Ezra Levant reacts to Alberta’s Ethics Commissioner ruling that Premier Danielle Smith didn’t interfere with COVID prosecutions, despite CBC’s debunked claims of 1M+ emails and 44 prosecutors denying contact. He argues the media’s "lockdown amnesty" narrative mirrors past "deep state" attacks like the Trump-era "Russia hoax," with polls showing UCP and NDP in a tight race amid alleged coordinated CBC-NDP smears. The episode frames Smith’s legal review as principled, contrasting it with Trudeau’s marijuana decriminalization, while warning conservatives that opposing Notley risks losing civil liberties—all before promoting TWCCanada.health’s patient-first model. [Automatically generated summary]
I am here for the live stream, which we always do at 1 p.m. Eastern, 11 a.m. Mountain Time.
It's usually hosted by my colleagues, David Menzies and Sheila Gunri, but today I'm in the chair alone because there's an important breaking news item out of Alberta.
And it's something that I've been following closely.
I'm originally Albertan myself.
And in fact, I play a very minor role in this story.
Today, the Ethics Commissioner ruled that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith broke the ethics code in regards to pursuing lockdown amnesty, that is, a stay of prosecution against people who are still being hounded by prosecutors for obsolete rules that were in effect a year, two, three ago.
I'll take you through the ruling itself, what it says, what it does not say.
But I think there's an even deeper, more important story to it, which is how Alberta's deep state, as it were, is trying to get rid of Danielle Smith with an election, what is it, 11 days away now?
Today, by the way, is the debate day in the province of Alberta.
Danielle Smith, the leader of the UCP, the United Conservative Party, and Rachel Notley, the leader of the NDP Socialist Party, former premier who was deposed by Jason Kenney, but wants a second crack at it.
And opinion polls.
I've seen opinion polls showing the NDP with a real lead, but I've also seen opinion polls showing that UCP is in the lead.
I think that means that it's a volatile electorate.
Normally, pollsters are generally in the same zone.
I think that this election is really up in the air, and the deep state has decided they're going to make the decision.
I'll tell you what I mean by that.
This ethics report was rushed out hastily.
Most of the ethics reports by this commissioner take three, four plus months to do.
This one was done very hastily to make sure it got out before the election.
And maybe that's appropriate.
Or maybe that's someone putting their thumb on the scale.
It was released today, the day of the debates, not tomorrow, the day after the debates, but today, the day where the candidates are normally preparing and where the candidates themselves would choose the issues.
No, the ethics commissioner herself will choose the issue.
You know that that will be the case.
The CBC has a major role in what I am calling an attempted coup d'état.
And here's what I mean by that.
A few months ago, the CBC reported something as fact.
They said that Danielle Smith or her staff emailed prosecutors on the COVID files telling them to stop.
They couldn't be more explicit.
They said they were emails.
Now, later on, they said they hadn't actually seen the emails.
Isn't that interesting?
But they insisted they happened.
Well, this launched an enormous investigation in the public service by the non-partisan public service.
I don't mean political appointees.
I mean the permanent bureaucracy that runs the government.
They checked over a million emails and couldn't find the emails that the CBC said had happened, even though the CBC couldn't have been sure about it because they never saw them themselves.
Who would have told them, and why would they believe someone who wouldn't show them in the face of a massive investigation by the bureaucracy that showed no such emails were done?
Well, in today's report by the Ethics Commissioner, which talks about Danielle Smith and her views on a kind of lockdown amnesty, there's a major section on the CBC, and I want to show it to you.
And this isn't the most important part of today's story, but it shows you the collusion between the NDP, the media party, Justin Trudeau's CBC, and how it's all happening, in my opinion, with some dissident conservatives who have never accepted Danielle Smith as a leader.
Here, I'd like you to, Olivia or Efron, I'm not sure who's at the computer there.
Is that you, Olivia?
Can you please search for CBC and go to the next instance of it and first show the title page of the report to show people what document we're referring to.
I have on the screen, and I'll show it to you, and we'll have a link to it.
If you could put that on the screen, this is the Office of the Ethics Commissioner of the Province of Alberta, report of findings and recommendations by the Honorable Marguerite Trustler, King's Counsel Ethics Commissioner, into allegations involving Danielle Smith.
So it was published today.
So that's the document I'm reading from.
And then do a find the word CBC and skip the first one.
That shows that you can put it on the screen there.
