Keith Wilson, QC, leads a federal court challenge on September 17th against Trudeau’s suspended unvaccinated travel ban, arguing its potential reinstatement under the Aeronautics Act violates Section 6 mobility rights. Cross-examined witnesses—including Health Canada’s Dr. Larenko (admitting vaccines were experimental) and Transport Canada’s Ms. Little (excluding compassionate exemptions)—undermine government claims. Meanwhile, PPC leader Maxime Barnier announces a September 21st lawsuit with Brian Pickford, citing constitutional freedoms and vaccine risks, while criticizing Poilievre’s late shift on mandates. The case tests judicial independence amid COVID-era overreach, with a decision expected in two weeks. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, a feature interview with Keith Wilson, the lawyer for the Justice Center of Constitutional Freedoms, who's in federal court tomorrow on behalf of his clients, including Brian Petford, the former premier, arguing against Justin Trudeau's ban on unvaccinated people flying.
Now, that ban has been suspended, at least temporarily.
Who knows, maybe longer.
But the federal government wants the whole lawsuit thrown out, saying, well, it's no longer relevant.
That hearing is tomorrow.
I'll talk to Keith about what to expect.
But first, let me invite you to subscribe to Rebel News Plus.
That is the video version of this podcast.
And it's eight bucks a month.
You get my weeknight show.
It's 20 of those a month plus 16 other shows.
We've got four other weekly shows.
That's 36 episodes a month for just eight bucks.
I think it's a bargain.
But support us because I want you to know we only get money from our viewers.
We do not get money from the government.
So we rely on you to stay independent.
Please consider subscribing for that reason alone to help us stay free.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
All right.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, a feature interview with Keith Wilson, the lawyer going to federal court tomorrow to fight against Trudeau's suspended ban on unvaccinated travelers.
September 20th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Well, we've interviewed our next guest several times before Keith Wilson, King's Counsel, is a senior lawyer from Alberta who works with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
One of the cases we focused on with him is the case of Brian Peford and other plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit on constitutional grounds challenging Trudeau's ban on unvaccinated people flying in the second largest country in the world, one of the coldest countries in the world to tell people they can't fly.
They have to drive because they're unvaccinated or they can ride in a bus.
Apparently, the COVID virus knows not to attack you if you're in a bus, but it will attack you in a plane.
There's no science behind it.
It's just vengeance.
This lawsuit was filed many months ago, and it has taken for various government witnesses to answer questions under oath.
And it's on the eve of trial, but as you probably know, a few months ago, Trudeau suspended his ban on unvaccinated people flying.
And so the government is saying this lawsuit is now moot.
It shouldn't be heard at all.
But I think it's important that the lawsuit be heard in any event.
We need to know, was it legal?
Could they do it again?
I think our judges have been too deferential these last two and a half years.
So what's next is a feature interview about this subject with Keith Wilson.
And joining us now to talk about this very important court case is our friend, the lawyer who has been on the file.
Well, really, since it was filed, Keith Wilson, QC, who is in Ottawa on the eve of the federal court hearing tomorrow.
Keith, great to see you again.
Thanks for joining us.
The government does not want this to go to a hearing.
They want to stop a full trial on it.
Why would they want that?
Well, maybe they're afraid they're going to lose.
Maybe they're afraid that the court is actually going to rule that the provisions of forcing Canadians who are unvaccinated or preventing Canadians who are from unvaccinated from flying and traveling in and out of our country is unconstitutional.
The evidence that came through the processes that we've used in this case of cross-examining 16 government witnesses hasn't been very good for the government and has really revealed that the decision-making was more political than science-based.
You know, I see a theme here.
There are an enormous number of smaller level tickets that have been handed out over the past two and a half years, not just by the feds for quarantine act violations, but by the provinces and cities even.
And I see a theme because at the Democracy Fund, they're representing, I think, about 2,000 cases and the Justice Center representing an enormous number as well.
What I've observed is that the government would rather delay and delay and delay and delay so that there is no moment of truth, that they're hoping that people will either be deterred by these tickets or just pay the tickets.
They don't want to have a moment of truth where perhaps hundreds or thousands of tickets will be retrospectively declared illegal.
I think that they want to sort of get away with it without having any judicial grown-ups look things over.
Well, that's a great point.
I mean, if we're ultimately able to argue our case in court on behalf of former Premier Peckford, the last signatory to our drafter of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, who's adamant that he never envisioned that laws would be allowed to oppress a minority group or Canadians in the way that this Trudeau government has, it could have implications for those tickets.
It's clear that the federal government, the reason for the motion tomorrow is by the federal government to try and strike out our case and prevent it from being heard.
And what's really important and we'll be emphasizing tomorrow is that all the work's been done.
The amount of hours we put in, we filed 15,000 pages of evidence in our compendium.
We've cross-examined these 16 government officials and purported experts.
We presented our own expert witnesses with expert reports to expose the problems with the vaccines and the side effects of dangers to their ineffectiveness.
You know, we've all put a tremendous amount of work in.
