Sheila Gunn-Reid scrutinizes the Trucker Commission, exposing how Canada’s 2022 Emergencies Act invocation—despite CSIS’s February 13th testimony denying convoy threats—relied on disputed evidence, racialized policing concerns, and redacted documents. LeMetti’s January 30th push and February 2nd tank-deployment texts contradict official claims, while lawyers like Miller face obstruction over subpoenas for figures like Alex Cohen. Gunn-Reid warns the government will likely rewrite the act to avoid accountability, despite potential unlawful findings, setting a precedent for future overreach amid legal chaos. [Automatically generated summary]
We're in the last week of the Public Order Emergency Commission, which means we're going to see politicians doing their best to defend nine months of lies.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
The Public Order Emergency Commission is ongoing right now in our nation's capital.
It's the public examination.
It's a fail-safe built into the Emergencies Act to prevent an egomaniacal buffoon like Justin Trudeau from ever invoking it willy-nilly because of his own hurt feelings against peaceful anti-regime political dissidents.
But that's exactly what happened earlier this year, actually February 14th, when Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act.
It's a wartime law meant for 9-11 level events, for Pearl Harbor-level events, D-Day-level events.
That's what it's meant for.
But Justin Trudeau used it to get rid of nearly four weeks of peaceful, anti-COVID mandate protests in the nation's capital, but also in other locations all across the country.
It was called the Convoy for Freedom, and it was sparked by truckers who were in opposition of the government's newly announced at the time cross-border vaccine mandate for truckers.
But it became an avatar of resistance to two years of restrictions, isolation, separation, alienation, job loss, and government overreach.
So as I said, the public order inquiry is going on right now in Ottawa.
We're calling it the Trucker Commission.
You can see all of our coverage at truckercommission.ca.
We've got four consistent journalists on the ground in Ottawa.
We've got Kian Simone and Guillaume Ra there behind the camera.
Then we've got Celine Gallis and William Diaz.
They're in front of the camera and inside the commission room.
I was there for two days this week to witness it for myself, to see the other journalists for myself, and to see what just what it's like inside that room.
And boy, did I see some crazy things.
I saw some hanky things being done by the government with regard to evidence and when it is turned over to the other side.
And so joining me right now in an interview we recorded moments ago and we're doing this sort of on a break from the commission on Wednesday.
So I have to be quick with my time and quick with theirs is one of those journalists, William Diaz.
check it out.
So joining me now from our Rebel News satellite studio, the Airbnb just up the road from the Public Order Emergency Commission is my friend and colleague, young William Diaz.
William Diaz has been in the Trucker Commission, as we're calling it, four weeks now.
And this week, things are really popping off because we're getting to the real decision makers.
We have seen basically all the senior bureaucrats, city officials, all the police agencies, they've testified.
The national security agencies, they've testified.
Now we get down to the people who ignored the advice of all of these people and the recommendations of all of these people and the judgment of all of these people, actual experts, which they tell me we're supposed to follow blindly these days.
And I'm trying, but the liberals sure didn't.
We're down to the people who made the decision to use the Emergencies Act, which is, for those people who don't know, a never-before-used wartime law.
It's a replacement for the War Measures Act.
And the reason the War Measures Act was replaced with the Emergencies Act was to prevent it from being overly broad and to raise the standard by which it was used so that it was very, very, very specific.
It had to meet Section 2 of the CESIS Act, which clearly defines what amounts to a threat to the security of Canada.
And the Public Order Emergency Commission, the commission we're all sitting through right now, is the fail-safe built into the law.
So not only did the law have to meet a certain standard, but the people who invoked the law had to be subject to public scrutiny for all of their decisions all along the way.
William, thank you for sitting through that enormous preamble from me.
Let's talk about what's happening today.
We're filming this today.
It's going to go out today.
Right now, we're watching David LeMetti.
He's the government's lawyer.
He's the Attorney General of this country and he is the justice minister of this country.
And he is now claiming after, I guess, three plus decades of everybody knowing exactly what the Emergencies Act entailed and the standard by which you needed to meet to invoke it.
He's saying, well, you know what?
