The Emergencies Act Inquiry hears Deputy Finance Minister Michael Sabia admit the Freedom Convoy caused no major economic harm, yet banks froze accounts—including those of non-protesters like Jules and Tom Morazzo’s family—based on vague criteria like "honking" or media reports. National Security Advisor Jodi Thomas ignored CSIS’s legal assessment that protesters posed no threat, instead relying on undefined risks. Morazzo’s frozen assets blocked his son’s heart medication, exposing systemic overreach. The inquiry’s focus on dissenters while dismissing broader civil liberties concerns reveals a pattern of arbitrary power, warning Canadians of future erosion under flimsy justifications. [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 first in Toronto, November 19th, and again in Calgary, Saturday, November 26th.
go to rebelnewslive.com to get your tickets today all right welcome back everyone After a long day at the Emergencies Act Inquiry here in Ottawa to determine whether or not Justin Trudeau's use of the Emergencies Act was justified and necessary.
We had a very long date today.
And I'm here joining by Celine Gallas, a colleague of mine at Rebel News.
And we will walk you through what went on today at the inquiry later on.
We will also be joined by some lawyers and Tom Morazo, fake lawyer for the True Convoy.
That's just a joke.
He's an intern slash volunteer slash key actor during the convoy.
So Celine, how are you doing?
I'm doing very good.
As William just said, we had a very long day at the commission.
There's lots to go over.
So definitely stay tuned.
And who do we have provide their testimonies today?
Do you want to go over that?
Yeah, well, today we had people from the defense, the Defense Ministry, Ministry of Defense.
Three of them we did, yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
So it was very interesting to see what they knew or didn't know about the CESIS Act and whether or not they thought that the CSIS Act was something relevant, which I mean, it is.
When you look at the Emergencies Act, it is extremely relevant.
Arguably, it's the most relevant and important thing.
It's the key.
It's the key to all of this.
It's that little, it's that little piece of the puzzle that we're missing.
But I mean, all the information has been provided and, you know.
Yeah, well, we'll have a couple of lawyers later to be able to run us through the details of what went on today.
You know, we just arrived back to our little RBNB.
I still have my commission badge on.
So, yeah, so today we had some interesting testimony.
It was a long day.
Before we get started, Rebel News Live is arriving in Toronto this Saturday on November 19th.
If you want to get your tickets, I had a chance to meet Tamara Lee, Shila Ganrid, Ezra Levant, and a lot of other interesting guests, all part of the freedom movement.
You can go to rebelnewslive.com and there you can buy your ticket.
Also, Archer Pavlovsky, can you tell us a little bit more about Archer Pavlovsky?
Yes, so Archer Polowski is a Calgary-based pastor.
So he chose to keep his church open during the draconian COVID-19 mandates and restrictions.
He also continued to do his work as a preacher by going out, doing civil servic duties like feeding the poor, providing them with clothing, supplies, etc.
And he was arrested multiple times due to that.
He has lots of charges against him for not masking.
He was also arrested for a total of 51 days after giving a sermon at the Coots blockade.
Lots of unjust things, but who better to tell that story than Archer Polowski himself, which you can hear if you attend Rebel Live.
So you can get your tickets at rebellive.com, see him in person, meet him in person, as well as some other really key figures that we'll have there at these events.
And I think there's a second event happening next week, right after the commission ends on November 25th or 26th.
And that'll be in Calgary, Alberta.
So you can't make it out to the east.
We got an event going on in the West.
Again, you can come meet the amazing lineup of guest speakers that we'll have there.
So Archer Polowski, and then we also have our friends from some other independent media outlets like Andrew Lawton from the True North, as well as Derek Fildebrandt from the Western Standards.
So you can check us out there.
There is also on the screen, as you can see, that's a couple of the people that will be providing their keynote speeches there.
So go to rebelnewslive.com and get your ticket.
Come meet us in person.
No, I think it's going to be very interesting to hear Tamara Lee speak.
Oh, she hasn't spoken.
She hasn't done any media interview for the past since the Freedom Convoy was here basically because of her unjustified harsh bail conditions, all because she was one of those who was the key leaders of the Freedom Convoy.
Unbelievable.
I think Keith Wilson once made a comparison that in Russia, there's some politicians or there's some criminals in Russia that have less harsh bail conditions than Tamara Leash has in Justin.
Trudels, Canada.
It's absolutely unbelievable.
And in any regard, as we said earlier, we will have some lawyers come on.
And I said we have a lawyer right here, Eva Chipyuk, one of the lawyers for Freedom Corp.
Basically, Tamara Leash, Tom Morazzo, Chris Barbers, and a lot of other individuals as well.
She'll be able to run us through the key moments that took place today.
And she'll be able to give us a lawyer perspective of what went on today during the Emergency Act Inquiry proceedings.
So let's go to a quick ad break, super quick.
And when we come back, you'll see Eva Chipyuk on the screen.
So let's take a quick break for the moment.
Freedom in the year 2022, for me, folks, it means the return of Rebel Live.
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 Polvowski, Tamara Leach, and all your favorite rebels, including yours truly.
I'll be the MC that day, Sheila Gunreed, 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 Sheera 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.
Notice Period00:16:00
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.
The Rebel News technical difficulties.
All right, let's start out over again.
We have on Freedom Convoy lawyer Eva Chipyuk joining us today to discuss what went on at the Emergency Act Inquiry.
Eva, how are you doing?
All right.
It was a really long day.
I can't even believe we have the finance department up first.
That seems like it was yesterday or last week, almost even now.
Any questions for me?
Well, the finance department, as you mentioned, is basically the finance ministry.
So that's the people who have Christia Freeland.
They work under Christia Freeland.
Those are her lackeys.
That's as I described them today during my live tweeting.
As you could tell, there was no one there really.
There's no head honcho, maybe apart from the main foot man being his name has escaped me.
The one in the middle that just was deputy minister of deputy minister.
That's right.
Can you give us a quick rundown of well, their testimony?
What's the most important thing that we need to catch from their testimony?
Ken, it was so long ago, but and I'm trying to, that's why I was hoping you would shoot me a question.
But what I do recall 110% is that for at least the first hour, they were going on and on about economic impacts because of the border blockades and the protest in general.
And then, under questioning, still with the Commission Council, she is basically asked, she took them to a document and it said that there were no significant impacts to the economy as a result of the protests.