We're ready to go.
And here the government shows up and says, no, no, Canadians, the 6 million Canadians who've been impacted and had their charter rights violated are not going to get their day in court.
Right.
Yeah, my comment about the other tickets was not that they're necessarily the same species of law, but just the same political ropodope.
If the government can just hang on and just avoid a moment of truth, it can sort of get away with things.
Now, mootness, I think a lot of people understand sort of instinctly, you know, we use the phrase that's a moot point, as in it's not a live controversy anymore.
And I can see in some ways why they would say that, because those 6 million Canadians who were essentially put on a no-fly list, I was one of them.
Well, I can fly again.
But I think the problem is we know that these lockdowns can be flipped back on like a switch.
Lockdowns were lifted and then reimposed, lifted and then re-imposed.
I think that as long as it remains a possibility, as long as the governments don't renounce it, it could come back in a heartbeat.
I mean, Trudeau has talked about the need to be, quote, up to date with your jabs.
He no longer says two jabs or three jabs.
He's got a rolling number that you can never stay current with.
I think that although it may be moot today, it may be very real and very live tomorrow.
Well, and I'm not even convinced it's moot today.
And the reason I say that is in the government press release and press conference they held in early June, where they announced that they were suspending the travel vaccine mandate.
They used the word even in the printed press release, they used the word suspend seven times.
And the Minister of Health, Federal Minister of Health, made it clear in his own words at the press conference that he would not hesitate to bring these back in.
And there's one other thing that's a detailed point that's important.
It's not like they have to call parliament into session and have an open debate about whether to bring back in the travel mandates.
That's not how this worked.
It's the Minister of Transportation in his office signing a document.
The minister has the authority, they claim, under the Aeronautics Act to do this.
So it's not like they have to go through a consultative process, a process that's intensively democratic and deliberative and discussion-based and public and transparent.
The minister could be signing the order to reinstate them right now, right this minute as the listeners are listening to this, and that's all it takes.
So there's many reasons why we say, first of all, it's not moot.
And there's some other ones too.
There's still elements of these that are in the order that are still in force.
For example, the requirement that you be disclose your private personal information about your vaccine status.
You need to disclose that when you get on an airplane to fly back into the country, because if you're not vaccinated, you have to quarantine for 14 days.
So there's still elements of the order that are in force, but more importantly, we emphasize in our written submissions and will tomorrow orally, that Canadians right now are uncertain about where they sit with this government.
They're uncertain about what the charter really means.
They're uncertain about whether they should plan trips, important trips, to see family members, to help care for family members and go to funerals and be at family members' bedside when they're dying.
And they shouldn't have that uncertainty.
We're Canadians.
Mobility is one of the most important rights under our charter.
It's one that cannot be overridden because people hear about the notwithstanding clause.
It doesn't apply to Section 6 mobility rights, just for people to be aware of that.
So this is tremendously important.
We've spent all the resources.
The legal dollars have been spent.
The hard work has been done.
We have a hearing schedule starting October 31st.
So tomorrow we're hoping to persuade the court that legally, when you look at the case law and the Supreme Court of Canada's direction on a situation like this, that we check all the boxes and this case has to go ahead.
And it's also important, I'll say one more thing, Ezra, because I know I'm running long here, but the court's brand is in trouble right now.
By that, I mean the institution of our court as one of the key elements in our democracy is not in good shape.
People's confidence in the courts, I think, is at an all-time low.
Are the courts there to be an overseer of government overreach and a protector of people's rights and freedoms?
Or are they not?
So I guess tomorrow we're going to find out.
You know, that's a great point.
You mentioned that this could be re-imposed with the signature of an anonymous bureaucrat in a closed room by himself.
Literally could be happening right now.
There are not a lot of checks and balances.
We haven't had a vigorous opposition.
All the normal checks and balances in society have failed until most recently, the leader of the opposition himself did not oppose.
The media has been a chorus cheering on the government.
The, you know, anyone who was a dissenter, say a doctor with a different opinion, would be hounded by his College of Physicians and Surgeons.
And the courts, you're so right, their brand is in trouble.
Other than the case of Arthur Pavlovsky at the Alberta Court of Appeal, I am unaware of a senior court in a substantive manner striking down any element of an important lockdown provision anywhere in the country.
I mean, you tell me if you know of one that I'm thinking of.
And our Supreme Court itself hasn't even touched the subject.
It's been two and a half years.
It's like our Supreme Court's been on vacation when we've had this civil liberties bonfire.
It really is.
There's so few checks and balances.
If we don't have the right to this trial next month, it really will feel like the whole thing's an inside job.
Agreed.
I mean, I think it's how we define ourselves as Canadians.
That's why you saw during the Trucker protest, you know, the most common reproduced sign was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Handmade signs all over the place.
But so many trucks had the charter in their window.
They had it pasted or taped to the side door, or they had blow-ups of the charter.
And it's because how we define ourselves as Canadians.
