The Trucker Commission shifts focus from police to evasive politicians like Marco Mendocino, whose testimony contradicts claims about invoking the Emergencies Act, despite CESIS advising it was unnecessary. Jason Kenney’s private skepticism of labeling protesters as extremists clashes with his public stance, while Trudeau faces no accountability for $100K vacations or $500 fines. Late-disclosed, heavily redacted documents and arbitrary inquiry rules spark outrage, with organizers like Keith Wilson fighting back. Grassroots conferences in Toronto/Calgary draw 750+ attendees, but funding gaps—$25–$30K for flights and coverage—threaten independent reporting as mainstream media pushes revisionist narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm here in Toronto, our real world headquarters, Selena Glass, is in our pop-up studio in the nation's capital of Ottawa, just a stone's throw away from the Trucker Commission of Inquiry.
Celine, how are you doing there today?
Doing good.
Lots to go over today, Ezra, so I'm looking forward to it.
Right on.
And I understand that we'll have Keith Wilson, one of the Freedom lawyers in the studio.
It'll be nice to chat with him.
I was looking at some of the clips, and it's pretty clear to me that we have moved into a new territory.
For the first two-thirds or three-quarters of the Commission of Inquiry, they were talking to cops.
And I'll give these cops credit.
They answered truthfully under oath when they were asked, was there an emergency that necessitated bringing in martial law?
And not a single cop, not the Ontario Provincial Police, not the Ottawa Police Service, not the RCMP, not police or attorneys general in Alberta, in Ontario, in Saskatchewan, not one of them said we needed martial law.
We needed the Emergencies Act.
We had a dangerous crisis that rose to the occasion of an emergency.
Not a single cop said so.
But now we're done with the cops.
We got the politicians.
And they're not quite as conscientious under oath, and they lie like a rug.
And you're hearing the most absurd pretzel feats of logic to twist things into emergencies like this one incredible statement that there was an image of a big crane in downtown Ottawa.
And that made newspapers around the world.
And so that was an image problem for the government of Canada.
And so they needed martial law to fix that crane as if martial law was good for the international image.
So I guess what I'm saying, Celine, is we are out of just the facts territory and into the BS politician territory.
Am I right?
Yeah, I think we're kind of in the belly of the beast right now, Ezra, because just like you mentioned, it was all prior to this, it was about if the Emergencies Act was actually necessary to invoke.
That's the Trudeau government, as they did it, as we've seen come out.
Nobody, like you said, has said that it was necessary.
So now fast forward to this week and a little bit of last week.
It's literally just who can avoid the question, who can say that, you know, they can't recall relevant information more.
It's pretty ridiculous, especially considering that the higher we get, you know, you think that the liberal government has all these things together.
You know, they've obviously been given a lot of time to go over what seems to me to be a little bit of some scripted periods where they'll just either confirm or confirm and not deny, deny, confirm.
It's very confusing to me.
So I don't know.
What did you see from today's takeaway?
Well, I want to talk in a minute, and we'll play some clips of it, of one of the problems.
I mean, like you say, everyone knew this commission of inquiry would happen.
Why did we know it?
Because it's built into the martial law.
It's built into the Emergencies Act.
If any government in history is to invoke this tyrannical Banana Republic lockdown law, which had never been done before, it has a fail-safe that such a invocation must later be scrutinized by a judge.
So, when Trudeau pushed the panic button on his political career in February, he knew that everything would be scrutinized by a judge.
And this commission of inquiry has been going on for more than a month.
And the reason I mention that is the governments knew for nine months that they would have to turn over internal documents.
They knew they would have to show a judge their thinking.
And yet, thousands of pages of documents from the prime minister's office and other political offices were dumped on the commission and on the lawyers and on the witnesses with a few hours' notice.
And that's the thing.
If you're hiding documents, that's one thing, and that's illegal, of course.
But another way to do it is to give 100,000 pages in bankers' boxes and say, hey, you got four hours.
Find the needle in the haystack here, sucker.
And it's so abusive of process, and it's so unnecessary because everyone knew this commission of inquiry was happening.
And by the way, the government just blacked out what they didn't want the judge to see.
I want to play some clips of this.
It's just incredible to me.
You know, we've got a bunch of great clips of what happened because there were some shenanigans.
Well, let's start with this.
Brendan Miller, one of the trucker lawyers, saw with his eyes a communications staffer to Marco Mendocino in the room.
And this communications staffer named Alex Cohen apparently had been hiding documents, blacking out documents.
And Brendan Miller saw him and said, Hey, Judge, I want to subpoena that guy right now.
Put him in the seat right now.
I got questions for him right now.
This is clip number one.
Look at this tense exchange or not following it.
So it's just wondering if you wanted the break now or later.
Sure, let's take the break now.
Let's take a look at it.
Sir, before we take the break, I just have a quick application.
I apologize, sir.
I think it's important.
I've just met Mr. Alexander Cohen.
He's present in this room.
And, sir, Mr. Cohen, as we have heard throughout this proceeding, has relevant and material evidence to this proceeding's mandate.
