David Vignot, CSIS director, testified that the Ottawa convoy lacked legal justification for invoking the Emergencies Act—no evidence of sabotage, violence, or foreign interference was found—but still advised Trudeau to act. Bill Blair’s stressed demeanor and shifting claims about early discussions (as soon as February 4th) raised suspicions, while Alberta resolved its blockade peacefully without federal intervention. Over $20M in crowdfunded support and visible extremist flags (like the Confederate or Nazi) were allegedly ignored, yet protesters faced bank freezes and police aggression, including rubber bullets and tear gas. The episode reveals a pattern of selective enforcement, media bias, and potential historical revisionism to justify government overreach against dissent. [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 oh good evening everybody and welcome to the show we call breakdown It's our daily analysis of what went down at the Public Order Emergency Commission.
That's the official examination of the Trudeau government's actions in invoking a wartime law, the Emergencies Act, to extinguish an entirely peaceful anti-mandate protest in the nation's capital that just had grown a little bit too embarrassing for Justin Trudeau.
And we just wrapped up, Celine and I and William over there and K2 behind the camera.
We just wrapped up a 12-hour day.
12 hours, yeah.
12 full hours in the commission room.
And we're joined today by trucker lawyer Keith Wilson, just to my left here.
And Keith, it was a crazy day today.
We heard from the director of CSIS and then the top spy in the country, the assistant director of CSIS, and then the top intelligence analyst, I guess, in the country.
That's right.
And I'll go directly to our first clip after we set it up.
But the director of CSIS, that's David Vignot, he testified that CSIS was not investigating the convoy as a whole.
They said that there were some what they call IMVEs, ideologically motivated, violent extremists.
That's a term I hope I never hear again.
It's just so droned into your head after daylight today.
But he said that they were not really investigating the convoy for any of those things.
There might have been people who were attaching themselves to the convoy that were sort of on CSIS's radar, but the convoy itself was not a threat, according to CSIS.
That's right.
They didn't feel they met the threshold and their intelligence didn't support that there was anything to investigate.
Isn't that interesting?
And yet, and we'll get to it in a bit, the CSIS director, David Vignon, advised Justin Trudeau to just drop the hammer anyway.
Yeah.
I think we'll get to that in a second.
Let's go to clip one.
This is the CSIS director testifying that they were not investigating the convoy.
Right, but the service was not investigating the anti-public health measures movement broadly, for example, and it certainly wasn't investigating the convoy itself as a discrete topic.
As was mentioned earlier, we are prevented by law to investigate protests and lawful dissent.
We're not investigating the convoy itself.
Our interest is to understand how that dynamic is potentially influencing individuals who may individuals that were known already to CESIS and others potentially to radicalize further and engage in potential threat-related activity.
So we were not investigating the convoy.
Right.
You know, it's interesting because the CSIS Act specifically restrains CSIS from surveilling or examining lawful protests, including anti-government protests, as long as they're peaceful.
Yeah, and I mean, that I think we all take some comfort in that or should, but I think we all similarly had some unease about this whole concept of ideologically motivated extremists when they were talking about the definition of that and how broad it was.
Yeah.
And it's somebody who not only believes something, but believes on it to the extent that they want to act it out and change the world around them to have the world around them be different than it is today.
That sounds like a Christian.
I was just about to say it sounds like religion or an environmentalist or a scout leader.
Right.
I mean, where do we stop?
It just seems this is, and they mentioned it's a new thing.
And the first time I started reading out terrorists.
Yes, but many definitions these days.
No, no, we used to accept that there's people that have different views about how the world should be.
Right.
And they're entitled to stand on a street corner and tell you all about it.
They're entitled to start a club.
Yeah.
And push these views.
But now it seems to be a trigger of whether or not the government gets to watch you and whether it puts you in an off-side zone, which was disconcerting to hear some of it.
Yeah.
And I wonder why they changed the phraseology.
I think probably to make it more broad, right?
Because we used to say, okay, well, that's a terrorist doing terrorist things and that's a terrorist sell.
And now it's ideologically motivated violent extremists.
But we've also seen how they changed the definition of violence to include inconvenience and honking.
Yes.
And how people feel.
Right.
As opposed to, and that was really clear through a number of the testimony today that they've also morphed that.
I mean, we associate on an intuitive level violence to be, you know, obviously reprehensible, but something that's physical in nature.
Right.
Right.
And we've seen throughout the inquiry, starting from the very first witnesses from the city residents, that it was felt aggressions and felt violence.
One of the senior police officials also talked about that.
So we're getting a lot of double speak into language that is very disconcerting.
Yeah.
I think one of my favorite clips today, though, is clip number two.
And this was the lawyer from the JCCF examining the top security apparatus in this country and making them answer to every specific portion of section two of the CESIS Act, which is the bar.
It's the test.
It's the bar.
You have to hit four of those to, or you know, at least one of the four.
They hit none of the four.
And actually, they didn't even worry about the fourth because they said it was so non-existent that they didn't even bother investigating it.
You have to hit one of the four to initiate the Emergencies Act.
And so let's go to clip two because it's quite astounding.
That a terrorist group was going to pretend to use an event in order to conduct a terrorist activity.
Well, of course, that would be of interest to CESIS.
But we are very, very conscious and aware of balancing the rights of individuals in a democracy like Canada with our own mandate and our more intrusive techniques.
Okay, Mr. Vigno.
So looking, let's look at, we can look at A first.
Based on the services assessment, there was no espionage or sabotage associated with the protest, correct?
That's correct.
So the 2A definition wasn't met?
No.
Okay.
And there was no foreign interference?
We have, I think it's in our testimony that we have said that we investigated foreign interference in relation to the event, including foreign funding, and we do not see these activities amounting to a threat to Security of Canada.
So 2B wasn't met.
Yeah.
Thank you.
And there wasn't any serious violence associated with the protests?
I would not say that.
Or a credible threat of serious violence.
That's not what we're looking at.
We're looking at, you know, how these events or individuals might engage in activities that meet our threshold.
That this is where I was answering questions earlier about the distinction between what law enforcement would be doing in terms of serious violence versus what we would do as a CSIS under the confine of the CSIS Act.
Okay, I'll be more specific then.
There were no activities within or relating to Canada directed toward 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, correct?
Yes, and we've testified to that earlier.
I think so 2C wasn't.
2C was not met.
Okay.
And just quickly, there was no credible threat to overthrowing our established system of government.
I can say that we have not investigated under 2D.
It was astounding because if you watch mainstream media, all you hear is that this was a seditionist plot.
Well, and this is another theme that's emerged where the law is clear, the test is clear, it's a checklist.
You cannot invoke the Emergencies Act unless you can check certain boxes.
And the testimony from the OPP intelligence people, the RCMP, the Ottawa Police Service, the Solicitor General for the province of Ontario, senior government officials, the Deputy Attorney General or Public Safety Minister for Canada have all been the same, which is none of the tests were met.
But then they proceed to say, as we heard today from the Director of CESIS, well, I recommended it anyway.
And that is illegal.
That is an unlawful thing to do, particularly when you're talking about invoking a measure that allows the federal government to intrude into provincial jurisdiction, which they did, and strip Canadians of fundamental rights, freeze their personal bank accounts, freeze their corporate bank accounts, prevent them from meeting businesses from meeting payroll, preventing parents from paying for daycare, rent, and food.
Right.
And subsequently, we found out that they were denying bank loans after the fact, like Farm Credit Canada was guilty of that.
And yeah, after the fact, that takes us to our next clip.
The same CSIS director who just testified that none of the benchmarks were reached by the convoy under Section 2 of the CSIS Act.
He, and I think that there were documents that said that he would, that we saw, I think it was February 10th, where he was saying there are no plots within the convoy, there are no serious threats within the convoy.
I think he might be the only law enforcement official who uses the word violence, Carolla, correctly, in this whole thing.
But by the 13th, I think he met with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and all of a sudden things changed.
And he said that it was because he received outside legal advice, but I hardly think it was outside because he got it from the Justice Department, which wanted to invoke the Emergencies Act anyway.
Well, I think the Prime Minister wanted to invoke an Emergencies Act.
And he needed someone to say, okay, good idea.
And we didn't learn until yesterday of the existence of that document.
And this is another problem.
Since leaving the hearing room, we just got served.
Since you left the hearing room, we just got bombarded again with another large document dump from the federal government, despite the fact that half of their witnesses have already testified.
The conduct of the federal government and how the commission is allowing this to happen without consequence and doing nothing to bring fairness back into the process is severely undermining the integrity and the credibility of the commission process and this whole hearing.
Right, because you're not even getting the full scope of the evidence and you're trying to craft questions, but you can't ask questions if you don't even know what the full story is.
As we were there today, you and I saw it firsthand.
We're sitting behind Brendan Miller and the freedom team, and they're getting documents dumped on them.
They're getting documents that were suddenly becoming unredactive.
And then Brendan Miller's got to fight to re-examine a witness who he's just getting new evidence on while the witness is testifying.
No, it's horrible.
