The Public Order Emergency Inquiry Commission saw Justice Minister David LeMetti, Transport Minister Omar Al Gabra, and Defence Minister Anita Anand testify under scrutiny, with text messages revealing political timing over public safety. Al Gabra claimed policies were science-based but dodged accountability for tank jokes, while Morat, a convoy veteran, denied hospital blockages and criticized the government’s treatment of unvaccinated soldiers. Despite no charges filed against him, Morat warns legal risks remain, exposing a potential power-driven narrative over justice. [Automatically generated summary]
Oh, good evening, everybody, and welcome to Breakdown, the Rebel News daily show, wherein we analyze the day's proceedings at the Public Order Emergency Inquiry.
I'll get to exactly what that is in a second, but I want to say hello to my friend Celine, who looks great in orange, by the way.
And Celine has been in the Public Order Inquiry Commission hearing room since very nearly the beginning.
What was it like in there today?
We had some more high-profile cabinet ministers doing their best to cover their butts.
It was interesting because it was a different tone in the room per the minister actually giving their testimony.
So, there was actually a lot of people left during Lehmedi's testimony because he was just so darn rude and blatant in the fact that he knew that he could say anything that he wanted or withhold anything that he wanted.
And then the rest of it was pretty neutral, and then there was almost no one there for Omar's testimony.
Omar Al Gabra, yeah, that's how you say it.
Al Gabra, Al Jabra.
It depends on who you are.
Whether or not you care if you're saying his name properly, because I don't.
But I tell everybody what we're doing here.
So, as I said, this is Breakdown.
It's the Rebel News daily analysis of the comings and goings of the Public Order Emergency Inquiring.
The Public Order Emergency Inquiry is taking place in Ottawa right now, where our team is at the Airbnb satellite studio just up the road from the commission hearings.
You can see and support all of their work at truckercommission.com.
The commission is the fail-safe built into the Emergencies Act law to prevent, let's say, an egomaniacal yet fragile buffoon from invoking the Emergencies Act to dissipate peaceful anti-regime protests happening on the streets of their nation's capital, which is exactly what Justin Trudeau did.
A convoy of truckers and their allies.
It was truckers were the catalyst.
And the cross-border vaccine mandate imposed upon them by the aforementioned Omar El Jabra, who looks particularly like a goblin on the thumbnail for this video.
And I don't know if that's on purpose or if it's just his natural state.
But that was the catalyst for the protests.
And then it was just people from all walks of life who are really just sick of two years of nonsensical, unscientific, unfair intrusions upon their lives and their behaviors and their jobs and their families by every single level of government from municipal upwards.
And I would say even lower, school board to federal.
It was everything.
And it was the thing where people said, you know what?
Me too.
I've had enough.
They went to the nation's capital for almost four weeks.
And about two and a half weeks in, Justin Trudeau dropped the hammer on them.
However, as we heard today, they wanted to do it after about 30 hours, maybe.
We saw David LeMetti, our justice minister, as you mentioned.
He's the justice minister and the attorney general, which means that he's the government's lawyer, which means when he doesn't want to answer something, he can claim attorney client privilege, which he did multiple times today.
He can also claim cabinet privilege because talks between cabinet ministers are protected by secrecy.
They get cabinet confidentiality.
So basically, he could answer whatever he felt like today or not.
And we saw text messages between David LeMetti, and I think it was a senior bureaucrat, maybe his ADM, maybe his chief of staff.
I forget.
It doesn't matter.
Because the point is, David LeMetti on January 30th.
The truckers really arrived like 28th, 29th.
And by the 30th, he's like, we're going to invoke the EA.
Yeah.
It was predetermined.
I mean, I've been screaming it from the beginning.
It's a setup.
This is, you know, again, we saw all through all the testimonies from all the people.
We started with police officials.
We even had citizens testifying, citizens of Ottawa who, you know, try to feel righteous and throwing eggs, pelting trucks with eggs, like their children, they're 12 years old.
Then they want to complain about microaggressions.
That one's funny.
But we've seen that it's just been one big finger pointing in one direction and now we've arrived.
It's all the liberal ministers in Trudeau's cabinet, and they're the ones that invoke this, that made this happen, that have been trying to cover it up by pointing fingers back at everybody else.
And Marco Mendocino is a really good example of that because he publicly declared how many times that it was the OPS and the OPP and other officers or just police in general that actually called for the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
And that was never the case.
And that's come out since and it's been the truth.
And he testified so hard.
Still, he's going down with a lie, just kind of watching that shit burn as it passes by.
It's great.
It's really great.
Yeah.
Yeah.
They said, you know, the police asked them to, but nobody ever needed to ask them to because this is a predetermined outcome that they were willing to do from the very beginning.
Now, we have a big lineup of guests today.
I think we've got Alan Honor from the Democracy Fund, who is sitting, I think, directly adjacent to you in the Airbnb studio.
Hey, Alan, good to see you.
You were questioning the cabinet ministers today.
Why don't we go to Alan's clip and then let's talk to Alan.
Celine's, or sorry, she's not ready.
You know what?
Let's, Alan, you had some text messages.
Oh, are we good?
Okay, Alan, you had some text messages that came out in your examination.
Why don't you tell us what those were all about?
Right.
So, so, Sheila, in my examination of David LeMetti, what I wanted to explore was when cabinet and the prime minister decided to invoke the Emergencies Act.
And we know under the Emergencies Act that they have to consult with the provinces.
And so, what we did is we took them through a timeline.
We saw an email, and that email was from the prime minister's office, and it was suggesting that there was going to be a press conference on February the 14th, and that it was to be kept quiet until after the first minister's meeting.
So, we just wanted to explore that and see why it was supposed to be quiet and whether or not the prime minister and cabinet had made up their minds beforehand.
And one of the text messages that we brought the Minister of Justice to was a text message from the 13th in which he was having a conversation with an MP, I believe in the sort of Ottawa area.
And that text message concluded with a summary of a conversation in which they said that there's a consensus to invoke the Emergencies Act.
Now, in fairness.
So, it didn't matter what the first minister said.
That was theater.
Well, you know, I can't say for sure, right?
But we just wanted to put it to him and explore it.
And so, you know, there's been evidence both ways, but part of the process or part of the purpose of the inquiry is to test this evidence.
And we also have, I think, a second clip of you, Alan, questioning Minister Justice Lometi about text messages and the lengths at which the government of Canada would go to keep the Emergencies Act in effect.
And it seemed as though they were willing to keep it in effect insofar as the NDP and the senators would support them and they would, you know, sort of repeal the use of the Emergencies Act when they felt as though they were losing the support of the NDP.
So it really wasn't about public safety at all.
It was about how much they could do and how long they could do it for until it became a political hot potato for them.
Right.
So Sheila, so what we saw was that there was a text message between MP Greg Fergus and the Minister of Justice on February 23rd.
That was the date that the Emergencies Act was revoked.
And it was and the message suggested that perhaps the federal government wanted to stay ahead of the NDP and they wanted to revoke the act before the Senate could vote on it.