It's a little more broad than that.
And that's why we did it anyway.
It's like they're changing the rules after the fact to fit the thing that they wanted to do.
Yeah, is it surprising?
That's the Liberal Party of Canada.
No, you're right.
The War Measures Act was changed to make the definition, the definition less broad in the Emergencies Act.
But we're still seeing ministers trying to seemingly broaden the definition of what constituted threats to national security.
They say, well, it's Section 2 of the CES Act, which it is.
It's Section 2C of the CSIS Act.
That's what they said at the beginning.
And then we hear ministers, we hear high-level liberal officials say that, well, it's subject to interpretation.
It's a lot broader than that.
It's not as simple as this.
We can't look at it that way.
So, no, you're definitely right that they seemingly are trying to broaden the definition to fit their narrative.
And plus, another thing to you today from Minister of Justice LeMedi, he's also the Attorney General of Canada.
And we could often see him trying to evade some questions this morning, claiming client, lawyer, client privilege, solicitor, client privilege.
He said this was cabinet privilege information.
This was solicitor client information.
He tried to evade basically all the questions that were asked by Freedom Convoy lawyer Brendan Miller.
The lawyer for the government of Canada kept objecting at almost every question.
It was very disappointing to see that from David LeMetty.
Yeah, and we should remember that CSIS testified on Monday.
I was in the room when they did.
And CESIS repeatedly testified that the convoy at no point, at absolutely no point, did this anti-mandate human rights demonstration, which remained peaceful in the streets of Ottawa for nearly four weeks, they didn't even break a window.
Tell me how those people are a threat to national security.
And when they were met with violence at the hands of the state, they never retaliated with violence.
And at every point along the way, the police were outnumbered.
So if those useful people in Ottawa with real skills wanted to walk all over the police and overtake them at every point, they could have.
They never did.
But we heard CSIS say at no point did it rise to the level of section two of the CSIS Act and Section 2D, which is the like threats to overthrow the government.
They didn't even bother investigating that because the idea of that coming from the convoy was just so outlandish.
That's like an internet meme from the left now.
But CSIS didn't even seriously investigate or consider that because it just wasn't a thing.
But the reason I'm bringing up CSIS is because now we have David Lehmetti.
CESIS said it didn't rise to section two of the CESIS Act.
But then CESIS met with the prime minister, the head of CESIS, David Vignon, or met with the prime minister on February 13th.
In between the 10th and the 13th, when he said, yep, no threats, no plots, no nothing.
Don't worry about it.
It's just annoying.
To in that span of three days, he said he sought outside legal advice from the justice ministry.
So tell me how outside it is when you're still consulting with the government that wants to invoke the emergencies act.
And they're saying, yeah, no, definitely.
It's met the standard under the law.
You can advise the prime minister to invoke it.
So what happened was CISIS said it doesn't meet the standard under the law.
Then CESIS meets with the justice minister or ministry, I'm sorry, considering that outside advice, but it's pretty inside the government, isn't it?
And they say, oh, no, we're using this over broad definition.
And so it does meet this over broad definition.
So CESIS goes to the prime minister and says, okay, fine.
I guess it does.
And then they invoke the Emergencies Act.
It was very surprising to see how CESIS was opposed to the invocation of the EA, how CISIS said that invoking EA risked and flaming protesters risk, making the situation worse.
But then the data they spoke to the prime minister, they coincidentally changed their whole position saying that, well, it was fine after all to invoke the emergency act.
It would actually be necessary to invoke it.
They invoke the emergencies act, which goes against everything they said prior to that.
Another thing you mentioned before you continued speaking earlier was the investigation, the fact that CISIS did not investigate Section 2D of the CSIS Act.
They did not investigate also other sections.
I'm not remembering exactly which ones it is that they did not investigate.
And I know on Twitter, when I wrote, while CISIS said that there was no section, the threshold for Section 2D was met.
I was told, well, they did not investigate it.
But for CISIS to be allowed to investigate, there needs to be reasonable suspicion that the threshold is met.
So the reason why they did not investigate, the fact that they did not investigate implies and means that there was no reasonable suspicious that the threshold was met.