So, kind of shot down basically the first hour of their evidence.
And, you know, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out.
And we had some of this evidence yesterday: is that when you lock down a country for two years, you're going to affect the economy.
When you're going to add in an ArriveCam app that isn't, doesn't work for other countries, you're going to affect the economy.
When you have a vaccine mandate, you're going to affect the economy.
So, these three massive things that weren't discussed that massively affect the economy weren't considered, were kind of disregarded.
And yet, a protest, if we're talking about Windsor Bridge, like five people, five days, and this is what we're talking about at the inquiry.
I don't think so.
Um, yeah, something very particularly disturbing that I found about something that uh Sebiya said was that he made this border blockade, specifically talking about the one at Ambassador Bridge.
Uh, he started talking about the real human impacts of that.
Um, are you kidding me?
Uh, where's the evidence to go over the last two years and the real human impact of the people that lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, their lives?
Um, they experienced cutback budgeting, et cetera.
You name it, people, not just in Canada, the whole world experienced that.
And so, the fact that he had the audacity to point out that there were real human impacts of other people due to the fact that these handful of people went to Windsor Bridge and parked their trucks there along the road, not even directly on the blockade.
It's there's distance between the border, actually.
Um, it was insane to me.
Yeah, it was um, it I was, yeah, I reached a boiling point today, maybe more than a few times, if you could tell by my live tweeting.
But I think that's the question that she asked.
You know, how can you disregard everything that happened in the past two years?
Two years and talk about 100%.
Just what reality are they living in?
Just to give the viewers a quick look at what his testimony looked like, what that testimony looked like with this panel of the three people from the finance ministry.
Let's take a look at clip number five, where the same person, the deputy minister of finance, um, said, Well, there was a very simple solution for everyone.
All you had to do was leave.
That's all that we had to do.
Let's just check it out.
The government announced its intention to proclaim or to invoke the Emergencies Act on the 14th.
It was very clear, very clear, as of that date.
And the Minister of Finance was very clear as of that date that people involved in these disruptions ran the risk of having their accounts frozen.
That was very clear.
So, there was a period of notice there.
And it was very clear that all that had to happen was those people to leave.
And as if they did, their accounts would never have been frozen or that they would be immediately unfrozen if they did leave.
So, I think people had Reasonable notice, and it was a very simple solution.
All you had to do was leave.
That's very simple to me.
All you had to do was leave.
And all the federal government had to do was talk to them.
So, there we go.
Easy solutions both ways.
So, what I was talking about before was the intelligence.
And so, that was the first bit, and you know, how much the economy was affected.
And then, the second part of their conversation was about enforcement.
And now, I'm remembering it's coming back to me.
I was in shock as to what they were proposing to the banks.
So, they sent to the banks two proposals: one is we could tell you who the designated people are, and then you take the measures to freeze their bank accounts.
Or, number two, watch the news and then make a decision and freeze their bank accounts.
So, now we're giving enforcement powers to the bank based on the news.
Why do we have police?
Why do we have intelligence reports?
Yeah, no, 100%.
And there's another thing, too.
I think it came out during either Brendan Miller's testimony or disc counsel for the CCR.
Is that CCLA and CCF?
Okay, so just before we get to that, can you tell us a little bit more about this?
This lawyer did you know, do you know about him?
No, I don't.
Okay, well, today, you know, we always praise Brendan Miller as being a great lawyer, but today we saw another lawyer also send out from the crowd, the same lawyer who was cross-examining.
What I do know about him, I could say, is his name is Sujit Chowdhury.
That's who you just saw, and he is on, I think it is a CCF or CCLA.
There's a couple acronyms, but together with Brendan Miller, with the JCCF, CCLA, CCF, they're doing a judicial review of the Emergencies Act.
So, they've been in court since March in federal court, already arguing some of these things.
So, they've seen the issues that were arising.
And he was making these arguments because this is a huge issue of government overreach that I think everyone is concerned about.
Yeah, well, there's one question that I wanted to get to.
I believe it was Brendan Miller, I believe it was during Brendan Miller's cross-examination.
He was trying to ask whether or not the Freedom Convoy was a political process, was a political cause, you know, because donating to a political cause under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is something that's protected because of Canada.
We are supposed to have freedom of speech, that's something we're supposed to have as Canadians.
But the minister, the deputy minister, didn't seem to want to give a definite answer as to whether or not the Freedom Convoy was a political cause, which I mean, it's just a political cause.
That's what it is.
What else should it be?
What did you make of that line of questioning?
Yeah, it was pretty silly, in my opinion.
There was so much dancing around the questions today, and I don't know if they think that that's a good way of responding.
But if you're a government official and meant to enforce and you're in this power position, you can't say you don't know these answers.
That is incredibly irresponsible for the civil servants to be acting this way and to be talking this way.
So, he said, as a civilian, maybe that's what it is.
Well, if you're going to start enforcing, figure out what the issue is first.
Don't come to an inquiry about the Emergencies Act without the answers.
No, for sure.
I do agree that there was a lot of dancing around the question, not answering the street question.
Did you notice that as well?
Don't get me started.
Don't make them subjected to just, okay, actually, yes.
So, 100%.
I would, yeah, thanks for asking me that.
Like, are you serious?
They, that's all I saw today.
It's it's actually alarming because that's actually starting to increase.
I'm realizing, is that there's almost like there was a bit of a standard during the beginning, right?
Those things weren't allowed.
People weren't really doing them.
If they didn't know how to answer a question, they would, it was far and few in between.
They didn't know how to answer the question.
Now we're seeing consistently, they're even like just getting a rise out of the people around them making really smart mouth comments and just, you know, either being really forgetful, like we saw with Brenda Lucky having potentially even issues with her memory, which she should probably go and get checked out as a commissioner of the RCMP.
That's pretty crazy.
But unless everyone is being subjected to having memory issues, we definitely have an issue going on.
And it's like I said, it's very alarming because if this continues, as we're leading up to the very last week of the commission, what are we going to expect from the actual ministers that these people serve?
These are all deputy ministers.
We have yet to hear testimony from a minister.
So.
Yeah, no, totally.
And his whole testimony was odd.
Deputy Minister of Finance, his whole testimony was super odd.
I found it was it was very weird to listen to it, a little bit frustrating.
