to Teresa Tam's office asking for her to answer and explain.
I'll let you know if I get an explanation.
It's a story from the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom.
That's a lefty newspaper, but sometimes they do interesting work no matter what your political stripe.
This is one of those times.
Here's the story here.
Caught in a superpower struggle, the inside story of the WHO's response to coronavirus.
Caught between the U.S. and China, the World Health Body has been unable to enforce compliance or information sharing.
So they framed it as the U.S. versus China.
In some ways, that's right, but only in the same way that you have policemen versus robbers, or firemen versus a fire.
They're opposites, but they're not morally equal to each other.
Dr. Fauci, Donald Trump's chief health advisor, he has his politics, and you can agree or disagree with him, but I don't think anyone would doubt that he's being candid and transparent and acting in good faith.
As in, even if he's mistaken on something, he's trying to do what he thinks is right.
Call me naive, but I believe that.
Trump seems to, obviously, as well.
Whereas whoever is the Chinese equivalent to Dr. Fauci, well, there could be no such thing.
Fauci goes on countless media interviews and says what he thinks.
He has no minder checking up on him, no censor.
I suppose Trump could fire him if he wanted to, but he doesn't seem to want to.
I don't think for a second that Fauci would hesitate to disagree with Trump if his heart or mind told him to.
I don't think Fauci would lie for Trump.
There is no one like that in China.
There just isn't.
There's no counterpart.
They don't have a free press.
I'm sure there is a medical expert who actually gives advice to Xi Jinping, but he would do so in private so as not to embarrass the dictator or cause him to lose face.
And even then, there's a risk of telling the truth to an omnipotent tyrant.
If you think the news will upset a tyrant, you don't want to say it.
It's hard to speak truth to power at all.
I can imagine it would be very hard to criticize Donald Trump.
But Trump will not kill you or send you and your family to an internment camp if you offend him.
He'll give you a mean nickname, maybe, and that's about it.
I mean, Trump keeps letting Jim Acosta of CNN ask questions almost every day.
He seems to like it, maybe.
You ask one gotcha attack question like that to Xi Jinping, and it's off to the gulag for you.
So my point is, it's not a battle at the WHO between two teams, like a sports match.
It's between medical doctors and public health officers acting in good faith and honesty and transparency the Western democracy way and one big murderous dictatorship that cares about saving face and tamping down unrest at all costs.
To equate the two would be like equating firemen and a fire.
Okay, that's just my thoughts on the headline, but back to the Guardian story.
This is interesting.
Remember, throughout January, the WHO was repeating the Chinese lie that the virus was not contagious.
Here's a killer tweet.
I call it a killer tweet because it certainly led to many deaths from people who trusted it.
Anyways, here's what the Guardian says happened on January 22nd and 23rd.
Apparently there was a battle raging within the WHO about whether or not to tell the truth and declare a global health emergency, a public health emergency of international concern, as they call it.
The debate raged on for two days within the WHO, but the agency was deadlocked.
China insisted the virus wasn't contagious, but other countries, doctors, insisted it was.
Let me quote.
China argued against declaring an emergency on 22 January, but could not have carried the argument alone.
And for the vote to have been split, several Western or Western aligned representatives must have voted with Beijing, voting on whether or not the virus will kill you.
But are you with me there?
So there's only 15 countries in the world who had a representative on that particular committee called the IHR Emergency Committee for the COVID-19 outbreak.
So this is the big committee.
Only 15 countries.
So it's a different committee than the other one Teresa Tam was on.
15 countries in the whole world, and Canada was one of them, and Canada's representative was Teresa Tam.
There she is at the end of the list of members.
Now, how each country voted on January 23rd is apparently a secret, if I'm reading this Guardian story correct.
Like so much of what the WHO and other UN agencies do, it's secret.
But neither possibility is any good.
If Tam voted along with China to lie about the virus and to continue to falsely claim that the virus was not contagious from person to person, she was a party to one of the deadliest political outrages in modern times, possibly a crime.
But if she voted against China, and I hope she did, if she voted against China and for publishing the truth about the virus, but was blocked by China, in some ways that's just as bad.
Because that means she would have known how bad things were at the WHO.
She would have seen firsthand how China was manipulating and blocking the facts using politics, corrupting the science using votes at the UN.