Hence, the threshold was not met.
There's some links that you need to do with that.
Now, there's another thing that came out in David LeMetti's testimony today.
As early as January 30th in text messages, January 30th, the convoy's been on the ground for, I don't know, 36 hours, maybe, maybe 24 at that point.
A little over 24, maybe just let's just say a day and a half.
Let's round up for David LeMetti's sake.
On the 30th, he is saying, should we invoke the EA?
And also, should we be treating these people differently based on race?
I'll just scroll back while you're giving your thoughts there about what exactly was said.
But I actually was kind of shocked to see it in writing.
I thought he would be smart enough to put this in a phone call with his cronies and not send it back and forth in a text message that would then be subject to evidentiary rules in this commission.
So which one exactly?
Because there's a lot of shocking text messages he spoke of that we sought this.
Are you talking about the one where he says that protesters could have been treated differently if they were black or indigenous or is this something else?
Right.
No, this is a LeMetti text from January 30th.
I said it's something else.
And boy, was it ever.
He wanted to use the Emergencies Act as early as 1.5 days into the convoy.
And he was indicating he would treat the protests differently based on race.
So, what he said was, do we have contingency for these trucks to be removed tomorrow or Tuesday?
And then he puts in brackets if they were Black or Indigenous, dot, dot, dot, meaning, should we consider treating them differently because they aren't black or indigenous, as opposed to our approach to Indigenous-led,
however, I wouldn't say it's Indigenous protests, blocking rail lines or sabotaging pipelines, or I don't know, maybe we need a minister to come out and take a knee with them the way Justin Trudeau did with the BLM marches.
So, this is what he's saying: he says, What's the normative authority do we have, or is some order needed?
Question mark, EA, question mark.
So, that's January 30th.
Like, the sun had set on one day of convoy protests, and he's like, drop the hammer, war measures, these people.
Yeah, no, it was very, well, it was very surprising to hear that.
It was very funny when I was sitting in the room and I read that.
So, he clarified afterwards what he meant by that.
He meant that he understands, he understands that there is issue, that there are issues of so-called systemic racism in the police forces and in the justice system.
And that had it been a black or indigenous protest, he was wondering if those people would have been treated more harshly and differently than the people.
No, they weren't.
That's the stupid thing.
They weren't.
And I recall the police beating down.
I recall RCMP horses trampling two Indigenous protesters.
I recall the police arresting a Métis grandmother from Alberta for peacefully protesting.
So I don't think that these text messages make that much sense.
I think it's pretty funny, honestly.
When you think that those are the people in our government, I think it's pretty funny.
Yeah, he's literally suggesting maybe we should look at this through a race lens instead of applying the rule of the law equally.
He also said at one point, he called them protesters and he immediately corrected himself and he said, I don't want to call them protesters because this was unlawful.
And as we heard, it was never declared unlawful.
The riot act was never invoked.
None of that happened.
And he should know better because he's the justice minister.
And we can read ahead.
On February 4th, he's got text messages again.
Government Jokes and Inconsistencies00:08:05
So this is, I don't know, approximately four days later, five days later, still pushing the Emergencies Act.
And I said, is it any wonder that his department then advised CESIS that the standard to invoke the EA was not CESIS section two, which CESIS said it never met.
So on February 4th, he says, I believe the angle is incoming the Emergencies Act.
So from the very beginning days, that was always going to be the outcome.
They just needed to wait long enough to do it so they could, you know, at least have the cover of time saying, oh, these things were so dangerous, they were never going to resolve.
And so what were we supposed to do after three plus three weeks almost?
Yeah, well, you know, we hear different witnesses say their account of when they think that the emergencies act was first discussed.
Some people said that it was the day prior to the invocation.
Some people said it was the day of the invocation.
People say it was a week before.
And they all swore under oath that they would tell the truth.
So I'm inclined to think that it's just incompetence or ignorance that they don't know exactly when it was actually discussed firmly for the first time, because otherwise they would be lying under oath.
But I find it very funny to see that, you know, David LeMetti here said that it was one of the first options he thought of.