And, you know, look at who my client is: the Honorable Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfoundland, last surviving drafter and signatory of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
And as you know, because you've met him on your program, he's beside himself as to what's happened to our country and what's happened to it with charters.
So this is a real tomorrow's an important day for Canada.
You know, I mentioned how so many institutions that normally are a check on power have either been silent or egging on power.
The media are amongst the worst.
I didn't mention the historic, traditional, left-leaning civil liberties associations.
When I was a young man, I remember Alan Borvoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
He was a real classical liberal.
He was a lefty, but he loved freedom and he was always railing against authority.
I liked him.
I liked his style.
I liked the fact that he felt like a David versus Goliath.
And I didn't mind the fact that he was much to my left because I felt like he was a public-spirited man.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is an example of a group that we really could have used the last two years, but they were sleeping.
So there's the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, there's a Democracy Fund, a few cases with the Canadian Constitution Fund, CCF.
And I think I've just listed them all.
Interveners for Freedom00:08:24
Let me ask you this: has there been any interveners applying to join your case as a friend of the court?
As in, if there's an important constitutional battle, often other groups that feel like they have a stake in it will ask the judge if they can make a submission.
Your case cries out for interveners for freedom.
Can you tell me, are there any interveners in your case?
I hate to even ask if the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is one of them.
No, there's not, and they are not.
And obviously, one would expect when you look at some of the other challenges going on, you know, whether it's the judicial review applications in federal court against the invocation of the emergencies act.
You know, a number of provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, for example, initiated or intervened in those.
It's remarkable.
And I just, I wonder as to why, the most obvious one to me, I mean, the rights of Canadians who've been deprived from traveling across the country to be at the side of a dying loved one or to care for a parent or a loved one who's recovering from surgery or cancer treatment, to be at funerals and weddings and other celebratory events that are part of living a fulsome life.
Those are human rights too.
And they're not just charter rights.
Our charter is supposed to be reflective of human rights.
And it seems like the left has hijacked the human rights sphere for more abstract identity politics.
And, but, you know, thank goodness for the Democracy Fund and the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms and Canadians like the Honorable Brian Peckford and the other applicants that we represent and other lawyers are representing.
There's four cases that have been brought together that are being heard together tomorrow.
And we all have the same goal, which is to have the court rule that depriving Canadians of these rights was a gross abuse of charter rights.
It's interesting.
We have this viral hashtag going, Ezra, that I'm sure I know you're well aware of, we all are, about Trudeau Must Go.
I've been struck by the number of tweets under that hashtag by people talking about their torment, the harm they felt, the emotional disturbance they feel from not having been able to go to family, loved ones' funerals, and being able to go and care for and be at the bedside of a dying loved one.
It just people aren't, you know, that's why they post it.
That's why they'll never forget.
So we need to make sure the charter is upheld and that the court rules that this was a breach.
And that's what we intend to do tomorrow to allow us to go to the full trial of the case scheduled for October 31st.
You know, most of the lockdowns in Canada were administered by the provinces and some by cities.
The federal government didn't have a lot of jurisdiction over our day-to-day lives other than airlines, a very important one, and border issues, a very important one.
And of course, people who work for the government directly.
I say that because the airlines, that industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in Canada.
I mean, other than, I suppose, banks and tobacco companies, the airlines are every move they make.
And if they get offside with the government, they could be punished so capriciously.
I mean, we've seen it before.
The lockdown imposed the rules imposed by the feds would have killed the airlines if the government wasn't there to sort of bail them out.
So I can understand why the airlines were absolutely submissive to the government because the government has the power of life or death over them in a way that they do over so few other industries.
We don't even like, thank God, Trudeau doesn't have the control over most industries the way he does over airlines.
So I think I know the answer to my next.
So that doesn't excuse them participating so lustily, for example, in vaccine mandates for their staff.
But it might not excuse it, but it explains it.
But I wonder if anyone, put aside the airlines themselves, has anyone from the tourism industry, from the convention industry, from cross-border travel, I don't know, has anyone in the industry expressed opposition to these rules, expressed support for your lawsuit?
I mean, surely the airlines, if they were speaking in secret so Trudeau couldn't hear, surely they would say they hated being the most brutally punished industry.
Have you had any feedback from the airlines even privately?
No.
And, you know, it's interesting.
When I was approached in December to lead the legal team for the Justice Center on this, and I commend my other lawyers that have worked with me, they're phenomenal.
It was a controversial move.
I mean, there's a big shift occurring right now.
We're seeing it most manifestly in the last 72 hours with this hashtag Trudeau Must Go movement of people standing forward.
It was a risky move for me to stand up and say, yeah, I'll be the face of this and I'm going to take this on.
So I think the industry groups and all the tourism industry groups had their head down and were afraid to stick their head out of the trench and join the battle.
Because obviously we know now that they are raising concerns and they're being very vocal about the harm.
You know, the businesses at Niagara Falls and other tourist destinations in close proximity to the border are hurting badly.
That's widely known.
They're pressuring their politicians on both sides of the border.