There was, of course, there was some contrary evidence later on in the proceeding.
But the question still remains, if the NDP withdrawing their support wasn't a concern, then why bring it up?
And if the Senate voting against the Emergencies Act wasn't a concern, then why talk about that in the text message?
Olivia, did you find that clip?
This is another email exchange between you and Greg Fergus.
And he says, on February 23rd, I'm glad we ended the EA, but it would have been more appropriate if we waited until Friday, 44 hours after the vote, seems unseemly.
And your response is, no, we needed to stay ahead of the NDP.
And the senators were saying that they would vote against based on their view that there was no longer an emergency.
That is your text message with Mr. Fergus.
It is indeed.
And although we did have the votes, and although the vast majority of senators understood that they were being asked to vote on the Emergencies Act at the time at which it was invoked, there were a number that didn't understand that.
We had said from the beginning, sir, that we would not keep the act a minute longer than we needed to.
It's something we said to the NDP, and it's something that we said to senators.
And I'm being completely consistent here to say that we needed to be ahead of that in terms of keeping our promise in order to not keep the act in place a minute longer than necessary.
And that's precisely what we did.
And this is my last question.
I put it to you that this text message shows that in fact you would have kept the Emergencies Act in place for longer had it not been for the fact that you were concerned that the NDP would withdraw their support and that the senators would vote against I reject that premise.
There are other text messages that you will see where we have predicted that we had sufficient votes.
We'll leave that to submissions.
Thank you very much, Minister.
Thank you.
Sure sounds to me like he would only keep the Emergencies Act in place as long as he could get away with it politically.
Well, we'll never know what would have happened with that Senate vote, will we?
No, we won't, but I think he does.
I think David Lametti does.
Now, I want to talk to you a little bit about some of the other questions, I guess, from the freedom side.
Olivia, you want to queue up clip four?
David LaMetti refuses to answer Freedom Convoy lawyer Brandon Miller's question about the broader scope of Section 2 of the Emergencies Act.
But this is one thing that's really come out in the final days of the Commission.
I think it was probably universally understood at the beginning of this that to invoke the Emergencies Act, the convoy had to reach the bar of Section 2 of the CESIS Act, one of those four provisions there.
But then all of a sudden, when police forces kept saying, No, it didn't meet that, it didn't meet that.
Then we've said, okay, well, not we, but the liberals, it is their contention that it's actually much broader under the Emergencies Act.
And really, this is in only the final weeks of this thing, have we even ever heard that?
Before it was, yes, definitely, police forces act us asked us repeatedly that they needed these extra tools.
And only when police forces started testifying that they didn't, they sort of changed whatever the argument would be.
And they said, Well, actually, it's that's not even the requirement under the Emergencies Act.
Am I reading that right?
I'm not a lawyer, but you are.
Well, you know, Sheila, I think you've sort of zeroed in on what has been a major frustration for many people who are watching the emergencies, the commission, as well as some of the lawyers, because what we really want to get to is this question of, well, why did you invoke the act?
And to know that, we have to know a little bit more about what was discussed in cabinet.
And we really need to know what advice David LeMetti gave to the other cabinet members.
But as you saw, that information is privileged.
So there's solicitor-client privilege, that's in play, and there's cabinet privilege, and that's in play as well.
So there's a double layer of privilege here.
And in some ways, at some times, there might also be a third level of privilege, national security confidentiality.
So there could be potentially three levels of privilege, but it is frustrating.
And, you know, when I think of it, I think it makes perfect sense that the government would not want to waive national security privilege.
There's a very good reason why that exists.
And generally, there's also a very good reason why cabinet privilege exists.
And also for solicitor-client privilege, but solicitor-client privilege can be waived, right?
And we saw at the beginning of this inquiry that the government was congratulating itself on its historical waiver of privilege, but when it really gets to the meat of things, we don't know what happened.
Evidence and Privilege Waivers00:07:21
No, and we can piece together the timeline of some of the conversations, but and you can infer certain things from the timeline and the things that happen after certain conversations.
For example, we had the director of CSIS, David Vigno, say repeatedly, this convoy did not rise to meet section two of the CESIS Act.
It's in briefing notes, I believe, to cabinet on February 10th, where he's saying, no plots of sedition.
No, no, nothing.
This is not a national security threat.
It's a little inconvenient, but that's about it.
And then between the 10th and the 13th, he meets with David LeMetti's Justice Ministry for outside legal advice, but that hardly seems outside to me when you're meeting with the Justice Ministry that wants to invoke the Emergencies Act.
And we've seen the government say that from as early as I think January 30th, David Lometti did.
But, you know, so he meets with the Justice Ministry.
And then by the 13th, his opinion on what is the scope and scale of the Emergencies Act and what constitutes a security threat there has changed from what everybody knew was in the act before.
And then he advises Justin Trudeau, yeah, you know what, go ahead and invoke the act.
So again, I'm curious, what advice is the Justice Ministry giving out?
And they won't really reveal any of that.
They're saying it's, you know, as you say, solicitor-client privilege, but that's the crux of all of this: is what advice did you give to these people that led them to believe that they didn't need to meet Section 2?
And, you know, you're absolutely right, Sheila.
And we're just going to have to resolve this inquiry without knowing that advice.
We've heard some evidence, you know, from different people.
We've heard evidence from the clerk of the Privy Council.
We've heard evidence from the National Security Intelligence Advisor.
And we know what their interpretation of the test was.
And, you know, I think a lot of us were quite puzzled when we heard that because it doesn't seem to accord with the obvious reading of the legislation.
And this might have to come down to legal submissions.
And in some way, I think, you know, I'm just, in a way, I'm thinking out loud here.
If the government is not going to say what advice was given, then they will have to live with that in their legal submission, in their final submissions as well.
Yeah.
And so it'll come down to a legal argument.
And that, you know, that's hardly the point of all of this because this is a public inquiry.
So the public has some interest in finding out these things for themselves.
Let's go to clip four so we can see this invoking of solicitor client privilege in the face of prickly questions in real time.
Narrow it down.
Was there any such document that you reviewed in preparing for your testimony here today that existed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
That it was discussed, that isn't the subject of solicitor client privilege, that it was discussed that there was a broader scope of Section 2 as it applied in the Evidence Act.
Once again, that's the question that's asking me to effectively divulge legal arguments.
I remind my learned friend that it is very odd to put a lawyer on the stand.
I'm really here as a cabinet minister in order to speak to facts.
I know.
And it is to some extent an obligation for me to try to answer questions as best I can.
But you're asking me to answer questions as a lawyer, and it would be remarkable to put a lawyer up on the stand in the middle.
Well, I understand, sir.
And so again, I just would like the question answered.
Did you see any documents that talked about this interpretation that you're discussing that existed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
Again, I'm going to rely on Alan's solicitor client privilege there.
I don't know.
Keith Wilson testified.
He's a lawyer.
That's right.
So Sheila, you know, I think we do have to be a little bit fair to the Minister of Justice here.
If something is really privileged, then he can't talk about it.