Marco Mendocino in a press conference said that the Emergency Act was something that he thought about invoking since day one.
Other individuals.
Bill Blair said that Bill Blair told Global News from day one.
It was Bill Blair then.
Wasn't Marco Mendocino and other witnesses said that it was later on.
There's a lot of inconsistency within this whole inquiry.
Yeah, there's a lot of them.
Something particularly stomach churning about watching these snakes.
And I've tweeted the word snakes so many times.
I'm just using the emoji at this point.
Watching these snakes put their hand on a Bible and swear and then lie, just literally lie through their teeth.
But I think this is the worst one.
And this was a two-snake tweet from me.
Public safety minister.
And so Marco Mendochino and David Lametti, the justice minister, they're talking about deploying tanks to the streets of Ottawa on February 2nd.
So what are we, four days, four and a half days into the protest at this point?
They were going to deploy tanks as early as February 2nd.
So the text messages read: you need to get the police to move.
What do you mean?
I thought the government, federal government, couldn't direct police.
Like the police act at arm's length.
So what does this mean, guys?
Anyways, keep going.
And if the CAF, that's the Canadian Armed Forces, if necessary, too many people are being seriously adversely impacted by what is in occupation.
I'm getting out as soon as I can.
People are looking to us, you, for leadership and not stupid people.
People like Carney, Kath, my team, dot, dot, dot.
So I wonder if he means Mark Carney stupid.
Is that Catherine McKenna, the former environment minister who used to be in Ottawa MP?
Is he calling her stupid?
Is he calling his team stupid?
No, but it's all it's okay.
I might agree with him for once.
Yeah, it took me a few minutes to understand because the way he formulated his text message is very interesting.
So he says, not stupid people.
And then he says, like Carney.
I think in his head, it just didn't work out.
I wonder if Carney was stupid.
I don't know.
I wonder if he's calling them stupid.
If not, I find myself agreeing with this horrible man for once.
But they go on to say, how many tanks are you asking for?
And that's Mendocino saying that, I think.
I just want to ask Anita, that's Anita Anand, the defense minister, how many we've got on hand.
And then he says, I reckon one will do.
So I've got lots of comments about this.
First of all, we know subsequently, and this is again, I say on February 2nd, but subsequently we know just eight days later, Alberta is asking for heavy haul equipment from the Canadian Armed Forces base just up the road in CFB Edmonton.
It's literally like you leave Edmonton's downtown and you get on the same road, 97th Street, and you just drive into the base.
And so they do have heavy haul equipment.
They have earth movers and stuff there that would help.
They have got trailers because they trailer equipment in all the time, right?
And I'm pretty sure that somebody went down there and put eyes upon the equipment that they needed.
But they hear from Bill Blair and Mendochino that not only is this, so Mendocino and Bill Blair tell the Alberta government this equipment isn't there.
It doesn't exist.
It's not available, which isn't true.
And then they also in text messages that are not to Jason Kenney saying, we've got to deny this request for optics.
Now, it sounds as though those optics are not that they are fearful of deploying the CAF.
Obviously, that's not the case because they were going to use tanks in the nation's capital against peaceful anti-regime protesters doing the full Tiananmen Square routine there.
But the optics weren't deploying the military against peaceful protesters that they had a problem with.
The optics were, we don't want to look like we're helping Alberta.
I think that's what was it.
And Jason Kenny, wisely, and I'm not one to give the man all that many compliments.
Wisely, he knew the help wasn't coming and he went and got some good deals on some used heavy haul equipment on Kijiji and AutoTrader.
And ultimately, it never even had to be used except for on three pieces of equipment because the convoy quickly dissipated the blockade at Coots.
But yeah, so they couldn't send equipment to Alberta, which we know is here in Alberta, but they were going to use tanks in the nation's capital because of inconvenience and traffic snarls.
This is outrageous.
But just one.
He said, I reckon one will do the job.
Lemedia, I find that his excuse when it comes to why he writes certain things in text messages is that it's just banter.
Oh, it's just a bunch of jokes that I'm saying through ministers, just a bunch of things.
That's what he repeated this multiple times, multiple times.