And then resort towns like Banff and Jasper, close to my home in Alberta, are hurting badly because Europeans and other travelers, they don't want to do the arrive can.
They don't want to quarantine.
It's ridiculous.
The evidence was so clear in the cross-examination phases when we were going after the witnesses for the federal government that they openly admitted that these were the measures to require vaccination for travel in Canada, not just for Canadians, but for tourists and others and workers coming into our country were the most restrictive than any other G7 country.
Other developed world countries in the world, similar to Canada, did not at any time take these measures.
We're unique, just like right now, for those who've traveled, discovered they had to put a mask on as soon as they entered Canadian airspace, because you know it's about the science, right?
Like the virus knows that you've crossed a geopolitical boundary.
Really smart virus.
I'm being sarcastic, obviously.
So no, those groups didn't come forward.
I think they're vocal now because we're in a different time.
I think the tide's turning and people are more comfortable speaking up, but they certainly weren't in the early days.
Yeah.
I should point out that WestJet's new CEO, who's only been on the job less than a year, I think, seems to have a courage to him.
And I think it's because he comes from abroad.
He's not a Canadian.
He hasn't been taught the passive, obedient Canadian corporate mindset.
I see him tweeting about he wants to end the mask rule.
Like he's focused on masks.
And again, there's a guy listening to his customers as opposed to listening just to Trudeau.
I'm surprised he hasn't been ordered to shut up by his board, who should properly be terrified by the government.
But let me come back to the point you've made twice now.
You have done so much preliminary work examining under oath the government witnesses, the people who built this flight ban.
You say you cross-examined 16 government witnesses.
Can you tell for our viewers, I mean, that's, and you mentioned the 15,000 pages of records, what were some of the most interesting or revealing or damning admissions that you were able to extract from these government witnesses?
Phase Three Trial Controversy00:05:44
Because I don't think that's been widely covered.
I think Rupa Subramania covered some of them, and she's an excellent independent reporter.
But I don't think that the media party, as I called them, has been that interested in this lawsuit.
Think a former premier, the last surviving signer of the Constitution, you'd think every word Brian Peckford would say would be on the front page of the news, but because he's a contrarian, they pretend he doesn't exist.
Tell me some of the most interesting admissions by the government witnesses.
Well, one would be Dr. Larenko, who is the most senior official at Health Canada.
Paragraph five of her affidavit reads that I am the government official who approved the COVID vaccines.
So she's the equivalent of the head of the FDA.
And what I had to do to get her to confirm that the vaccine that has been applied and injected into many millions of Canadians is an experimental drug is I first asked her to go over the stages of testing before she would approve, for example, the Shingles vaccine.
And I walked her through all the steps.
And at the end, she gets to the point where, and did it have to go through a phase three trial on humans before you approved it for general use in the general population?
Yes.
Did the same thing for the pneumonia vaccine?
I did the same thing for every current modern vaccine I could think of.
And then I did the same steps with her for the COVID vaccine.
And when I got to phase three trial question, she said no.
So the phase three trial was never done.
And it's actually happening right now on millions of Canadians across this country that have been double or triple or quadruple vaccs.
But could you imagine agreeing to be part of a phase three trial for the pneumonia vaccine?
A phase three trial, for those who don't know, that's basically when you move from experiments on animals, I guess, to experiments on people.
Is that what you mean by a phase three trial?
That's right.
So the phase two and the phase three are on humans.
And but could you imagine volunteering for that?
They'd sit you down and they'd explain to you, this is experimental.
You're going to be a subject in our phase three trial.
Does anybody who went and got the vaccine recall being sat down and told that they were about to become a subject in a phase three trial?
That's why in our pleadings, in our court documents, we refer to it as experimental because Dr. Lorenko confirmed under oath that no phase three was completed on the COVID vaccines before the vaccine was made available for general use.
You know what she says is she says, but, oh, we changed the approval process.
We create, they call it the new pathway approach, which doesn't have the phase three.
So the other thing that was really remarkable was Dr. Waddell, who is the chief epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency of Canada, when I noticed in the written recommendations in their evidence, their exhibits, that to Transport Canada, that there was no recommendation for vaccinating air travelers as a mitigation strategy.
So I'm sitting there going, could this be right?
Is it the case that the Public Health Agency of Canada did in fact not even recommend vaccination of air travelers as a mitigation strategy?
So I put it to her under cross-examination and she agreed.
I said, but you know, the truth is, madam, or doctor, rather, that you did not recommend vaccination of air travelers as a mitigation strategy for COVID, correct?
And she said yes.
And she went on to add that basically, I can't remember precise words, but the gist of it, transcripts are available publicly, was that the scientific evidence didn't support it.
There were a number of other shocking moments in the testimony.
One last one I'll give to make it three is Ms. Little, who is the lead of the COVID recovery team at Transport Canada, where she included a PowerPoint slide in exhibit E to her affidavit, slide 15.
I was just reviewing that.