The conduct that we've seen is, I mean, it really just goes to show people how, gosh, what's the nice way of saying this?
There's not a nice way of saying it, actually, but the incompetency of the federal government, 100%.
Oh, I don't think they're incompetent.
I think they're conniving.
I'd say arrogance.
Yep.
Evil.
Well, that too.
I say that because they, in the same way that they took advantage and so uncaringly stripped 6 million Canadians of their ability to travel and be with loved ones and have their fundamental right of mobility, how they so quickly made the decision that everyone, if you worked at an airport or in a train station, or were a federal subcontractor or a prison guard or a park warden, etc.,
that you had to be vaccinated without any consideration of, you know, if it's a 21-year-old park worker, their risk of the vaccine is far higher than the risk of COVID.
So, in the same way that the government's been so cavalier about trampling Canadians' rights, that same cultural approach of this Trudeau government we're seeing manifest in the inquiry process in real time on live TV.
Now, is there any sort of I don't know, anything you can do about that?
Provided Assessments Questioned00:15:19
Like, does the commissioner know that they're giving you these document dumps on the witness while the witness is testifying?
Hardly seems fair.
Well, two things happen: one is a judge in any hearing proceeding, or a commissioner, or a tribunal member, will only keep the respect of the room if they treat the parties with respect.
So, when a party is completely out of line and the decision maker, the person with the authority does nothing about it, then there's no point in anybody else being in line.
So, if the Commissioner Rillot doesn't do something about this, I think he's going to lose control of the room.
That's just sort of a practical human nature thing that happens.
And you already started to see flavors of it today with the frustration of the lawyers.
But the other thing that normally happens is that the judge, or in this case, a commissioner, says, All right, well, what do we got to do to make this fair?
If you're just getting these documents now, normally what they would do is they would adjourn automatically.
There'd be just an instant adjournment.
I've seen this in regular court cases.
All the time.
Someone tries to bring a surprise document.
Do you want an adjournment?
You got it.
Right.
Right.
And then there'd be a cost consequence and other things.
So there'd be an adjournment.
And then what would happen is there'd be a rescheduling and then you'd have an opportunity to re-examine that witness and rely on that documentation.
I don't know what he's going to do here.
We're in our last week.
He's up against a time crunch, but I don't know what he's going to do.
I just think it's so ridiculous.
They have entire departments dedicated to getting documents in every ministry.
It's worse than that.
Yeah.
The reason it's worse than that is of all the parties, who knew first that they were going to have to gather these documents.
Exactly.
The federal government knew on February 14th.
Right.
Because they know it says right in Section 63 of the Act, within 60 days of invocation or revocation of it, there's going to be a public inquiry, right?
Which they delayed.
Which they delayed.
But the point is, they knew first about this obligation.
They have the largest legal department in Ottawa in terms of law firm.
They have endless resources of staff.
And so I think it's a combination of tactical to throw us off, to prevent us from having the good stuff, to frustrate us, to muddle us up.
And just their sheer arrogance combined with their incompetence.
He's already lost control of the room at that point.
And you started to see in the very, very beginning, there was some sort of standard that everyone was setting.
People were more respective.
Respectful, we'll say there wasn't a lot of objections in the beginning.
People were allowed to go.
He gave time.
I understand that there is a time crunch towards the end of this.
But at the same time, you have to equate for the fact that when you have the other half of the room that is receiving all of these documents that no human on this earth can possibly go through, they know these things.
We're watching them.
They know documents.
Yes.
100%.
Not only that, just to add insult to injury, not that I'm going to get much worse.
There's a fair number of the documents that we've been able to go through since I saw you last, you know, seemingly moments ago.
Yeah.
They're illegible and they're undated.
So we can't make them out.
They're screenshots of text messages, but you can't, they're so blurry and pixelated that we can't tell who they're from and who they're to or what they say.
Another incompetency from the federal government.
You just start to feel like they're playing us all for fools and maybe they're right.
I don't know.
I hope not.
Yeah.
Well, yeah.
And they do have endless resources.
They have doc, like departments of people that all they do is gather documents for them.
Yeah.
And they've had months and months.
They've delayed this once.
And now while Bill Blair is testifying, you're getting more of his text messages.
It's crazy.
It's sick.
It's crazy.
Yeah.
Let's go to clip three, please, Efron in studio.
It's CSIS Director David Vigno explaining that despite the fact that the convoy didn't rise to the level of Section 2 of the CSIS Act, he told the Prime Minister, you know what?
Do her anyway.
So, sorry, that threat that you're speaking about is respect individuals, but the protest itself did not pose a Section 2 threat to the security of Canada.
What we've testified to is that we did not made a determination at the event itself.
And I think it's part of our testimony, yes.
Okay.
And yet you still advise the Prime Minister to invoke the Emergencies Act?
Yes, I did.
And you did that not because you thought that the protest posed a threat to the security of Canada as defined in Section 2 of the CESIS Act, but because you were reassured that threat to the security of Canada had a different meaning under the, in the context of the Emergencies Act.
I think my testimony was in part that, but it was also based on all of the other information that I became aware of during all of the interdepartmental meetings and cabinet meetings I participated in.
So I was provided, that opinion was provided, if you want, as a national security advisor, as opposed to the director of CESAS specifically.
He said, oh, wait, wait, I didn't catch that the first time.
He said national security advisor.
So that's Jodi Thomas.
Right.
We all know how that went.
What sort of intelligence could she possibly give to something when she has zero policing expertise?
She has no history of anything.
She's appointed by Justin Trudeau.
That's it.
She, that was the council?
Are you kidding?
Well, and if I'm understanding what happened today, and I think I am, they were never at, like CESIS was never asked to provide a threat assessment on the convoy to cabinet.
Did I get that right?
They actually, I think, went around CSIS.
No, they provided a threat assessment and all of their, well, they provided assessments, whether it's technically a threat assessment or not, I'm not sure.
But they provided assessments on two occasions.
Right.
They're in evidence, and both of them concluded that it was not a threat to national security.
Which is odd because if why even get an assessment from CESIS if CSIS's assessment is not going to be the assessment you're going to use to invoke the Emergencies Act, which relies on CESIS assessment.
Because that whole line is something they developed in the last week.
Right.
Because they saw all the evidence coming out.
Because remember, Mendocino said no fewer than seven times in the House and various committee meetings that it was the police forces that asked for the invocation.
Yes, that's right.
And once we started having each different police force multiple times testify, wasn't me, wasn't me, wasn't me, they started to run out of field to run on.
And then when the bureaucrats came in and said, well, it wasn't us, it wasn't us, it wasn't us, they now had to come up with a completely brand new story.
So that's why it makes sense is because they're fabricating it because they need to, they, and you really saw it, as I said, when we did one of these sessions after last Friday, that when we had the some of the senior officials from the Privy Council's office and the prime minister's office testify that they were testing out this new approach, which is, well,
it might not have technically met the definition, but we all felt that it was the right thing to do.
Yeah.
You know, and we also saw some of the documents that they sort of just breeze by.
And a lot of times I'm reading the document, not what they want you to look at, but everything else is probably the stuff you should be looking at.
And one of them was that CISIS said that invocation of the act, specifically unnecessarily, would be a thing that would radicalize people to their IMVE status because it would confirm all the things that people like you and me already think about the government, that it's crooked, it's tyrannical, that it's out to get you and it's intolerant.
And they said invoking the act is going to push people in that direction.
So don't do it if you're concerned about those things.
And the government ignored that recommendation because it suited their political agenda.
Yeah, to be clear, CISAS said two things in the written documentation from the time, which is in law the most persuasive, not the stuff you make up after the fact when you get your hand in the cookie jar.
Right.
Right.
And it was doesn't meet the test, no threat to national security.
And oh, by the way, this is probably a bad idea.
This could inflame things.
That was CSIS's documented position while the protest in Ottawa was ongoing and prior to the invocation.
This, oh, the head of CESIS testifying today that, yeah, no, none of the elements were met.
The legal tests weren't met.
We're clear about that.
But I told the prime minister it was a good idea anyway.
That's all been made up.
That's cover for the prime minister.
Track this gentleman's career and you will see, mark my words, he will be probably within the next five to 10 years, he will be the ambassador to Italy or maybe the ambassador to Bahamas or Grand Cayman or I don't know, maybe France or Germany, you know.
Right.
Maybe he'll replace Bill Blair.
Yeah, no, that's a guy who's something more cushy.
Now, before we let you go, we'll finish up with the CSIS clips.
Apparently, too much time at home on the internet.
That's one of the crazier things.
I'm like, this is not political.
This is insane.
I can't believe these are security professionals.
Well, I looked over at you and I was like, well, I wonder what happened in the last two years to cause people to be inside for such long durations of time.
We've been really tracking the rise of IMVEs since 2020.
I'm like, what could have made the people so mad at the government in the last few years?
I have no idea.
Well, you know what?
Being radical, right?
Like they accuse other people of being radical, but imposing all these lockdowns and restrictions that are unscientific, that's very radical.
So all of these projections onto other people, calling them misogynist, racist, radicalists, you name it, they seem to house a lot of those traits themselves, don't you think?