It's banter.
It's just jokes that were that we're saying.
When he calls Peter Slowly incompetent, it's all just jokes that I'm saying.
But that's minister.
Shouldn't he be a little bit more professional, especially when it comes to giving advice and almost orders like this to public safety minister Marco Mendocino Medicino?
Yeah, I don't even know.
Like, how does he get away with that excuse?
Even if it is jokes, and I'm not sure it is, actually, I'm quite definitely sure it's not.
But even if it were, do you think a conservative would get the ability to use, oh, just Joshinya as a joke if this were their text messages in front of the commission?
Absolutely not.
But I don't want government ministers who are invoking a counterterrorism law to think it's funny to joke about flattening peaceful protesters, women, children in the nation's capital.
Like, I just think that that's crazy.
That like it's crazy if that was a joke.
And I'm not sure it was because they invoked a wartime law.
So it's not as though going like full counterterrorism wartime law deploying the military was off the table.
At any point, it was their first reflex.
So why wouldn't this be a true reflex too?
Yeah, no, I don't think it was just jokes at all.
I agree with you on that.
And I think it's very unprofessional for someone that status to send text messages like that, saying that he didn't think this would be released to the public.
And now we're seeing the way that he actually acts intimately with others.
Commissioner Rulo's Dilemma00:08:01
I also see that some of these lawyers now, who I think are kind of on other sides of the table, are starting to work together or they're ceding time to each other.
For example, I saw that the city of Ottawa ceded their time to the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
Yeah, that was very surprising.
I know the city of Windsor have a habit of ceding some of their time to the Windsor Police Services or the GCCF to CCLE or CCS.
Yeah.
But for the city of Ottawa to see time to the CCLE, that was very surprising to see.
Yeah, that was crazy.
I also saw that Brendan Miller, convoy lawyer, he tried to do a little sneaky business again today.
And if he always does all the time.
He, one of the things that has been an ongoing problem, and we were sitting behind the lawyer, so we see it happen in real time.
They're getting these document dumps.
And the document dumps have two problems with them.
The first problem is that you're getting a document dump in the middle of a witness's testimony and the documents are relating to the witness.
So how do you question a witness on testimony or facts or evidence that you just got minutes ago?
Or, you know, if the government's being gracious hours ago.
And the government has had nine months to prepare the documents and entire departments of bureaucrats inside of each ministry dedicated to records release and control.
So that's the first problem here.
So they're playing fast and loose and they're rigging the game by doing sneaky things with the evidence.
But another problem is going on here.
And this is something I see from time to time during filing for ATIPS.
A tips, yeah.
Where they redact things that they have no business redacting.
So you can redact things for cabinet confidence, for like communications between cabinet.
Solicitor client privilege.
Those are the two main ones.
Yeah.
Those are the two main ones or outside personal information on people unrelated to the filing.
Or very surprisingly, irrelevant.
Sometimes they're going to write irrelevant as a reason of redaction.
I find it very surprising to read that.
That's not one I normally see, but normally it's like a third party unrelated to the filing refuses to release their email or whatever.
Who cares, whatever.
But I have the benefit of refiling when I know they're doing sneaky things and I can appeal.
Now, my appeal may take nine months, but about 50% of the time I get the documents I'm asking for.
They just waste my time and my money.
The problem is we're in the last week of testimony.
We are literally three days before this is over, two and a half days before this is over.
And the government is still redacting things they're not supposed to.
And the judge doesn't seem to care.
This is now a problem that's not just affecting convoy lawyers.
Tuesday in the commission, we heard that the OPP had complained about this.
First thing they got up and said was, we just got these documents hours ago.
So excuse us as we try to ask a question, any question.
And the lawyer for the protesters at Windsor, same thing.
I just got a big document dump and I'm doing the best to complain about it.
Paul Chem as well.
Paul Champ's the lawyer for the Ottawa busy bodies.
The government is screwing everybody around here.
And they're rigging the system.
They're playing with the evidence to rig the system while claiming, look at us, we're so transparent.
We're giving you so many documents.
We're giving you so much transparency.
No, definitely.