And it clearly states that they deliberately decided to deprive Canadians of their ability to go care for loved ones, provide care, compassionate travel.
It was a conscious decision to exclude as an exception, so not create an exception for compassionate travel.
So they made a decision, and I cross-examined her on this under oath, that they contemplated the harm that would be caused to thousands, if not more, of Canadians by depriving them from being at the bedside of a dying loved one or going to funerals, weddings, etc.
And that was that's abhorrent.
And I've said that under oath or while I was cross-examining that I find that deeply offensive, that our government officials knowingly made that decision.
And that was part of the briefing document that went to the minister and the assistant deputy minister.
I can't recall if it went to the prime minister's office or not, but I do recall with certainty that she testified that this briefing document where this was written was given to the minister and formed part of the decision.
So those are some three highlights.
Punitive Approach to Unvaccinated00:06:07
Well, I think that rings true.
Trudeau has such a vengefulness in anyone who dared to remain unvaccinated, dared to ignore him, ought to be punished.
There's a punitive approach to him.
He takes these things personally and he knows that if you're unvaccinated, the likelihood of you voting for him is near zero.
So what does he care if he denies you a last moment with a dying loved one?
That he knows he's not going to hurt his people.
And I think he has a sociopathic approach.
That is not a bug.
That is a feature.
That is not an accident.
That is on purpose.
I'm sure of it.
The fact that Canada alone has these rules in the whole world is bizarre.
Let me ask you about the hearing tomorrow.
The federal government is applying to the federal court to have a judge throw this out as being moot.
They're saying, strike this claim out.
It's not alive anymore, even though, as you say, it's only been, quote, suspended, not deleted.
And the government certainly can't be trusted not to bring it in again.
Do we know who the judge is who's hearing it?
Let me start that way.
It's a single judge on the federal court.
Is that right?
And can you tell us who that judge is if you know who?
There's been some indication as to who it might be.
It's always been my practice, maybe I'm unusual this way, to not focus on that at all.
What I focus on is when I get into that courtroom, I look that judge in the eye and I talk to them.
That's what I'll do tomorrow.
I don't care.
You know, we'll get the judge we'll get.
I suspect it'll be a very senior judge, given the publicity and the political significance of this case.
But whoever it is, I will do the best that I can as a litigator to reach into their soul and to their legal mind and try and get those two things to meld together for the right result.
I'm sure you will.
I'm just reminded that an earlier constitutional challenge before the federal court had to deal with these airport quarantine hotels.
I don't know if you remember, but a while back when you landed, you had to go to a hotel at your own expense for up to three days, and they were thousands of dollars, bizarrely.
We had actually one of our former reporters, he came back to Canada.
He was forced to go to the hotel quarantine.
He counted he had 14 interactions with different people in the hotel quarantine as opposed to just getting in his car and driving home by himself.
So there were some interesting litigants, including our former reporter.
And the judge, if I recall who heard it, was no one less than the chief judge of the federal court.
So they put the absolute top dog on it.
And I thought, okay, they're taking it very seriously.
Well, yeah, or they were putting the most political guy on it because not only did he rule that there was not only did he rule that this was fine, this was legal, he said it didn't even amount to a charter breach that could be justified.
As you know, in Canada, there's sort of a two-step.
Was your right infringed to begin with?
And if it was, is that demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society?
The cases almost always turn on that second part because yes, the government did something to you, but can they explain it as reasonable or proportional?
This chief judge said, no, no, no, you weren't even detained.
You were not even detained because it was only three days and it was in a hotel.
And I'm stunned by that decision.
And I think that's under appeal right now.
And I'm not asking you to badmouth any judge, but I'm just saying the more senior the judge, the more experienced, but also in that case, the more political.
I am still, every time I think of that ruling, that the federal court said is not, you are not detained, even if you were ordered to go to a detention.
I think, as you say, the court's reputation has taken a bruising over the last two years as well as any other.
You don't have to respond to that because I know you want to be.
Well, let me, though, please.
I'll tell you this.
In the last several weeks, actually, number of many months, the first time I had to wear a mask, we all know how useless they are.
And it's theater.
That's what the science is.
We're not being fit tested with an occupational health and safety special regulatory regulator mask.
And I've had that done in different industrial contexts.
That's not what's happening.
We don't have these stupid things on our face that we move around and we can take down to eat and stuff.
Well, I've had to wear one to fly to Ottawa.
Well, guess where else I'm going to have to wear one?
Tomorrow in the courthouse.
You know, and that doesn't make me feel that I'm going into an impartial, open-minded environment.
When I'll say one other thing carefully and but clearly is when the chief justice of our federal court of appeal was asked to reveal the vaccination status of the judges on his bench and his staff, he declined because he said that was personal private health information.
The chief judge, justice of the federal court and the chief justice of our Supreme Court of Canada both volunteered that personal private information about health status of their judges and staff.
I think the chief justice of the federal court of appeal got it right in law and policy to not reveal that personal information.
So contextually, I have a concern that COVID has and governmental responses to it has so polarized our society that it has created some influence on the judiciary.