He has very relevant evidence with respect to the inquiry as to the circumstances as to the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
He also has relevant and material information with respect to misinformation, of which this commission has been tasked with exploring, beginning with the text messages between himself and Mary Liz Power that are already in evidence in building the narrative with respect to the protesters in Ottawa being extremists and thereafter essentially setting out that they are.
in fact proprietors of Nazi symbolism.
Sir, this commission has been hearing from various can I just interrupt?
What's your application?
I'd like to call him as a witness, sir.
Well, have you written any is there a I didn't expect that we would have the opportunity you haven't at the moment.
There's no application.
Well, this is my application, sir.
I'm making it orally, and I'm asking for the commission to have him testify after the minister.
He has relevant material.
I'm not going to do this orally right now.
We're given 15 minutes to cross-examine, to elicit relevant and material evidence.
And we have relevant and material witnesses here.
The government of Canada has redacted without lawful authority all of these statements from these staffers and have suppressed records.
I have no idea at this point where this is going.
So I'm going to take the break.
And if you can speak to Commission Counsel, which I think I've repeated many times, is the way to at least raise the issue.
Yes.
And then we'll see if they can resolve it or not.
But we have a schedule.
And sir, the schedule is not as important at getting to the truth.
There's no question we want to get at the truth.
But you know what?
It's a very complex issue, and it's not all about what you want.
It's about what the Commission needs to do, what the parties want to do.
That's what Canadians are entitled to.
Control a process.
And we have witnesses, we have a schedule.
It's been going for a while.
Please speak to Commission Counsel.
We'll see where we go.
And we'll take the morning break.
Sir, I understand, but I just asked for a ruling after the morning break.
Thank you.
You know, there's a frustration there.
And I hear the point of view from the judge also.
There's a lot of lawyers representing a lot of people.
The Commission itself has a lot of lawyers.
They're pressed for time.
They got to wrap this thing up in a week.
I understand everyone's under pressure, and Brendan Miller as well.
It must be frustrating to see some smirking liberal staffer 20 feet away who won't answer questions and to say, Judge, he's right there.
He's literally right there.
And the judge says, sorry.
You know, it got a little worse, though, Celine, didn't they?
You know, that was just the first quarrel.
Let's play clip number two.
This is when the JCCF lawyer Brendan Miller gets booted out, which is not a good thing.
Here, let's roll clip number two.
Sir, Katie, the Commission Council has not completed her.
I understand it, sir.
And your counsel's advised you that.
No, I know you've directed that.
I'm sorry.
I'm speaking.
Yes, sir.
The application, if you want to do it, you've been advised it's to be done in writing, not in the middle of the day.
Sir, we filed two motions in writing at your direction that you've refused to rule on with respect to the redaction of documents from the government of Canada.
You're speaking filed for your ass to leave.
I will return in five minutes if security could deal with the counsel.
You know, again, I have some sympathy for the judge because there has to be one boss in the room, and the boss is the judge.
Again, I also have sympathy for the lawyer who's saying these documents are blacked out.
This is a public inquiry.
The government is blacking things out.
You know, it's what do you think of that, Celine?
I think that I agree with you.
There's a little bit, there has to be a boss in the room, so to speak, right?
And you'd look to Rouleau for that as he's going to be the leader.
He's going to be there.
You're going to assume to direct the room, of course.
But at the same time, just like we were talking about earlier, where we've seen a bit of a change in what's going on at the commission right now, another thing that is very noticeable in the room is that there's not much of a standard that's being adhered to with these documents being given to the lawyers of every party, I'm assuming, overnight.
Or I'm even seeing some come in during the day, during the day while the witness is providing their testimony.
That must be extremely, extremely frustrating.
Like you said, it is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
So you would assume that there would be a standard to set, and that would take somebody to set the precedence of that level of standard that people would adhere to.
But that has not, that's not been, it has not happened.
And it's just very frustrating to sit in that room and to see that even twice today.
I was, you can see in the clip, the first time Sheila and I are sitting directly behind the lawyer is just kind of like, what is going on?
But yeah, it's not anymore about if the Emergencies Act was necessary.
And actually, Rillo himself has said that.
He said that today.
You know, why are you going over this evidence?
We already know that, you know, this is what it said under section two under the CSIS Act and that it wasn't met.
So then why are we still here?
Why are we listening to all of these liberal ministers lie through their teeth?
Where's the standard?
You know, it's funny because I haven't been out there in Ottawa in a while.
You guys are doing a great job.
I was there at the beginning, make sure the Airbnb was set up just to see what things are like.
And so I would say, I think it was the very first day.
And I saw just a couple of ordinary people.
They had no special status.
They had no special authority.
One was named Zexie Lee, just some young gal who was really mad at the truckers, and some other just regular person.
I'm not disparaging.
I'm just saying they were severely normal, ordinary people.
And they were giving an enormous amount.
I think they were talking for 90 minutes, just basically roll-a-dice random people.
90 minutes, if I recall.
And I bet both the judge and the lawyers wish that 90 minutes could be taken back to actually talk to real decision makers.
I have no idea how those nobodies in a standing sense got 90 minutes of prime time and we can't get a communications aid to the public safety minister.
Now, Brendan Miller, the lawyer who was told to leave or be escorted out, he had a scrum.
And I understand you and other rebel reporters were out in the scrum.