Let's take a look at clip number three, and that's another clip that was also weird, where he talks about the fact that, well, the Emergencies Act only impacted certain people, and then he goes into grocery money and he didn't want it to impact.
Let's just take a look at what he had to say to that effect.
All right.
Clip number three.
Police witnesses who've said they saw your measures work because they heard of people getting calls back from North Battleford or whatever.
Come home.
The account's frozen and I can't buy groceries.
The police saw that as your measures working because they were affecting people who had nothing to do with the protest other than that they were family members.
So and I put it to you that you must have realized that would be one of the effects of freezing the accounts in the way that they were.
Certainly when we developed the policy, we were focusing on those people involved in the illegal activities.
And certainly in our discussion, daily discussions with the CBA and we had discussion with the RCMP.
Certainly these issues came to life.
That was not the focus of the policy development.
We understand that that was maybe some people were impacted, but we had discussions in the application to say our focus was certainly on these people involved in the activity.
So what sort of an answer even is that?
That wasn't even a direct answer.
So that's something that they admitted that they would probably, it might happen.
It was a potentiality.
And they still didn't put any like foolproof measures into preventing something like that.
These were people that weren't even there and they were just associated to it, like the guilty by association.
So your mom goes to the convoy and then three cousins down in another province.
They can't pay their rent or buy groceries or see to their basic human needs because the government didn't do their job correctly.
Sorry, the federal government, to be very specific.
And these are the people, face your eyes, that created those policies that allowed them to be able to freeze bank accounts in the first place.
It's one thing to hear about the people that create the policies, but it's one thing to put a face to them, which is why I got saucy today for sure.
Well, I think there's, and we're going to have a second guess afterwards coming on, Tom Oraso, who this affected him directly.
He'll be able to talk a little bit to us a little bit more about that.
But just because you disagreed with the government, the government decided that it was okay to just shut you off and take your money and freeze it, not take your money, freeze your assets, freeze your bank account, and affect your whole family.
Eva?
Yeah, well, one thing I did want to say is that they were clear and very open about them directing this policy, but then they wouldn't take any responsibility for it, which was also very concerning.
They said, well, it was on the banks.
And then even their government lawyer at the end was like, well, the banks could have called you, couldn't it?
the RCMP is sending you a document directing you to close people's bank accounts, are you going to call?
I don't even know who you who do you call?
Do you call the deputy minister himself?
Do you call the RCMP?
And excuse me, I have a quick question about this document you sent me.
Like, you know, if the RCMP is taking the authority and enforcing these things, you think that they're doing it on good reason.
And if they're expecting people to question it, the rule of law today is very, has been undermined by our own government.
And that was Brendan Miller's first question to Jodi Thomas today.
No, I would.
No, well, that's a good segue to Jodi Thomas.
What's her role in the government?
I have some issue understanding what exactly what's her position.
So yeah, it's a bit hard to understand.
And I think that if we don't understand the role that government plays, I think there is a problem.
Like from what I'm saying, sitting through the last how many ever weeks it is, is we are so incredibly over-regulated.
I'm just going to use that now.
So she's with the Privy Council office and her role is national security advisor to the prime minister.
This is not an office or a role that was created by parliament by legislation.
There's no legislation giving them any authority.
So it's very good question who she is.
It's uncertain.
And not only who she is, but the demand for authority she had in her evidence today.
She was, you know, she said, I need more authority.
I need more intelligence.
I need more ability to control people.
That was how her testimony was coming across today to me.
And who is she?
And why is she doing her job?
That's a question I think that Canadians really need to look into a bit more.
Well, and I'm not even sure she knows what her job is actually, because she didn't even find out about the Hendon reports until today's proceedings as she watched the earlier testimonies of today.
What is going on with that?
How is there, these are people that are supposed to have an intelligence position.
She's advisor of national security.
She reports directly to PM Justin Trudeau.
Like, where is the missing gap?
She kept on talking about that there was an issue with the framework within this country regarding the intelligence and type of data collected.
She gave multiple references towards how, again, people need to be monitored more in essence and how there's this big disconnect and really overstepping because there are already measures in place where we have intelligent agencies, primarily really this CSIS?
Gaps In Security Oversight00:15:07
CSIS?
What does it stand for again?
Canadian Security Intelligence Services.
Exactly.
That's what it is.
So they're the largest moving body in Canada to provide intelligence on matters like this.
And again, I will reiterate, they are the only opinion that matters when it comes to providing that intelligence.
And it was ignored.
So the fact that this woman could stand there and demand more, more responsibility, more, I mean, she's like she came across as the literal interpretation of the overhanging federal arm where people's actual privacy is concerned.
That's pretty scary to me.
So let's just talk about the information from CSIS that was ignored, because what they said is they do not investigate Canadians that are taking part in a lawful protest.
Because why would you be surveilling Canadians that are being lawful?
That's what she wanted to do.
That's the information she didn't like.
That's the disconnect she found with CSIS.
And moreover, CSIS added that if you do more government overreach, people will become more disenfranchised because they believe the system is broken.
So the fact that this individual is not taking the advice of CSIS, and there's good reason that CSIS is saying what they're doing, there is a huge problem that why, what is it that you want from, like,
do you just want such an obedient society in Canada not to have an opinion, not to think outside the box, just to like, I don't know what it is that you're looking for because she's basically looking for surveillance on Canadians that are being lawful.
No, 100%.
And as you just put it, I mean, I doubt that unless CSIS just has like an inherent desire to want to watch Canadians play in bouncy castles and have a real good party and just literally a hoot and a half out on the streets of Ottawa, then yeah, really, like, what a horrible thing for them.
Like it's a terrible use of their ability to like provide surveillance because I mean, it was even regarded in that document that Brendan Miller brought up during his cross-examination.
So maybe we could throw it to that clip.
I'm not sure which one it would be.
Before throwing to any clip, let's take a look once again at Brendan Miller's cross-examination, clip number seven of Jodi Thomas, just to give the viewers a little idea of who she is and what she looks like.
We've been talking for a little while and people don't necessarily know who Jodi Thomas is.
Let's take a look at clip number seven, part of Brendan Miller's cross-examination of this pretty important witness.
Right, I understand.
So you're saying that the CESIS Act and section two of the CESIS Act, which is incorporated into the Emergencies Act, mean something different when you're looking at it.