Court Bolts Doors Incorrectly00:03:13
But I keep going into it with optimism and good faith that we're going to get a fair and objective hearing.
And we're doing everything we can, myself and the other lawyers that will be arguing tomorrow on behalf of Canadians to try and remedy this horrific wrong that so many millions of Canadians have suffered and are fearful of experiencing again at the whim of the prime minister and his minister of transportation.
Well, we'll be live tweeting that case as we often live tweet important cases.
I think Sheila Gunread will be our reporter who specializes in that, so you can follow that here.
Also, I understand that it'll be available on a video link, but I hear that the court, we're talking about is the court neutral, that the court has bolted the doors.
Now, you correct me if I misheard this or misunderstood.
Is it a fact that the courts in Ottawa, which normally are open to the public, including the media and just interested persons, that they are bolting the doors and not allowing people in?
Did I hear that incorrectly?
No, you didn't.
I mean, I don't know if they're bolting the doors, but they're going to.
We received an email from Steve, a senior clerk of the court last week, indicating that due to the enormous amount of interest in this case, they're anticipating a sizable number of Canadians to be outside the courthouse, and they were concerned about accommodating all those people inside the courthouse, in part because they still have this social distance inside the courthouse.
So we've been advised that only ourselves as lawyers and a specific list of clients will be allowed into the courtroom, and everybody else will have to stay outside.
So it's unprecedented, as far as I'm aware, in that respect, as well.
So I get the logic.
This is perfect COVID logic.
Because so many people want to come in, no one can come in.
Because, yeah.
You know, I mean, that scares me a little bit.
Well, we'll be watching with great interest.
Do you know how many hours have been set aside for this?
And I imagine that the court will have to rule on it fairly soon because this matter was set down for trial next month, if I'm not mistaken.
So obviously they'll have to let everybody know within a month.
What's your thinking about how long this mootness hearing will go and when you'll get the judge's response?
It's too early to guess, but what do you think it might be?
Well, we're starting at 9:30, and the Attorney General's lawyers will go first, followed by myself and counsel for the other applicants.
There's four counsel in total or four pardons.
I'm optimistic we will complete the hearing tomorrow.
You know, we might run over a bit, you know, past the normal closing of the court at 4:30 and push into five or maybe six.
But I'm optimistic that we will complete the hearing tomorrow.
And then I would hope that we would get a decision sometime in the next two weeks or so as to whether or not we're going ahead.
Optimistic Pathway Forward00:05:00
And just to really emphasize, I mean, everything is done, Ezra.
All the evidence gathering, all of the pleadings, all of our legal factums are written.
Our books of authority have been filed and exchanged.
The only thing left to do on this case, I mean, like getting a new house built or a new office built.
The only thing to do is the walkthrough, like is to go to court and argue about the evidence that's before the oral phase.
So hopefully the court will make an expeditious decision in the next week or so on the application tomorrow and hopefully will reject the efforts by the federal government to block Canadians from having the federal court rule on their charter.
Yeah.
You know, I was just thinking of what a unifor Local president said when he was fired for dissenting about the entire labor union, basically the labor movement, selling out its membership and absolutely colluding with its employers in imposing vaccine requirements that were not in the collective agreements.
And I remember he ended his video by saying if the union and the company are saying the same thing, one of them is not needed.
And he was condemning Unifor for selling out its members.
You would think that if you, you know, solidarity forever, collective bargaining, but the government and the company say we want a vaccine, you just, you don't even bargain.
You just say, okay.
And I and I'm thinking of that same thing with the separation of the branches of government.
We have the legislative, which has really not been part of this at all.
They've been marginalized.
It was the executive, like you say, some first branch of government, the legislative, not even involved.
The second branch of government, you know, the cabinet and their bureaucrats, imposes ban.
So now we're looking to the third branch of government, the judiciary, to review it.
And if they choose to punt, if they choose to dodge their responsibility and say, yeah, no, we don't need to hear this because they said they're suspending it, so it probably won't come back.
You've done all that work.
Thanks for that, but we're not going to bother hearing it.
It reminds me of what that Unifor leader said.
If you got three branches of government and one of them is useless and then the other one's useless, what's even the point?
So if the court believes that it is a branch of government, if it believes it's a check and balance on the powers that be, it ought to prove it.
And if it ducks its duty here, I think that it will erode a lot of what remains of its fading credibility.
I think you're exactly right.
The brand of the courts is damaged.
Keith Wilson, QC, lawyer for Brian Pickford with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
You guys are doing great work.
Give me one last word.
Give me something more hopeful than my despondent review of the courts these past two nights.
Give me something positive to think about as we head into this hearing tomorrow.
Well, two-legged stools fall over.
That's not optimistic.
That's reality.
I think this is an opportunity for Canadians.
And why am I putting so much effort into this?
I have confidence in a system that has that separation of powers.
That's the one that served us best when you look at the comparative examples of governmental design around the world through our modern history.
And so I'm optimistic that the tide is turning.