That is our clip number three.
Let's hear what he said.
I don't want to spend too much time on this procedural wrangle, but there is something about it because this is under such like in a regular court where there's no artificial time limit on the end, they might take a break for a week and fight about this.
But this is under such a pressure cooker time that it rewards bad faith.
If the government says, here's 100,000 pages, 5,000 of which are blacked out, suckers.
What's the judge going to do?
Because he's got to wrap this thing up on a certain schedule.
The government knows, I mean, what are they going to do?
Punish the prime minister?
Here's Brendan Miller in the hallway letting her rip.
Canadians are entitled to the truth, and you can't hide behind unlawful redactions in a public inquiry claiming baseless redactions on Stafford correspondents because it may hurt you.
Made two, actually three technically, written applications with respect to these redactive documents in advance of the minister's testifying.
And the commission has failed or refused to rule on them.
And one of the other grounds of procedural fairness is for decisions without undue delay.
Unlawful Redactions Discussed00:15:35
When decisions are not made on procedural issues of this importance, without undue delay, procedural fairness of not just my clients, but everyone's is violated.
Canadians are entitled to the truth.
And you can't hide behind unlawful redactions in a public inquiry claiming baseless redactions on Stafford correspondents because it may hurt you.
And that, in my view, is what the government of Canada is doing.
And it needs to stop.
And had we had a timely ruling on these redactions, this application made orally today would have been entirely unnecessary.
Is it your expectation to continue?
Which the application for Alex Cohen would have been entirely unnecessary?
Correct.
Is it your expectation to continue in the proceedings?
Yes.
Well, it's my client's constitutional right to have legal representation of their choice.
Is there another lawyer as part of the team that could step in for you if you're not allowed to?
My client's choice is to have me.
And with respect to being thrown out of the building at the direction of the commissioner, there is no jurisdiction to do that either.
So it is what it is.
We await.
And we'll see.
Is that your next step then?
You're just going to wait for some coming across from the question off.
Response more so from security.
It's up to security whether or not I'm allowed in the building.
And it's up to Commissioner whether or not he'll abide by my client's constitutional right to have the lawyer of their choice and the procedural fairness and constitutional right to be heard before the treadmill.
Is that you and William?
Who else was in the scrum?
Were a lot of journalists out there?
There weren't too many.
No, I think that there was just a handful, lots of just mainstreamers with their huge cameras on their shoulders.
Kian, of course, was out there filming.
Sheila joined up to see what the commotion was all about.
William just kind of, as casually as he could, like strides into the room and taps me on the shoulder.
He's like, you got to come see this now.
I was like, yeah, duty calls, you know.
So I think it's really interesting.
He had a lot of really good points.
And it is about fairness.
How can you expect to have a fair result when the parties that are part of this decision are not being treated fairly?
You can't.
That's not what's in the cards.
It was the federal government that was in charge of collecting all of this information.
And it's the federal government's, it's their responsibility to be able to do this in a timely manner that goes according to the timeline that Rillow has to meet.
And there's a requirement in law in any sort of disclosure.
For example, in the police, when police arrest someone, they have to disclose things, but they don't just have to disclose the stuff that's embarrassing for the criminal.
They have to disclose exculpating information.
So if the police have something that they don't want to give because it shows the guy's innocent, they have to give it anyways.
There's a duty, there's an obligation on the government to disclose things, even if they're embarrassing, even if they help the other person's case.
And it sounds like these redactions, at least were thought by Brendan Miller, to hide that.
I want to play one more clip and then we'll go live to our guest who's in our pop-up studio there.
This next clip is clip number five.
We talked, or we saw Brendan Miller, one of the JCCF lawyers, but there was another JCCF lawyer, Freedom Fighting lawyer there, an old friend of Rebel News, Keith Wilson.
Keith had something to say about this.
Let's play that clip and then we'll go to the man live and in person in our studio.
So play clip number five, if you please.
Good morning, sir.
My name is Keith Wilson, counsel for the Convoy Organizers.
I apologize for my voice.
I'm recovering from a cold.
I have a bit of the same.
Thank you, sir.
Sir, we're not in a position to proceed with Cross at this time, and there's two reasons.
One is the federal government has disclosed over a week ago an extension volume of documents that are highly redacted.
It is obvious from the face of the documents that they don't meet the criteria for lawful redactions.
A motion was made last week for those redactions to be lifted.
The submissions closed on Thursday evening.
We still have no ruling.
A number of days have passed.
For the cross-examination and the discovery of truth process to be valid and effective, the parties require access to the documents.
We don't have that.
So we would appreciate some indication as to when the Commission is actually going to rule on that and hopefully compel the proper disclosure of the records so that cross-examinations can be effective.
I emphasize that these documents are not related to future witnesses, but present witnesses.
So we're making the process inefficient with all due respect by not allowing the parties to have access to unredacted documents.
Second reason we're not in a position to proceed with our cross-examination at this time with this witness is our lead counsel, Mr. Brendan Miller, who had prepared for the cross.
As you know, sir, has been removed from the room by you when he was raising a motion to find a way around the absence of a ruling on the redactions.
So we're just not in a position to proceed on cross survey.
