Tom Marazzo and Keith Wilson dissect the Freedom Convoy 2022 hearings, exposing contradictions in Rob Stewart’s and Dominic Rashan’s testimonies—both denied evidence of Section 2 CSIS threats required to invoke the Emergencies Act. Marazzo highlights how the government ignored economic disruptions from COVID mandates (e.g., $60B tourism losses) while targeting peaceful protesters, including those displaying Canadian flags abroad as "desecrated." Legal counsel Brendan Miller confirmed no justification existed for the act’s use, with cabinet relying on unproven claims. The episode reveals systemic overreach, questioning whether Trudeau’s actions were politically motivated rather than legally sound. [Automatically generated summary]
At Rebel News, we're not afraid to have dangerous discussions and we want to have them with you at our upcoming Rebel Live events for Cin Toronto, November 19th, and again in Calgary, Saturday, November 26th.
Just go to rebelnewslive.com to get your tickets today.
All right.
Hello, everyone.
Good evening, everyone.
This is Monday, November 14th here at the Ottawa Rebel News headquarters.
We're having some fun prior to starting.
I am joined to my right here by Celine Gallas, a fellow Rebel News colleague.
That's where you want to meet to co-host the live stream.
Celine, how are you doing?
I'm doing very good.
Today was very exciting.
We're very happy to break this down for you.
Yeah, lots of breaking ground stuff today.
Yeah, definitely an exciting day.
It was so, so great to follow.
We heard from the LL LRB, the CSIS, LRB, which is Liberal Research Bureau.
Anyways, such a great day.
Definitely stay tuned for that to see everything that went on today.
And I am here to my left with Tom Morazzo.
Tom, emergency, no, not emergency, like Freedom Convoy intern slash key figure.
Tom, how are you doing?
You forgot off-grid.
I live off-grid.
Off-grid.
How are you doing, Tom?
I'm good.
I'm good.
So just for people that haven't followed us in the past few weeks, if you haven't, make sure to go back and check all of our episodes.
Tom, who are you?
Oh, boy.
You know what?
I'm not going to answer that question because I've done about 50 or 60 interviews in the last few months.
And I think I answered that.
I don't know how many times.
And I guess at the end of the day, if your viewers don't know who I am by now, I probably shouldn't be on your show because you've been my opening act for like three weeks now.
This is true.
This is true.
Let's try to do our best presentation of Tom Morazzo.
Told that I have to present the people that come on the live stream.
So Tom Morazzo, if you go on LinkedIn, it's written that he's an intern with Freedom Convoy 2022.
He was one of the spokesperson of Freedom Convoy.
He had some talks with the Ottawa Police, with some people, some officials in the police.
He was there basically with Tamara Leech, Chris Barber, Danny Bulford, and other key figures of the Freedom Convoy throughout his duration when he was here in Ottawa.
Does that correct?
That's perfect.
Perfect.
All right.
And also, as you can see, Tom is dressed pretty well.
I'm also dressed well.
So if you want to comment down below in the chat, who is dressed better between me and Tom Morazo?
That's the reason why we're both wearing a full suit and a tie.
So if you want to make this, you know, if you want to let us know who is dressed better between me and Tom Morazzo, you can always put it down in the chat down below.
All right, before we get to what went on today, a couple of announcements.
If you want to help us fund our work here in Ottawa, if you find value in our content, you can go ahead and visit truckercommission.com and there you can donate as much as you can, $5, $10, as much as you're able to.
Second thing, Rebel News Live.
You've heard me talk about it a lot in the past few weeks.
It is happening this Saturday in Toronto and on the 25th.
Well, right when the commission ends.
No, the 26th.
So a day after the commission ends in Calgary, is that right?
I believe it's on the 25th, but it is in Calgary.
And you can still go get a ticket to listen to some of your favorite speakers.
We're going to have Tamara Leach.
We're going to have Derek Fildebrand, Andrew Lawton.
We have huge people from Rebel like Ezra Levant, Sheila Gunri.
So you can come meet us, mingle with us.
Go get a ticket at RebelLive.com.
Exactly.
So yeah, either 25th or 26th, you can see it at RebelNewsLive.com, as Celine just mentioned.
RebelnewsLive.com if you want to meet all these great people.
All right, let's get back to today.
So today, who did we see at the commission?
So we had two testimonies.
It was kind of like a panel.
They were both giving their testimonies at the same time.
So we had Rob Stewart appointed Deputy Minister for Public Safety in Canada.
And then we also have Dominic Rashan.
I'm saying this incorrectly.
Anyways, he's the senior assistant deputy minister for the national cybersecurity branch of the public safety for public safety in Canada.
Yeah.