And yet she still went on to parrot the WHO line in public and other deceptions.
How did she vote in this committee?
Did she vote at all?
We'll have to find out.
I've asked her.
I mean, seriously, how much time is Dr. Tam devoting to the UN's WHO and their shenanigans versus attending to her business?
You know, her real job here in Canada.
But how did she vote?
At that key meeting, did she vote with China to keep the cover-up going?
Before she voted, did she seek input and approval from Trudeau or his advisors first?
What did they tell her to do?
And why did she keep all this a secret as thousands died around the world?
Don't you see?
The WHO isn't good.
It's actually evil.
Japan's deputy prime minister said it should be called the China Health Organization, not the World Health Organization.
Taiwan knows that pretty well, too.
But here in Canada, we're still following the WHO.
Tam sure does.
Trudeau does.
Patty Haidu does.
She gets furious when people say China's lying.
So I would say that your question is feeding into the conspiracy theories that many people have been perpetuating on the internet.
Yeah, no, Patty, China lies.
Sorry.
My question, and I've sent it to Dr. Tam by email today, is on January 23rd, that fateful day, when the WHO Pandemic Committee voted in secret to keep lying about the virus, whose side was she on?
I'll let you know if I get an answer.
Here again, called for in-person sittings in Parliament.
Here's a little bit of what he said.
If the government wants to effectively shut down Parliament, it needs to explain why.
What are the Liberals so opposed to?
Transparency and accountability are in the best interests of Canadians.
So I agree.
Transparency and accountability are in the best interests of Canadians.
Andrew Scheer's Parliament Push00:15:44
I'm not sure any journalist would disagree with that notion.
I don't think it's completely honest, though, to say that the government doesn't want Parliament to return.
I just don't know that we've reached a place where they agree.
Well, that's the CBC pundits panel calling Andrew Scheer dishonest, or partially dishonest, in his complaint that Justin Trudeau didn't want Parliament to resume.
Whatever would give people that impression, other than the fact that Justin Trudeau has been in a fake quarantine for more than a month in his own house, not wanting to come out, resisting all he could the scrutiny of a question period.
It's odd to me that the state broadcaster would hold the leader of the opposition to account more than it holds the prime minister to account.
But let me point out one quick thing before we move on.
That panel weighing Justin Trudeau could have been handpicked by Justin Trudeau.
Let's just quickly go through those four people we saw.
Rosemary Barton, the host of Trudeau's CBC State Broadcaster, she was a personal plaintiff suing the Conservative Party in the last election.
Next up was Chantale Baer, who is a scholar at the Trudeau Foundation.
Then you have Andrew Coyne, and not to be personal about it, but it is personal.
He has a family connection.
His cousin was Pierre Trudeau's mistress and had a daughter by him.
And finally, Althea Raj, the authorized biographer of Justin Trudeau.
Four people on a panel, each of whom explicitly or implicitly have a connection to Justin Trudeau.
That's the kind of scrutiny the CBC proposes.
Well, finally, Parliament did resume, albeit at a reduced count, and that's fine.
And our friend Andrew Lawton from True North was watching it, and he comes to join us to report on what he saw.
Andrew, what a pleasure to have you here.
Thanks for taking the time.
Hey, thanks for the invite.
Well, it's always good to have you.
And before we go further, let me just remind our viewers that Andrew has his own show, which you can subscribe to or watch at AndrewLawtonshow.com.
And you got to give him support.
He's one of the few good guys out there not on the take from Justin Trudeau.
In fact, he's fighting Trudeau with us in court over the Debates Commission.
But let's get back to today's news.
Andrew, what was it like Trudeau finally answering in a form of question period?
Well, it was funny.
There was not a huge amount of fireworks.
I think a lot of people were expecting that it was going to be this case where we'd all tune into question period, the fur would be flying.
It started out by all accounts very civil, actually.
Andrew Scheer asked the prime minister for an update on the Nova Scotia shooting and then some questions about really the meat of the government's response when it comes to getting ventilators in, preparedness, the emergency stockpile that we know was expired and discarded.
But I do think there's a symbolic issue here that needs to be pointed out, which is that Justin Trudeau was claiming for the last few days that Andrew Scheer's desire to have parliament reconvene, as all parties had originally scheduled, by the way, was going to jeopardize the health of 338 MPs.