Okay, well, just on your first question, it is expected that the ruling will come out during a lunch hour.
There have been a fair amount of back and forth without going into detail.
There's some, let's say, innovative type of issues that had to be dealt with.
So that should come out at the lunchtime, which I'm happy to, I will do my utmost.
It's going to come out, unfortunately, probably and not on the record, the website, because it won't be translated, which is one of the issues we have to deal with.
But we will, in light of what you say, we'll issue it in English only for the moment and it will become be posted when it's bilingual.
But I understand that submission.
So that should enable you so we can put off the cross-examinations till after the lunchtime.
In terms of the other problem, that's not something I can deal with.
I've dealt, I'm trying to deal the best I can with the situation.
And quite frankly, if the issue had been raised the way you have now, I would have given the answer I'm giving now.
So what I propose then, since this witness will be here after lunch, we simply delay till after lunch.
If you could endeavor, because I see you have, Mr. Will, you have a co-counsel, so can sort out how that can be done.
That would be appreciated.
Thank you, sir.
Well, there you have it.
That man was Keith Wilson, and in our pop-up studio in the belly of Ottawa is that same lawyer, Keith Wilson, who joins us now.
Live, Keith, nice to see you.
What happened at lunch?
What did the judge rule on these sneaky redactions, these blacked out passages?
What did the judge do?
Well, he went through each of the large bundles of documents and indicated whether or not he was going to order or require the federal government to lift some or all of the redactions.
For the majority of them, he allowed the redactions to remain in place.
But for some of them, he did rule that the redactions had to be lifted and that we were allowed to see what was behind the big black smudges.
And so as your reporters were witnessing in real time, while the cross-examinations are occurring on Minister Mendocino, we're simultaneously now going through and reviewing these documents, trying to assess what questions to ask.
And I believe we received them after Brendan Miller ultimately did his cross-examination.
So we had to figure out a way to get them in.
And one of them was pretty spectacular that we read.
Oh, which one was that?
It was a note from that staffer that you discussed earlier from him attending a cabinet meeting about whether or not they were going to invoke the Emergencies Act.
And the note that they had blacked out was him indicating that CESAS advises that Section 2 is not met.
And then there's plus Jody Thomas, being the National Security Advisor, being informed of that.
So notes from a real-time meeting confirming that they received the cabinet a briefing that the legal requirement to lawfully invoke the Emergencies Act was not present and the information was conveyed to Jody Thomas.
Now, I think we have a clip that touches on that.
It's clip number 10, Jody Thomas, the National Security Advisor.
Let's see if this is the clip that matches what you've just described.
Clip number 10.
SSM.can.407721.
We advise that the Commission Council should look at it as it is relevant to material to this witness.
In particular, Jodi Thomas, the National Security and Intelligence Advisor, states in that document that there is no national security threat pursuant to section two of the CESIS Act.
...ssm.can.4077...
So did he answer that or did he just sort of sit there when that was put to him?
Well, what we had to do at that time, because our opportunity to ask questions had passed, we took the position through our co-counsel, Bath Shiva Vandenberg, who you hear speaking there, and we instructed her.
We made the decision to keep Mr. Miller away from the microphone as much as we could, given the events of the day.
And so Bath, who's a brand new lawyer, got thrown into the frying pan.
She handled herself great.
And we took the position that because commission counsel get the last chance, they ask questions at the start of a witness and they ask questions at the end of a witness.
So our view was that now that we know this document exists, as of a few minutes ago, commission counsel who can still ask questions of Minister Mendocino should be putting it to him.
Initially, they said, oh, well, we'll just let the Roulau says, well, we'll just let it be in the record.
No, no, no.
You need to put it to the witness.
And they eventually did.
Oh, they did.
Oh, that's good.
And what was the answer?
I can't remember his answer, but you know, it's one of those things.
It doesn't matter.
Actually, you know what?
I think we might have a clip 11.
Go ahead.
Sorry about that.
I'm just looking at just a great list of clips prepared by our team here.
And I think clip 11, you know what?
Isn't that interesting how you had to do a workaround like that?
And let's play clip 11.
I think it might be the one you're referring to.
look.
And you also said that we got advice from our law enforcement that we met the threshold, that advice and the decision to invoke it informed by nonpartisan professionals.
Can you agree that no law enforcement ever advised you that the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act was met?
That never happened, did it?
Well, I'd say two things in response.
One, we did receive advice from law enforcement very specifically with regards to the tools that were then invoked as part of the Emergencies Act.
In fact, as I mentioned earlier today, in the February 13th email that my chief of staff received from Commissioner Lucky, that there was an express link that she drew between those tools, which were, again, we were getting briefed on consistently, and the language of the use of the Emergencies Act.
The second thing that I would say is the Commission has since heard that a number of our nonpartisan, professional, independent public servants, including those who operate in the security and intelligence sphere, did advise that the threshold had been met.
Okay.
And just two last questions arising from now.
Commissioner Lucky, in an email, and it's already in evidence, told you and told, well, told your deputy minister, or your chief of staff, actually, that she believed that the Emergency Act wasn't necessary because they could use the normal laws of Canada to deal with the matter.
My friend's misstating the content of the letter that he's putting to the witness.