So their testimonies were very, very interesting.
Again, just like to point out, right at the bath, they did all, both of them agreed that the Emergencies Act was helpful in some ways, but not necessary as we've heard.
So now that that's out of the way, what we can, yeah, here we go.
We can throw to this clip right away then.
Yeah, I'll take a look at some of what they had to say.
Yeah.
Okay, well, we can actually take a look.
Well, just to begin the live stream, take a look at clip number one, where an official from Public Safety Canada testified the Commission that the intel that he had led him to believe that the Freedom Convoy would be a peaceful protest straight from the get-go.
So let's take a look at that.
The expectation that I had was that the convoy would park and stay for the weekend and leave on the Sunday.
Okay.
Mr. Roshan, is that your expectation?
As far as the Ottawa situation was, yes.
And we were also watching to see whether other protests that were bubbling across the country would also, but the expectation was they would all be peaceful and they would last for that weekend.
You know, transport obviously had some concerns with regard to various protests happening and how it might affect the flow of traffic, how it might affect supply chain issues from a transport perspective.
Canada Border Services Agency, I think, started to ask questions about particular ports of entry.
And so from a critical infrastructure perspective, and this is really why GOC was involved, is to make sure that we were mindful that there could be impacts to critical infrastructure.
And as a result, we were being watchful.
You know, we heard a lot from these two people throughout the day.
I think, you know, as much as we get credit to the testimony, I think we should give as much credit to Brendan Miller and Rob Kittrich, Brendan Miller from Foster LLP, who's representing Freedom Corp, and Rob Kittrich, I don't know how to further excellent cross-examination.
So what was your main takeaway from those two's testimony?
Like in the clip that we just saw?
Well, the clip or just overall.
It was great.
I mean, it confirms what we already knew, but now 100% since this week has started.
And, you know, we've had so many testimonies that we've seen over the course of, it's been like, what, about three weeks that this has been going on?
There you go.
Four weeks.
Like, that's a lot of people that have testified.
So we're kind of, we're moving over closer towards like the very, very end.
So for sure, I mean, we can still speculate on it, but I think 100% now, this points to that it was the liberal ministers and it was Justin Trudeau that invoked the Emergencies Act, despite the fact that they had pretty much every single intelligence source and agency in Canada telling them that they should be doing the exact opposite, showing them different ways, negotiation methods, anything that would not actually cause panic, right?
Like I think it's pretty simple.
I think it was common sense, but they chose to do it anyway.
So I'd like to know why, you know, that that hot potato has now been thrown in that direction.
We've gotten two more people out of the way.
So it's just this process of elimination was so tedious at first.
And now I'm looking so forward to hearing the ministers testify.
It'll definitely be interesting.
And I think, you know, I always find it interesting how the lawyer for Peter Slowly, Council for Peter Slowly, brought up the fact that as a police officer, as a police service, your first method to handle a protest is negotiation and de-escalation.
And we keep hearing that all levels of government were refusing to meet with the protester, were refusing to literally even negotiate here their concerns, hear the concerns of thousands of Canadians who were fed up with the COVID-19 mandates and that travel to Ottawa to make their disagreement known.
Tom, what do you think?
So when I watch Brendan's cross-examination for Miller Time, of course, that's always the best part of the entire event.
But I have to say, maybe, I don't know, because I think Brendan's family was in town this weekend.
So we got to see a much better, brighter, pumped up version of Brendan.
But I have to say, of all of the cross-examinations that he's done today, I think was a new level of Brendan Miller.
Agreeing Disagreements00:10:11
The way he had framed his questions, like he started to question the two officials on what they believed was suspicion.
And there was another legal term that he used it.
And they were very unclear about what those definitions were.
You know, suspicion where you can take actual law enforcement action.
And they said they were kind of confused by it.
But then as he went on more, he was talking about, you know, he was leading them down this path.
And you could see that he was setting the trap.
Because I've noticed that Brendan likes to set these traps.
And he's setting these traps.
And just when you thought he was going to do it, he's like, you agree with this, you agree with that, you agree with that.
And then he said, okay, so you agree that it wasn't necessary.
And then he said, no, I don't agree.
It's like, you want your cake, but you're not, you know, like, what's the saying?
You want your cake and eat it too?
It was really frustrating to listen to that witness towards the end because basically what he was saying is like, okay, CSIS didn't want it.
We've known that the RCMP didn't want it.
Even under Section 12 of the CESIS Act, it didn't fit the parameters, didn't fit the parameters for section two.
So you had nothing.
But then at the end, he says, well, don't you agree that the government never met the threshold?
So who were they listening to?
And they said, no cabinet wanted it.