The government is frustrating everyone.
This whole process seemed to change a lot as ministers were starting to testify at the commission.
Commissioner Rule doesn't seem at all to have the same attitude right now that he had as a commission started.
It's very disappointing to see.
Now, you mentioned something before we went on air because we had some controversy this week that I was there for.
I think I maybe picked two of the more exciting days to be there.
Brendan Miller, convoy lawyer, he was tossed out yesterday from the commission by Justice Rillot because he was demanding, desperate, frankly, for a ruling on two issues.
They wanted to subpoena four witnesses and they wanted a ruling on the redactions and this constant dumping of documents.
And he said, like, please, like, basically, we need a ruling here.
And instead of issuing a ruling, which Justice Rollo did later on after lunch and again today, instead of saying, you know what, hold your horses.
There's a ruling coming after lunch.
He didn't do that.
He frustrated the lawyer.
The lawyer frustrated him.
And it sort of ended in over talking.
And the lawyer was tossed out by Rolo.
But it's your understanding.
And look, neither one of us are lawyers, but we know a few of them.
That Justice Rillot doesn't really have that authority because he's more overseeing the commission and the rules of the commission, and he's not acting as a justice.
The commission has reconvened, la commissione rapproche.
Sir, okay, the commission council has not completed her...
I understand, but sir, your council has advised you that...
No, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I know you've directed...
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.
Sir, we filed two motions in writing.
It's your direction that you've refused to rule on with respect to the redaction of documents from the government of Canada.
You're speaking.
Hold on.
I will take a break while you're asked to leave.
I will return in five minutes if security could deal with the council.
Yeah, from my understanding, the commissioner, Commissioner Rulo, he's a judge.
So when he acts as a judge, he does have consent power.
But when he acts as a commissioner, he does not have consent power, which is the reason why he doesn't have the power to kick someone out of the court, which is the reason why it's up to the security to decide whether or not someone is or isn't going to be allowed inside the building, the commission building.
So that's why it was up to security to talk with the lawyers.
And that's why Keith Wilson and Bath Sheba and Eva Chipyuk were speaking with the security guards instead of speaking with the commissioners once Brandon Miller was temporarily removed of the building because they are the ones that have ultimate power over whether or not someone is allowed in the building.
So that was one thing.
But yeah, you're right.
Brandon Miller was temporarily removed because he spoke at the same time as Commissioner Rulo.
He spoke while Commissioner Rulo was speaking.
And then Commissioner Rulo took a five-minute break and then everything was sorted out.
But Miller was pushing for unredactions of some, as he calls, unlawfully redacted documents so that he cannot analyze it further.
And he was calling for Alex Cohen, a communications director for Marco Mendicino, to testify in front of the commission.
And he was calling for Brian Fox, who is the person he says was carrying the Nazi flag at the convoy, to also testify.
Yeah, and what's interesting about the Alex Cohen thing is that Alex Cohen was literally sitting in the courtroom.
And Alex Cohen is implicated in earlier emails or sorry, text messages before the commission, plotting with Mary Liz Power of the Prime Minister's office to release disinformation about radicals within the convoy in advance of the convoy arriving to Ottawa.
Miller's Failed Subpoena Attempt00:03:49
And Miller wanted him to be able to subpoena the guy that was like 15 feet away from him in the courtroom.
What luck.
But Rillau did not allow that.
He made the ruling that he would not allow that.
Now, the reason I brought that up is because Miller today tried to do an end run around that ruling.
And he asked David Lehmedi, like, hey, look, your office is redacting all these emails.
Wouldn't it be neat if you just said, no, just in the interest of transparency, let's just unredact them.
And naturally, Rillaux cut him off and said, look, I ruled on this already.
And LeMedi, of course, claimed solicitor client privilege as his force field against any sort of scrutiny.
Now, we've got more.
This is the craziest week.
God help you, kids, that are working there in Ottawa, because you're going to be chasing some really high-profile people who's like, I cannot wait to see him, Sheila.
That'll be great.
I bet he got new running shoes just for this.
So we've got Al Jabra.
Who else is left ahead?