Okay.
Can you agree that Commissioner Lucky and no law enforcement official, a police officer, advised you that the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act was met, meaning that there was reasonable and probable grounds or reasonable grounds of a threat to the security of Canada?
No one from law enforcement specifically said that to you, did they?
Well, in the broad context of my portfolio, I would disagree with that.
And certainly, as you heard from CESIS, the threshold was met and the broader interpretation of the law.
So that was not the clip you had in mind, Keith, but it was interesting nonetheless.
And I got to say, if someone were to write a transcript of the absolute duck speak, as Orwell called it, well, I would express the link between those tools in the broad context of my portfolio.
Like, that is what Orwell called duck speaking.
And a good duck speaker was someone who could babble and make sounds to fill the time.
And you just said, what did he just say?
And to call someone a duck speaker in 1984 was both an insult and a great compliment.
He's a great duck speaker.
I think in plain language, we would say a bullshitter.
Oh, what a bullshitter.
He's a good bullshitter.
Like just pure bullshit.
And it's funny because on my show tonight, I go through some texts where Mendocino's own deputy minister isn't even bothering to show Mendocino's summer report.
He's sharing it with everyone else in government, but on even his own boss.
Judge Knows Bullshit When He Sees It00:04:24
I think Mendocino is regarded as a bit of a joke, a real intellectual lightweight and not a decision maker, even by the government of Canada.
I think he looked like a fool, but Trudeau must be delighted with his duck speaking.
Well done from the Trudeau point of view.
What do you think?
Well, they're all doing it, and Blair did it yesterday, and we're going to see more of it in the coming days.
But let's be clear about something, Ezra.
I mean, there's interpretations of law that are difficult under statutes where there's these strange situations that maybe don't fit well.
This is not one of them.
The act is very straightforward.
It says threats to national security is the trigger for a public order emergency.
Okay.
Threats to national security.
It defines it as section two of the CESIS Act, which has four things.
You can have any combination of the four, any one of the four.
And if you hit any one of them or any combination of them, then you meet the threshold.
All of the evidence has been.
from all of the police officials, the government officials, that none of the four elements were present in the CESIS Act, including the most recently unredacted document from a few hours ago this afternoon saying the elements in section two aren't there.
There's nothing else to look to.
This is, you know, there's times where lawyers can do a sleight of hand and twist and distort things.
They're making this up out of whole cloth.
And do you think the judge knows it?
Like, I know it, you know.
The judge knows it.
Well, I'll tell you why.
Because one of the other lawyers yesterday walked Blair through each of the four elements and then proceeded and got Blair to confirm that none of the four elements were present for there to be a Section 2 threat to national security.
And then the lawyer went to pursue a new line of questioning, ran out of time, and then asked for more time.
And Roulau said, you're not going to get any more time.
You wasted time by going through all four elements.
We all know and all the evidence has been that they weren't met.
And, you know, we all felt like closing our laptops and saying, well, I guess we can go home now.
So it's what they say in Latin, QED, that which was to be demonstrated.
QED.
There it is.
It's right there.
Let's pack it up.
Now, by the way, our intrepid Olivia, I think she's found the clip we meant to find later of these questions that you guys smoked out being asked by Commission Stapp.
I think that's what we got here.
Let's take a look.
I haven't seen it, but Olivia said she thinks she might have found it.
Let's just throw that clip up before we forget.
Let's take a look.
Was, sorry, what is the date of this note?
I'm afraid I don't know.
Well, look, leaving that aside.
Yes, I was.
It says it's before the speech Monday morning, which is the date that they announced the invocation.
That might assist.
Okay.
Yes, I was aware that CESIS had concluded that Section 2 under the CESIS Act was not met.
I was aware of that fact.
There it is right there.
There it is.
There it is.
Like he, like, that's, you know, he's making section two of the CESIS Act.
Yeah, that's the test, brother.
That's it.
You know, for one minute, he speaks plainly to make the confession.
There it is.
We're done.
We're literally done.
There's nothing more.
There's nothing more.
And, you know, one of the things I really need to emphasize, like you can hear my voice, right?
You know, last night, the lawyers left my room at 1.30 in the morning.
And the reason is we got dumped with another load of federal government documents at 6 p.m.
So we do as we always do.
We break them up into sets.
I started at the back, started working forward.
Eva Chipyuk took a chunk.
Bathsheba took another chunk.
And we just start going through.
And as soon as we find something, we discuss it, figure out its relevance, how we're going to use it.
We've been doing this for how many weeks now?
Commissioner's Silence Matters00:03:14
And one of the problems that the commission suffers from is, and I made this point to the commission today, not in a setting that you would have seen in a transcript, but in a sidebar, was not a single word has been said by the commissioner about this.
He's allowing the second most important party, or one of the most important parties, because the convoy is clearly one of the most important parties, but the federal government to do these massive dumps at all times of day and night, these bizarre redactions that have no basis in law.
And he hasn't said a single negative thing about it.
And as you pointed out, and I pointed out to the Commission Council today, that normally what would happen is we would get an adjournment.
And you know that you explained that to the viewers a moment ago.
You would get an adjournment, and there would be a consequence to the party that wasn't playing by the rules.