So then Brendan says, to your knowledge, is Justin Trudeau trained in law enforcement or intelligence?
And he said, well, I don't speak to that.
And Brendan said, I can tell you he's not.
He was a drama teacher, right?
Well, you know, when you look at the CSIS action, a threat to the security of Canada means espionage or sabotage.
It means foreign influence activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person.
See, activities within or relating to Canada directed towards or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state.
And finally, activities directed towards undermining by coverage, unlawful acts or directed towards or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction of property and such.
So I don't think that the Freedom Convoy met that threshold.
And I think that that is what we're seeing through evidence that is brought up by Brendan Miller, that is brought up by counsel for the GCCF, Council, for the Democracy Fund, utter pro-Freedom Council.
We're not seeing that these thresholds were met.
Well, you know, and we heard very early when the two witnesses got there, there was the difference between groups in the government that consume intelligence and then the other groups that produce the intelligence.
And you have to be careful of who is producing and who is consuming it.
And my impression was that there was a group that was producing intelligence, but the group that was actually consuming it was ignoring it.
And I think that's just clearly because they didn't like the answer.
They didn't like that the leader of the CESIS.
I can't remember his title or his name.
I remember reading it.
Vigno, I think is his name.
Yeah.
Basically recommended.
We heard this testimony last week, and then we got to review it again.
That he was saying, if you go ahead and do this, what you're going to end up doing is getting the negative or the opposite reaction of what you want, which is now you're going to inspire an IMVE, an ideologically motivated, violent extremism, right?
You're going to actually inspire that.
And then you're going to possibly make the lone wolf scenario something to start to have to consider.
And so when you heard that recommendation, and then Brendan brought it back to them and said, hey, what about this?
And it's like they're agreeing, they're agreeing, they're agreeing.
And then you get to the one-yard line and they're kind of like, no, I don't agree.
Yeah.
You just contradicted everything that you just walked through with Brendan.
Yeah, well, that's why it always is contradictions.
All right.
Well, thanks for that deep analysis, lawyer, lawyer Marazzo, King's Counsel, Tom Morazzo.
All right, let's take a look at clip number seven where, well, we've been talking about Miller time, Brendan Miller cross-examining Rob's tour.
Let's take a look at how that went.
Once Bureau or agency or law enforcement agency told the government, here's the evidence of reasonable and probable grounds or reasonable grounds of a Section 2 CSIS Act threat.
And you know, I take it now because it's advised to you that that's required to invoke the Emergencies Act.
It's in the documents.
You were advised of that.
Yes.
Right.
So what agency gave you the evidence and the intelligence that said, hey, we have reasonable grounds of a Section 2 CSIS Act threat?
There wasn't one, was there?
So let me explain.
Nobody bringing advice to the table other than CSIS is assessing against that threat.
Nobody advising the cabinet.
The cabinet is making that decision.
And their interpretation of the law is what governs here and the advice they get.
And their decision was, evidently, that the threshold was met.
Well, I interpreded that I'm allowed to kill you.
That's how I interpret the law.
That's really what makes something illegal or illegal.
What did you think of his cross-examination, Brendan Miller?
I think it's painful to watch them squirm.
Like that silence was, it was so loud in my ears.
It just, oh, it like irks me.
But again, that's what you get when Brendan Miller walks up to the stand.
You just know, like, that's why it's literally a huge topic on Twitter.
Every time it's Miller time, people are like zoned in, honed in, because they know that he's about to drop a huge truth bomb and that something crazy is going to be unveiled.
It's nothing that we didn't maybe already, you know, interpret because of what information has come out already, but the silence.
Yeah, no, it's definitely a great thing.
Last week was last week was calmer.
Yes, definitely.
It had a little bit, it was still a super interesting week.
And we heard some great testimony and some great evidence was presented.
For instance, the Kootzbar blockade were the Kutz border blockades were dealt with prior to the EA being involved in the US.
And so was the one at Windsor.
Yeah, exactly.
So, you know, we saw that last week, but it was still a calmer week.
But I can say that I have under good authority that this week is going to be a lot more interesting.
It's going to be, it's going to be very great to follow.
Tom, what did you make of his testimony, this response, basically saying that they didn't receive any intel from any actual authority saying that it should be invoked?
Yeah.
And you're right about that silent moment.
I remember that silent moment.
And I wasn't looking and I had to look up and I'm like, that's weird.
Painful.
It was painful, that silence, right?
And, you know, it's remarkable because they're talking about the intelligence and the law enforcement agencies within the country.
But somehow cabinet knew better.
Yeah.
Right.
They blatantly disregarded the advice and the access, their ability to be the consumers of that intelligence.