The liberal talking point, the media talking point, was that Scheer was basically pushing for all the MPs to fly from far-flung corners of the country, from Vancouver Island, from Nunavut, from Yukon, from Nova Scotia to Ottawa and pack themselves into the House of Commons like sardines, when in actuality, all that was at stake was exactly what we saw today, which is a pared-down, bare-bones,
proportionate number of MPs from each party getting together under the same roof and doing the business of government.
You know, for all that we talk about the importance of government in the response to COVID-19, you can't have government without parliament unless you surrender what is the core identity of our government, which is a parliamentary democracy.
Yeah.
Well, recall that about a month or so ago, Trudeau wanted to change the rules so that he could rule by fiat, including any spending, not just till we're through the pandemic, but through to the end of 2021.
Now, that was such an overreach.
Even the media balked.
But Trudeau has taken every opportunity to empower himself, take authorities away from parliament, and reduce scrutiny of his own conduct.
Yeah, and I think it's exactly because of that that the parliamentary oversight that Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives have been pushing for is so important because we've already seen really what the ideal scenario is for the liberals, which is an executive fiat that allows them to tax and spend far beyond the imminent danger of the pandemic.
And I think that whole episode with that bait and switch from the liberals on that initial relief bill shows why people are more leery.
And there was one clip from Andrew Scheer's press conference this morning, as a matter of fact, where a CBC journalist asked him, her words, what's your problem?
She literally said, why don't you just go along with all of these other parties?
What's your problem?
And that was, I guess, in some ways, we can laud the honesty of CBC, just saying Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives need to go along and fall in line with the other parties.
But the whole point is, you need to have that oversight that comes from an opposition party.
You need to have the oversight that comes from the parliamentary process.
Yeah.
You know, I saw that clip.
I think it was Julie Van Doosen.
We have it now.
Let me play that for our viewers.
Just absolutely unthinkable that if the shoe is on the other foot, if Stephen Harper were the prime minister saying he didn't want to be accountable, imagine the CBC saying to some liberal, why don't you just go along?
I mean, come on.
Here, take a look at Julie Van Dusen of the CBC State Broadcaster.
You seem to be almost suggesting that the other parties are joining forces with the government.
You've called one of them a cheerleader, almost like they're plotting something.
I'm just trying to figure out why just won't you go along with everyone else?
Like, what's your problem?
What have you got to lose?
Well, you know, we don't believe that going along with a plan that eliminates 80% of the sitting days of the House of Commons during a crisis serves Canadians.
We don't believe that that will result in better programs and services for Canadians.
In fact, we know the contrary to be true.
And we're not talking about some theoretical concept.
We're not talking about a hypothetical.
We know it to be true.
When the government has proposed programs.
You know, it's almost like they're holding the opposition to a gun.
Why do you guys have to oppose everything?
Sure, you're called the leader of the opposition, but you have to be so opposey about it.
I thought that was a deeply embarrassing moment for Julie Van Doosen personally, for the CBC in general.
But the media party, they've really been that way since this pandemic began.
Yeah, that's been the role.
And to be fair, I think in the early days, everyone was committed to that idea of what Justin Trudeau has called the Team Canada approach, which is all hands on deck, suspend partisan differences.
And I think that if the government had kept up with that on its end of the equation, that might be possible.
But they've revealed that they've tried to seize power on this.
They've revealed that a lot of the promises they've made for relief aren't making their way to where they're supposed to.
And more importantly, I think they've completely compromised their credibility by giving public health advice and recommendations that are wrong, that are just flat out wrong, that are reversed within days, reversed within a week, reversed within a few weeks.
I mean, you compound that with the government shilling for the Chinese regime's numbers, with all of the other factors of the World Health Organization.
And you've had, I think, a huge, huge crisis of credibility in the people that are supposed to be above partisanship leading us all through this.
Yeah, I mean, you're exactly right.
Every single mistake that could have been made was made calling people racist just when they're concerned about the virus, saying masks don't work, not closing the borders, standing by the World Health Organization and Chinese numbers when even now China's admitted they were not accurate.
I mean, the federal government actually is not in the driver's seat for this crisis for constitutional and practical reasons.
It's the provinces.
Justin Trudeau does not have authority over any hospital in the country.