What's been happening in this commission increasingly is the party that suffers is the convoy organizers and those other groups, the Democracy Fund, the Justice Center, and Constitution Center and so on, that are seeking the truth.
We're the ones who are the recipients of the pain.
And when we try and get a couple of extra minutes to ask another question, we get shut down and we're told we need to be more efficient with our time.
So the commissioner could do a much better job at trying to bring some balance and fairness and really needs to, if he wants his process to be seen as one of credibility and integrity, there needs to be some at least a statement made on the record by him about how poorly and improperly the federal government is behaving.
Well, I hope so.
And you're right that there's normally consequences.
But if we're under an artificial deadline to end this, there are only rewards for bad behavior.
Those who would conduct themselves properly undo themselves.
And this is the Trudeau way.
Now, there's one more clip I want to play, and it's about my home province, Alberta.
I know you're from Alberta also.
Jason Kenny, who started off as the Ron DeSantis of Canada with the lightest touch on the lockdowns, and then something snapped in that lad's mind, and he became the most brutal enforcer of lockdowns in Canada with his arrests and jailing of Arthur Pavlovsky and the seizure of the Grace Life Church, just appalling stuff.
Behind the scenes, he had some interesting things to say to the feds about their lockdown theater.
He called it the trucker vax policy is obviously dumb political theater.
So publicly, Jason Kenney, who is no longer premier in part because of his handling of the convoy, publicly, he was condemning the truckers and language that echo Justin Trudeau, but privately, he did not think so.
I'm talking about clip number eight.
Great Day-Long Conference00:09:31
Take a look.
If we could scroll down.
So it should be the third attachment in the sixth email that was received from Mr. Bruce Sow last night.
There it is.
The trucker vax policy is obviously just dumb political theater.
Calling them Nazis hasn't exactly helped.
Do you recall being informed of Premier Kenney's position on this?
I recall seeing that that was Minister LeBlanc's looks like a cut and paste of what Premier Kenney had relayed to him.
Okay, and I take it you disagree with Premier Kenney's position?
Yes.
But is it true, though, that the Liberal platform in September of 2021 dealt with a mandatory vaccination policy across the entire federal service and on federally regulated transportation?
Yes, we put that to the electorate in the 21 election.
And I believe you had 33% roughly of the popular vote there.
Is that correct?
Well, to the best of my recollection, yes, your number is right on that.
Okay.
Isn't that funny?
Well, listen, I want to take a short commercial break and let me get some advice from Olivia how we're doing for the rest of the show.
So stay right there, everybody.
We got a quick commercial for you.
By the way, before we go to commercial, I just want to tell you that over the weekend, we had a great convention in Toronto.
More than 750 tickets sold.
Most of those were for in-person attendees, but we also had hundreds watching online.
Great conference.
Real trucker theme.
The keynote speech was by Tamara Leach.
She came from Ottawa to give a talk, very carefully vetted from a legal point of view, make sure she didn't get in trouble with the bail conditions.
We had Palminder Singh, who became a viral star with his trucker TikTok videos.
We had Arthur Pavlovsky, who I mentioned earlier.
It was a great conference, day-long thing.
We're doing it again this Saturday in Calgary.
And you can get all the details at RebelNewsLive.com.
That's what we call it.
And we've got even more amazing speakers coming out.
You really got to be there.
There still are tickets left.
And there's even VIP tickets where you can have dinner afterwards with all the speakers.
How much fun is that?
So go to RebelNewsLive.com.
Thanks for letting me make a pitch.
I had a great time.
You know, I mean, I do know most of these speakers before I interact with them.
So I have that privilege to begin with.
But to meet hundreds of grassroots rebels in their natural habitat is such a pleasure.
So that's actually for me the great value.
So if you're in Southern Alberta, please go to RebelNewsLive.com.
And if you're not in Southern Alberta, you can watch live on Zoom as well.
Okay, here's a quick ad and we'll be back in a minute.
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 insult and yell at each other for making a different mythical 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 RibbandNewsLive.com.
And it will 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.
We've even got some more speakers.
Conrad Black is coming to Calgary.
He's got a new book coming out called The History of Civil Liberties in Canada.
Very exciting course also from the Democracy Fund.
He's the historian in residence there, Dr. Julie Panessi will be speaking too.
Boy, it's going to be great.
And I love going to Calgary.
Hey, Keith, thanks for sticking around.
I want to play one more video and get your feedback on, and then we'll set you free because I know there's so much you got to do.
You're up till the wee hours every night reviewing documents.
So after Marco Mendocino did his duck speaking, that's a word we got to bring back.
Our team, Celine Galas and William Diaz-Berthium, scrummed him.
Now, I have not watched his video yet.
So for all I know, it was five seconds long and Mendocino's stomping through.
Or maybe it was him engaging in some glorious duck speaking.
You and I will be watching it together for the first time.
So let's play clip number 12, and I'd love your feedback on it.
And I have no idea what I'm about to show you, Keith.
This could be a very quick or very funny video.
Let's take a look.
Mr. Mendecino, do you have any regrets about how the protesters were treated by your police?
Mr. Mendecino, if you believe that Alberta needed the EA to deal with Coutts, why wasn't it mentioned in the 10 times that you had communications?