In January 2023, the CBC aired a story relying on an unnamed source that a political staff member in the Premier's office had directly contacted prosecutors, plural, in the Criminal Prosecution Service about COVID-related prosecutions.
In March of 2023, a tape was posted to the CBC website of a conversation between Premier Smith and Arthur Pavlovsky.
We can talk about that a little bit later.
The allegation is that the Premier and her staff, as a result of these two incidents, interfered with the administration of justice and thereby breached Section 3 of the Conflicts of Interest Act.
Oh, I skipped a paragraph there.
Highlights from the tape are set out in the NDP request for an investigation.
I also downloaded the tape and personally listened to it.
So those are the two allegations.
That Arthur Pavlovsky recording of his personal conversation with Danielle Smith and far more serious in my mind, the accusation that Smith or her staff were literally emailing prosecutors, plural, and telling them what to do.
That would be political interference like Justin Trudeau does.
That's not something a conservative would do.
Skip ahead to the next instance of the word CBC because this is quite something.
And the next one, just one more.
Yeah, let's read this.
The CBC allegation.
We already read that.
The person who was alleged to have sent one or perhaps more of the emails was incensed by the allegations and denied them.
The lawyer conducting or participating in all the Coots prosecutions, Stephen Johnson, said that he was never contacted by anyone in the Premier's office.
Kim Goddard, Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice at one point, held a town hall video meeting with prosecutors and reiterated the independence of the Crown Prosecutors.
She told them to ignore political statements and to advise her if anyone was contacted, particularly if the contact was from a political source.
At one point, she requested and received from the Crown Prosecution Service an update on all cases, but it was used by her merely as a reference to bring the Attorney General and was never forwarded.
The Public Service Commissioner, with the consent of the Deputy Minister, conducted an email search.
I referred to that.
Keep going.
Skip to the next page.
Look at this.
I think it can be said that the members of the Crown Prosecution Services, that's another way of saying prosecutors, were annoyed and even incensed by the allegation that one of them had received outside political pressure.
Assistant Deputy Minister Kim Goddard is confident no one in the service received an email.
So that's not a political appointee.
That's a lifer prosecutor.
But look at these next two paragraphs.
Absolutely devastating to the wicked liars of the CBC.
Look at these two next paragraphs.
All 44 Crown prosecutors who had coups, that was the border blockade by the truckers, or COVID-related files, provided a statement that they did not receive any contact relating to their files from the Premier's office.
44 prosecutors on the COVID file.
None of them appointed by Danielle Smith, of course.
They're not political appointees at all.
They're lawyers who just work for the government.
44 out of 44 said, I don't know what the CBC is talking about.
I have never received such an email.
And then this next line.
All 32 political staff members in the Premier's office at the relevant time provided a statement that they did not contact any crown prosecutors regarding the coups or COVID-related files.
76 people, 76 people said it is not true.
That is absolutely devastating to the CBC.
It was one of the grounds for this ethics complaint.
And here, Marguerite Trussler, retired judge, now ethics commissioner, said in a polite way, the CBC made it up, and they continue to lie about it to this day.
That's a pretty devastating rebuke of the CBC.
By the way, in my experience, government lawyers are typically left of center compared to the rest of the profession.
I don't think any of them are particular fans of Danielle Smith.
She's not in the club.
She's not a lawyer.
Most, not most, but a lot of premiers are lawyers.
Doug Ford is not.
Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, is not.
But Brian Mulroney was a lawyer, Jean-Cretchen was a lawyer.
Quite a lot of politicians are lawyers.
It's a fit there.
Lawyers deal with laws.
I think the fact that you're not in the fraternity, I think lawyers sometimes look down on politicians who are not lawyers.
What I'm saying is those 44 prosecutors are not lying to cover up for Danielle Smith.
If anything, they disagree with her.
But they're honest enough and bound by their professional ethics enough to tell the truth.
Not a single prosecutor in Alberta received a single email from the Premier or her office.
And remember, the CBC lie was that prosecutors, plural, received it.
Incredibly, the CBC itself has not seen these alleged, purported, fabricated, made-up, imaginary emails.
And you would think, after that rebuke, the CBC might have a drop of humility, but you would be deadly wrong because you don't understand the CBC is not a news organization.
They are a government news organization, which is completely different.
You throw an adjective in front of the word journalist.
There's journalists.
I know what that means.
government journalists, there's no such thing.
And so I want to show you how the CBC covered this story this morning.
This is incredible.
I just showed you that this ethics complaint was founded on two allegations.
One, the CBC claim that prosecutors were contacted by the Premier's office.