It's true.
Let's go to, it's clip four, Efron.
Thanks.
Do you have any sort of further comment on that threat environment from 2020 to today?
Has it changed in any way or has it remained the same?
I would say it is increasing.
And I'll pass to my colleague as well.
But I would, from the CSIS perspective, part of the concern is you're seeing a lot of this type of discussion in more mainstream media.
And we know through some of the individuals that we would be concerned with.
And as I mentioned a number of times today, they try to use that to recruit individuals toward a more extreme ideology.
So because we see a lot more of this globally, frankly, adherence to this type of a movement, it is of increasing concern in terms of the ability for people to access that type of violent propaganda.
I don't know if my colleague.
I completely agree.
I would also add that we have seen during the pandemic, especially while people were staying home, they spent a whole lot of time on social media, on the internet.
And there's surveys that have been done that show a large increase in the number of research, people researching internet sites that have IMV content.
So we have seen that trend.
We have seen also the number, as it's written in this summary, the number of threats targeting public officials, politicians have been increasing also quite bankist joke.
That's literally a Ben Bankis joke.
You lock everybody up inside, you legalize weed, and then you wonder why they become conspiracy theorists.
What's wrong with these people?
They seem puzzled why everybody's mad at the government the last two years.
You know, I was just waiting for them to like look over and be like, yeah, they probably listened to rebel news too.
Yeah, I was just going to be like, that's right.
Go into alternative news sites.
Yeah, it's really shocking, isn't it?
I mean, again, just, it's so common sense and it's so blatant and it's so obvious that what they're saying makes no sense.
Anyone would be able to discern the truth in that room um, even if you were blind, deaf and um dumb for this.
Yeah, so good.
Like these, security professionals are so good up until they have to be critical of the government and then, all of a sudden, they're completely politically compromised.
Yeah, because when they, when they do their job honestly, they do their job well.
Yeah, like they.
He accurately used the word violence properly.
Like he, violence was actually physical instead of a feeling that Steve Bell had one day on the streets.
And they seem really good up until they have to pin the blame on the government and then they say, no, no, 100%.
Yeah, and we can't lose sight on the seriousness of all this.
And I know you're alive to it.
And it's that this power has only been used when there's been a World War, World War I, World War II, FLQ crisis with bombings, kidnappings.
Not even for 9-11.
Not even for 9-11, not even for many other things.
And the definition, I just looked at it again, right in the Act, a public order of urgency means an emergency that arises of threats to the security of Canada.
And threats to the security Canada has the meaning assigned by Section 2.
Yeah.
So we've had evidence after evidence, even again from CESIS again, that the definition wasn't met, but they come right out and say it's still okay because the prime minister and some of the people around him thought it was a good idea to strip Canadians of their rights, presumably because the prime minister was mad because he was being embarrassed.
If we have now transitioned into a country where a prime minister can freeze your bank account and strip you of your fundamental rights, override provincial jurisdiction because he's upset, we're in a very dangerous place in this country.
So the inquiry's not over.
There's still more to do.
There's also judicial reviews going on, but Canadians need to take this very seriously.
I think more people are becoming engaged, I think.
I think so too.
I think so too.
Wild Week Ahead00:03:16
I've seen online, and take that for what you will, but more people who are sort of like, I didn't like the convoy, but I also don't like what's happening here.
Yeah.
Yeah, the thing, even the government's own polling has shown that the largest grouping of people is people who are upset and fundamentally unnerved by the idea that the government, Canada win, freeze their bank account and take seize the money.
And even those who were completely opposed to the convoy, fully supportive of mandates and vaccination requirements, fell into that category.
So that's encouraging, but it remains to be seen as to whether there's going to be any political accountability here.
It's going to be a wild week as we have more politicians come forward.
And I know you're going to now start talking about the political angle because we had our first cabinet minister today.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We have Mendicino tomorrow, right?
I'm looking forward to how wrong Brendan Miller gets his name.
And by the way, Brendan Miller should check his bank account.
I bet it's frozen.
Yes, probably.
Terrorism he committed on Bill Blair today.
Oh, he got millered hard.
That was great to watch.
Absolutely.
Oh, we will talk about that, but let's, Efron, if you're watching, and I'm sure you are because you're in the control room, hopefully.
Can you run an ad so we can let Keith leave the set without tripping in a tangle of earphones?
Thank 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 Kanessi, 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 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.
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.
That's my favorite Rebel News Live ad.
OLO Meets Protesters?00:15:04
100%.
Because of the wrestling.
The funnest.
I hope we'll see everybody there on Saturday.
I know Celine will be there.
I'll be there.
K2 behind the camera will be there too.
Joining us now is our friend and colleague, young William Diaz, who's just been ripping it up since the commission began, but before then, annoying politicians on the streets of Ottawa, making it a very unsafe place for them to be.
Emotionally speaking.
Yeah, no violence, but it's feelings in my mind.
It depends on how you identify violence.
I hear it's hurting feelings these days.
Anything these days.
It's hurt feelings these days.
William, if I had to, if you had to tell me what was the one shocking thing that you heard today out of Bill Blair's testimony.
So Bill Blair, for those of you who don't know, he's the Minister of Emergency Preparedness.
He is formerly the chief gun grabber in Canada and he was the top cop in Toronto who oversaw the disaster of the G20.
It was the G20 riots, actually.
And I remember how ridiculous it was.
They set up a free speech zone.
If you need a zone for it, it's not free, by the way.
And he kettled protesters.
He trapped innocent people and bystanders in the rain.
People were arbitrarily arrested.
Sounds familiar.
Anyway, he brought that same attitude to his new position in Justin Trudeau's government after he was elected in 2015.
And he's friends with Peter Slowly.
He's friends with Peter Slowly, the former may or the former chief of the Ottawa police.
And Brenda Lucky, apparently.
He's exclusively that they were friends.
They're friends.
His friend Brenda.
But Peter Slowly was his deputy.
And so he's very empathetic to the treatment that Peter Slowly was receiving from his own deputies, which I was empathetic of until I had to listen to Peter Slowly.
And then I was like, no, I wasn't so sure.
I wasn't so sure anymore.
But I'll shut up.
Tell me, what's the one big thing that you heard today out of Bill Blair's testimony?
You know, I think as far as pinpoint one thing, I think the contradictions overall.
So we've heard a lot of people since the beginning of the inquiry say that the Emergencies Act was not talked about until one day before it was invoked.
And so the 13th of February, basically.
Then we heard some people say that it wasn't talked about until a week before it was invoked.
Some people until three days it was invoked with the IRG meeting.
And now he said during an interview that on the first day of the protest, that was a possible thing that could be used by the federal government.
He said in an interview that it was thought about the first day of the protest.
And then we learned today, I don't remember the exact day, but I think it's February 9th.
February 4th.
On the 4th.
The 4th.
It was Bill Blair's.
strategy or Bill Blair's strategy.
It was like on a readout of a ministerial meeting.
And it was the fourth.
And it was Bill Blair's strategy, I think it was.
And it was emergencies.
But I would say, so, yeah, I would say overall in general, the contradictions that we heard from that incompetent man who is a liberal minister, but also moving.
Yeah, moving aside from the evidence, his body language and his attitude, the man was extremely stressed today during the inquiry.
You saw his face turn red, especially when you're in person, you see it even better.
His face was red.
He kept drinking water.
He would speak super fast.
He was extremely, you could see that his facial muscles were extremely tense on the stand.
So it was very interesting to see him being that stressed because he's not usually that stressed.
He's a longtime minister.
Well, he's a minister and he was a chief of police, but before I think he was a chief of police.
So he shouldn't be that stressed.
Yes, he was today.
And what tells me is that he probably had something to hide.
When you're that stressed, you probably have something to hide.
But he couldn't get his story straight about when they were talking about invoking the emergencies act.
He forgot that he told Global News in writing that it was a consideration from the very beginning.
Then there's a note, and I think it was Justin Trudeau's chief of staff who was the one taking the notes, where it was February 4th.
He wanted to drop the hammer then.
That's right.
Yeah.
The one thing that for me as an Albertan sort of piqued my interest was, and particularly because it's Bill Blair, but he was in this prickly dispute.
We saw it in text messages with our Minister of Municipal Affairs, Rick McIver.
That's right.
Rick McIver did not want the Emergencies Act.
He said, we need some heavy equipment to come.
That's all we need.
We can deal with this.
We have existing laws.
We just can't get tow trucks to come.
We can't get the energy companies to come with the rig moving equipment.
They looked at Saskatchewan.
They looked in BC.
They looked in Montana.
They asked everybody.
Nobody was coming.
Well, it's because they supported them.
So they said, okay, great.
Let's ask the Canadian Armed Forces.
The base is just north of Edmonton.
We know they have.
We know they have heavy equipment there.
100%.
From what I understand, somebody went there and laid eyes upon it.
So they know it was there.
He requested the heavy equipment to have access to it.
Because if it's federally owned, you just can't go commandeer it and said, will you let us use it?
And he said, oh, I got it.
I got to check.