But because they didn't like the answer, they went a different route.
Yeah.
And I think we're going to find out when they testify that it's going to be really probably, they're going to be hard pressed to justify it.
Well, think about it too.
Like you have two deputy ministers that are serving two ministers, right?
100% from the liberal cabinet who have just said today, 100% that they advised against invoking the emergency act.
These two people, it was Stewart and Rohan.
I cannot pronounce his name.
But when you have that and it's so in front of you, it just, I can't wait to see what it's going to be like next week.
Like it's, I'm not sure what sort of excuses they're going to have.
Again, this has just been a process of elimination.
And as I suspected, but now I can confirm that.
Like these, even their own deputy ministers were like, hey, we don't have to hit the panic button.
We can certainly do these other tactics instead.
We have XYZ in our arsenal, in our toolbox, et cetera, to use instead of just hitting the Emergencies Act button.
And they still chose to go forward with it.
So again, I'm not sure what sort of excuses they're going to have.
Yeah, it'll be almost impossible for the Liberal cabinet who's testifying next week to actually find a proper justification for the use of the Emergency Act, especially when Brendan Miller starts cross-examining them.
And we even saw that later.
That would be great.
And we even saw some of it later today too when some evidence was presented by Rob Kittridge about the LRB, the Liberal Research Bureau.
Now, I just want to wait.
We have Keith Wilson in the background.
I want to wait until he comes on to go into that a little bit deeper because he's actually the king's counsel and like Tom.
I just look like one.
Exactly.
Even though I said that Tom is the king's counsel earlier.
But we saw some great evidence presented today by the GCCF in relation to the LRB.
All right, let's look a little bit deeper into Stewart's testimony once again.
Let's take a look at clip number five, where it's where the deputy mean, the public safety deputy minister was concerned that invoking DEA could potentially provoke the freedom of convoy protesters to be even more violent.
War Measures and Protests00:05:12
Well, not even more violent, to actually become violent because they weren't violent initially.
Let's take a look at that.
Clip number five.
I found the pros and cons of using the emergencies act.
And one of the concerns that I had at the time was of the potential for serious violence.
So in fact, one of the reasons to invoke the act was also a concern in terms of what happens when you invoke it.
And if it were to lead people to become violent, then that would be an undesirable outcome.
So that was just one of the many considerations we were discussing.
So essentially, it might do more harm than good by inciting rather than calming.
That's right.
Wow.
It's incredible.
Every time I hear it, I'm like, it's that much more real.
Like, I joke about it, but you know, we literally hear this from every single testimony.
It doesn't matter what they say, that even in cross-examination, it doesn't matter what they say to try and make that entire statement seem less than it is.
Every single person has agreed that it could have been helpful or was helpful in some way, but absolutely not necessary to invoke a counter-terrorist act.
What was it?
The War Measures Act is what it was called.
The War Measures Acts.
These were peaceful protesters that came to protest lawfully, peacefully in Canada's capital.
What more?
What more can there be?
Really?
It's incredulous, really.
It's not even the first time that we hear it, that it could incite violence within the protests.
It's not the first time we were in the city.
They were warned by CISIS, they were worn by the RCMP.
Like these are huge, huge, like intelligence ops that provided this information weeks, even weeks leading up towards the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
So I'm not, again, it's just incredible to me.
Same thing over and over again.
It just reaffirms once again that it was not necessary, that it could actually provoke violence when there was no violence at the beginning.
You mentioned the War Measures Act.
The only times in history where these legislatures have been used is during World War I, World War II, the FLQ crisis.
Not the Freedom Convoy doesn't even match any of those.
Of course not.
But they're going to make them out to be similar.
Yeah, it's unbelievable.
I think Justin Trude actually thought he could equate the Freedom Convoy to these crises.
Tom?
Well, you know, if we look at right across the board, all of the different socioeconomic differences amongst the people that attended the convoy.
We had doctors, we had lawyers, we had veterinarians, we had carpenters, we had electricians, we had all walks of life from every province.
We had the most phenomenal sample of Canadians that all, you know, came to Ottawa for that protest.
And so for the general public out there that is against the convoy, it's very neat and tidy if you can put them all into a box as a certain small percentage or fringe minority sector of our society.
But in this case, you can't do that.
It was all of Canada that came to Ottawa.
It was the truckers that inspired or gave everybody like me, a former military guy, the opportunity to come to Ottawa.
So the truckers were the ones that were, you know, they lit the spark, but it was all of Canada that came to Ottawa.
And so what you're seeing is this kind of narrative where it's better to put them all into one little container.
So it's easier to frame them as being this fringe minority of bad people.
But we know this when we hear the testimony that they can't make that argument, right?