No, that's not what I've said.
So what do you mean?
I mean that in terms of the Emergency Act, the governor and council can consider more broadly than the intelligence collected by CESIS in determining a national security threat or situation or a public order emergency.
I understand that, but you do agree that the four grounds of types of threats in Section 2 of the CSIS Act are what is in fact required to have been found.
No, I don't agree.
So it can go beyond what the Act says, which is a threat to the security of Canada.
There are other definitions of threats to the security of Canada, as we saw earlier.
Right, but not in the legislation.
The Emergency Act allows for the governor and council to make a broad decision about public order emergencies.
That's not what it says, but you can agree with me.
I think that this is an argument to have with lawyers.
Good thing we have to.
I want to talk.
I'm so glad you brought up that clip because it is so hard to watch somebody change the definition.
They said they don't agree with the definition of the law.
Then when you challenge them on that definition, she reverts to you could have that debate with my lawyers.
I am not a lawyer.
So you can't change the definition if you can't justify that change in the definition, especially when it has something to do with something this important, like national, the threat to the national security of Canada.
You can't just willy-nilly change that definition and expect nobody to question you on it when you're the security advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada.
Well, yeah, and not just, you can't expect people not to question you.
It's like you can't even answer the question yourself.
So how do you expect for someone to believe trust or like back up what you have to say at all when you have no retort other than ask my lawyer because I will not have this argument with you?
And this is what I was saying before.
If this is what these government officials think are good answers at the inquiry, I think they will be sorely wrong.
You're coming to an inquiry.
You're meant to provide information.
And this is another thing Brendan Miller had to do today with the finance panel.
He had to explain to them, you understand we're here to talk about the circumstances that justified the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
That's why we're here.
We're not here to have a fun time at this commission.
It's about gaining information.
And if you have no information, this is not a good thing for you.
Yes.
No, 100%.
And it's always changing blame, switching the blame from one person to the other.
All right, Eva, I'd love to have you on more, but we have another lawyer in the room who's ready to come on the show.
Any last words for us about the commission?
Anything that we missed?
Any relevant detail or something?
Any relevant comment?
No, but you know, again, I don't want to leave it on a negative note.
I think that what I hope this commission is doing and this inquiry is opening up the eyes of Canadians.
It certainly opened up my eyes to be way more involved in politics and make sure that we're holding these people to account.
So the words came up today, hold the line, that rhetoric, that violent rhetoric.
What it is, is hold the government to account.
And I am going to be asking all of Canada, we really need to do that moving forward because this is not a good place.
Right, totally, Eva.
Well, thank you so much for coming on.
I love it.
Let's throw to a quick ad break.
And when we come back, we'll have a second lawyer on the live stream.
Let's throw to a quick ad break.
Freedom in 2022 is your right to disagree with me anytime on anything in your heart, online, or in the public square.
Freedom in 2022 is also your right to live your life however you see fit without hurting me or for that matter being bothered by me.
But freedom in 2022 is in very real danger under constant attack by Justin Trudeau through his censorship bills, his attacks on gun rights, his attacks on farmers, and his attacks on peaceful protesters.
These people have even tried to denormalize our flag.
At Rebel News, we're not afraid to have dangerous discussions that Justin Trudeau, the media and big tech censors, say we're not allowed to have.
And we want to have them with you at our upcoming Rebel Live events first in Toronto, November 19th, and again in Calgary, Saturday, November 26th.
I'll be there with dozens of other rebels and rebel-adjacent free thinkers.
And I hope that you'll join us.
Just go to rebelnewslive.com to get your tickets today, but do not sleep on this because these tickets are going fast.
See you soon.
Oh, Reb, welcome back, Rebel News Live.
Once again, if you want to get your tickets, you can go to rebelnewslive.com to meet Tamara Leech and other great people either this week or next weekend in Calgary.
All right, we have on Hatim.
Is that how we pronounce your name?
Yeah, Hatim.
Hatim, yeah, a new lawyer, a new face on the show, basically, not a new lawyer, a new face on the show that's joining us tonight.
He cross-examined the first panel of witnesses this morning from the Finance Ministry, Finance Department.
Can you tell us a little bit more about yourself?
Sure.
I'm a lawyer with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
I've been with them for a year now, dealing with, I mean, mostly COVID stuff has kind of been the big thing, but free speech cases as well.
Yeah.
So you were granted standing in the emergency act inquiry alongside the TDF.
Is that right?
Yeah, we share standing.
It's the Justice Center, the Democracy Fund, and Citizens for Freedom.
Great.
And what is your main takeaway?
Like, if you could summarize, give us a quick rundown of everything that happened today.
We already heard Eva say, but from your perspective, what was the most important thing we heard today?
What was your general impression of how it went today?
I think the biggest thing we heard was from Jodi Thomas, who's the prime minister's national security intelligence advisor.
So so far, she is the strongest support we've heard that there's actually a national security threat and that the emergency act was met.
And yet she, under cross-examination by my colleague Rob Kittridge, agreed there was no serious violence.
And although she argued about the definition being met, when it's broken down and it's actually put to her, she agrees that all the components weren't there.
Well, because it's one thing to claim violence is occurring and then it's another to back that up and have actual like evidence.
I see that we have a clip here that we can go to right now and we can take a look at that.
Oh, okay.
Well, never mind.
We're not going to do that.
But we can get to it later.
Well, no, and it's exactly that.
When you are proposing that something as serious as violence took place and then you can't actually give proof, tangible proof, tangible evidence, because the narrative becomes broken down that easily.
What's your opinion on stuff like that?
We've been seeing that a lot, right?
Like it's crazy.
Yeah, I think there was a powerful moment where she was asked if there was serious violence.
She said it depends on your definition.
Violence was continuous throughout the protest.
So then Rob asked her, okay, well, what was the violence?
And then she resorted back to honking, fumes.
You know, maybe some people got harassed in the street, but certainly not a national security threat.
Definitely not.
And it's the same rhetoric that we've heard.
It's all the microaggressions of the supposed residents.
I know some people are mad, but also keep in mind that hundreds and hundreds of residents in Ottawa actually housed the truckers and the supporters and provided them food and clothing and gave them a place to sleep.
So we're not talking to any of those people, right?
But, you know, microaggressions are a thing, right?