I got to go up the chain and check.
We never got back to Rick McIver.
So the province by the 11th and 12th started buying their own stuff and got some good deals, by the way.
They went on auto-trader.
They got on a Kijiji.
The Kamachu loader they bought was a hell of a deal, by the way.
And they got $820,000 worth of this heavy haul equipment.
As it turns out, they only needed it to move three pieces of equipment because before the Emergencies Act was invoked, it had all dispersed.
They just decided.
Yeah, because blockade had taken themselves gone.
And then we saw Bill Blair sending a message to Rick McIver after it's all said and done saying, basically, like, aren't you going to pat me on the back for invoking the Emergencies Act?
Bill Blair called him a liar.
Like, told him it would be better to keep your mouth shut, basically, and say nothing than to be lying because you did nothing.
Well, I think that's that's very interesting.
The fact that Alberta was asking for resources and things and Bill Blair saying, no, we don't have enough.
You know, we don't have you're asking for too much.
I think that's the second time.
Alita, we know of that.
That's more than they were willing to do that.
Yeah, that we that we hear a liberal MP or even prime minister say that someone like veterans is asking for too much.
Second time we hear that.
And that Alberta was asking for too much.
And despite being despite asking for too much and not receiving what they were asking for, they were still able to handle the coups border blockade before the AA was that's the important point is Albertans were problem solvers.
We don't rely on the feds for much.
And this shocker, this is a lesson, lesson learned, Jason Kenney's previous government, but it should be a lesson for Daniel Smith.
Just don't ask the feds, sort it out yourself.
Because as it turns out, the decision to deny help to Alberta came from the prime minister's office.
We saw that.
Did the PMO sign off on this?
Is what the email read.
None of the approvals should have been going through the prime minister's office if we're asking the minister of emergency preparedness more it.
But also, Bill Blair was willing to use it against Alberta.
They said, should we publish Alberta's ask for help?
They said, should we publish it as a justification to invoke the Emergencies Act, those greasy snakes?
It was really gross to watch that.
And I felt my heart sink.
I was like, no, you can't do that.
I do not needed those snakes.
Yeah, that doesn't mean that.
Yeah, it doesn't mean she need to invoke it.
But the reason why you guys were able to handle it, because you are the great province of Alberta.
So I always say, Alberta, the great province of Alberta, that's why you were able to handle coups, unlike the federal government, who is the disgusting liberal government.
Well, they had really good communication and a really good standing relationship with the RCMP officers that were willing to work with them there.
And they were.
And we almost had one of the Rajan Sani, the previous transport minister, I believe, transport minister, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
She almost went down there to go and actually meet.
That was, I think, the most, if there was a potential for anyone to have a meeting with the protesters, it would have been the province of Alberta.
And it would have been that minister.
Went down there.
Who?
Grant Hunter.
We had MLAs going down there to actually engage with the protesters.
And look what happened.
It resolved peacefully.
Wow, that's incredible, isn't it?
Yeah.
The cops were like shaking hands with the protesters at the end.
And as always, the cops everywhere these protests were happening outnumbered completely.
If the truckers wanted to take over the whole city of Ottawa, don't take this the wrong way, but there are a lot of useful, useless people in this town.
I don't disagree with you.
They could have walked right over them.
They never did, not even once.
No, not even the people that threw eggs at them.
No, they threw their volumes.
I agree.
Let's go to Bill Blair.
Clip six.
This is also kind of a fun thing I found out today.
Bill Blair scolded Justin Trudeau, sort of, it was kind of a half-assed scolding, but he did say, and the reason I know that it was about Justin Trudeau was the dates.
So we saw in this, like, I think it's a readout of another phone call with the ministers.
And one of the things Bill Blair advised was to, I forget, like, tone down the language, something to that effect, like keep the language like not.
You mean that question I asked him today?
No.
Yeah, you asked a question to that effect, but he said basically, like, tone down the rhetoric about the convoy.
It's not helpful.
Yeah.
He said, avoid using inflammatory language.
And that happened on the 28th of January.
That's very funny.
You know what happened on the 27th?
Justin Trudeau called everybody fringe, radical.
Fringe, yeah, radical.
French minority.
They're bad people.
Yeah.
Fringe minority with unacceptable views is happened on the 27th, 28th.
Bill Blair is like, not helpful.
What is going on?
don't we roll clip six we need to keep the language down And probably the people in the room knew what you were talking about, and you probably used more words than just that.
So if you could flesh that out for us, what message you were trying to get across during that briefing when you said we need to keep the language down?
I believe we all have a responsibility to do what is necessary to keep the peace.
And I was concerned that inflammatory language could incite a more violent response, potentially, or incite others to continue to come to the protest.
And so I think one needs to maintain, and I've had some experience in this, in your language around an event to speak of it in such a way as to not aggravate it.
I have three points.
I have three points.
Okay.
So first of all, if they had listened to CSIS, that's what they said the whole time.
Right.
They said, don't do those things.
Yes, it really, I mean, it was also, I'm not sure if we have that clip or if we'll talk about it, but it was also Rob Stewart, the deputy minister that actually created that plan to go and meet with the protesters in Ottawa.
That was tabled, there you go.
That was tabled.
And we saw that in emails today.
Why wasn't this, you know, they and how many other testimonies they considered it either incomplete or they just pretended like they didn't know about it.
So that's one aspect of it.
And then you have somebody that is constantly going against their own narrative as they're testifying because it was like, yeah, you know, this is, we shouldn't do this, we shouldn't do that.
And then it's like, well, you know, as long as I feel like it was validated, then why not?
He spent the first hour of his testimony with the commission lawyers prattling on about how important it is to engage with protesters.
He literally did.
He said, in my time with the Toronto Police Service, I've dealt with the Tamils.
I've dealt with the G20.
I don't know why he brought up the G20 as a success, by the way, but he kept doing that.
Dealt with all kinds of other protests.
And he said, it's always important to engage with the protesters.
But then when he was presented with the rules of engagement with the protesters that were drafted by his own ADM.
He said he didn't want to see any government official speak to them.
Yeah.
But we also saw, again, when you're watching these guys testify, don't read the stuff they want you to see.
Read the other stuff.
Yeah.
Read the other stuff because you could see where it was Jessica Trudeau's chief of staff and she was taking her notes about people they were going to meet with.
And the people they were going to meet with was the vaxed truckers.
So they're discriminating against truckers based on vaccine status, but that's nothing new.
And they were going to meet with the shepherds of good hope because they were saying, oh, you know, the convoyers came and stole our food, which is totally true.
But that's a different document.
But even in that document, and It's possible if we can, just if we could go back to the same clip that we just were um and freeze on the first second of the clip where we're still able to see the document.
If that's possible to do that, that would be great.
But if you read a little bit lower, on the exact same document, it is written that they are concerned.
The liberal party is concerned about the office of the OLO.
So you'll see, on that very first little part of the clip if you go down it's hard to see is OLO going to meet with the protesters.
So they were very concerned that the the OLO, so that's the office of the leader of the opposition, which would have been Candace Bergen at the time.
Or maybe this was early enough that they hadn't thrown earno tool to the curb, but it doesn't matter, because they were very concerned that the conservatives were doing the reasonable thing.
Yeah, and talking to their constituents.
Yeah and uh.
You know, speaking of micro expressions and breaking down his body language, you can also catch uh, you know, like the scratching of the neck.
You know that's the terms.
Oh, he doesn't have any skin left on his thumbs.
Yeah, every time he got a tough question.
That was just like it was like that from bill Blazing, excessive water drinking.
Oh yeah shame, very shy.
That was interesting to see that the liberal party was scared or concerned about having the opposition leader, the office of the opposition leader, meet with the protester.
Why, if you're doing everything honestly, why would you be scared because of having your opposition meeting with it?
Why would you be concerned about them meeting with sexist racist homophobic, fringe radicals if you actually don't think they're young?
That's right, that's another way to look at it as well.
Out-Fundraising The Liberals00:12:32
For sure yeah, definitely some interesting.
They're scared that they would do the right thing.
Right, imagine what would happen if we had somebody from the opposition party actually come and meet with protesters.
It's so funny to imagine all the hypotheticals, really, but this is where we're at and it's absolutely such a circus every single day, because it would have shown that the opposition is actually willing to engage with the other side, which we know the liberals aren't able to do.
That they refuse to engage with the other side.
That's a new liberal way of thinking.
Well, they won't talk to us.
I think that um, you know they were.
They were concerned about the OLO meeting yeah, with them because they knew that it would completely upstage them, and I think that's when they really ramped up the rhetoric is when the conservatives started meeting with them and they said they only have one thing left to do and it's to say, oh my god, can you believe they were meeting with those Nazi?
Yeah.
Can you believe that they're actually meeting with with terrorists, that they're actually meeting with with bad people?
Yeah, can you believe?
Can you believe Candace Bergen met with those Nazis?
Unbelievable, unbelievable.
Uh, you know what?
Maybe Efron let's uh shuffle out, will let him put in his Uber Eats order, because he's had a very long day and it's uh 9, 30 here and still not eating.