Good evening to you, too.
Do you want to answer my question, Mr. Mendocino?
Yeah, they had no chance.
No chance.
He wasn't stopping.
I appreciate their effort.
I appreciate their hollering at him, but he wasn't stopping.
He was just walking by.
Was that?
He was all ducked out.
Yeah.
I had no idea what I was throwing to you there.
I just have on the screen here.
They scrummed Marco Mendocino.
I wouldn't even really call that a scrum.
They hollered questions at him as he walked by in that imperious way.
But I got to say, had he stopped to answer questions, it would have been no more revealing than walking by.
Hey, Keith, thanks for coming by.
I know you're a busy guy.
I appreciate the fact that he's coming by so often to our little pop-up studio there.
It's been fun.
I mean, we normally don't have a base of operations, but I thought the idea of an Airbnb would be a good one.
We cycle through our reporters and we've got a little studio there.
We've got some gear.
I think it works.
We've got a lot of viewers tuning in every day, and I really appreciate you bringing the smarts as you do all the time.
So thanks for joining us.
It's great to be here, and we'll keep coming back till this thing's wrapped up.
Thanks, Ezra.
Right on.
All the best.
There you have a Keith Wilson, KC. That stands for King's Counsel.
As you know, he's also the lawyer for Brian Peckford and Maxine Bernier in the case to challenge the ban on unvaxed flying flyers in this country.
So that's Keith Wilson.
I do want to bring Celine back on if she's still there at the studio.
I know our friend William Diaz-Berthium is still at the commission.
They are going strong.
It's 7 p.m.
I should tell you, I mean, I haven't practiced law in a long time, but I've been in enough courts to know.
Typically, courts get going at 10 a.m.
Typically they wrap up 4.30 or 5.
I'm just saying.
We'll say goodbye to Keith, but we'll stick with Celine.
So, yeah, perfect.
We could say goodbye to Keith now.
You know how it is when you're doing live TV.
No problem there.
Celine, I got to say, you're in a government town.
And, you know, I think of the joke, you know, I'm not big in the Lord of the Rings, but the Hobbit, you know, The Hobbits, those little people.
They have this thing.
They have seven meals a day.
They have first breakfast.
They have second breakfast.
Then they have something called 11sies.
Then they have lunch, supper and dinner and afternoon tea or something.
Like they got seven meals a day, the hobbits do.
And I always get a chuckle out of that because I just love saying the word 11sies, which is what you have when it's not quite time for lunch and you're hungry, but it's after breakfast.
I'm just going for 11sies.
He's probably a muffin or something.
Anyways, that's Ottawa.
How many coffee breaks?
How many lunch breaks?
You know, get up at the crack of 10, mosey on to work, then take a 90-minute lunch, and then, oh, time to, that's Ottawa normally.
And courts, too, start at 10, wrap up at 4.30 or 5 with a nice long lunch break.
This Commission of Inquiry, by contrast, is not taking seven coffee breaks a day, and they're working hard.
I mean, seriously, I do not know any courts that keep giving her at 7,12 p.m., which is what it is here Eastern time.
And, you know, whether it's weekends or early mornings, this judge is working hard.
And he's trying to get her done, isn't he?
Yeah, definitely.
And today we heard a lot more about the time constraints that this entire commission is under right now.
Go Harder on Time Constraints00:05:13
So we did, that did come in.
It was received, I believe, by all of us, but they're really cracking down on people now for time constraints.
Roulot even said today that if some of the other councils wanted to talk in private about if some of them wanted to offer their time to some of the other parties in order to work together to work around these time constraints, then they could do that.
So it's to say that we're getting down to the bone is definitely no understatement.
I mean, again, we're getting higher and higher through the Liberal cabinet.
So I can only imagine what we're going to hear tomorrow.
Yeah.
You know, our young friend William just posted in an internal memo to the staff the notice to members of the media covering the Public Order Emergency Commission, new rules in place for the media when the prime minister testifies on Friday.
New rules for security screening.
I'm delighted to say that rebel news will be there as we always are.
This is one journalistic event that Trudeau does not control.
As you know, he has historically kept us out of the federal leaders' debates.
And two times we had to go to federal court.
And two times federal court judges told him he was breaking the law by violating our rights.
And two times they ordered us accredited.
We will have no such troubles this Friday, at least I hope not.
I don't expect to hear a word from Trudeau other than he'll use his sexy voice and say, well, this is a learning experience for all Canadians to reflect on civil liberties and how we can all do better.
No, brother, you were the one who put us under martial law because you were embarrassed and you panicked.
And the sad thing about the martial law Celine was that when it was invoked, I remember crystal clear the most common and most vociferous response to martial law in Canada by the media party,
by the establishment, by the people who count, by the big people, the official people, the fancy TV pundits, law professors, journalists, was go harder.
Go harder, Trudeau.
Punish them harder.
They weren't shocked by Trudeau.
They said, finally.
They loved his fascism.
It wasn't just Trudeau who admires the basic dictatorship of China.
Everyone in the Canadian establishment did too.
Oh, they would say they're against Chinese authoritarianism.
They would say they're for Tibet and they're for the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province and they're for democracy in Hong Kong.