No, 100%.
And, you know, we don't have the clip of your cross-examination of the witnesses this morning.
Can you give us once again a quick rundown of how that went?
What basically was the main takeaway from that cross-examination by you specifically?
Yeah, so the big point that I think I was getting at and that I think came out was that what exactly made this behavior something that should be, that should make people subject to having their accounts frozen?
And so the witnesses talked about the idea that, oh, well, you know what?
There's a gap in the legislation.
It didn't apply to funding.
So that's what we did.
But I think it's important to clarify that that's not the only gap.
I mean, the donated funds would go through a bank account anyways.
The real issue is that the proceeds of crime, money laundering, and finance and terrorism act doesn't apply because there was no terrorism, there was no money laundering, and they weren't the proceeds of crime.
What made this conduct illegal was the fact that the government declared it illegal.
And so I asked the panel about this is a new area of conduct that was defined by these regulations.
And the response was, well, but it was illegal conduct.
Well, what made it illegal?
The regulations made it illegal.
Yeah, the emergency act that were invoked right after you said it was illegal.
That's right.
Talking about, you know, bank account frozen and while go fund me funds frozen and donations funds frozen.
Let's take a look at clip number four, where it's basically Deputy Minister of Finance, Michael Sabia, who said to the commission that there were quote unquote no accounts frozen.
Very weird to hear that.
Let's take a look at that.
Jules who had their accounts seized and subsequently those accounts were released to them nonetheless have had lingering effects on their credit history because of mispayments.
But you're talking about people here that were involved in unlawful activities.
Well, ma'am, that's not true.
I mean, I think you've just said yourself that it was donors.
To our knowledge, no donors were affected by this order.
There were no accounts frozen, to the best of our knowledge, based on the information that we've received.
There were no accounts from donors that were frozen.
And so, and so, and the long-term effects on credit histories, that's not something that concerns you at all.
I think that's an issue for the financial institutions and how the financial institutions administer these things.
So, you know, you work in finance and it's your job supposedly to know these things.
And again, it's that hot potato that we've seen that's just been thrown in another direction because no one wants to take responsibility for the part that they played in the invocation, the unjust invocation of the Emergencies Act, I might add.
What was your takeaway from that?
Like, what was it to, we were all there in the commission today, but to hear that again, what do you think of it?
Well, there was a, you know, a big issue that came up under a few different cross-examinations about the issue of freezing donors' accounts.
And they say that was never our intention.
But they're the ones who put the input to actually get these orders drafted.
And the way they're drafted, they apply to donors.
And even more than that, they put a duty on banks to make sure that they have no dealings with donors.
And on top of that, you know, there's a bit of a contradiction there because he said that earlier in their testimony, they said they didn't get specific information on bank accounts being frozen.
They got some general stats, but they don't know individual people's accounts were frozen.
So he's saying that they don't know of any donors' accounts who are frozen, but they wouldn't know that anyways, because, I mean, you called it a hot potato and that's a good image because, you know, they made the regulations.
They hand that power off to the RCMP.
The RCMP makes a list of people.
They hand that off to the banks.
And then the banks are responsible for the last step.
And each, you know, between the RCMP and the Department of Finance, each of them can say it wasn't me.
Exactly.
And, you know, there was actually a document that was brought up today as well.
It was what the RCMP actually used to be able to conduct their investigations and to be able to write down the relevant information to be able to vet these people prior to their accounts being frozen.
Jodie Thomas's Contradictions00:06:23
And we don't even know who made the document because no one would take responsibility.
In fact, all three people in that panel actually said that they had never seen that document before.
And they're the ones that created the legislation to actually be able to freeze people's accounts.
I mean, Ms. Jacques in particular, I found her, if I can be so bold as to say, definitely the weak link in that panel of three because anything that she couldn't actually retort or dance around as well as the others, we saw Sabia come in and save her each and every single time, redirecting her questions.
And so she is the one primarily that deals with creating those policies.
And the fact that her answer was like, I have no idea what's going on.
What is your job?
What is your job, Matt?
I think that's the whole thing.
This whole point of the inquiry, move away the responsibility from yourself to someone else.
The Department of Finance, Ministry of Finance, said it wasn't our responsibility.
It was the private banks.
It was the private entities.
It wasn't us.
It was intract.
But you're the one who enacts the law in order to allow that to happen.
Hot potato.
Am I wrong?
No, yeah, I think that's it.
And it's, I mean, part of it's just figuring out who did what because there's so many people that were involved in the various decisions that were made.
And each person can limit themselves to their little piece and then absolve themselves of responsibility.
I mean, one of the issues that was coming up around the advice about whether or not this was a national security threat is that each department can say, we were asked what powers we would use if the Emergencies Act gets invoked.
But it seems that very few, if any, people were actually tasked with the big question, should we invoke the Emergencies Act?
Yeah, exactly.
Anything else to add there?
Well, I think we pretty much summed up how it went for the morning, for the first panel of witnesses.
Moving on to Jodie Thomas, now the second witness of the day.
Let's start off with a clip.
Clip number, let's go with clip number 10.
The commission quoted a transcript of the understandings from the national security intelligence, highlighting that Jodie Thomas, highlighting to Jodie Thomas, sorry, that she quote unquote learned from the Coot's arrest from the media and not the RCMP.
So this high level government official took some of her information instead of going with the RCMP from the media.
Very, very interesting.
Yeah.
Clarified that neither you nor your staff receive sit reps or situation reports, project reports, or other forms of information directly.
And as you mentioned today, you hadn't heard of Project Henson specifically.
And if we just scroll down a little bit, it also says there that you learned of the Coot's arrests through the media, not directly from the RCMP.
And just scrolling down a little bit again, sharing among all three levels of government and information and intelligence in relation to the convoy could have been better.
So I'll just ask you to elaborate a little bit on where you think the deficiencies are and what maybe can be or should be done about them.
Because as you know, the Commission has a sort of a forward-looking mandate as well as a backward-looking one.
So.
I think when we are looking at primarily open source information as opposed to investigation specific information.
So let's draw a line there.
The RCMP is investigating person X for having done something criminal.
As the NSIA, should I receive that?
No.
What'd you make of this?
I mean, in a sense, I think she has a good point.
So during Brendan Miller's cross-examination, he got an important point where her position is not made by an act of parliament.