And it's not up to him to waive it.
But I'd like to return to something you said earlier, because you said, well, the point of this commission is to get to the truth of what happened.
And, you know, this just goes back to the nature of privilege.
And privilege always exists in tension with finding the truth, right?
And it's usually because there's some type of relationship that you want to protect.
That relationship might be the relationship between a lawyer and a client, or it might be the relationship between, say, a church member and a priest, right?
Or it might be the relationship between a husband and wife.
And there are all sorts of privileges, but they sort of, in some way, they frustrate the truth or the search for the truth, but that's part of our legal system.
Now, you know, I think we mentioned this before.
Oftentimes, privilege can be waived.
And in this case, solicitor client privilege was not waived.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yes.
It's very frustrating.
It's very frustrating as a member of the public.
I understand why it exists.
But Justin Trudeau assured me way back in 2015, this is the most open and transparent government that I would ever be exposed to in my entire lifetime.
And I'm still waiting to see it.
I think we'll all have to make up our minds about that one.
I want to ask you while I have you and before I let you go, because I know we've got another lawyer standing there waiting to come on the show.
What do you expect from the rest of the week?
Well, we have three more witnesses.
Tomorrow we'll hear from Christia Freeland.
We'll hear from a panel from the Prime Minister's office.
And then we'll finally hear from the Prime Minister.
I don't think we're going to hear anything new.
I think we're going to hear more of the same testimony.
But there might be a few surprises here and there.
There will be some contesting of their evidence.
To some extent, I'm a little constrained here, Sheila, because we see things before the public sees them, but we can't talk about them.
And of course, we have questions that we plan to ask, but we won't put those on live television or on live stream the day before we're asking this.
More Testimony Expected00:15:48
Right, Jill.
Yeah, you don't want to give the bad guys any heads up.
But also, I'm not convinced that you're getting those, getting to see things well in advance of the public based on how the federal government is releasing documents to you guys as the witnesses are testifying.
Some of that has come out in the public order emergency inquiry.
You're right.
So there's been some discussion already about how documents are released late.
And this is part of the, it can be difficult to keep up when that happens.
Absolutely.
Oh, you're so diplomatic, Alan.
Alan, thanks so much for coming on the show and thanks so much for your hard work at the commission.
Let's cut to an ad, Olivia, so that we can let Alan leave the set without a tangle of headphones and disarray.
Thanks, Alan.
Freedom in 2022 is not sitting idly by while health diktats with no skin in the game make up all the rules.
If you're like me and want to play an active role in upholding civil liberties and freedoms for all Canadians, for our children and eventually our grandchildren, then come out to our Rebel Live event and get to know us in person.
We'll hear from some of the most influential leaders in the freedom movement.
We have events in Toronto on November the 19th and in Calgary on Saturday, November 26th.
Tickets are on sale now at RebelNewsLive.com.
Come out, have lunch, get some Rebel swag, meet the Rebels, and more.
You don't want to miss this event.
Check it out, rebelnewslive.com.
So joining me now is Hatim Kare.
I hope I said that right, Hateem, from the Justice Center for Constitution.
Okay, perfect.
From the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
I'm a big fan.
I sat behind you for two days.
I never actually got a chance to talk to you, but I'm a fan of some of your other work on freedom causes here in Alberta.
And you are doing what I would describe as a bit of the Lord's work there because these tow truck drivers who were compelled against their will to be tools of the state that really irks me.
I just despise it.
I loathe so much the idea of the state commandeering anybody's personal property and their business, but especially when it violates their conscience.
And as we know out here in Alberta, they couldn't get a tow truck or energy company to come help them within, I think, the entire northwestern part of the continent.
And so the Alberta government had to buy their own towing equipment, which they never really had to ultimately lose, use.
But you were really hammering the government today on the use of the Emergencies Act to force tow truck operators to violate their conscience.
Why don't you tell us a little bit about that?
And I know we've got a couple of clips that we'll go to after.
Yeah, so I mean, there's so many rights violations and freedom issues surrounding this whole thing, but one of the ones that are probably most centrally affected are the tow truck drivers.
They were forced to physically do something and assist with perhaps something that they didn't want to do.
Well, I mean, if they had to be forced, they didn't want to do it.
But then specifically why, certainly some of them supported the freedom convoy protest.
Minister Al Gabra admitted as much.
So the government had to use emergency powers in order to compel them to do that.
So the purpose of my cross-examination was to put that to Minister Al Gabra.
Though when asked, he resisted the question, let's say.
He kind of resorted to the idea that, well, I don't know how the police use the power.
Hopefully they used it on people who wanted to help anyways.
If that's the case, you don't need a power to make them do it.
Right.
That was the part that I thought was kind of ridiculous was he said, I don't really know how the selection process works, but I sort of kind of hope they selected the ones that wanted to do it.
Well, then why did you invoke the act to compel tow truck drivers if you just knew that there were ones that wanted to do it?
He just sort of painted himself into this circular logic.
And also, if you don't know how police are going to use that power appropriately, maybe you shouldn't be giving it to them.
That's exactly right.
And we saw a similar dynamic with the use of the economic measures to freeze bank accounts, where the finance candidate creates the power, or at least is responsible for the discussions that led to its creation.
Then the power gets handed out to the police.
And then, when they get pressed on the decision that they made to create the powers in the first place, they say, hey, we weren't responsible for how it was used.
We hope that they just used it responsibly and that they didn't use the powers that we gave them if it was going to result in rights violations.
Yeah.
Yeah, we hope they didn't use the power to do whatever they want to do whatever they wanted.
Yeah.
So, in the example of the finance Canada, we gave them the power to freeze donors' bank accounts, but we hope that they didn't do it.
Why?
Why did you do that then?
Yeah, exactly.
Let's, Olivia and Studio, we've got, I think, two clips of you pressing on some of my favorite people on the planet, tow truck drivers.
Let's go to the first one.
I'm just going to push back on that one answer you gave me because I asked you if tow truck drivers who would have refused out of sympathy with the protest, as you highlighted in your interview statement, would have been compelled by the emergency measure regulations to serve a cause that they did not agree with.
And you responded by talking about the necessity of it.
But I'm asking, were those people compelled to serve a cause that they felt went against their conscience and their choice of association?
So I answered the question by saying I was not involved in how tow truck drivers or tow truck companies were selected.
I would like to think that there were options to select tow truck drivers who were willing to participate.
You'd like to think that, but certainly the power created that opportunity, right?
I was not involved in the selection of tow truck drivers.
I have no further questions.
Thank you.
What on earth is he talking about there?
You know, I hope that they would select the ones that wanted to do it, but the point is that you couldn't find ones that wanted to do it.
Which also, we've seen from other evidence isn't the case.
There were tow truck drivers lined up either in Couts or on the other side of the continent in Windsor and in Ottawa before the Emergencies Act was invoked.
And we heard that from witnesses from the Ottawa Police Service, from the OPP, and from Minister DeGrand from Alberta.
Yeah, we did hear that.