It just doesn't, it doesn't equate in any way.
And so it's really nice to see that they're admitting certain things, but again, this is a lot of, this is also a court of public opinion.
You know, the public gets to watch this and see the evidence for this themselves, hear the testimony, and make a decision about the convoy.
But I think it's obviously clear it was never required.
Yeah.
It was never required.
Of course, it was never required.
And even he testified to it today, Rob Stewart.
When Rob Kinrich asks him, Do you agree with me that it was helpful but not necessary?
As many witnesses had testified prior to today, he said, Yeah, it was useful.
He agreed with Kinrich's statement.
We keep seeing it over and over again.
It's great.
And you talked about the Court of Public Opinion.
I agree with you.
Even today, we saw the NDP put out a press release saying that they would like to see an independent inquiry into the federal COVID-19 measures that have been taken throughout the pandemic.
You know, I think it's a little bit odd to hear that considering that Jack Mead has been following Trudeau in every single move he made, but I think it still shows that while the NDP continues to support Trudeau, they might see a political opportunity.
Freedom Fun Fest00:05:40
Yeah, I just wrote that earlier today.
I think they might see a political opportunity to go against Trudeau, seeing how the inquiry is going.
And now they're asking for an independent inquiry into the federal COVID-19 response by the liberal government.
Very interesting.
Tom, your thoughts on that.
And afterwards, we'll let you go and we'll bring in Keith Wilson.
Yeah, I think what you're seeing is another example of buyer's remorse with the NDP sort of associating themselves with Trudeau.
But Mr. Singh recently said, no matter what the outcome of this is, he's still going to maintain his relationship with the federal liberals and keep the coalition going strong.
So he's going to, he's perfectly happy to trample on civil liberties for dental care, for dental work.
But I think he's playing both sides of the fence here.
It's really what he still is.
Obviously, like he's hedging his bets is what he's doing.
Of course.
Well, thanks so much for coming on, Tom.
Great suit once again.
Great, great side at your word today.
And we look forward to seeing you tomorrow.
I think Keith is going to break the tie.
We'll see.
All right.
Stay tuned, everyone.
We'll go on a short break.
When we come back, we'll have Freedom Convoy lawyer Keith Wilson, King's Council, join us on the live stream.
Stay tuned.
Now, Rebel Live is an annual event we used to put on before the man, or was it the COVID Karen, made us shut it down during the pandemic years?
It is a freedom fun fest, if you will.
All the freedom fighters you've grown to know and love over the years, they're going to be speaking at the Toronto and Calgary events.
The Toronto event is on November 19th.
That's a Saturday, and it will feature the likes of Dr. Julie Panessi, Archer Polowski, Tamara Leach, and all your favorite rebels, including yours truly.
I'll be the MC that day, Sheila Gunread, and of course, the big boss man himself, Ezra Levant.
Now, Saturday, November the 26th, we're bringing Rebel Live to Calgary.
And those aforementioned speakers will be there.
And She-Ra will be the MC for that event.
You don't want to miss it.
It's an all-day freedom fest.
I know there are certain would-be conservative leaders that think freedom is overrated.
You know, we don't think that way.
I don't think you think that way.
So if you want to get a ticket, please go to the website.
They are going fast.
Go to rebelnewslive.com.
That's rebelnewslive.com.
Get your orders in.
And as Billy Red Lions used to say, folks, don't you dare miss it.
Don't you dare miss this one.
All right, we are back.
Great ad from our very own David Demanzo and Menzies.
And I'm here with someone who doesn't need a reminder to wear a suit when he comes on live stream.
This is Freedom Convoy lawyer Keith Wilson.
Keith, how are you doing?
I'm doing fine, thanks.
Dressed very well, Keith.
All right.
Your general thoughts from today, what we've seen so far, and then we'll move on to the examination of Global Affairs Canada.
Sure.
Well, I mean, it's been a repeat of what we've seen over and over again, which is each official that is brought forward is asked what they know about the factual evidentiary circumstances that would justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act, the stripping of Canadians' rights, the allowing the federal government, as the Emergencies Act does, to intrude into provincial jurisdiction.
And each witness gives the same answer.
there was no justification.
They give it with precision, as you've talked about with Tom Morazzo, but they confirm that there was no national security threat.
They agree that the sources with best information that would know if there was a national security threat was the OPP and other police organizations.
And they acknowledge that their testimony is that the criteria to invoke the act wasn't there.
So it's just becoming clearer and clearer.
And it's going to be interesting when the politicians get up because they've really got nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.
Yeah, can you just remind us quickly?
I know we talked about it at the beginning of the live stream.
I read section two of the CESIS Act.