Anita Anand, who is the defense minister, transport minister, Omar, Omar Al Jabra.
You've got David LeMedi, who's finishing his testimony today as we're recording this episode of the gun show.
Justin Trudeau, who's going to be the last one testifying, Christia Frund as well.
Bill Blair already testified.
Mark Home and Dishineau already testified too.
I think that's pretty much it.
I feel like I'm missing someone, but I don't think so.
If we are, friends, stay tuned to truckercommission.com.
You'll see all of our coverage there and my live tweets and then the daily breakdown live stream where the lead journalist, which is me today, who's in terms of the people that are known, those are all the ones that already went through or that are going to appear at the commission.
But we're also going to hear from people from the PMO.
So Katie Telford, Brian Clough, and John Rodhead.
So people from Justin Trudeau's office.
I can tell you that this is going to be very interesting when they're being cross-examined by Freedom Corp lawyers.
Oh, I can't wait to see Brendan Miller cross-examine Katie Telford.
I'm shocked that Mary Liz Power is actually not on that list, given her implication in those text messages with that foppish weasel looking kid.
What was his name?
Alex.
Alex Cohen.
Alex Cohen.
Yeah.
Giggling his way through testimony, by the way.
His boss is testifying to the absolute abhorrent behavior of the federal government on peaceful anti-regime protesters in the nation's capital.
And these three barely adult, I called them weaponized nerds yesterday, just sitting there giggling, teeing through.
They couldn't take a moment of it seriously.
And I thought, you know what?
If I'm here laughing at the outlandish answers of your boss because they're so unbelievable, that's one thing.
But taxpayers are paying you to take this seriously.
Take it seriously.
William, I know you got to get back.
The commission is back on in five minutes for both of us.
And I don't know how I'm going to wrap up this show in five minutes and package it and get it over to the editors, but I'm going to do my darndest.
William, thank you so much for all your hard work.
Say hi to the rest of the team.
And I'll see you later on tonight on the live stream.
Perfect.
Thank you, Sheila.
We've come to the portion of the show where we invite your viewer feedback.
You know, unlike the mainstream media, who's just so happy to take so much of your money as long as it cycles through the hands of Justin Trudeau first.
Invite Your Feedback00:02:52
They just don't want to hear from you and about what you think about the work that they're doing with your money that you would never pay for if you had a choice.
It's one of the reasons I give you my email of this portion of the show at Sheila at RebelNews.com.
Leave me an email on whatever I'm talking about.
Just put gun show letters in the subject line so it's really easy for me to find because I do get sometimes hundreds of emails a day.
That's G-U-N-N show letters because I also get emails about gun shows, obviously.
And also don't hesitate to leave a comment on Rumble or even on the censorship platform of YouTube.
I go looking over there too.
So today's letter comes to us from Jeff Campbell, who writes to me and says, hi, Sheila.
Question, what kind of new laws are going to be developed from this commission's recommendation?
They don't have to develop any new laws.
They can find that the government acted illegally and unlawfully in invoking the Emergencies Act on peaceful protesters, which I think is what would be the just and righteous finding based on all the information that I've heard.
Or they could find the other way.
But there are no consequences for the government if there is a finding against them.
Unfortunately, it's not even as little as one of those routine slaps on the wrist and a $300 fine that Justin Trudeau gets for his repeated ethics violations, like taking a very expensive vacation from a multi-billionaire whose foundation receives grants from the Canadian government.
I think that was a $300 ethics violation fine.
And Bill Mourneau, when he was the finance minister, he got also like a teeny tiny slap on the wrist after he forgot to declare a French villa.
I guess he has so many he just loses track of them.
But what I do think will happen is that the government will react to the scrutiny that they received here, but not in a good way.
I think they will rewrite the law, the Emergencies Act, to make it over broad and easier to use so that they are not subject to so much scrutiny next time.
I think they're going to make the rules even more open to interpretation because they really aren't all that open to interpretation right now.
That's what I think.
I think they're going to take all the criticisms of the government and then incorporate them into a new, easier to use Emergencies Act if you're a tyrant and a buffoon like Justin Trudeau.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place next week.