It's made by a policy of the prime minister.
Her job is basically to assemble the information that's coming from the different agencies and funnel that up to the prime minister.
But where that becomes an issue is where she's the strongest support for the Emergencies Act.
And so it really does matter what information she had available to her.
And in this case, it seems like, I mean, there's a limitation to what she's getting from the RCMP.
Other than that, kind of her biggest source of information would be something like CSIS, who we've seen from the documents.
We haven't heard from them yet.
We've seen from the documents, they don't think that there was a security threat to this.
There's a threat to the security of Canada present.
And it's under the CSIS Act that that definition exists for the Emergencies Act.
So they're presumably the experts on the issue.
Yeah, you know, I was trying to find a document.
Unfortunately, I can't find it, but it is true that earlier today we saw a document where CSIS said that according to their view, the Freedom Convoy was not a national security issue.
And my question that I had for that witness, Jodi Thomas, was, if CSIS is saying that, why are you saying otherwise?
Why are you completely disregarding what they are saying?
And I think your testimony answered why.
She doesn't seem to value CSIS's intelligence a lot.
She didn't seem to value CSIS a lot.
You know, when she was talking about the reasons to invoke the Emergencies Act, when she was talking about threats to national security, she would say that Section 2, the CSIS Act, wasn't the only thing that we should rely on, even though that's literally what the EA is based on.
Section 2 of the CSIS Act and whether or not we had other options apart from that.
I don't think that she valued CSIS intelligence a lot.
I mean.
Well, really, I just think, again, it speaks to her position.
I mean, if you were unaware or you didn't see my live tweets today, she came upon that position with zero prior police experience, unlike the people before her that filled that position as well.
And she started two weeks before the convoy.
So you have a woman that is kind of learning as she goes.
And that was something that she actually confirmed during her testimony as well, that she just kind of learned as she went.
But as her title would portray, advisor to national security.
That's a really big job.
That's a really big role.
So, I mean, again, I think it's pretty simple why she couldn't fill that position, why she couldn't trust Cesis when Cesis has been around for how long and you've had that position for nine months.
It's pretty apparent to me.
60 Chance, 60 Confidence00:02:23
She's incompetent.
This is Trudeau's Canada.
And we just need to reshuffle the deck a bit.
No, totally.
All right.
Well, thanks so much for coming on today.
Any last words for us about, once again, anything that we should take away from today's proceedings at the commission?
I'd say optimism.
I think the inquiry is doing a really good job at revealing the truth and getting to the bottom of things.
And it's very illuminating having the people who are at the center of this whole event that took Canada and the world by storm and having them answer questions under cross-examination.
Absolutely.
Thank you so much for being here.
Appreciate it.
And if you guys want to see more of his cross-examination, you can always tune in on our daily live stream where we basically look at how all of the commission unedited.
All right, let's go to a quick ad break.
And when we come back, we will welcome Tom Morazo, Freedom Convoy, according to his LinkedIn profile, intern on the live stream to talk to us about what he sought to say.
Let's take a quick break.
Freedom in 2022 is not sitting idly by while health diktats with no skin in the game make up all the rules.
If you're like me and want to play an active role in upholding civil liberties and freedoms for all Canadians, for our children and eventually our grandchildren, then come out to our Rebel Live event and get to know us in person.
We'll hear from some of the most influential leaders in the freedom movement.
We have events in Toronto on November the 19th and in Calgary on Saturday, November 26th.
Tickets are on sale now at rebelnewslive.com.
Come out, have lunch, get some rebel swag, meet the rebels, and more.
You don't want to miss this event.
check it out rebelnewslive.com all right everyone we've got freedom convoy I always call him an intern because on his LinkedIn profile, it's written intern right next to Freedom Convoy.
But I guess key persona, key figure, Tom Morazzo.
Tom, how are you doing?
There's only a 60% chance you're right about what you're saying, according to the OPP's analysis.
60% Chance Rebellion00:06:21
Yeah, exactly.
I think there's, yeah, it's better to say there's a 60% chance that people will follow you and agree with you.
Right.
I think that's what it is.
Tom, for people just tuning in now for the first time, can you tell us a little bit more about yourself?
Oh, boy.
I'm a co-host on Rebel News as of the last five or six weeks, and you're a really good opening act.
I just want to say that.
No, for people that don't know me, I did participate with the convoy last January, February.
And my role during the convoy did evolve from starting off with the intent just to deliver soup.
That's the inside joke, which turned out to be doing some media stuff, but also participating in some of the negotiations with the city of Ottawa and also spending a lot of time talking to the police, both the OPS and the OPP.
Yeah, and I think I saw you understand basically almost all dates day watching the commission.
I think it should follow pretty closely.
As someone watching it, what was your general view of what happened?
How are you feeling looking at this show going on?
You know, I have to say, I think that was the hardest day that I've actually sat through.
I first and foremost, I listened to these people, you know, the Deputy Minister of Finance, the National Security Advisor to Justin Trudeau.
And I listened to these people, and I'm not sure they're talking about Canadian taxpaying voters or if they're talking about enemies of the state in a different country.
Like, I can't comprehend for the life of me why week after week we've been here in this commission and we have always heard the evidence and the testimony from various law enforcement as well as CSIS.
And yet these people continuously from the political class and the political appointees get up there day after day after day and just lie about the same exact talking points.
It is just, it's hard to digest.
It's hard to accept the fact that they're actually talking about Canadian citizens.
You know, it's, you can see their disdain for people that have wrong think that they disagree with.
And, you know, an important thing is in the testimony today, yet again, another high-ranking set of government officials still, still can't tell us when the convoy protest became illegal or why.
Well, the only thing that could make it illegal was the Fight of the Emergencies Act was enacted.
There was no riot act before that.
Do you mirror some feelings about what went on today?
Oh, for sure.
You know, and I totally agree with you.
I think it's, I forget during this proceeding exactly why we're here most of the time, because a lot of the things that we talk about aren't very relevant anymore, at least in my opinion.
Like, yeah, we're getting down to the bottom of it, but again, there's no evidence suggesting that it was ever necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act.
So you're right.
It sounds like this prosecution on these Canadians, on Canadian patriots, on Canadian soil is getting to the point where I really think that all of these high-ranking government officials, so to speak, just live in their own bubbles and they have no actual grasp of the reality around them and that they just have people talking in their ears, feeding them their information.