What threshold needs to be met for the Emergencies Act to be justifiably invoked?
Well, there has to be a serious threat to the national security.
It has to involve acts of real violence.
There has to be a credible plan for some overthrow of the government, an illegal overthrow.
And there's section two of the CESIS Act that refers to this new term that the government's come up with in recent years of ideologically motivated violent extremist.
And the only ideologically motivated violentist extremist that I've met in the last year has been the Trudeau government.
And they've demonstrated their violence on Canadians by beating them and trampling them with horses in support of their ideology that the state knows best and Canadians' rights shouldn't be respected.
So it goes cuts both ways.
Trudeau's Violent Ideology00:10:04
No, of course.
And I think that even today at the Commission, the lady who was trampled by RCMP horses during the Freedom Convoy was here today.
We saw her.
So while we were doing the live stream at the beginning, Global Affairs Canada testified in front of the Public Order Emergency Commission.
And Brendan Miller even got the chance to cross-examine the two witnesses who were on stand.
So I think that you were so the Commission.
Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
Yeah, sure.
It was still going on while you guys went live.
And the senior official with Global Affairs Canada, so this is like they used to be called foreign affairs, right?
So they're dealing with embassies and relations with other nation states.
And she said some remarkable things.
And I was very glad that I wasn't sipping my coffee at the time because I probably would have spit it out.
One of the things she said was that they were extremely concerned about the economic impacts of the Windsor and Couts border blockades.
But what she failed to note is that Stats Canada found that even despite the border being temporarily blocked at Windsor, the Ambassador Bridge, all the trucks went to the other bridges.
So trade was in fact, according to Stats Canada, when they studied it some months later, and you can Google this and see it, trade was actually the crossing trade was up by 16%.
So this whole idea, it was purely a model they came up with that if no trucks could cross at all, this is what the impact could be.
The fact of the matter is the trucks went to the other two bridges that are there.
Similarly at Coots, they rerouted to Delmeid and then the other crossing.
So there was a temporary impact, no greater than a day.
But the reason I almost fit out my coffee was every day I get emails from people who've lost their businesses, who have lost their homes, who've lost their families because of the government's overreach with these mandates.
Look at the economic costs to the tourism sector alone from the prolonged government travel mandates that prevented foreigners from coming to Quebec to see the beautiful sites, going to Alberta and British Columbia and all those tourism dollars.
It was many, many tens of billions of dollars.
So they're being a little selective here, right?
They're first of all jacking up the numbers about the economic impact and they're completely willfully blind, I would suggest, to the economic impact that their own travel mandates had.
I got to give another example.
A lot of people don't understand this.
When they brought in the vaccine requirement to travel by air in Canada, which no other G7 country did, we were unique in that respect of overreach.
It also required the baggage handlers, the security clearance people, the people who work at Booster Juice and Starbucks to all be vaccinated as well.
So the disruption and the delays, if you travel at all, even recently, you're still feeling the effects where you pull up and you can't get up to the bridgeway because there's no baggage handlers or you're waiting for two hours.
So the economic impacts of that, they're willfully blind to.
So this is, it was remarkable that she was trying to vilify freedom protesters for their alleged economic impact, which Stats Canada said wasn't real, and completely ignoring the incredibly dreadful economic impact that this government policy of overreach had on the mandates.
I fully agree.
You know, the border communities, the border cities through the pandemic have suffered tremendously because of all those methods.
Yeah, exactly.
You know, we saw some MPs are talking about it in the House of Commons.
And I even have a graph right here.
I just sent it on Slack if we can put that, pull that up shortly.
Canada had some of the strictest COVID-19 restrictions from all countries.
You know, I compare it to Germany, Italy, Croatia, Iceland right here.
And Canada from April 1st, April 1st, 2021 to April 1st, 2022 is above all of the other ones.
We could put it up on the screen.
That would be great.
But what do you think of this testimony I just talked to us about?
Oh, my goodness.
I'm sad to not have been able to see that myself or to hear it.
But I think I just would have been very, very angered as I honestly am right now, because, you know, it's like a bunch of bullies literally just picking and choosing which places get to stay open and which ones get to close.
And because for less than a day, they had some impacts, they're throwing a huge fit and making up all these statistics to try and, again, like you said, vilify the convoy.
When, again, it was how many local businesses closed, but Walmart was allowed to stay open, but Costco was allowed to stay open.
Liquor stores, weed, what are they?
LCBO.
I think they call it cannabis.
Cannabis.
Sorry.
Cannabis.
We're in Ontario.
Yeah, whatever.
I don't smoke, so I'm not familiar with the terms, but all these places that the government runs or has some sort of hand in were allowed and able to stay open.