They would say that because they have no skin in those games.
So it's easy for them to virtue signal.
But when it came to our own country, our own streets, and riot horses stomping people and bank accounts being seized and people being jailed for political offenses like Tamara Leach, our official class said more and harder.
Yes, sir, I'm ready to sign up for the fascist league and I'll snitch them out and I'll try and rat them out.
Like it was, that was the disgrace.
It is not that surprising that Justin Trudeau, the admirer. of his father figure, Fidel Castro, the praiser of communist China.
It's not surprising that he went full banana republic tinpook dictator.
It's not surprising that was his destiny.
He told us he would do that essentially.
What was surprising and disappointing and heartbreaking and needs some correction and needs some justice is that the whole damn establishment went along with him, cheering the whole way.
Yeah, no kidding.
I'd like to see some accountability.
And so far, all that we've heard in turn of all the testimonies that have been provided is the exact opposite.
In fact, if it wasn't people just pointing fingers at each other this entire time, now that the liberal cabinet members are testifying, it's very, very apparent that they're very willing to throw each other under the bus to get through this as well.
So by the end of it, I'm not really sure what the result is going to be.
As you said, Justin Trudeau is going to use this as an example for how Canada can go forward.
And it'll be a very minor slap on the wrist.
And I think that there's a potential for crackdowns in the future because they already, let's say, succeeded one time.
So what's to stop them from coming up with something else in order to convince Canadians to give up their rights and freedoms again?
Because it was that fear that they drove through mainstream media.
It was the constant, your neighbor, your family, your friends can make you ill.
They can kill you potentially.
So why don't you stay in your home, stay safe, digest what we will give you over the TV, over the radios, and just be complacent.
That's the cure, right?
That was the antidote for all of the things that they were going through, all the fear.
Just listen to mainstream media.
And now we have liberal cabinet members, the ones that created the policies, the ones that actually put into place these lockdown restrictions and mandates.
Mainstream Media Fear Mongering00:03:04
And I have heard no accountability, Ezra.
No accountability at all.
So I guess that is the question.
What happens after all of this?
Yeah, and I would have to refresh my memory about the powers of this judicial inquiry.
I think it's just fact-finding.
I don't think this judge has power to punish or sanction.
And it reminds me of the Ethics Commissioner, time and again convicting Justin Trudeau of Conflict of Interest Act violations.
$500 fine.
He got a $100,000 secret vacation from a lobbyist, and he paid a $500 fine if the memory serves.
Well, Celine, listen, it's great to see you.
Thanks for working so hard out there along with William D.S. Berthium, who's there right now.
Sheila Gunnreed was out there too.
I saw her in the background with some of the shots, of course.
Olivia Bruni, who operates our studio here, our friend Efron Monsanto, who normally does too.
I think Mauricio Pachicos Pachko-Rojas also does the video clips for us.
A whole team effort.
Key and Simoni, I'm not sure if he's out there.
I think he is.
Like there really is a lot of people.
And I have lost track.
I'm sure I'm missing a whole suite of folks, Yankee Pollock, who is the boss of our social media.
It really is a big effort.
And for folks who appreciate these nightly live streams, and I only pop in once in a while, the hard work is done by our folks in the Airbnb there.
I think we're covering this wall to wall.
Like we're doing the full live stream every day of the proceedings.
We're live tweeting it.
We're doing video clips throughout the day.
We're writing news stories.
And then we have the evening wrap-up.
That's a lot of stuff.
It's a big effort, big team.
I've listed the names.
Big cost too.
We've been flying people in and out of Ottawa for a month, probably 30 flights.
We don't have hotel costs, but we have that Airbnb for six weeks.
I think it's $15,000, which sounds like a lot.
It is a lot, but it's a big house with four bedrooms, and we've turned the kitchen into a studio.
That's where we're spending the money.
Between the 15 grand on the Airbnb and the flights, we're probably at 25 grand, maybe even 30 grand for this project.
So if you like what we're doing, please go to truckercommission.com and chip in a few bucks or more than a few, because I believe that we have to make sure this story is told accurately.
They're making history right now, and it's important that the media party doesn't get to revise that history, which they're trying to do.
Well, Celine, let's wrap it up there.
Great to see you.
Thanks to the whole team in Ottawa, and thanks to the team here at our world headquarters.
On behalf of all of us here at Rebel News Network, to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.
You also mentioned in your question that this business about there being the concern that if we invoke the Emergencies Act, that it might actually lead to more violence or radicalization, as I believe you heard from Mr. Vignot and CISIS.
Addressing Frustration and Mayhem00:00:54
I was very mindful of that, but I also and colleagues at the cabinet table also had to weigh the risks of not invoking the Emergencies Act because there were the materialization of counterprotests from individuals,
specifically in Ottawa, because they were so frustrated at their inability to go to their jobs, take their kids to daycare, get access to to emergency medical services, their prescriptions and the like.
I mean, it was utter and total mayhem.
I mean, let's call a spade a spade.
And so that frustration was boiling over.
And my concern in my capacity as the Minister for Public Safety is that if we don't equip police with the additional tools and the authorities that they need to specifically address address the gaps that they had been consistently briefing us on,