I'll leave you guys with the ladies.
So today's the ladies show, it's Celine and Sheila they're.
You're here in Ottawa for two days right right, but I won't be on the stream tomorrow because I have to catch.
But according to Annalisa though according to one of her paid comments, I am a lady too, because she said that the ladies Ladies are doing a good job last time.
This is the SS show.
I guess it's always, I guess it's always the end.
I'm joking.
I don't make the rules.
You can be whatever you want.
Nowadays, you literally can't be.
Don't even question my identity, Sheila.
I know.
I know.
You get my bank account frozen.
Okay, let's run it out so we can let William leave and then we'll bring on our friend Tom Razzo.
Tom Freedom in 2022 is certainly about being able to make free choices for ourselves and for our family, who we believe are the best.
We have seen so much suffering over the last two years.
People who die alone in terrible conditions, people losing dream jobs, polarized families, and a society that insults and yell at each other for making a different medical choice.
But people have risen, and it will be through them that the future will have an important meaning for all of you, but especially for the next generation.
Ribbon News has been present at every step of this great challenge.
But so many other pioneers whom you could meet and hear at our great conference about freedom for our beautiful country, which is Canada.
This conference, which will be held in Calgary and Toronto, will show you the faces of the influence of freedom that you have seen over the past two years.
You don't want to miss this.
So get your ticket now at RibennewsLive.com.
And it would be a pleasure to see you there and meet you in large numbers.
it's time to drop these masks and let the truth shine oh hey welcome back everybody Joining us now is Tom Morazzo.
He was a convoy participant.
I'll let Tom actually describe himself because I'll get it wrong.
So go ahead.
I'm a co-host on Rebel News.
You are now.
Yes, indeed.
This is what?
It'll be the 20th time in a row.
Yeah, sure.
Quite in a row.
Now, I played a small part in the convoy last January, February.
And right now, I'm just like everybody else watching the commission.
And it's really, it's been quite an experience to sit there every day and listen to this testimony to see what the government was thinking and doing at all various levels.
It's quite shocking.
Yeah, there's a lot of gaslight.
Like, do they realize thousands of people were also there too?
And this is one thing I was thinking about.
I think about this every day.
Every time the new, the higher we go up the chain of command within the liberal government.
It's the one thing that really strikes me with every new witness is, and I'm going to call it the elephant in the room.
The people that these witnesses are talking about are Canadians.
They're not talking about Al-Qaeda.
They're not talking about some actual foreign entity.
This is Canadians that they're talking about, people that elected them to occupy those positions of power that they have.
Now, here's the thing.
If you look at just the simple math, like, so twice, twice Canadians raised $10 million on two different crowdfunding platforms.
If you just said like on average that, you know, everybody who donated donated $100, that's 100,000 Canadians each time that donated financially to the convoy.
But what we do know is that there was 100 over 175,000 people that donated in this country.
And the ones that were out of country, their IP addresses, they were Canadian, but their IP addresses were outside of the country at the time, but they had ties to Canada.
So when you think about the fact that these witnesses get up there and they talk about the people that they loathe and day after day after day, and I think if you go back to the very first time I was on the show, I talked about the idea that there was no will on any part of the government, even on the first day, to come and talk to protesters.
This is a protest.
We had a legal under section two of the charter.
We have a legal right to do it.
We did.
And yet, again, you've got Bill Blair, Bill Blair, of all people from the GAG20 summit in 2010.
He's getting in there and he's talking about people that he loathes because they dared.
They dared to exercise their charter to right to come to the city.
And here's the question.
This is the big question.
Why?
We haven't talked about that in the commission.
Why did all these Canadians suddenly spring up across the country and protest everywhere?
Why was the big concentration in the nation's capital?
Why was there 27 other convoys around the planet that were inspired by what happened in Ottawa?
Why do these people not acknowledge the fact that Canadians had a legitimate grievance and they were being ignored for two years, came to Ottawa to finally be heard?
Sorry, Tom, can you just give me a quick recap?
Because I was in the middle of Googling something because I thought, you know what, I can put that into context for people.
How many people donated to the convoy?
We know that there was over 175,000 that donated to the convoy through the crowdfunding.
But on two occasions, it was over $10 million, right?
So a total of $20 million in two weeks.
That's just through crowdfunding.
It's incredible.
And, you know, I've seen Tamara talk about this in the presence of lawyers, that the money that was raised on the crowdfunding platforms was a symbol.
Yes.
It's a symbol of the desperation that Canadians felt and they wanted to be heard.
They felt isolated.
And they want that money represents their opportunity to be a voice.
And they sent Canadians to Ottawa to deliver a message.
And nobody in Ottawa wanted to hear that message.
Nobody.
I'll put this into context for you.
You guys out-fundraised every party in this country over twice.
In the first two quarters, so we'd have to double this, right?
The Conservatives raised $4.4 million from 36,000 donors.
The Liberals raised 2.8 million from 28,000 donors.
Democrats, 1.2 million from nearly 16,000 people.
So just for context to the year prior, 26.4 million to the Conservatives in 2021, 18.1 million to the Liberals in 2021.
You guys out-fundraised the Liberals in the course of a month.
That is one of the reasons why they knew they had to stop this, because you guys were the single largest political and human rights movement in this country ever.
Yes.
And in fact, you know, I believe it was Brendan in his cross on Friday was making the comparison to say that it was either Brendan or one of the JCCF lawyers saying that, isn't this a political cause?
You know, surely a political cause meeting, wanting to meet with the political class in this country, not to overthrow it.
Let's be clear about that right now.
No, and you know what CISA said that day?
They said we didn't even bother to look at the fourth part of the Ceases Act, Section 2.
That's right.
They said we didn't even bother to go there because it was so ridiculous.
Why?
And you just reminded me of something that was in my mind.
Like when I heard it, I looked up and I'm like, did I just hear that?
Did I can somebody confirm that I just heard Justice Roulau himself confirmed when Hatton was doing his cross-examination?
He's like, you didn't have to ask about the four parts of section two of the Ceases Act.
I think that's been well established that they didn't meet that standard.
Like Roulau himself, sorry, I've got a little bit of a chest thing going, but Roulau himself confirmed it.
Yeah.
That they didn't have it.
They didn't have that standard.
But you know what they did add or did have is hypothetical reasons.
Right.
And if you look at the nouns and the verbs that are being floated around this, this inquiry, you know, things like this can happen or this could happen.
Might happen.
This might happen.
This may happen.
You know, this goes in line with microaggressions in the perception of violence, the threat of a threat.
Offensive talking.
Yeah, offensive.
Phantom honking, right?
This is what this is, this is where we are.
Yeah.
People that A, didn't want to acknowledge Canadians.
And we've talked about this before.
What is the sample of Canadians that arrived in Ottawa?
It wasn't truckers.
It was Canadians first.
And it was white collar, blue collar, and everything in between arrived in Ottawa and went to the other protests.
A friend of mine who is a retired military officer as well was in Windsor on the bridge and was arrested, right?
There's all walks of life, all samples of society that came to Ottawa.
And on weekends, this city swelled multiple thousand times over on the weekends because everybody was participating.
Yeah.
Well, that's the same way anti-mandate protests have been for the last two and a half years.
You go to the one in Edmonton.
I run into people who are like, Sheila, I hated you because you were mean to Rachel Motley, but now I think we're okay.
We're okay again because there are NDP voters abandoned by their union.
Yes.
And you go to that one in Calgary, and I'm like, this is the strangest cross-section of people I've ever seen in my life.
True.
You've got like the crystal secure cancer granola people over here.
And then you've got the blue collar conservatives.
And then you've got the like white collar, upperly mobile conservatives who don't want to pay too many taxes because they're just single dudes living alone.
And, you know, you've got the religious right.
It's small business owners who have never been political until all of a sudden now.
Gym owners, like it's just, it's crazy the different people that are there and only someone who's never bothered to talk to them or even passively observe them, like their wildlife, only those people would think of them as just this rough, gross bunch of fringe radicals.
Fuel Cans Inspection00:04:12
Yeah.
And, you know, we talked a lot about, I heard previous the other guests on the show, my opening act, William, and everybody was talking about the fact that Bill Blair's physical reactions to his testimony today.
Yeah.
So in 2010, I was at the G8 G20 summit.
I was there and I wasn't in charge of anything.
I was the low-level duty officer at night when nothing was going on.
Okay.
But I remember talking to police officers in the place that I was working about Bill Blair because he was kicking the arse of the media.
I remember talking to a police officer going, who's this guy?
He's incredible.
He is absolutely kicking the butt of the media and not taking any of their crap.
He's professional.
He's fair.
I was really impressed with Bill Blair until I saw the fallout of, you know, and there is a backstory on that one.
Yeah, sure.
Yeah, I know it.
But the thing is, when we saw him today, immediately he sat down and I could see right away he was going into vasoconstriction.
And this is where, because he had a, his fear, his heart rate was up, he had a fear-induced heart rate, and it caused the blood vessels in his in his body and in his skin to turn red and he was sweating and he was very fidgety.