Well, small business were impacted.
Like you said, people lost their houses.
People lost their lives to this.
And now they're just throwing a huge fit.
And there's no reason why.
It can't be justified.
And the fact that they have to make up false statistics to try and make this narrative, I mean, it's just they're digging their own grave here.
And the closer we get towards the end of this, the worse it looks on them.
It already was bad.
It was already very, very, very bad.
But what do you think is going to be like the impacts?
Well, there's one more that I have to share with you that she said today because I know you guys are busy here.
The second thing she said would have caused me to, what's that?
I said you weren't done.
No, I was not done.
Oh, goodness.
But she said that the other concern that global affairs or Foreign Affairs Canada had, get ready for this.
She was very, and the government and the prime minister were very concerned about how Canadian flags were appearing in Australia and in the United States and protests in Europe and Central America.
Then she said, because it was desecrating the Canadian flag that these other freedom protesters were flying the flag of Canada in Europe and in the United States and Australia because it was being used to promote illegality.
And that's why you'll see when you, if we get a chance to see Mr. Miller's cross.
But people were flying the Canadian flag in pride of true north, strong and free.
We believe in governments following the law, the rule of law, and respecting the charter that puts limits on the government's ability to arbitrarily take away Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the right of mobility.
So people weren't flying those flags in support in other countries, in support of some kind of criminal enterprise or organized crime or something silly.
They were flying that flag in support and being proud of Canadians who had come forward to say to government, you've gone too far.
You need to stop and you need to follow the law.
And they use this in for this disinformation thing.
There's a perfect example of a senior government official at the highest level under oath engaging in disinformation.
They seem to be thinking they have this monopoly on who can characterize the truth.
So, and I guess we'll be dealing with more of that next week.
Of course, it's yeah, it's it's ridiculous.
And you know, you mentioned mobility rights and in Quebec, there were people in high school that will literally run at the end of the day after hanging out with their friends, even people in university, they would take their bike and they will run back to their home because they knew the curfew was about to arrive at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m.
And they're not allowed to be outside after this hour.
It's pathetic to think that the government was actually able to do that during the pandemic.
Never would have thought that this was something that would happen in our lifetime.
And then you mentioned the Canadian flag being flown overseas and people not being proud of that.
How ridiculous is that?
Yes.
Aren't you supposed to be proud of your country?
Yes.
Aren't you supposed shouldn't the prime minister like to see Canadian flags everywhere?
Because that's value in Canada.
You know, in the United States, Americans are proud to see the American flag everywhere.
Have we just lost all sense of nationalism?
No, it's because of what the flag stood for.
Because people that were flying that flag stood in solidarity with people in the convoy that stood in solidarity with putting up a protest against these unjust mandates and vaccine, the passports, all the restrictions, everything that they did.
It served as a big source of inspiration.
And it happened all over the world.
That's exactly what inspired the convoys in the US and Australia.
They were in Italy.
They were in the Netherlands.
And there was a mini convoy that came up from Calgary, Alberta, and went up to Edmonton to the legislature building there, just to show that the Canadians here stood in solidarity with the Dutch farmers that are protesting the insane, I can't say that word, the WEF and their crazy cutbacks on emissions.
Inspiration From Around the World00:07:02
It's just literally, I mean, you're going to eat the bugs, Will.
Yeah, and you're going to love it.
Yeah, Claude Schwab's globalist agenda.
All right.
We'll go back to Brendan Miller and we'll talk about Rob Kiddrich.
But right before we go to another Miller clip, I want to show a picture that I was sent earlier today.
Rob Primo made that great picture, that great little graphic about Brendan Miller.
If you could shout out a scream, yeah, it's Miller Times.
You know, when Brendan goes like this.
Oh, they're in for it.
You just see it.
You know something's happening.
You know, when the shoulder pads go to the side and when you see him getting ready to continue his cross-examination, you know something's coming in this graphic.
As a litigator, I can tell you, when he does that, he's got you right where he needs you to be.
And it's not going to matter what you do.
You are done.
You are coming out of the cage on his terms and that's it.
So yeah, it's like an Anaconda snake.
If he does this, you're done.
Oh, yeah.
And you know it.
Everyone knows it.
All right, Brendan Miller.
A little quick honor to you.
Let's take a look at clip number six.
Another clip from Miller Time.
He's got his whole cross-examination today was great.
Rob Kidrich was nice as well.
I think, and I look forward to seeing what comes up for the rest of the week and what comes up next week when he testify a little transport minister, Omar al-Jabra, when he appears in front of the commission.
Let's take a look at clip number six.
He stated that at no point did the service, being CESIS, assess the protests in Ottawa or elsewhere.