I think there were some 30 tow trucks with, I think, seven or nine that were heavy haul tow trucks with the capabilities to pull some of these larger trucks and tractor trailers out of location.
They had those lined up and ready to go.
And I think the OPP testified to that.
And I think the OPS also testified to that.
And so I don't know how much prep these ministers do before they get here.
I would like to think that with an army of government lawyers, they would have been a little bit more prepared.
And I don't know if they, they just think that they can rewrite history in real time, but it is true that there were tow trucks lined up ready to go.
They did not need the Emergencies Act for tow trucks in the nation's capital.
And they definitely didn't need them in Alberta because Alberta circumvented the whole process, realizing on and around the 10th that they weren't going to get any help whatsoever from the federal government with regard to getting Canadian forces equipment out of the base in Edmonton, which I have been informed by several people, both past and present CAF members.
There's a lot of that equipment just sitting there, even though we heard testimony that there was just none to spare.
Yeah, and so one of the big things we learned today was actually that the provinces other than Alberta were offered assistance by the federal government to buy their own tow trucks if they wanted to do that.
And they refused.
In Windsor, the police turned back tow trucks from this, from coming from the United States because they didn't need it.
Superintendent Bernay testified that he was able to look out the window and see tow trucks and that he was satisfied that they were good.
So, although this may have been a concern at one point, it was resolved before the declaration of emergency.
And that's that's kind of a running theme that we've been seeing in the evidence.
If you look at Windsor, Windsor was cleared right before the Emergency Act was invoked.
In Ottawa, they prepared a plan that was just about ready to go right as the Emergency Act was invoked.
And in Couts, the police operation that led to arrests, which then convinced the other protesters to leave, happened right before the Emergency Act was invoked.
And yesterday, we learned that at the first minister's meeting, that was being relayed to the federal government.
They're required to consult with the premiers of the provinces before a declaration of emergency, presumably for this such a purpose that they can get information about whether it's actually necessary.
And across the board, multiple premiers said our local law enforcement has got it.
The situation is under control.
We're getting the tow trucks we need.
But the federal government went ahead and invoked the declaration, invoked the Emergencies Act, anyways.
You also pushed back on Omar Al-Ghabra or Al-Jabra.
I'm not sure how to say it.
He said that he was unaware.
I think to you, he said he was unaware of the reluctance of tow truck operators to help the convoy, yet were compelled to assist in removing the blockades.
And then he was questioned on whether or not this would violate their charter rights.
And we saw the second half of that, but he sort of the first half of him, like not answering the question, I think is really important because you ask him, did you take any steps or did you, were these people even a consideration in all of this?
And I think his lack of answer really speaks to the fact that he didn't even see these tow truck operators as individual Canadians with individual rights and individual wills.
They were not tools of the state never once, even though he used a law to make them that way.
Why don't we throw to that one, Efron, if and Olivia, if you can find it?
And its intention was to protect the charter rights of Canadians?
That is, that's our constitution, and we're all sworn to uphold our constitution.
Do you believe the cabinet protected the charter rights of tow truck drivers?
We protected, we kept in mind the charter rights of all Canadians, including truck drivers.
You'd agree that tow truck drivers weren't protesters themselves, aside from perhaps individual cases?
I don't understand the question.
Well, so you said in your interview summary that some tow truck drivers refused to tow trucks out of sympathy with the protest, right?
I said that, yes, there was a reluctance for a variety of reasons.
One of the reasons maybe because they might be sympathetic, but the bigger reasons that we heard is that they were fear afraid for their livelihood and their safety.
Okay, so even if they were afraid, why did you make them do it?
Yeah, exactly.
You know, there's a lot of reasons tow truck drivers may have refused to do something, but presumably that's a choice that they can make.
And our charter protects the right to freedom of association, which one would hope would include the right to choose who you work for and what work you want to undertake.
Yeah, your questions, there's it was like a big bear snare.
He just sat there and he just put his leg right in it, didn't he?
Yes, yes, we care about charter rights.
Look at us.
We're good guys.
And then, Oh yeah.
What about the tow truck drivers?
And he had no idea what to say.
There was like three solid seconds of awkward silence there.
And I'm so glad you didn't say anything because the silence says more than the words ever could.
We've got one more clip from you.
Omar Al Jabra thanked the truckers during the Public Order Commission.
He stated that the policies developed over the pandemic were cohesive with the guidance received from public health and from observing the situation on the ground.
Efron, I tagged you in that.
Would you mind if you can find that?
He needs five seconds.
Let's see what else.
What else did Omar Al Jabre do today?
He also said he's not making any apology for doing what he believed to be the best thing for protecting lives.
He said our policies were based on the advice and facts and the science that we received, not based on polls or number of protesters.
But we know that's not true because they invoked the Emergencies Act because, or they revoked the Emergencies Act because they knew they were going to lose in the Senate and they were going to lose the favor of the NDP.
So it's interesting to see text messages saying, oh, I think the NDP are going to vote against us.
We have to quit invoking the Emergencies Act.
And then him Al-Jabra testifying that policies were completely based on following the science and their advice.
Did you find that clip, Efron?
Well, given the motivation of the protesters, did the government consider resuming the exemption for truckers?
We don't make public policy based on the number of protesters or emails that we get.
We make public policy, particularly during the pandemic.
And let me be the first to acknowledge that governments around the world, including the federal government, did extraordinary measures in what we believed was the right thing to protect the health and safety of Canadians.
I never imagined provinces shutting down businesses.
I never imagined provinces invoking curfews.
I never imagined the federal government putting limitations on travel.
But we all did that.
Governments across Canada did these measures because we believed we are saving lives.
And yes, they were extraordinary.
But I could tell you, no one, at least us, I am not, I'm not making any apology for doing what we believed the best thing for protecting lives.
Now, of course, it caused inconvenience.
Of course, it caused disruption.
And our government did whatever we can to mitigate those disruptions.
And Canadians understood that.
Canadians understood that.
Clearing Up Protests00:07:47
So back to your question: our policies were based on the advice and facts and the science that we receive, not based on polls or number of protesters or even the illegal activities that never drive public policy.
See getting different science than the other places in the world.
Did you have an opportunity to travel outside of the country recently, or at least when the mask mandates were still on just Canadian airlines?
I went to Geneva with Sarah Miller and I came back like in 18 hours.
But I knew exactly where my gate was in the Geneva airport because those were the only people wearing masks to get onto a Canadian airplane.
And that was because of Omar Al Jabra.
And he says he follows the science, but the science seems to change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
I mean, only Quebec had a curfew.
I'd like to know how many lives that saved.
I want to know how many lives mass on airplanes saved.
It feels like he was just making it up as he went along to see what he could get away with for as long as he could.
Yeah, so that his answer there was part of a line of questions I was asking him about the role, the actions of other provinces in lifting their restrictions.
Now, there's a pattern where we've seen at least four provinces that took dramatic moves during the protest.
And you know, like, for example, we see in Ontario, Premier Ford didn't want to say that that was a, yeah, they don't want to say that that's in response to the protests.