That's all provincial matters.
It's just the few things that were his to do, the foreign affairs stuff, the airport stuff, I guess the bully pulpit stuff, every single one of them he's got wrong.
And he's shown, in my view, a laziness, Andrew.
I mean, Trump works seven days a week.
And by the way, instead of hiding from critical questions, he seems to love the scrappier the question, the better.
It's such a contrast.
You don't have to love Donald Trump to acknowledge that he's working seven days a week as opposed to Trudeau.
Let me ask you a question about today, though.
Was there a question in question period today that stood out from Scheer or another, one of his critics?
Was there something that really got to an important issue in your mind?
I think, yeah, and I'll say Andrew Scheer and also Michael Cooper.
And Michael Cooper was a lot more punchy with it than Andrew Scheer was, but asking the prime minister about China's numbers.
And in the end of it, when Michael Cooper asked and he said, listen, I mean, how are you on earth trusting a Chinese communist regime?
Christia Freeland gave the answer that we've heard multiple permutations up from the government, which is, oh, this is an ongoing thing and this is a pandemic.
And there was kind of a glimmer of hope in her answer because she mentioned authoritarian regime.
She didn't call China one, but she mentioned authoritarian regimes.
So perhaps there was a tacit recognition of this.
I mean, maybe I misheard and heard her talking about something that she wasn't talking about.
But in her answer, she did use those words.
And I think that that was the closest we've gotten from the government accepting there might be a flaw with China.
And just for context on this, remember that last week on Friday, even China acknowledged that China's numbers were wrong.
And the point that I made on my show is that this means that Patty Haidu, or Paul at Bureau Patty, as I've come to love her as, or love the nickname of, which has more confidence in China's numbers than China has in China's numbers.
Here, let's play that clip from question period Michael Cooper and Christy Freeland.
Take a look.
Speaker, the Chinese communist regime repeatedly destroyed and falsified information about the spread of COVID-19, all the while imprisoning whistleblowers.
As a result, a regional health problem became a global catastrophe.
What measures is this government prepared to undertake to hold the Chinese communist regime accountable?
The Honorable Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, this is a global pandemic.
That's why international cooperation and information sharing are absolutely essential.
We can all help each other and save lives by gathering and sharing the most accurate information possible.
Having said that, decisions about Canada are made by Canadians based on the advice of Canada's world-renowned experts.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this House appreciates that democracies are transparent in a way authoritarian regimes can never be.
Well, I'm glad that they've started to have some functioning as a parliamentary democracy.
I note that when Hungary brought in some emergency powers, every liberal in the West said, look at that, they're suspending parliament.
No, no, no, the Hungarian parliament still sits.
Those same critics who are quick to jump on other countries for any authoritarian excesses have given Trudeau a pass.
Let me ask you, how often will this question period sit?
It looks like they worked out the social distancing minimal quorum number issue.
That's fine.
How many days a week do we expect to see Trudeau rouse himself, put on a suit, and go to work?
Well, it's still not known.
I mean, Andrew Scheer is pushing for three sittings a week.
Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are trying to push for one plus virtual sittings to augment it.
But the problem is that those virtual sittings don't exist yet.
We don't have the capability or the setup to do it.
So it's all fine and dandy in the future.
But I don't want it to be an excuse that the Liberals can use to say, all right, we're going to do one and two virtual sittings when we get the virtual sittings up and running.
And then that comes, you know, sometime, I think, in May of 2047.
So the reality here is that the only way to guarantee there will be this check and balance is to do in-person sittings.
But so far, the parties have not yet agreed to the when and the how and the how often.
Let me ask you one last question.
In that clip we played a few minutes ago of Julie Van Dusen asking Andrew Scheer, why don't you just go along with everyone else?
Why are you implying that there's something conspiratorial, some sort of coalition?
My ears perked up because I'm old enough, Andrew, to remember that in, I think it was 2008, maybe it's 2011, the Liberals, the bloc, and the NDP did in fact try and form a coalition to oust Stephen Harper, who had only won a minority government.
Yeah, that was 2008, and it's amazing how that just seems like a distant memory now that this axis of the NDP, the Liberals, and the Separatist Party coming together to try to unseat the Conservatives is now something that we're expecting.
We're now expecting some sort of collusion mentality and saying, well, but how can you take issue with that?