Those referred to as the Freedom Convoin related protests and blockades in January and February 2022 constituted a threat to the security of Canada as defined in Section 2 of the CESIS Act, and that CESIS cannot investigate activities constituting lawful protests.
CESIS assessed there was no indication of foreign state interference occurring in the course of the protest.
CESIS did not assess that any foreign state supported the protest through funding, that foreign states deployed covert or overt disinformation techniques, or that any foreign state actors attempted to enter into Canada to support the protest.
There, Director Venus states that he learned that the EA referenced the threat definition set out in Section 2 of the CESIS Act once the federal government began to seriously consider invoking the EA between February 10th and 13th.
He requested that the service prepare a threat assessment on the risks associated with the invocation of the EA.
He felt an obligation to clearly convey the service's position that there did not exist a threat to the security of Canada as defined by the service's legal mandate.
The threat assessment prepared by the service was that the invocation of the emergencies legislation risked further inflaming IMV rhetoric and individuals holding accelerationist or anti-government views.
You were told that.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
That basically just goes back to what we were saying earlier, that that's the evidence, but he mentioned it multiple times.
What a great testimony by Brendan Miller.
What did you think of this line?
I think you can only hear something so many times.
And that's pretty much it.
Like, can you imagine saying it point blank?
And then just, you know, for the people in the back, like literally screaming, like, do anything except this.
Do anything except poke the snake, so to speak.
Keith?
Well, and I think you might have touched on this a little bit earlier with your lawyer who is sitting in this chair.
I think he works for Law and Order or Suits.
I'm not sure.
Something like that.
Yeah, exactly.
He's definitely, he's definitely.
Well, he actually, I think he was an extra in suits.
You know, he could also say that he.
I thought he looked familiar.
Yeah, he could say that he played one on television.
So he's not a real lawyer, but he played one on television.
But, you know, he was pretty accurate, but I'll give it a little bit more King's Council precision.
It's this.
The question in law, when a decision maker invokes these kind of powers, is what information did they have in front of them to justify their decision?
And was it reasonable?
And all of the experts, as we've talked about, have testified that the trigger thresholds were not met.
The evidence wasn't there.
So today was the first time we heard what the new narrative is.
And from the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, he said that it was for the prime minister and his cabinet to adjudicate and make a decision as to whether they thought that the legal test was met, despite all of the experts, all of the intelligence agencies, all of the police forces telling them it wasn't.
And then, of course, that opened up for Brendan Miller to say, and what training does the prime minister have in law enforcement, you know, beyond playing a police officer in a play in high school or something.
And of course, it didn't matter what the answer is because we all know none.
So it's not looking good for the government.
And it's really good for Canadians that we're getting to see how corrupt the Trudeau government is.
Well, I think that he had as much training as Tom Morazzo had when he played a lawyer, when he played an FBI agent in the series, but it was designated survivor.
If you guys haven't watched, it's a great series.
And also, just go back on suits.
Anyone who watched Suit, basically, the whole plot is a lawyer who never went to law school, who actually becomes a lawyer.
And I think that could be Tom Morazzo.
Do you think he's got a lot of people?
I thought of that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, yeah, so just to go back, I'm not sure if we had the clip ready.
I just sent it.
Brendan Miller, in his first statement at the commission, you know, his opening statement was short.
It was two minutes long, but it was super concise and precise and brief.
And it was a great opening statement, a great testimony, a great statement.
Sorry.
He said that we will see no evidence whatsoever that the Freedom Convoy met the threshold for Section 2 of the CSIS Act.
Let's take a look exactly what Brendan Miller said back then.
Good morning.
My name is Brendan Miller of Foster LLP and I am counsel to Freedom Corp, which is an organization that represents the protesters of which attended Ottawa in January and February of 2022.
My colleague, Miss Bethsheba Vandenberg of Foster LLP, is my co-counsel on this matter, as well as the solicitors of record, both Mr. Keith Wilson, King's Counsel, as well as Miss Eva Chipiuk, who is counsel to the convoy.
No Evidence for Emergencies Act00:00:52
With respect to sort of everyone's given an overview of the theory of their case, it is our view that there was no justification whatsoever to invoke the Emergencies Act.
The Emergencies Act requires several things.
One, it could be invoked due to espionage and sabotage.
Are you going to hear any evidence about espionage and sabotage?
The answer to that is no.
Two, it could be invoked on the basis of clandestine or deceptive foreign influence, or foreign influence that involves a threat to a person.
Are you going to hear evidence about that?
The answer to that is no.
It also could be invoked on the basis of threats or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property.
Are you going to hear evidence of violence against persons or property?