And I think that those people have just, they've sort of allowed those people to project their own realities because I don't think that you can actually sit there and provide a testimony so false so many times and have the same rhetoric, the same dialogue.
Like I know that lawyers go through like a little bit of a preparation with their clients beforehand, but when you have so many pieces of the federal arm or the federal government, so to speak, that just say the same things, they use the same words.
It's frightening to think that we live in a country where the people that are supposed to protect us haven't done a thing to uphold that in the last two years.
Put it into another context, too.
For the entire time of COVID, none of these people lost their jobs.
Exactly.
None of these people were prevented from traveling.
None of these people were prevented from any of the freedoms that they had prior to COVID.
They still went about their daily lives in this country.
And last April, the federal government gave themselves a 20% taxpayer-funded raise.
They decided for themselves that they were entitled to a 20% raise last April.
And what did the rest of the, you know, those who chose not to partake in a medical experiment, what did they have to endure?
We don't hear about that.
We talk about in this commission, poor Ottawa, poor Ottawa, poor residents.
Well, guess what?
You know, before Eva and Keith went in for the horn injunction, they had 100 affidavits from local residents saying that they supported the convoy.
So they went in, right?
We have local support.
Many people in the city of Ottawa that I personally met during the convoy supported the convoy, and they were all from the city of Ottawa.
We have a very small handful of people that I'm sorry, but poor you.
You had to endure.
And guess what?
Every year in this city, you've got festivals of varying kinds.
You've got Canada Day celebrations.
I think there's a Blues Fest here that goes on for weeks.
Like there's a lot of activity in the city.
But I'm sorry that you were inconvenienced for a couple of horns for a couple of days.
Oh boy, we better have the War Measures Act 2.0 invoked to clear people out.
It's actually a couple of days that you just said.
I think a lot of people see the convoy, something that went on for four weeks, and that's right.
But the honking was only there for the first few days because afterwards you had an injunction.
Given But Not Authorized00:07:08
That's right.
And just to go back to today, to today's proceedings at the Commission, one of the most interesting moments that we saw from the Commission today was when Brendan Miller ended his cross-examination of the second witness of the day, Jodi Thomas's clip 11.
And he asked an extremely relevant question at the end.
And in all fairness to Jodi Thomas, she was actually providing yes or no answers.
Yes, she will go on, she would ramble for a while, but she would always say yes or no.
At least 90% of the time, she would still say yes or no.
And this no that she gave at the end was extremely relevant.
What if they just got rid of your position and left it to the director of CESIS to do what you do?
So the director of CESIS is not the only person who is responsible for security in this country.
That's number one.
You can certainly make that recommendation to the governor and council if it's useful to you.
But there are more people than him involved in assessing national security in this country.
But it's nothing passed by parliament, right?
Parliament.
The Privy Council office is an established office that is essentially the Prime Minister's department.
We coordinate information.
We challenge.
We provide policy advice to the prime minister, and I am part of that mechanism.
I understand that, but you can agree that Parliament has given you no mandate to do that.
I don't agree with how you framed it.
Parliament?
I don't agree with the basic premise of your challenge.
Well, here you go.
Yes or no?
Has Parliament, via statute, given you, the National Security Advisor and the Privy Council, authority to collect and then analyze intelligence?
The Foreign Intelligence and Assessment Group is a long-standing group that no, Parliament hasn't given it authority, but it exists and it continues.
Exactly.
She is not giving authority to do such a thing.
So if she wasn't given authority to do such a thing, why didn't she rely on the agencies like CSIS that had authority to do such a thing?
No?
Well, yeah, the clip explains it perfectly.
I mean, she kind of, she dug that hole herself.
Brendan was like, here's the shovel.
And she was like, absolutely.
Let me get to work on that, show you another thing that I don't know and that I'm incompetent for.
I just love how he just closes his laptop prematurely because he knows exactly what they're going to say.
Like he picks and chooses his moments.
Yeah, that's all I have to say.
Apart from Brendan, it was really hard to watch again, to be honest.
Well, I mean, you break it down in another way.
You know, she talks about foreign intelligence gathering and analysis and all that kind of stuff.
But he was really trying to get at, what about domestic?
And her response really, from what I was listening to, I was kind of surprised.
She's like, well, I'm actually trying to get more power and control to do domestic stuff.
Right.
And, you know, but he said, well, you actually don't have any authority to do what you're doing anyway.
That falls under the purview of CSIS.
And what I found even more interesting was when they were talking about section two of the CSIS Act, she really challenged Brendan on his interpretation of the thing and said that CSIS has a very narrow scope for doing, for looking at that.
And it's like, it's kind of there in black and white.
It either is or it isn't.
You can't kind of say that it's not.
And he went through the entire law enforcement intelligence and CSIS apparatus, you know, RCMP, CSIS, the comms people, the signal intelligence people.
And even he didn't even mention the OPP, but you have all these intelligence people.
And she says, well, they're various inputs.
They're just inputs.
They don't, you know, but I would think that the head of the spy agency for this country would probably be a vitally important and weighted, heavily intelligence input.
I know it was very interesting because she kept challenging Miller's interpretation of the Emergency Act in Section 2 of the CSIS Act.
But as soon as she was asked a question that, according to her, a lawyer would be better suited for to answer.
At that time, she wasn't a lawyer.
At that time, she couldn't provide any legal understanding of anything.
And most importantly, you know what?
She couldn't provide anything intelligible.
That's exactly, it's not your jurisdiction, lady.
I don't care what Justin Trudeau tells you.
So just stay in your lane.
That's all I have to say.
Yeah.
And just to end it on that one last clip, clip number eight, once again, from Brendan Miller's cross-examination of Jodi Thomas, this witness that we just saw.
Brendan Miller went hard, hard on this lady's sorry.
And I think afterwards, when he saw that the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom Lawyer, Rob Kidrich, wasn't asking the exact question that he wanted him to ask, he stood up, walk over and whisper a question in his ear.
And let's take a look at clip number eight.
Yeah, I've never seen any of that.
We've all done there.
We heard from every law enforcement official, as well as we have the statements from CESIS and evidence, that they didn't have reasonable suspicion that any of this was taking place.