I just thought it was whiskey.
People that are confident, yeah, yeah, but people that are confident in what they're saying and are fully prepared with the truth don't have to show up and display that kind of physical reaction to honest questions.
Right.
And so that in itself is very out of character from what I've ever seen with him back 12 years ago and what I was expecting to see this time.
Right.
He was clearly not wanting to go down certain roads in his testimony.
But what he was really, really good at that I noted was, you know, his, he, he used, it's almost like they got a marketing company of some kind.
Oh, navigator.
Maybe.
Yeah.
But to look at, look at keywords, right?
Sample words where certain words pull very well.
Yeah.
And you'll notice the they use terms like disorder, unlawful, threats, violence.
Then he went on to talk about the fuel cans.
The people were bringing fuel cans into the city and they could potentially explode.
I looked at William when he said that and I said, you know what, one of the big outcomes of all of this is people are suddenly scared of the gas station now.
I'm like, why are you, why do you think fuel, gas is this unusual substance you don't know how to be around after, you know, 130 years of motorized vehicles.
Unless it's a pinto, right?
Right.
We're not worried about like electric cars exploding, to be honest with you.
One thing we do know is, and it hasn't come out in the testimony, but before the night that they raided Coventry, that day, we actually had a fire inspection on where they were storing the fuel that day.
It passed the inspection.
After the raid, the fire department did come back and reconfirmed that everything was okay with the fuel.
The other thing is that's around that same time, the Electrical Safety Authority came and inspected the electrical panel that they set up at Coventry and passed it.
I saw the, in fact, I have copies of the receipts.
That's useful, people.
Yeah.
People with life skills building things.
Making it safe, right?
We were very aware and in touch with the fire department with regard to storage of fuel.
And so does that get talked about?
Only the most fearful, damning testimony comes out of Bill Blair's mouth.
I can't believe that people are still scared of like propane tanks.
Like, are you scared of your barbecue?
Like, you have probably one sitting on your deck at home, a propane tank.
Yes.
But all of a sudden, the people in downtown Ottawa were like, we're all going to die because there's propane tanks.
Yes.
Which are in a thing outside of the Walmart and the Home Depot, by the way.
Or doing nothing.
Yep.
There's people walking down the street with a can of fuel.
It's crazy.
Yeah.
And I can tell you from my own experience with, you know, using explosives that your chances of actually doing anything harmful with gasoline, typically you want to make a big fireball.
You use diesel.
Yeah, no idea.
Flags and Fearmongering00:14:30
Right.
So I shouldn't be talking about that stuff.
But no, I'm still.
But it's ridiculous.
I mean, it is stunningly ridiculous to hear this narrative.
I feel like I've gone back in time, back to the previous February, and I'm listening to mainstream media talking points, or should I say, back to the 27th of January.
And I'm just hearing the regurgitated comments coming from Justin Trudeau's staff before we arrived in Ottawa, before anybody showed up with a flag of any sorts that was disrespectful, which is a questionable issue.
Brendan Miller today was trying extremely hard to get an explanation out of the government about what they knew about those flags.
And they got stonewalled really well, really hard by the Department of Justice.
Now, is it the Department of Justice, justice being for Canadians, or is it the Department of Justin?
Right.
Let's protect Justin at all costs.
You know what?
We will lie to Canadians.
So good.
We will lie to Canadians instead of tell Canadians the truth at a public inquiry.
You know what?
Let's go to that clip five.
And we're going to be very, very careful because it sounds like there are legal threats flying around now, all of a sudden.
So we're going to be very careful.
Just the facts, ma'am.
And sir.
Yes.
As we talk about this, this is trucker lawyer Brendan Miller.
He's cross-examining the CSIS director and asked him if he knew that a Liberal Party operative, Brian Fox from Enterprise Canada, which is a bit of a crisis communications firm, if I understand correctly, was the one who brought a Nazi flag to the trucker protest in Ottawa.
And I make no contention about whether this is true or not.
I'm just reporting what I witnessed with my eyes today at the commission.
And then I'll give my comments about why I have questions about this flag in the first place.
Well, everybody who was watching it also witnessed it.
So it's not just isolated to anybody in particular.
Okay, let her fly.
Were you aware that the first time that the picture of the gentleman all covered in army fatigues with a mask over his face, walking with a Confederate flag through a crowd, it first appeared in an opinion piece in the Toronto Star from someone who actually works for the Liberal Party of Canada?
Were you aware of that?
Mr. Commissioner, my friend seems to be giving evidence now.
I'm asking if he's aware.
I've actually asked a question and I can guess at what the answer is.
Okay, but there's a presupposition of a fact that's not at it.
Yeah, because you keep interrupting me when I'm trying to ask questions and I'm running out of time.
Just please.
Okay.
So I'm not aware of the articles and I'm not aware of those facts that you mentioned.
I'm sorry.
Are you aware of a company called Enterprise Canada?
Not specifically, no.
And have you identified the individual, one that is, it was all over the news, the gentleman that was carrying the Nazi flag?
Have you identified him yet?
Mr. Commissioner, as I've said before, the specific details of our investigations have been shared with Commission earlier.
would not be able to go into more specific details so i think that's right yeah No, and I take it.
And I take it then, sir, that you know that that individual was Brian Fox from Enterprise Group.
I have not said anything of that respect to counsel.
I've not testified to that council.
Now, whether or not that is indeed Brian Fox, I cannot, I don't know.
But what I do know is those people would not shut up about IMDEs all morning.
And so when you have two walking around on the first day of the convoy, why haven't you identified them?
They were literally walking around.
Don't tell me these people didn't run facial recognition on them.
I'm curious that it didn't come out the way that they thought it would.
And there's one license plate, the Confederate flag.
They were able to take a screenshot of the license plate, which I know if I get pulled over for speeding, which I don't, honey, if you're watching, there are no photo radar tickets coming at all.
But if, you know, if I get pulled over for speeding, they run my plate.
That's like the first thing they do to identify you, right? Is to run your plate.
But they want me to believe that the entire security apparatus brass that were sitting at the table, nobody ran a plate on the other truck that had the Confederate flag.
I don't, I just, I don't believe it.
I refuse to believe that those three are that inept.
I refuse to believe it.
No, when it's, when it's your entire job to consume information and you can't consume information that is really basic and general, it's not just if you speed that they'll run your plate.
Actually, they just do it all the time now for no, for no reason.
They just do check out.
They're running my name every day.
100%.
So again, when it's literally your job to consume information and provide an accurate source of intel for others to be able to read, be debriefed on when it comes to the security of Canada, to the security of this country, and you can't even run a plate.
Well, they did run the plate.
I'm sure that they did.
And let me tell you, if you were grandma making anti-Trudeau posts on the internet, they run your plates.
I know who you if the media finds out about you because they'll know everything about you before sunset.
But these people didn't run a plate on that Confederate guy.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe it for a minute either, because if you consider the testimony that the CSIS people were giving early on, what they were describing is CSIS was acting as a filter of information.
And what they were hoping for was to see IMVE or lone wolves or that kind of activity come through the filter, and then they could launch an investigation.
So I would argue that this Confederate flag or Nazi flag actually did fall within the parameters of what a CSIS investigation would have been in terms of the way they were describing the evolution or the accelerationist ideology of an IMVE who is not yet considered violence.
But what I can tell you, what I do know, understand about doing threat assessments on active shooters.
You know, violent, nobody just snaps.
Violence is an evolutionary process.
And this is something I learned from a guy named Kevin Cameron out in Alberta who does threat assessments on active shooters.
And so that's really what CSIS would be doing would be talking about assessing people to see if their level of rhetoric was escalating or evolving.
So this truck, I guarantee that this truck and these images of anybody with a swastika or even a Confederate flag, because the Confederate flag in Canada is like completely out of place in the city of Ottawa.
It's nuclear.
It's very inflammatory.
So CSIS would have looked at that individual or those individuals and said, okay, that is a target of interest.
We are going to make a threat assessment based on the fact that whether or not that person's violence is going to evolve into something that we have to get individual law enforcement to look after.
But they didn't even know who the person was or what the plate was.
Right.
We were there.
You know, like I remember like getting there late at night when the rest of the trucks were parking on Wellington.
Still, the streets were being filled.
And I was also there the next day.
And I can tell you that I saw when those photos started emerging from the internet, I was looking at it with Mocha.
And the one that's pictured from like that high up, I'm not sure if we can pull it up, but there is one.
It is the one of the swastika flag and it's up higher.
And there was a lot of government officials staying in that building.
Just saying, just to put it out there, we knew that.
That was confirmed then.
What was that, like eight, nine months ago?
Yeah.
No, the majority of the flags were all Canadian.
And then you had different provinces.
You had Quebecois flags.
You had Freedom flags.
had the lovely, beautiful F Trudeau flags, my personal favorite ones.
You would have been able to pick anything that was unusual out of the crowd, like so obviously.
And I know for a fact too, that when those people, the real protesters, when they saw that there were those flags, there was videos emerging almost immediately afterwards.
And they're like, this guy's not with us.