Canadians are confident in coming forward and speaking their truth.
And I am optimistic that we will be successful and that the court will decide to take this to the final level.
And regardless of the precision of their outcome, there will be elements of the decision, win or lose, that will help illuminate the boundaries between government powers to interfere in people's freedoms and their lives.
So I think there's reason for hope.
There's a pathway that can work.
And I'm going to continue along with others like the Democracy Fund and the Justice Center, Constitutional Freedoms, and the amazing number of lawyers who've all come forward to try and restore everybody's hope and faith in our systems.
Well, I hope you're successful.
We'll be watching.
We'll be live tweeting and we'll report on the results.
Keith Wilson, KC, King's Counsel.
Great to spend some time with you and good luck tomorrow.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Stay with us.
final thoughts are next.
Hey, welcome back.
I got some letters here.
Aureksek said, Paid campaign fringe minority could Trudeau and Butts be more obtuse.
You know, it's funny because they're always on the attack.
They're perpetual campaigners.
Twitter's Control Over Information00:02:15
But part of me thinks sometimes they actually are so insulated, they really don't know anyone who has a different point of view than them because they operate in the circles of lobbyists and bureaucrats and politicians in the media party.
If they see someone dissenting, if they see someone that is not in love with Trudeau, they think that makes no sense.
That can only be explained that they are some foreign Putin operative.
They literally cannot comprehend a world when people don't see Trudeau as the sun king.
Will P says the cop, Steve Bell has drank the Kool-Aid.
You're talking about the police chief in Ottawa who basically enforced martial law as brutally as, I don't know, Eastern European countries do, and then threatened peaceful protesters.
Not just that, threatened anyone who dared to donate to the truckers, threatened to hunt them down.
He should have been fired that day, but of course, that's where policing is in Canada now.
Queen Marifa says, The very moment that I heard Elon Musk was going to buy Twitter, I instinctively said, I don't think he will, which leads me to believe this is almost like a publicity stunt for both of them.
I don't know, but I do know that the truth is stranger than fiction, and all the world is truly a stage.
I think you're right.
I think Elon Musk is a bit of an actor on that stage.
He likes being dramatic.
He likes being a little bit quirky, and I'm glad he is, frankly.
I think he did want Twitter, but I think he also wanted a better deal than maybe he offered.
And I think the fact that it's overrun by bots, as they say, by fake accounts, I think that is a factor.
I think that Twitter, its primary value, is not for freedom of information, but for control of information.
Whoever controls Twitter can throttle ideas they don't like and boost those that they do.
I think its chief value is, frankly, to people like the CIA or the Pentagon.
Their use of it as an information tool far outweighs its value to advertisers.
I don't know which side Elon Musk would have been on that, frankly.
I think he's freedom-oriented in the West, but of course, he's heavily invested in China.
He's a complicated man, and Twitter's a complicated problem.
That's our show for today.
Fighting for Freedom and Fairness00:10:00
I hope you enjoyed the feature interview with Keith Wilson.
He'll be in court tomorrow.
We'll be live blogging that, live tweeting that.
Our chief reporter, Sheila Gunread.
Until then, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.
Good night and keep fighting for freedom.
Bon journe de la monde, Tabitha Peters EC pour Rebel News.
Hi, everyone.
Tabitha Peters here for Rebel News.
On Saturday, September 17th, I attended a nationwide rally in Toronto in Queen's Park.
Leader of the People's Party, Maxime Barnier, was there.
He gave a speech.
He spoke to all of his supporters.
He took pictures, and we were able to interview him.
hear what he has to say on the Arrive Can app, Monsieur Pierre Paulievre, and what the future holds for the People's Party of Canada.
But what brings you here today amongst the people, Toronto, the rally, everything?
Yeah, my goal today, to be here, Why I'm here today is very simple.
I wanted to thank all these freedom fighters across the country and people here in Toronto that did the fight when it was very difficult, when they were calling us names and racist, xenophobe, and selfish only because we were speaking about our values and more freedom and less government in our life.
So we did that the last two years and now we are winning that battle and we were able to change the public opinion.
Yes, maybe we were a tiny minority two years ago, but now I believe that we are a majority and that's why I believe we won't have any mandates this far of this summer because these traditional politicians are doing politics not based on convictions but on a polling and focused group and they're gonna see that the majority of Canadians are fed up with that.
So I wanted to be here and tell them you know thank you but we need to fight.
We need to fight again.
There's still the Arrive Canada apps and we cannot take, we know that right now, we cannot take our freedom for granted in this country anymore.
And I want to tell them that I will always be there.
I was there in the beginning of that pandemic and you know I'm fighting for freedom, personal responsibility, respect and fairness and that's the BPC and I believe that the next election we will be ready and will increase our number of votes and we will have some candidates that will be elected in parliament and we will be able to have that freedom revolution in parliament.
Namespin India and the Liberals and these establishment politicians are telling us just move on!
Just move on!
We won't move on until we finish that fight until we will all move by.