And second, a conversation with Arthur Pavlovsky.
Here's how the CBC covers that.
Alberta Premier Smith breached Conflicts of Interest Act, says Ethics Commissioner.
Finding focused on Smith's contact with Minister of Justice in relation to COVID-19 related charges.
Okay, let's read a bit here.
Alberta's Ethics Commissioner says Danielle Smith in her capacity as Premier contravened the act, blah, blah, blah.
Skip ahead.
The whole scheme of things is a threat to democracy.
Skip ahead.
In January, CBC News reported that a staffer in Smith's office had sent a series of emails to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service.
A series of emails, plural, challenging prosecutors' plural assessment and direction on cases stemming from the Coutz border blockades and protests.
Later that month, CBC News reported that Smith pressured Justice Minister Tyler Chandra.
Okay, skim down a little bit, skimmed down a little bit.
Just skim the whole way down.
Can you see anything here, skim down, about the emails being a lie?
Chandrow remembered a different version.
Skim down, skim down.
Smith asked about the extent to which he could get involved.
Seemed to suggest something was Smith pointed out that he was the attorney general and seemed to suggest something that was influenced by a letter sent by Ezra Levant, who runs the right-wing media company Rebel News.
She wrote, I'll talk about that later.
In response, blah, blah, blah.
Scroll down, scroll down.
We're scrolling down now to see if there's any reference in this very long story to that absolutely devastating point about the emails to the prosecutors not happening.
Scroll down, And then they link to the report about the author, Joel Dryden.
So I just showed, we just skimmed down.
We didn't read it all.
I'll come back to that Ezra Levant thing in a moment.
More than a page in this report is dedicated to the CBC accusation that staff in Danielle Smith's office improperly contacted prosecutors, plural, with a series, plural, of emails.
In fact, they restated that in the CBC story, didn't they?
CBC reported that, blah, blah, blah.
But it didn't happen.
More than a million emails were searched.
None existed.
You search a million emails.
You're going to find a lot of things.
You did not find this, let alone a series of emails to prosecutors, plural.
And then just to make sure, every single prosecutor in the province that was dealing with the Couttes border issue or COVID, every single one, 44 of them, which is an enormous waste of resources.
You wonder why crime is soaring in Alberta.
Maybe take those 44 prosecutors, put them on real crimes instead of thought crimes and COVID crimes.
You got to be a certain kind of lawyer to enjoy prosecuting people for keeping their church open or their business open or not wearing a mask.
You've got to be a bit of an authoritarian leftist, I think.
That said, 44 out of 44 said, we don't know what the CBC is talking about.
We have never received such an email, let alone a series of emails.
44 out of 44.
Memo Review Discretion00:14:56
So look at this, issues and discussion of the law.
There are three questions that need to be answered.
Scroll down.
They are, did someone from the premier's office send an email about the COVID-related prosecutions to a prosecutor?
Scroll down.
I want to deal first with the allegation published by the CBC that a member of the Premier's staff emailed a crown prosecutor about a case before the courts.
I asked numerous questions of a considerable number of people about the existence of any email and could find no evidence the event occurred or that any email exists.
The CBC has not seen the emails and has not divulged, quite rightly, its source.
Oh, is it quite right to protect a proven liar?
Does that source really even exist?
It was public knowledge that this investigation was taking place, and one might expect that the CBC source would have come forward on an anonymous or confidential basis.
All Crown prosecutors who have COVID-related files have said that they did not receive an email critiquing the Crown's position, and all the Premier staff have stated that they did not send such an email.
As a result, I found no evidence of such an email, and I can only come to the conclusion, based on the evidence I have, that no crown prosecutor was emailed directly about any of the cases.
There appears to be no interference with the independence of prosecutors on this level.
There is no evidence that the Premier ever spoke to any Crown prosecutor.
It would appear that she, unfortunately, used the term inappropriately.
I'll get to the next part in a second, but we just went through the CBC article.
They refer to the emails.
They say we reported that these emails were sent.
They did not say they never saw them.
They did not say they refused to tell them their secret source.
Does that really source secret source really exist?
Or is it your imaginary friend?
Or is it your fellow journalist and you're his source and he's your source?
Is it some deep state?
Well, they talked to the deep state.
44 out of 44 prosecutors said, you made it up.
Judge Tressler here said they made it up.
How could the CBC still run with that?
How could they not even mention that devastating rebuke from the Ethics Commissioner?
How do you write there were two charges against Danielle Smith?