Get this guy out of here.
Like.
It was very, very apparent from the very beginning that I believe that that was done purposely.
That's just my opinion, of course.
I don't know who the swastika flag guy was.
I don't know who the Confederate flag guy was.
Me either.
But I do know they were both plants.
And I'll tell you why, because if they were actually members of the convoy, we would know everything about them by now.
So I was actually asked by Robert Kennedy Jr. about this particular footage.
Yeah.
Specifically.
This is back in, I believe, March that I was interviewed on his show and he talked about this guy specifically back in March.
And he said, you know, like, you know, for a fact that this particular individual is a plant within the crowd because one, he's not, his face isn't.
He's wearing a mask.
He's sorry specifically in front of the cameras.
Yeah.
You can't say that that's not a plant.
And, you know, did this after all the hay was made in the media, did we ever see any more of these flags?
Did we see Swastika's?
No, not like it got its photo opportunity.
It's talking point for Justin Trudeau to go on and further use those hypnotic words in the mainstream media to convince Canadians that the government was on the right and that we were a bunch of evil villains.
It's real weird.
And this is not good for my conspiracy mind.
But you have on the 27th, the government staffers, people in Justin Trudeau's office and in emergency preparedness are talking, or it was a public safety.
It doesn't matter.
They used to be one ministry, so it doesn't matter.
But they're talking about, okay, so we need to start painting these guys as radicals.
We need to start feeding stuff to the friendly media.
Then on the 28th, we get this imagery.
And then by the 30th, Justin Trudeau is saying, look at these.
These racists.
Look at them.
Sounds like that.
We knew they were coming.
We knew they were coming.
Isn't it funny how you knew exactly when they were coming?
That's so weird.
It's very strange.
And it was sad to see, really frustrating to see that the text messaging there between the PMO and one of the other staffers saying, you know, and I'm paraphrasing, but basically saying, we don't want to put too much pressure on the convoy as it's arriving because the convoy will push the crazies out.
Right.
You'll do some political hygiene.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So they wanted the most radical.
Well, and they knew that that is a passive admission, although they wouldn't admit to it, that the convoy was largely good people because you would naturally push the bad ones out.
Yes.
Yes.
And in fact, there is a lot of discussion that I've heard around the campfire that we did have, sorry, that people that were participating in the convoy as it was driving to Ottawa, because I got here two days later, had those discussions early on as they were traveling.
There's Celine dancing away.
I love this video so much.
Sorry, I just, oh, this was incredible.
Like I was in tears, actually.
So many people were in tears.
It made me cry because I had not seen so many people smiling and laughing and to dance.
Do you remember when they said dancing is not allowed?
Singing all singing at church.
Oh, it was in, it was incredible.
I remember when Celine started, I'm like, I don't know, do we really need an intern?
And then we're like, you know what?
We're going to throw this intern on the convoy.
I'm like, we're going to put her on the convoy.
Okay.
And then she hit Ottawa and she just hit the ground running.
And then I became a Celine true believer.
You know, I saw one depiction my entire time in Ottawa of the swastika symbol.
And as I got closer, it actually wasn't a swastika.
It was four needles to be shaped like that with a circle around it with a cross thread.
Yeah.
That's what the symbol was.
It wasn't a swastika.
Interesting.
And, you know, I heard earlier you were touching on the actions of the conservatives.
And I remember towards the end being unbelievably frustrated with both parties, both political parties.
And I said, you know, we've got real honest to God issues out in the streets of Ottawa right now with the police that are busting heads.
And we're talking in the comments right now, not about what's happening in the street, but about one conservative member of parliament's hurt feelings.
That is what is occupying the other, the entire debate is one member's feelings were hurt by Justin Trudeau.
And he walked out of that debate.
Yeah.
Right.
We didn't talk about serious, we didn't hear them talking about real life issues.
We, you know, they were all distracted by the fact I think her, what's her last name, Lanceman.
Melissa Lanceman.
Melissa Lanceman, right?
That was what was occupying the debate.
Not what was happening on the street, but her hurt feelings.
And they're legitimately hurt feelings.
I get it.
But that wasn't the time or the place.
Well, also, yes.
Yeah.
He should not have said that Melissa Lanceman was consorting with Nazis.
He shouldn't have.
But maybe he shouldn't have called all those people Nazis also.
All those thousands of people.
Maybe he should have called them Nazis.
It's a huge allegation.
It just, it's ridiculous.
You know what?
Let's go to one last clip before we let Tom go and everybody go have something to eat.
I think you people can probably hear my stomach growling through the microphones.
Let's go to clip.
That's the food here.
If you didn't hear my stomach growl before, you're going to hear it now as soon as I start smelling it.
Clip seven.
Bill Blair, he was shown drone footage of one, one police operation, I think by his own lawyer, by the way.
It was his own lawyer.
It was his own lawyer.
It was like one of those, like, Bill, why don't you tell us how cool you are?
Police Violence Clips00:11:19
Let me know how good you are.
We've been hurt.
Anyways, they shown drone footage of one police operation.
I leaned over to Celine before it aired and I was like, is this the, is this where they beat up the journalists or run over the old ladies?
But no, they picked a sanitized version and Bill Blair was able to go like job later.
Yeah.
So let's go to clip seven.
That's that recognition.
Admiration for the men and women who have done a very difficult job of policing.
And what I witnessed, certainly in the city of Ottawa, but in other jurisdictions as well, but particularly in the city of Ottawa, an entirely professional, proportional, measured response.
They moved slowly, methodically, respectfully.
You know, it was very clear that they were well trained, very clear they were well led.
I believe that their exercise of the authorities that they had, both in existing law and in the new regulations, was done in a very measured and careful way.
And I've seen some video of how they've done it.
It was textbook.
I've been trained as a public order commander and I've seen it done well.
And I've never seen it done better than what I witnessed here in the city of Ottawa, as they, I think, to the extent possible, as peacefully as possible, brought this to a resolution.
They allowed people, for example, points of egress.
It's always important to let people have a space to go.
They did that work.
They moved slowly.
I actually found myself trying to explain to some of my friends why they're going slowly, because that's the right way to do it.
And in my opinion, they did it the right way.
Okay.
Thank you, Minister Blair.
Yeah, that's frustrating.
I can tell you several reasons why I find that incredibly frustrating.
Tell us, Tom.
They clubbed our journalists like she was a baby seal.
Yeah.
So you've got a credentialed media person in the crowd who took a you know a relatively low velocity projectile in the thigh.
Okay, which is Alexa took that rubber bullet or the projectile was a gas cannon, I think she took it.
And then it broke and tear gaster.
So we've got two members of the public that were run over by a horse or horses, Clydesdales.
I mean, not ponies here.
By the way, Guillaume here, he was pepper afraid also.
Right in the face.
Yes.
And so, you know, to kind of go back up, and I'd like to make this point about what he's doing here.
Okay.
He's not actually talking to the lawyers.
He's not talking to the commission.
And when we first started this convoy, the first night I, or this commission, the first night I was on the show, I said, this is a court of public opinion.
Yes.
And who he's talking to.
So when I did my master's degree, I focused in a lot on negotiating and influence.
In negotiations, you use the media to send messages to your opponents.
But in this particular case, he's not talking to the lawyers in the room.
He's actually talking to the public.
That's who his target audience is.
All the supporters of the liberal base and all the people that hate the convoy.
That is who he is rewriting history to instill confidence that the government of Canada, the liberals know what they're doing and they handled an unruly mob.
That's what this messaging is about.
So when he talks about it, he leaves out all the details.
The gory details.
The gory details.
He leaves out the facts that people were physically hurt.
And he thinks it's textbook, but I'd like him to look Chris Deering in the eye after hearing Chris Deering's story about getting blown up in Afghanistan and then beaten by the Ottawa police.
And you tell me how textbook it is to beat a wounded veteran when the other veterans around him are screaming, saying, hey, stop.
That's a wounded veteran.
And they were punching him in the head.
Is that textbook?
Is that how we treat veterans?
Is that how we treat the Canadian public?
We beat them because you refuse to talk to them.
Illegal snatch and grabs.
Yes.
Let's not forget the illegal snatch and grabs.
We're just talking about the people we know, but I would suppose hundreds of people were taken by the police, detained illegally, kidnapped, I guess we'll call that.
What do we call that in Canada?
A lawful confinement.
Take them out of town or to the outskirts of town.
It's bitterly cold.
It is a wet cold, by the way.
I'll concede that.
Yes, it's not like out.
It's different.
I'm not saying it's colder than Alberta, but it's a little different.
Take them outside of town, keep them for hours sometimes before they let them go.
Their phones are dead.
Sometimes they don't even have coats because of how they were arrested.
Sometimes they're pulled out of their trucks.
Just abandoned alone, no cell phone, no shelter, no way back on the outskirts of town.
And he just, that's text.
And they weren't charged.
I'm pretty sure they teach you in Depot not to go anywhere near that, by the way.
Yeah.
And none of the, a lot of the people that got dropped off out in that impound area out in the country.
None of them were charged.
Who should have been charged?
The cops.