But we also saw a summary of a phone call by Premier Ford yesterday where he was saying the public is at a breaking point.
This is, I think it's obvious that the premiers were responding to the protests.
And so then the question is, why couldn't the federal government do the same, especially if, you know, if provinces are going to start allowing a stadium of up to like 500 people to operate, we can't let truckers who sit alone in their cabs cross the border without a vaccine.
And at the end of the day, Minister Al Gabra didn't want to acknowledge that the provinces were responding to the protests.
And he maintained that they wouldn't listen to the protesters.
It's based on the science.
And he even, there was a comment he said, I think it was shortly after that clip that you played, but he said that sometimes the sentiments of Canadians and their interests are different, which I think basically just amounts to saying we know better than they do.
Exactly.
That's exactly how I would interpret that.
And it is true that the provinces were reacting.
In Alberta, once they started blockading Coots, we went from we're going to drop the vaccine passport at the end of the month to two weeks from now to the end of the week to tonight at midnight.
Like in the course of one day, that's how quickly it moved up.
As the convoy rolled through Saskatchewan, Scott Moe was like, don't convoy me, bro.
We're done with the vaccine mandate here, too.
It was happening that fast.
And ultimately, whether or not you think the science is different or unreliable or whatever, these are Canadians telling you, I'm willing to accept the risk.
And isn't that what it comes down to?
Is Canadians who are saying, look, you've told me everything I need to know about COVID.
You won't shut up about COVID.
But I'm over it and I'm willing to accept the risk.
It's like the same thing why people still smoke, even though you put the scary face on the cigarette package.
It's people were deciding, I'm willing to accept whatever risk here to go about living my lives again.
And certain provinces were making those concessions.
And Omar Al-Jaber just, as you say, thought he knew better.
Yeah, and this is kind of an issue that's been floating in the background of this whole inquiry because the commission is tasked with investigating the circumstances that led to the declaration of emergency.
So there's obviously, and rightly so, been a lot of focus on the protest and the way police handled it and the way the government responded to it and what they knew.
But behind all that is the reason the protest happened in the first place.
And so Antoine Daev for Citizens for Freedom took Minister Mendochino to that the other day.
And I tried to take Minister Al Gabra there now because it's an important part of the story that happened here, that this protest happened two years after two years of lockdowns, two years of vaccine mandates.
And actually, we did hear, so before all the witnesses today, there was a summary of all the evidence that the commission had received from the public about what they had to say about their experience with the protest.
And it was very divided.
There was two complete opposite sides.
But one of those sides was saying that it was a relief to have this protest because we had felt alienated, we had felt isolated, and suddenly there were people standing side by side singing the Canadian anthem, waving flags.
And that's an important part of understanding why all this happened in the first place.
You know, it's a great way to leave this interview with you.
We're going to go to an ad so that we can let you leave a little bit more gracefully than you would if we didn't.
Hateem, thanks so much for the great work that you're doing in there.
I know we at Rebel News pay very close attention to the work that you're doing for the Justice Center and for the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
So thanks for working so hard.
Thanks for having me on.
Great.
Roll the ad, please.
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 RibbennewsLive.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.
This week is the most important week from the Public Order Emergency Commission.
And Trudeau and his ministers responsible for invoking the never-before-seen emergency act are testifying.
Every night, as soon as all the testimonies and hang tight and watch our breakdown show, will we go through all the highlights of the day with your favorite rebels and special guests, such as convoy protesters like Tom Morazzo and their lawyers, Keith Wilson and Abba Chipiak.
Go to TrekorCommission.com with all of our previous reports are and please go and chip in.
Even five bucks is great so that I can get myself an amazing morning coffee.
Veterans for Freedom00:10:58
We'll see you there.
Well, joining us now is good friend of the rebel Tom Morat.
So Tom, how's it going?
It's good.
It's good.
I had another steak tonight for dinner.
The second time.
I saved another one.
So easy, Tom.
So easy.
But I'm very happy to see that you're filling yourself up with healthy, reliable animal protein.
I wanted to ask you.
That's Alberta beef.
Even better.
Even better.
Tom, I think you're described, and I think you described yourself as a convoy participant.
I don't think you've ever described yourself as an organizer.
You were more of a logistics guy on the ground.
I know that I've been asked, and I think you've been asked too.
So this is a great opportunity to clear this up.
You've been asked why no charges have been brought against you, even though you were prominent in the convoy.
So I don't think anybody can really ever know why they weren't charged, except maybe they weren't breaking the law.
But there could be other reasons.
So I'm going to ask you to speculate.
Why haven't you been charged?
Well, it is a great question.
And I do get this question quite often.
And I know Danny Bulford also gets this question quite often.
And I think the truth of the matter comes down to this.
You know, people like myself and Danny Bulford and then some of the other veterans that went to Ottawa to assist the convoy, we went there because, you know, within our communities, whether you're, you know, currently serving or you're retired or whatever the deal, you're trained to be somebody who does things, to organize, to just be doers for your community.
And, you know, veterans and retired police are active police, active military.
They get involved in their communities, in their churches, they do fundraising, they do sports with children, they volunteer.
And so we play an active role.
So I think, you know, I tried really hard, and I know Danny Bulford as well tried really hard to develop a strong relationship with the local law enforcement in Ottawa during the time of the convoy.
And we were always consistently trying to work with them to make sure that what we were doing was safe and as responsible as could be.
And I think that was something that was recognized by the local law enforcement.
They said, hey, how can we, how could we probably target these guys when the entire time they've been working with us to try to make sure, like I was, you know, it was very important to me.
I mean, and I've said this before.
During the convoy, my own son, where he lives in his hometown, went to the hospital in the middle of the night in an ambulance.
This is a normal thing in my family.
Okay.
So it's a very important thing for me personally.
And I wanted to make sure that nobody in the city of Ottawa was ever prevented from going to a hospital or emergency services were ever prevented from getting through.
We achieved that.
And we heard testimony even during this inquiry that we actually did do that.
And for anyone to say otherwise is it's categorically false.
And we know this.
And we've talked to the police.
There was testimony about it.
This never happened.
So when we get attacked, for example, where people say, oh, you couldn't get to your hospital or you couldn't get to your appointment, that's an outright lie.
And to be clear, there's no hospitals anywhere near where the convoy was actively participating or going on.
But to get back to the other question, you know, we just, military and police, we naturally work together.
And so when they knew that we were trying to reciprocate a good, strong relationship to be safe and responsible, I think the police recognized that and said, you know what, there's nothing good that can come of making an example of these specific people, right?
And what's really frustrating for me is I've been listening to the testimony the last couple of days where they keep saying, you know, military were involved, military involved.
And what you can tell, it's very clear to me, is there's a narrative, there's a subplot that's being laid out right now.
And that's why they keep bringing out former military, former police.
They're angling for this really bizarre narrative that they've been trying to push forward.
You know, they were talking about military being at Coventry.
It's not true.
I know the composition of the people that were there.