A series of emails sent to prosecutors and then a brief phone call with Arthur Pavlovsky.
Two charges.
The first one, absolutely not a shred of evidence completely confected by the CBC.
How do you not mention that in your story?
But I just took you through the CBC story.
They don't mention it.
Is that what a news organization does?
Or is that what Trudeau's state broadcaster does?
There's a big difference.
I mentioned in this report, and I'll tell you about it.
I'll read it and I won't hide it.
I'm proud of my mention here.
And I agree with and disagree with some of the judges here.
I'll take you through it now.
Yeah, let's show this.
So back in October last year, I bumped into the Premier, and I said, look, there's a way, a legal way, to stay these prosecutions.
That's illegal.
Amnesty is probably not the right word.
And amnesty implies you did it, you didn't do it, whatever stage of it, you just, you're washed clean of your sins.
Amnesty isn't the word.
Pardon isn't the word.
The legal technical term is to stay a prosecution.
Now, I'm going to read you some of the letter I wrote, and I wrote it to Danielle Smith.
So I met with Danielle Smith, and she said, hey, give me your ideas on how to do it.
So I'll just read some of this.
You can see this from October.
Marshall is the name of her chief of staff.
Please thank the Premier for taking the time to speak with me.
It's nice to see her again in her new role.
Nice to meet you.
I'll send you another note in a couple of days about blah, blah, blah.
On the lockdown and pandemic prosecutions, I was heartened to see how well informed the Premier is on these matters.
She clearly understands how important these issues are, both politically and morally.
She really is on the right side of history, blah, blah, blah.
The Premier was interested in information that I could provide her about the situation on the ground and mechanisms available to her to provide leadership on these issues.
The purpose of this note is to provide the Premier with that information.
So what follows is a slightly more technical version of what I say on my nightly show all the time.
There are still an unknown number of tickets, charges, and contempt proceedings or related matters.
I have good knowledge of some of the prosecutions, but other lawyers have filed, and, you know, some trials have commenced.
There are real issues about why they're proceeding.
As the Premier says, they appear to have been politically motivated.
Staying or withdrawing the charges would send a strong message in support of the rule of law.
I'm only suggesting that prosecutions which have been politically motivated, targeting people who only sought to exercise their constitutional freedom of expression and religion, be stayed or discontinued.
So let's just go stand to, I'm not going to read all of it because it's a little bit legalistic.
Jurisdiction.
Almost all the prosecutions that I'm aware of are conducted by provincial prosecutors.
They're under the Premier's jurisdiction.
The Attorney General has the discretion on whether and how to prosecute.
Here's a leading case on the matter.
Significantly, what is common to the various elements of prosecutorial discretion is that they involve the ultimate decisions as to whether prosecutions should be brought, continued, or ceased, and what the prosecution ought to be for.
Put differently, prosecutorial discretion refers to decision regarding the nature and extent of the prosecution and the attorney general's participation in it.
Decisions that do not go to the nature and extent of the prosecution need a decision that govern a crown prosecutor's tactics and conduct before the total court.
Blah, blah, blah.
So you see, I have footnote number one there.
Scroll to the very bottom of this memo.
I want to show you that that case is from the Supreme Court.
It was in the case called Krieger in the Law Society of Alberta, a 2002 case.
SCC says it's a Supreme Court of Canada case.
So I'm quoting the Supreme Court.
I'm not making this stuff up.
Go right back up.
Thanks very much.
I just wanted to show my footnote there.
This next paragraph is important.
Specifically, the Attorney General can decide the nature and extent of the prosecution and the Attorney General's participation in it.
And Crown prosecutors employed by Alberta Crown Prosecution Service have prosecutorial discretion to stay or withdraw proceedings, blah, blah, blah.
It's usually done in open court.
Scroll down, scroll down, scroll down.
The basis for staying them, if there's no reasonable likelihood of conviction, and it does not suit the public interest.
There are clear legal issues with many of the cases, vague and confusing.
As aptly noted by, you know, and I quote others, other experts, Dr. Fluker.
Yeah, I'm not going to, this is a fairly dense legal memo.
The Premier can, should she choose to, direct the Attorney General to review and withdraw or discontinue any cases arising from the Chief Medical Officer of Health Orders under the Public Health Act or any pending charges.
So I don't say that the Premier should tell the prosecution what to do.
I say the Premier can direct the Attorney General to review and withdraw.
The Premier could request that the review be undertaken with respect to each prosecution.