So I take it that you can agree with me that you didn't have any evidence with you before cabinet or even considered of any espionage or sabotage against Canada that is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed towards or in support of such espionage or sabotage, right?
That's been discussed, yes.
Right.
And so that, there is no evidence of that that you considered in your assessment.
And you can agree with me that there's no evidence of foreign influenced activities within or related to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada, are clandestine or deceptive, or involve a threat to any person, correct?
There were threats to people.
Right.
By email and Twitter, right?
I would submit that in the social media era, you cannot ignore threats against officials and public office holders just because they are on social media.
That would be inexcusably negligent.
Right, but that's up to the police to deal with, or is that a national emergency?
It depends on the situation in which and the context in which those threats arrive.
I highly suggest that everyone go online, write CSIS Act, Section 2, and read what a threat to national security is.
Take a look at that.
You'll actually be able to, what she's saying right here does not corroborate what Section 2, the CSIS Act, actually is.
Trouble With National Security00:06:30
And that goes once again to my point that she doesn't seem to value CSIS philosophy.
She prefers to do her own research, her own investigation, even though that's not her mandate.
She just admitted in the clip that we just saw and disregards CSIS intelligence.
Last word to you, Celine, then Tom, and then we'll wrap that up.
I just, I share Tom's sentiment.
Today was particularly hard to sit through, specifically this morning, listening to the three deputy finance ministers.
But I feel like I was revived after Brendan Miller cross-examined him.
And then particularly in the clip that we just watched, I just, it just, it was very uplifting.
You know, again, to hear, to hear these people who don't really even know a whole heck of a lot about their own job.
I mean, I don't expect them to know a lot about what actually went on when the convoy was here about any of the blockades.
So I guess it's just that, yeah, I want to end it on something optimistic as well.
So I think that this definitely has been, it's opened a lot of eyes for Canadians, for myself as well.
I definitely share that sentiment.
I think this is why as a younger person, I can speak to the fact that they don't really do anything in schools to primarily usher people that are young to get into politics or to be interested in politics.
In fact, I can say I was deterred from them at a very young age because they made it so heinous and hard to understand when judging from what I see in this room, the commission actually, to be more specific, it's very simple.
And I would usher anyone of any age, but primarily if we have anyone of a younger audience, if you're not sure about any of these things, do your research, get involved, make choices, be able to like lend your voice towards a side that's going to be able to project what you want to see go on in your country, because I don't think anyone likes what they're seeing right now.
And that goes for anyone, regardless of where you stand in position to the convoy in Ottawa.
So I'll pass it off to Tom from there.
All right.
Well, just before we get on to you, Tom, earlier, we saw one of the witness talk about the fact that they didn't want the families of the people that got their assets frozen to be impacted.
I know that your family was impacted by the fact that your assets were frozen.
So if you could also just touch on that, that would be good.
Yeah.
So one of my children has a very severe heart condition, multiple open heart surgeries, right?
Needed medication.
My son, you know, he doesn't reside with me.
And during the emergency act, when my bank accounts, my credit cards, everything that had my name on it was frozen, my credit card was on file with the pharmacy.
And so we couldn't get his heart medication.
Okay, what did my son have to do with what the banks watched on CTV or Global or one of these and then decided that it would be okay for them to go after all of my financial assets?
Those are my assets.
I earn those and those are mine.
And here's the thing.
To this day, there was never a warrant for my arrest.
I've never been charged.
I've never been convicted.
I don't own a truck.
I didn't violate a horn injunction.
What I did during the convoy was to try my best to work with law enforcement to make sure that that convoy was responsible and safe.
And they decided that They didn't want to hear from Canadians because as we said, it's still to this day.
We don't know when they determined that it was illegal or why or how they did it.
They just say that it's illegal.
But they never really justified or proved that it was legal.
They certainly have never met the threshold of Section 2 of CSIS.
So how is it that now all of a sudden my life's son or my son's life is put in jeopardy?
And this is what every Canadian in this country, whether you supported the convoy or not, should know that if you disagree with this government right now, they will take extraordinary measures because now they've set the precedent to do it.
Now they've actually created this situation where the next time you, for example, refuse to have sex with your boss, right?
This is what we're talking about.
It's not about COVID.
This has always been about following the law, about informed consent and about your right to choose what is right for you and bodily autonomy.
And, you know, they brought up the rule of law.
And Brandon asked her what she meant by the rule of law.
But here's the thing.
If you go against, if you tell truth to power and you disagree with that, the onus now on the victim is to somehow be the one who corrects their behavior.
And I know it's a very crude and disgusting comment about having sex with your boss, but we're living in a world that if you don't do what the authorities in this country tell you, you're the one who are going to suffer for it.
I lost my job because I questioned the mandates, not because I refused to get it, but because I questioned it.
Exactly.
This is the world we live in.
And this leadership starts at the top and it works all the way down through this government and at every political level in this country.
And we're in trouble.
We are desperately in this trouble.
And that's why we can't let it happen again as Canadians as a whole.
We have to stand together, stand on guard for the I said that today when the finance deputy ministers talked about how the Canadian reputation was ruined with the U.S.
I just reminded people that, you know, the past two years, we didn't stand for a whole lot, but it was Canadians that made this happen, that brought the convoy together after the federal government locked people down for almost two and a half years in total, convinced them that their friends, families, and neighbors would get them sick so that they would be okay with locking themselves in their houses.
And that's just to the degree that they went this time.
So just to retort what Tom says, what would happen if we allowed them that ability again, if we consented, if we gave in to the fear and the propaganda that they spread, not a whole lot of good.
So.
Yeah.
No, definitely.
Well, thank you so much, Tom, for coming on tonight.
You also spoke about, you know, illegal.
Everyone watching, you had two homeworks tonight.
Thank You, Homework Assigned00:02:10
Go read section two of the CSS Act online and also check out the RIT Act and check out what the RIT Act does.
What is the purpose of the Right Act?
And here you've got some interesting information as well.
So Section 2, the CSIS Act, and also the Right Act.
Go check that out tonight.
Thank you to everyone who's been joining us.
I know it's pretty late tonight.
Thank you to the people behind the camera.
Thank you, Celine, for being here today.
Thank you, Eva.
Thank you, Tom.
And we will see you all again tomorrow.
All right.
See you.
you freedom in the year 2022 for me folks it means the return of rebel live 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 Polvowski, 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.
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.