Now, why would those other parties be so quick to grant Trudeau a pass?
I don't think there's any chance that Canadians would support bringing down the government now and forcing another national election now.
So it's not a matter of losing a confidence vote.
So given that that's off the table, why wouldn't the Block Québécois, the NDP, and even the handful of Green MPs, why wouldn't they want more scrutiny of Trudeau?
Surely to score points from their own ideological angle.
Why are they not wanting to save?
Well, look, I think that the Bloc knows it's never going to form government.
The NDP knows it's never going to form government.
The Green Party, they might think they're going to form government, but they understand that that's not imminent at the time now.
So I think for a lot of these people, they know that the best chance they have of getting what they want, of getting the money, getting the programs, getting the taxing and the spending, is from the liberals.
So I do think there is either an implicit or perhaps an explicit agreement between these parties and the liberals that we're going to keep pushing whatever you're advancing and whatever you're championing because these parties know that their agenda, the only thing that they can hope for is that Justin Trudeau will go along with it.
They know that in the event where the conservatives are in power or the conservatives have a perceived moral high ground, the bloc is not getting the concessions that they need.
The liberal or the NDP is not getting the concessions they need.
And I think they know their only hopes of advancing their agenda are by appeasing the liberals.
You know what?
I think that's an excellent answer.
And I see that Trudeau and his Ilker are already talking about.
And certainly the Greens are most explicit saying, well, let's keep doing some of the things we're doing now.
And Trudeau has said, when we come back online, we'll have to have a green economy.
So I think you can see the secret deals, or it doesn't even have to be secret, just the subconscious.
I'll throw you a bone, Green Party.
I'll throw you a bone, NDP.
Hey, Block Québécois, I promise I'll finish off the oil patch.
Fighting to Protect Liberties00:02:42
Just stay calm and quiet.
You can already see Trudeau absorbing their agendas in return for their compliance.
Very interesting.
Listen, thanks very much for watching Question Period and giving us the report.
And I want to give a shout out one more time to your website where folks can sign up for your podcast.
It's AndrewLawtonshow.com.
Thanks, my friend, and stay healthy and stay safe out there.
Yeah, you too.
Thanks very much for having me on.
All right, our pleasure.
There's our friend, Andrew Lawton, and it's good to see he's working so hard, holding the government to account.
One of the few good guys out there not taking a dime from Trudeau.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue Friday about fighting to protect civil liberties lands rights.
Do you actually think the government will let us go back to the freedoms we had before the panic, give up all that control?
There's a bigger force behind all this global panic.
Well, that's the battle, my friends.
And the battle is on now.
We're going to do our best here.
Maybe you can help.
But the answer is it is not yet determined how this will go.
We're going to do our best to make sure we go back to civil liberties.
Paul writes, if we're ever going to come out of this, it will be because of the provinces.
The Trudeau liberals would keep us in lockdown forever if they thought they could get away with it.
Absolutely, because that's the globalist authoritarian way.
And Trudeau sort of likes the emergency.
He doesn't have to go to work any day.
He can hang out at his cottage, a 22-room house.
And you see him fighting hard.
He doesn't want to even go to question period.
Yeah.
Trudeau and his people will do just fine out of this, believe me.
On my interview with Lauren Gunter, Bruce writes, Lauren is correct.
It's time to start reopening places.
Protect seniors, but let schools and businesses reopen.
If people are kept under house arrest, there's going to be an explosion of anger.
Well, that's the thing.
I think that people are relieved that it's not a mass casualty event.
I mean, we're not quite at 2,000 deaths in the whole country.
That's still a very large number.
Obviously, no one wants any deaths.
But that's not 20,000 or 200,000, as some models predicted.
So people realize it's not a panic like they were told.
And people are also detecting more and more, I think, that this disease attacks certain kinds of people, older people, not younger people, people with pre-existing health conditions.
So if you're a 25-year-old healthy person who's out of work, it doesn't make a lot of sense for you to remain out of work because a 75-year-old in an old folks' home might be in jeopardy.
I think it's going to be very interesting days ahead.
Brunswick Fight Back00:00:22
And we have our role with fightthefines.com.
That's where we're going to go to work.
I should tell you, we already have seven clients in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick.
And we're going to fight back.
All right, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.