I mean, you had electricians, mill rights, carpenters, or construction company.
It wasn't being run by military.
And here's another thing that I want to say about military people.
There's a lot I want to say about it, but this kind of does get to the root of the matter, I think.
I did staff college as an army officer, which means that's brigade level stuff.
Like that's a lot of, that's a lot of soldiers in a battle space in a military context.
You know, anybody who had done staff college, even maybe a second, third year captain, could have easily frustrated the law enforcement agencies in this in the city of Ottawa beyond belief.
Like we could have frustrated them at every turn, but you want to know the honest truth?
We knew we could.
I knew we could.
I knew it would be easy, but I purposely did not.
I purposely did not take steps to actively frustrate law enforcement because I didn't want them to get to the point where they thought, you know, if you're going to put me in checkmate every every chance you get, that's going to frustrate me.
And I'm going to invoke something awful.
You know, it bought us three and a half weeks, you know, but really it would have been extremely easy for us to do that.
And we all knew it, but we just chose not to do it.
We chose a nonviolent path at every opportunity we had.
That's not what we were there to do.
You know, and if you if you look at the military that started to congregate there, we're talking about, you know, people that later on have gone and joined an organization.
Some of us started called Veterans for Freedom.
And this came out after the convoy.
Veterans for Freedom was after the convoy.
But we all met at the convoy and we've grown over a thousand people in this organization and it grows every day.
And we've got some very talented, very skilled people that understand military operations, intelligence, you know, how to gather it, how to consume it, how to, you know, take steps to protect themselves in case there's other people out there that don't like the fact that you're active or that you have information.
You know, they're kind of framing this narrative, right?
We understand how that game is played.
And we're not fools.
I mean, obviously we prepare for those kinds of stupid eventualities, right?
But the fact of the matter is, Veterans for Freedom and everybody that went to Ottawa, we have so many veterans involved that were given methylquin, that trusted the government, trusted the military.
And now there's lawsuits going on.
Even Romeo Delaire is part of the conversation.
Yeah, and then we gave them, by the way, by the way, then we gave them Moderna.
So we gave the entire military, if they received a vaccine, they were inoculated with Moderna.
And then it's revealed that Moderna is going to give exactly that demographic of people myocarditis.
Yes.
And then, you know, to top it all off, like we, you know, we have all these amazing soldiers.
And even during the time when they, the height of the mandates, you know, we found out through Veterans for Freedom, like the community was talking, we found out that in places like Pettawawa and Edmonton, if you were not vaccinated, you were being put in the pipeline for a 5F release from the military.
You're being kicked out.
And these are combat veterans being kicked out.
And they made those soldiers in the wintertime last year stand out in modular tents.
And in Edmonton, they were making them wear their DEUs, their dress uniforms, and then they took away the heaters.
It's blatant harassment.
And I think anybody who was involved in those decisions or in that chain of command that was forcing their unvaccinated soldiers to stand out in the cold winter in a tent and not allow them inside the building with vaccinated soldiers, that is disgusting.
That is absolutely disloyal, disgusting, unbecoming behavior of any commanding officer of a unit that would do that to their soldiers.
And as far as I'm concerned, that to me is something that they should be brought up on charges and relieved of command.
But, you know, the organization has grown exponentially.
And we work with lawyers all the time.
We're trying to assist Canadian forces members in their fight to be kicked out of the military.
So we work with lawyers.
We talk to lawyers all the time, not just the ones here for the commission.
But there's a phenomenal lawyer out in Alberta that we've been working with.
She's been suing the government for all these COVID restrictions for quite some time on behalf of soldiers, right?
And so when I listened today to the Minister of National Defense get up on there and talk today, a lot of these memories had been coming back.
Like, you know, one of the reasons why, you know, veterans got involved, it was because of the deliberate steps of the federal government who mandated a forced medical experiment against their own people again, again.
And a lot of people pushed back.
A lot of people pushed back and said no.
And so their reaction was to take punitive steps.
So now you're looking at soldiers that, for example, one highly trained helicopter pilot who's a member of V4F.
To get a pension, you got to have 25 years.
He had over 21 years.
And now he's being forced out, forfeiture of a pension, no more benefits for the rest of his life.
Why?
Why?
Because the Canadian military failed to respect informed consent or bodily autonomy on something that has not yet passed phase three clinical trials and is under an interim order.
So, you know, we just listening to the Minister of National Defense today, it sickens me.
It absolutely sickens me to listen to the demeanor, the attitude.
Listening to the Minister00:15:11
But I will say, I give her a couple of points on some of the things that I believe were in alignment with, you know, what happened during the convoy, which kind of goes back to the original point of your question.
And maybe is why didn't you get charged?
Which was because there was, you know, and I'm trying to complete the circle here, and I might have, I may have turned it into a Pentagon.
I'm sorry.
It takes a long way.
It took a long way around.
60% chance of getting there, if you ask the OPP.
So the issue really is now I lost my train of thought.
That's okay.
Maybe I'll come back to it.
I'll let my co-host say something.
Speaking of Anita Anand, speaking of the defense minister, I'd like to throw to clip seven, if we can get that going.
And that was when she comments on Minister LeMetti and Minister Mendochino's those text messages where they're joking about bringing in a tank into Ottawa.
Okay, let's stop here.
Maybe we can find my tweet.
It might even be my twin, my pin tweet.
And I have quit using the word snake in my tweets.
I've used the shorthand of just the snake emoji because it's snake week down at the Public Order Emergency Commission.
These two snakes, the Justice Minister and the Public Safety Minister, they say it's a joke, but even if it were a joke, there's the snake emojis.
We've got David LeMedi and Marco Mendochino, the public safety minister.
These two snakes, maniacs, wouldn't give Alberta CAF heavy haul equipment, which we know is stationed at CFB Edmonton.
And then said, oh, maybe there wasn't enough equipment to give them.
They just needed it for an afternoon.
But we know that's not true.
You can go to the base and look at it right now.
You can just go look at the equipment.
It's there.
I'm from the area.
We see it driving around all the time.
It goes between Wainwright and Edmonton constantly.
But, anyways, these two snakes, they won't give Alberta heavy haul equipment from the CAF, but they were going to deploy tanks or joked about it, whatever you, however, you read this, but I think it's atrocious to joke about doing the old maple syrup Tiananmen Square treatment in Ottawa.
They were going to deploy tanks as early as February 2nd to deal with the traffic snarl in Ottawa.
One of them says you need to get the police to move.
I don't think that they can do that.
You're not supposed to direct the police government and the CAF if necessary.
Too many people are being seriously adversely impacted by what is in occupation.
I'm getting out as soon as I can.
So he's not even sticking around to put up with it.
He's like, the traffic's bad.
I'm going to Montreal.
And then he continues to say, people are looking to us, you, for leadership and not stupid people.
Now, I'm not sure.
I think he's calling Mark Carney stupid and possibly Catherine McKenna.
I think Kath is Catherine McKenna, who's an Ottawa resident.
But I'm not sure.