Yes.
Yeah.
That's a lawful confinement.
And cops went to jail for that in Saskatchewan.
We'll see what the future holds, but I do predict that there will be, and I got to be careful about my predictions because I'm kind of, but I think there will be future lawsuits.
I hope so.
Excuse me.
I do too.
I absolutely do.
But to see him to sit like he sat there and said, words to the effect of it's rein reinstated or reinstilled my pride in in my former polite uh, profession of policing.
Yeah and, and he said that and I just kind of wanted to I threw up in my mouth a little bit okay, it was a little flag waving patriotic garbage.
Yeah, he doesn't realize he's saying it to the defund the police crowd.
By the way, that's his keynote audience there exactly um, but he also said he didn't see any evidence of uh unreasonable, uh force used against the protesters.
He didn't want to see any evidence.
He wasn't looking there.
There are compilations that exist on youtube that I have watched since being here and they are compilations of people literally being beat by the police officers in Ottawa.
There's the video of the woman holding the, the flower, right up to the police officer and he smashed her across her forearm to knock the flower out of her hand.
Yeah this, this happened in Canada.
I want to.
I want to bring up another interesting point.
Sorry, it's been such a long 12 hours.
My brain is lagging consistently.
It's like that loading meme, that loading bar.
But um, specifically in regards to the, the threats and the, the violence, etc.
I want to bring this back to actually Cesus.
When Vinault was uh Vigno Vinyo, when he was talking i'm just sorry, rolled my eyes so hard um, but when he was talking about what makes an imb v or whatever that horrible abbreviation is, and he was saying he was talking about the very specific um triggers that people have, and it wasn't so much about the concern of the people saying these things that were apparently uh radical, but the consumers of that information and and how that could inherently relate back to um, fight violence and yeah, yeah.
So, when not one single protester has been charged with violence or committing violence against anybody, but you have police officers that are committing violence on such a huge scale, I don't care what anybody says, go watch those youtube compilations.
Tell me differently.
Where is the Cesus?
Where's the media?
By the way?
Oh, 100.
But why are they not conducting these these, these periods of research or or intel?
Why are they not asking themselves certain questions?
These police officers consume this information from their prime minister.
By the way, he was the first one to say yeah, he's radicalizing people exactly, if that's I think that's the point you're trying to make here is uh, Justin Trudeau is the one radicalizing people, 100.
They spent a week telling people the Nazis are coming to your town.
And so you've got all these like low-level loser activists who have like, punch Nazis on their laptop.
They'd never seen a Nazi, they certainly couldn't punch somebody in their life absolutely ridiculous.
Finally, the Nazis are coming to your town.
What are you going to do?
Punch them yeah, yeah.
So you've radicalized a police force.
And this was something that I was sitting there.
I was listening to all these definitions through.
They were showing these uh, these charts through Cesus and as i'm listening to it i'm, i'm thinking i'm not.
I don't see them describing protesters.
I see them describing the Liberal Party OF Canada.
That's what I heard.
I mean, I had to look up, I amve, i've looked up several times to see if the Liberal Party OF Canada meets the definition of I Am.
I'm happy to say that they don't technically meet that definition, but I would certainly see them falling in under more of a when they were talking about actions that other people take that inspire an accelerationist outcome.
And if you look at everything Justin Trudeau did, he set the conditions for the public to believe that there was bad actors amongst the convoy.
Yes, he said.
Yeah, he set those conditions for people to become bad actors within the conflict, right?
And then you've got law enforcement coming in from all over the country that think that they're going in to beat up bad people, that they're actually, they're police officers believing they're going to a new city to do good and to protect the public at large, only to come there and see them, you know, they're thrown off by the fact that, wait a minute, this lady's handing me a flower.
Well, that's what happens when you're, when Justin Trudeau, the prime minister, is inciting violence.
And it's not the violence that he's portraying happened that occurred.
Protesters were not violent, but he incited violence and now he's talking about people that are violent and the hypocrisy is so sickening.
Like I could drown in it.
There's so much.
Can I tell you something I discovered about the media today?
I was poking around and I don't, I don't think I discovered it.
It's just a thing I found about CBC today.
So I was poking around because Bill Blair said I didn't see any instances of violence.
So I thought, I'm just going to Google violence in the convoy and I like found like 10.
But I also found an image from CBC that I had never seen before.
Oh, yeah.
And it is of Alexa being struck.
CBC, I know you do, CBC, if you're watching and I know you hate watch.
I know that you have images of Alexa being struck because you used it as a thumbnail in one of your stories.
And I can see Alexa's red jacket and her hair.
And so I know that you have footage that you're sitting on of her being struck.
And it was one of the biggest stories in the world that day.
And you're burying it.
You have a different angle of what happened to Alexa.
And I know the media does this because when I was hit by that little puke, Dion Buse, go to deonbews.com, where that video will live forever.
In my footage of him hitting me, I could see a guy from CP, from the Canadian press taking pictures of what was happening to me.
And they said, oh, I said the whole place is teeming with journalists.
Footage Of Beatings Revealed00:03:30
Why didn't, where's the other footage?
Oh, we don't have any.
So then I looked carefully through my footage and I said, oh shit, there you are.
Yeah.
Sorry, I swore, but it's a long day.
But I could see him taking pictures of me getting hit.
And only then did the alternative angles come out because I could prove that he was standing in my footage taking pictures of me.
What's sad for me is when I watch that, I've seen that.
The women whisk him away?
Nobody, nobody intervened.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Like there's no, like, I don't know.
As far as I'm concerned, I can't comprehend why he wasn't out cold about 30 seconds after he did.
You know what?
Because then it would have been Rebel News Journalist knocks out a remote feminist.
What a headline, though.
Yeah, I know.
What a headline.
No, well, I will.
Okay.
I'll get him next time.
No.
No.
Yeah.
You know what?
It is 10.07 at night.
It's been a very long day for me and Selena.
I've started to swear on air.
So that's usually not what I do.
I'm almost there.
I normally stop the journalist from swearing, but here we are.
We've got one super chat from Annalisa, 1964.
Thank you, Annalisa, who writes to us.
I just wanted to let you all know that you're doing an amazing job.
You have no idea how many times today I said Gur.
Well, you know, probably as many times as me and Celine and Tom here too.
I described at one point today Bill Blair as a psychic vampire who is drinking my etheric energy from across the room like I was a yogurt tube.
A tuber.
It was just so draining listening to him lie.
But the good news is that it's all in the interest of the public getting transparency.
They might never get answers, but at least the documents are all there for us to see.
Well, I said before coming here that because I was here in the beginning of Ottawa and I saw everything that happened and then whatever transpired afterwards, I also saw that I would be damned if I came here and I didn't do everything in my power to stop them from writing history wrong.
And I will commit to doing that for as long as I'm here.
We all will.
We all do.
Tom, thanks again.
Well, I think Bill Blair's motto should be the beatings will continue until the morale proves.
Oh, Lord.
Oh, God.
It's been a day.
He's fine with them issuing beatings.
I hope he retires soon.
Oh, God.
I don't know.
Wait, his face is so ready.
I think diabetes is going to get him before retirement ever does.
There it is.
There it is.
Anyways, let's have the stream.
I'm getting ridiculous.
Thank you, everybody, for tuning in.
Thanks, Tom, for always being so generous with your time, even though it's late at night.
Celine, thank you for all the hard work you put in today.
Thank you guys behind the screen, including William, K2, Guillaume, who was pepper sprayed and is often forgotten that that happened to him.
Thank you at home to everybody who's tuning in.
Thank you to Efron, who's probably on the other side of this stream.
I will be catching a flight before the stream tomorrow, but I will be tweeting all day and it'll probably be you, likely you and William running the stream tomorrow.
And you can follow all of my tweets tomorrow at truckercommission.com and that's where you can support our work too here.
And you guys are going to keep this Airbnb clean after I leave, right?
Yes.
Perfect.
Thanks.
And as David Menzies always says, stay sane.
Are you liking the banter on our live stream that you're watching right now?
215 Children Found00:01:22
If so, you should know that you can get exclusive Rebel News content by going to RebelNewsPlus.com.
You'll get special shows from my colleagues, Sheila Gunread, Ezra Levant, as well as the menzoid Menzies.
And you'll also get to view our exclusive documentaries, including the one that tells you the truth of what was actually discovered, at least what is known to be discovered so far at the Kamloops Indian Residential School.
Take a look at the trailer.
Well, the remains of 215 children have been found in a mass grave in Canada.
Many of you know that just over a year ago, the discovery of the remains of 215 children was found at the Kamloops Indian Residential School at the Tecumloop-Shaswamic First Nation.
But what if I were to show you that what I just said wasn't true?
And that in fact, a year later, not a single body has been found.
This mass grave is a painful reminder of the genocide.
Canada's leaders aren't condemning the burning of churches.
No, they're endorsing the burning of churches.
A juvenile rib bone that surfaced in the same area.
You'd be surprised that I've first people who say, you know, I'm a doctor, I'm a paramedic.
This is definitely, you know, zone and it's definitely not.