You mentioned the Arrive Can App.
What is your comment with that still ongoing in airports in Canada?
Don't do it.
Don't download that app.
We don't know what the federal government is going with your personal information and I know that they can give you tickets about that.
But you know you must fight that.
Actually I received for maybe $15,000 of tickets the last two years.
So and I didn't pay that.
I'm fighting.
I'm fighting in the court and actually next week September 21st I'll be in the court in Ottawa with Brian Petford because you know we are challenging the government.
We understand that here in Canada we have the constitutional right to be able to travel freely across our country being vaccinated or not and that's why we are suing the federal government and that will start next week.
It's our constitutional right to be able to travel freely across our country not being vaccinated.
And we are fighting for every Canadian on that.
It's crazy.
We know now we have the data, we have the statistics and we know that that virus is not deadly for the huge majority of Canadians.
If you're under 60 years old without any comorbidity, there's no risk.
Actually it's more risky to take the vaccine than COVID-19.
So let's stop all that.
But I believe that up to now we did very well with the freedom fighters and everybody that were there in the beginning and fighting and are still here.
I want to thank them because of them we were able to shift the public opinion like I said.
So the COVID government has to vaccinated Kickers if they're ready for the next shot.
No.
And 69% of them said no thanks.
What is your opinion on Monsieur Pierre Polyev now winning the Conservative Leadership Party?
Yeah, Pierre Polyev spoke like a conservative during the Conservative leadership.
Actually, if you want to be the leader of the Conservative Party, you need to speak like a Conservative, like Otul did.
Outul said, you know, I'm the true blue, and he was elected.
And I did it also in 2017 when I was running for them.
And I had 49% of the vote, but I can tell you that was the best decision in my political life to create the PPC.
And I want to thank everybody that are supporting us.
But that being said, Polyev spoke like a conservative.
He was able to be elected.
But the question is, Polyev is a carrier politician.
He was elected the first time at 25 years old.
And now he's 42 years old.
And he's an opportunist politician.
He was not with us when we needed him, when we needed the Conservative to be with us in that fight for our freedoms in May 20, in March or May 2020, because it was not popular.
So now he's speaking about freedom because we did the job, all the freedom fighters across the country, and we were able to influence Canadians and to shift the public opinion on our side.
So Polyev is speaking about that.
I'm very happy that he's speaking about freedom.
Good for him.
But we cannot trust him.
And that's why the People's Party is there and we will keep him honest.
And so I believe that he will do like Otules.
He will go to the left because there's more seat here in the GDA than in Alberta.
And he will go to the left.
And what he's doing for, for example, equalization formula.
Nothing.
He's not speaking about that.
But that's why people out west are frustrated.
And, you know, we need to have a solution for that.
And our solution is to change equalization formula to be less generous.
And the formula must be fair for everybody.
That's why we have Western alienation in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and BC.
But Polyev is not speaking about that because it's not popular.
So we cannot trust him on the real issues that are important for the future of this country.
Like the Paris Accord.
He's in favor of the Paris Accord.
Yes, he wants to impose a carbon tax, but he will impose more regulations on businesses.
That would be a cost for us.
The question is not the carbon tax.
The question is the Paris Accord.
We must withdraw from that accord.
Polyev won't do that.
So I can go on.
Mass immigration.
He's not speaking about that.
He's speaking about the housing challenges that we have.
The prices of houses is going up.
Yes, I understand that.
But that being said, he wants to impose to your municipalities how to deal with it.
He wants to interfere in provincial and municipal jurisdiction.
Life is affordable.
We'll cap spending and cut waste to reverse inflationary deficits and taxes.
That includes axing new taxes on your paycheck, gas, heat, and other essentials.
The cause of the problem is immigration, but he won't speak about that.
It's mathematical.
We have too many people that are coming here, and so they want to have a house, and I understand that.
So prices of houses is going up.
The prices are going up here downtown Toronto, in Montreal, and in Vancouver, because 40% of our immigrants are going to Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver.
And after that, people are leaving here in Toronto and Montreal, and they're going to other cities.
And prices of houses are going up in these other cities also across the country.
So the solution to that is to have sustainable immigration.
Polyev won't speak about that.
So we'll see what will happen, but you can always count on us to speak about our values and we have the right vision for this country to be freer and more prosperous.
Keep fighting!
Let's keep fighting together!
And yes, the truth will always win.
It will win.
Say so and true.
Freedom!
Last question, what's the future for the People's Party?
The future, you know, I'm very pleased what we did up to now.
It took 15 years for the Green Party to have more than 1% of the vote.
And after one year, we had 1.6% of the vote.
And after 35 years, the Greens Party had 2% of the vote.
And for us, after only four years, we had 5%.
So what is the future?
We will grow.
We are showing to these establishment politicians when we're speaking about our values openly, with passion and conviction, yes, you can grow your support.
And that's what we're doing.
From 0% when we created the party, 1.6% in 2019, 5% at the last election.
I don't know what will happen in the next one, but I can tell you we will grow.