I mean, naturally, when somebody says there's a not a very smart Catherine around, I'm just going to assume it's her.
And then he says, my team.
And then to it, the other ghoul responds, How many tanks are you asking for?
I just want to ask Anita how many we've got on hand.
And he says, I reckon one will do.
Now, maybe they're serious, maybe they're not.
After, I mean, they invoked the Emergencies Act, which would allow them to do these things.
So to say, chalk this up as a joke, I mean, you literally just invoked the Emergencies Act.
So I'm not sure you were joking.
But even if you were, I'm not sure I want two ministers of the crown joking about having their own little Tiananmen Square in Ottawa because they don't like the bounty castles.
Yeah, I never took that text to be a joke at all.
There's just, there's no tone of a joke within that.
I think that they were doing actually serious staff checks with each other.
Like, is this something possible?
As early as February 2nd, right?
Yeah.
That is, that's a little bit that's like three, four days into the convoy.
They're like, you know, we should probably tank man these people.
Yeah.
And I, I, I read that, and I'm sorry, but I, I, I see where their mind automatically went.
And Celine and I were sitting in the audience, and I think around four o'clock-ish, I couldn't take it anymore.
I could not take the extreme arrogance that just evaporates off of the attorney general.
And to see some of the comments was unbelievably frustrating and disturbing to hear him again, again, just like we talked about with Mendocino yesterday.
Like, is he talking about Canadians or is he talking about the Taliban?
I can't tell.
I think he's politely about the Taliban.
Yeah, there are brothers, if you ask that not very bright lady who used to be the MP in Peterborough, whose name escapes me right now.
Thank God she's no longer an MP.
She called them her brothers.
But, you know, it is true.
That has been one of the reoccurring themes here.
That our fellow Canadians who took to our nation's capital to protest because no one would listen to them for two years, they left their lives behind and drove all the way to the nation's capital to protest in the middle of winter.
And they are treated like foreign invaders instead of just Canadians who have a right to be there like everybody else, who might be a little rough around the edges, but that's how I am too.
So I don't care.
But that's how they're treated.
Like they're just treated like they're they may they're like the Mongolian hordes coming into China and we need to build a wall to keep them out in perpetuity.
That's how they're being treated.
And I find it just so offensive.
And I don't like to be offended by anything because that means you can't keep control of your emotions.
But that really, really bothers me.
Sorry, Celine, I took this over from you and you were throwing to clip seven, I think.
Sorry.
I'll shut up.
I'll shut up.
No, you're good.
You're good.
That was made in jest.
Second, I have already provided my comments relating to the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces is the force of last resort.
Therefore, we were not considering deploying tanks in any number.
And Minister LeMetti earlier on in testimony to this commission wrote the exchange off as a joke between friends.
Do you think this is a joke?
I take no part of my role as Minister of National Defense as something in just, obviously.
I am very concerned and was very concerned, not only about the situation in Canada, but about the global strategic situation that we all find ourselves in.
And so I am very concerned to make sure that we are making decisions with full information.
And I know that's the case with Minister LeMetti as well as the other colleagues around the table.
This was a very difficult time, and we were all doing our very best in our respective portfolios.
Right.
But at the same time, on February 2nd, just a few days after the arrival of the protesters in Ottawa, this was the sort of joke that was considered funny among your cabinet colleagues, wasn't it?
I was actually not in Canada at the time.
I was in Europe as previously indicated, trying to launch Canada's response to a potential further invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
I will say that I know that my colleagues take their work extremely seriously.
Does Cabinet Solidarity require you to find this joke funny?
I'm sorry, that was a little frivolous.
I loved it.
There was one other part.
There was one other part of that exchange where Kittridge says, that's Kittridge with the JCCF, for those of you at home.
Rob Kittridge.
Rob Kittridge.
And he says, Do you agree with LeMedi that just one tank would have been enough to deal with the Canadians gathered in their nation's capital to express their discontent with the government?
And she says, Oh, it was in jest.
And then he asked, Was this the kind of joke that your cabinet colleagues found funny?
And then she says, Well, we take our job seriously.
So she's saying, like, literally in the same breath, it was a joke, but this is no joke.
So, which one is it, lady?
Are you joking about running over Canadians, or are you serious about running over Canadians?
Both are bad.
Both are bad.
Just pick one, please.
Well, I mean, in truth, she hasn't necessarily been operationally focused, especially if she has allowed the prime minister and the rest of the cabinet to systematically eject Canadian forces members who are fully trained and will not partake in the violation of informed consent.
And yet now they're critically short in the middle of a situation that they're facing overseas, right?
So that's an interesting thing.
But, you know, a lot, I listened to her testimony quite closely today, and she had rehearsed, she had rehearsed quite a lot of talking points.
So when Rob asked those questions, she was actually regurgitating a talking point almost verbatim of what she had previously stated early on.
Yeah, I just want to actually include something in there because I wasn't even the only person that openly exclaimed this in the audience.
It's like I'm explaining this like I'm watching a circus and it feels like that at this point.
But she literally had her phone in one hand and she was just scrolling and you could just see her eyes darting back and forth.
And there's only a couple of times where you could tell that her answers actually weren't that put together.
And that's actually the only times that she didn't have her phone in her hand.
She was very scripted in her response.
100%.
And I don't know.
That's that's tough to watch because it just shows me like there's no fairness.
I would assume that phones usually wouldn't be allowed in court proceedings.
If you're up on the stand giving a testimony, you know, it's like taking a test and you have notes.
I get it, but you're not allowed to bring your phone with you.
Yeah.
So I don't care if you have notes or who needs a phone when you can just say, I don't think that question is relevant, so I'm not answering it, which she did to the government of Alberta lawyer.
Like, what the hell is going on here?
Can you see that?
I guess so, because she did.
Yeah, it was, it was really difficult to watch that exchange.
And I have to say, I think that's the best cross that I've seen from Rob Kittridge.
Like he was right on the money with that cross exam.
And the way he was making the eye contact in a very assertive way, you could tell she was highly uncomfortable with the question itself.
And she couldn't answer the question from her own words.
She had to revert to talking points because she was very nervous about the answer she was about to give because they knew that they got caught.
They tried to brush it off like a joke, but everybody in the room knew that it wasn't a joke.
It was a staff check to see if they could actually pull off what was being suggested.
Well, you know what?
Speaking of a really good cross from Rob Kittridge, I don't think that we have the clip actually lined up, but when he asked her more or less to agree or disagree with the fact that if she didn't support the invocation, the invocation of the emergencies act, then she more or less would have to voluntarily step down from her position as minister.
Cabinet solidarity.
So that conceptualization is called cabinet solidarity.
So not only have they not waived cabinet confidence, which means the communications which ministers are privileged and no one will hear about them, but cabinet solidarity has not been waived either, which means that you can't break ranks with cabinet.
And if you do, you sort of have to voluntarily step down from your role.
And I think Anita Anand likes being a female defense leader.
It makes her, you know, she's checking a lot of social justice boxes by being there.
She certainly is.
Like, I'd like to know how she's qualified to do that job.
And I'll give you an example why.
The last minister of national defense was actually a reserve lieutenant colonel and you know infantry reserve soldier who had multiple overseas deployments and he was also a police officer in his former career.
But inside Justin Trudeau's own party, you've got a member of parliament.
His name is Andrew Leslie.
He was the commander of the Canadian Army.
So how is it that Andrew Leslie is just basically this guy with hardly any portfolio at all?
And she is now running the military when her focus is to put pronouns on people's signature blocks in their emails, as opposed to making sure that Canada has a fighting force that is ready to meet international challenges in terms of defense.
She's not.
She can't even talk her way through a public inquiry without talking points.
Well, it goes without saying that this is Justin Drew, Justin Trudeau's Canada.
And even if she did or didn't disagree, I kind of, I have the suspicion, I have intuition, if I may just say, that not all the ministers obviously fully agreed.
Actually, it was revealed that during her statement, she didn't even specify if she agreed with the invocation of the emergency act.
Of course, that changed today, but yeah, yeah.
So go ahead.
Sorry, go ahead.
I was just going to touch on Leslie for a second there.
In fairness, Andrew Leslie was unelected in 2019 after he announced that he would support Vice Admiral Norman's.
He would testify for the defense in that breach of trust trial.
So he was turfed.
I thought I saw him sitting in the audience.
I could have sworn I saw him sitting in the audience recently when that one liberal MP passed out.
Remember two weeks ago she passed out in the college.
Oh, he could have been.
He could have been sitting there right in front of her.
Yeah.
I don't know.
Of course, hey, you know, the admiral was actually vindicated.
He beat those allegations and was offered a full reinstatement, but I think he took his retirement.
And by the way, many, many members of the Canadian military helped the Admiral crowdfund for his legal defense, which he won, and then turn around and reimbursed or offered reimbursement to all the soldiers, airmen, and sailors that supported his legal defense.
Commission Comes Back00:02:43
He asked them if they would like to be reimbursed or where the money would he'd like to donate it, right?
But this is somebody who Justin Trudeau took off the chessboard in the Canadian military.
Why?
Because of another ethics deal involving ships and Justin Trudeau's friends.
And he won.
But, you know, to kind of circle back to the original question, I'm really sorry.
I thought I'd take the long way around.
Keith Wilson was navigating.
I took the long way around.
And this is the important point.
If the emergencies, if the commission comes back and says, hey, the emergency act was necessary.
If the commission comes back and says, yeah, it's valid.
It should have been invoked.
There's a good chance I could still be charged.
And I'm not the only one.
There's a possibility, right?
And this is, I think, a valid concern of mine.
And some of the others, like Danny, I would assume, I haven't talked to Danny, but if they come back and say, yeah, the Emergency Act was warranted, next thing you know, Tom and Danny and other people are going to get paraded around this country like public enemy number one.
Why?
Because they've got to put a cherry on top of their big heap of crap cake.
And so, you know, obviously we're not stupid.
We've been preparing for this for quite some time.
We're not going to go down without a fight.
We're aware of the play.
So I'm not overly worried.
I mean, it's a long shot, but we know what we're doing.
We play the long game just as much as other opponents, right?
This is what the government has trained us to do.
So I'm not really worried about it overall.
I'll cover your trial like it's the OJ trial.
Perfect.
Yeah.
We'll take turns.
Exactly.
But I mean, is it going to happen?
No, it's, I don't think it's going to happen.
But is it inside the realm of possibility with this current government that nobody even recognizes as left, right, center, or anything?
It's just its own government beast on its own.
It doesn't fit into a political spectrum.
They're just doing their own in this century, maybe, you know, 80 years past, it might fit into a government model of the past.
But, you know, I think the only ideology, the only ideology is power at all costs.
Whatever that looks like.
Well, it's done through talking points and media and narrative.
That's the most effective tool.
Power At All Costs00:02:05
You know, and during the convoy, I had made mention actually on a, I think, the final live stream event that I had done on the 19th.
And I mentioned, you know, Justin Trudeau, you just got your Tiana Mid Square moment.
If that's what you wanted, you just got the moment.
And now we find out that they were actually joking about it, making reference to it, joking about it.
They were joking.
If it was that joke.
Yeah, they weren't joking.
They weren't joking.
Now, I think it is 9.17 where you guys are at.
It's been a very long day for you.
And I know that there's a case of beer that I bought sitting in the fridge for you guys to drink after a very long day.
So I want to thank you guys for the hard work that you're putting in in the commission, Tom.
I know this is probably difficult for you to relive at some points.
Yeah, I imagine so.
Yeah.
Celene.
What frustrates me?
Sorry.
What frustrates me is that six weeks ago, we heard all these, this testimony from Lamenti and Mendocino that was proven false six weeks ago, but they're still talking about it like it's fact.
Surprise.
It's very government.
They're gaslighting us.
They think we're all hard of remembering.
Anyway, I was trying to wrap up the stream so that you guys could go and have a beer.
So I will let you go, Celine.
Thank you.
You've got a very busy day tomorrow.
We've got PMO staffers and Chris Yafreeland.
So very busy day full of lies, I imagine.
A lot of turd polishing, I bet, going on tomorrow.
And Tom, I'm sure you're going to be sitting there.
Sorry, I didn't mean to make you cough.
And I know you're fighting a bit of a bug this whole time.
And you're in the, you know, you're in the audience just as much as our team is.
And you're, I mean, I think at this point, we just consider you part of the crew.
You come to the live stream probably four nights out of five.
So thanks for doing that.
I look forward to seeing what is going on tomorrow.
I may or may not be the lead journalist.
Thanks Everybody, Folks00:02:15
I bet I'm going to get roped into it.
So that's okay too, because I get to talk to you guys.
Thanks to everybody behind the board there in the Airbnb.
Thanks to everybody in the studio in Toronto who's also working hard.
Efron, Olivia, I know you're there.
Thanks to everybody who tunes in every week and every night, by the way, to watch the breakdown.
We know that you're looking to us to give you truthful analysis because we are not politically contaminated by Justin Trudeau's money.
So I appreciate the trust that you put in us.
And as David Menzies always says, stay sane.
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 event.
The Toronto event is on November 19th.
That's a Saturday.
And it will feature the likes of Dr. Julie Panessi, Archer Polvowski, Tamara Leach, and all your favorite rebels, including yours truly.
I'll be the MC that day, Sheila Gunread, and of course, the big boss man himself, Ezra Levant.
Now, Saturday, November the 26th, we're bringing Rebel Live to Calgary.
And those aforementioned speakers will be there.
And She-Ra will be the MC for that event.
You don't want to miss it.
It's an all-day freedom fest.
I know there are certain would-be conservative leaders that think freedom is overrated.
You know, we don't think that way.
I don't think you think that way.
So if you want to get a ticket, please go to the website.
They are going fast.
Go to rebelnewslive.com.
That's rebelnewslive.com.
Get your orders in.
And as Billy Red Lions used to say, folks, don't you dare miss it.