Obviously, the Attorney General would take into account the Premier's view that without more, proceeding these prosecutions is not in the public interest.
I would also encourage the Premier to note that beyond the lack of merit and political nature of these charges, the province has a shortage of prosecutors, court staff, and superior court judges.
Can you imagine putting 44 prosecutors on this beat?
In consultation with my lawyers, it appears the most direct and efficient way to direct the state proceedings is to make a written memo, and I get into the technicalities.
Anyways, so thanks very much.
You can read the whole thing.
I've tweeted that.
It's on our website.
It's a technical memo, but it's really what I say and have been saying in public for about two years now, which is I don't really use the word and I use the word amnesty, lockdown amnesty, because it's a common parlance.
People know what amnesty is.
Stay a prosecution is a little more technical.
That's actually what it is.
And you can see my memo from October outlines, and you can see, and I mentioned it twice there, that nowhere do I recommend the Premier talk to any prosecutors at all.
I say talk to the Attorney General, have him review things with an eye to are these good cases.
That's what I say.
If you don't believe me, read the memo for yourself.
But go back to Judge Trussler's ruling, because I think she misquotes my memo.
It's not a big deal.
I mean, I don't care.
But she said the only incident that is anyway close to what was reported was the email containing a letter sent by Ezra Levant criticizing the prosecutions and purporting to show why they were wrong and what to do about them.
The communication was sent to the Premier's Chief of Staff, who forwarded to the Chief of Staff Minister of Justice, Christopher Thrasher, for response.
As the latter was within the jurisdiction of the Justice Ministry, the email was appropriately forwarded from one political staffer to another so that the second political staff member could deal with the matter.
Mr. Thresher provided the email letter to the Minister of Justice, Tyler Chandro, who in turn forwarded to the Deputy Minister, Frank Basha.
It was then sent to the Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of the Prime Prosecution Service, who did not forward it to any crown prosecutor.
She appropriately had a discussion about it with the deputy minister, and nothing further happened with the letter.
So that's it.
Can you scroll back up a little bit?
Okay, can you search my name one more time?
Because it's at a later point where she refers to my memo itself.
Yeah, search her just one more time.
So I'm fine with what she described there.
But here she says, go back up one or two.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So she says on October 25th, Marshall Smith received the email directly from Essel Levant, which surprisingly from someone legally trained, that's me, advocated direct interference by the premier by having her order a stay in prosecutions.
I did not say that.
I just read to you what I said.
I didn't say that at all.
I said that the Premier should direct the Justice Minister to review the cases and the ones that do not meet the legal standards, the Justice Minister should stay them.
I never said that the Premier should order a stay in the prosecutions.
I defy you to find that.
I think I'm going to write to the judge and point out that she's wrong.
Not that anything turned on it.
Like I say, this fake complaint by the CBC was thrown out by the judge, but it bothers me about this much that the judge didn't read my memo.
It's only like five pages.
Anyway, so that's my involvement there.
And I've got a rule of thumb when I talk to politicians.
I talk to politicians from time to time.
Almost always they reach out to me.
In this case, I had something I wanted to share with the new Premier of Alberta.
But my rule of thumb is Don't say anything verbally that you wouldn't say if there was a camera there.
And don't write anything in writing that you would be shy for it to see the light of day.
And I stand by this memo absolutely completely.
I would like to hear the Associate Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy Minister's reply to it.
Why wasn't this a good idea?
You know, literally citing a Supreme Court case.
And prosecutorial discretion is obvious, famous, commonplace.
I mean, Justin Trudeau only formally legalized marijuana in the past couple years, but de facto, it was decriminalized probably for 20 years.
I don't think that there was a, I would doubt if there were 10 prosecutions for mere possession of marijuana a year in Canada.
The police literally did not prosecute possession.
They would take your marijuana joint, throw it in the gutter, stamp it out or whatever.
They wouldn't charge you with it alone.
Like if you were charged with 10 crimes, they might throw that on top just as a bargaining chip.
But police in Canada have not prosecuted marijuana possession in over a decade.
Why?
How are they allowed to do that?
By exercising their political prosecutorial discretion.
Prosecutors aren't going to waste time because someone was caught with a pot joint.
Justin Trudeau campaigned on making that the law, and he did.
How is that different here?
But I just wanted to tell you my own role here, lest someone say, why don't you talk about your memo?
Okay, I did.
My point is, this is not a real complaint.
Both elements of the complaint, the lie about the emails and the Arthur Pavlovsky video, came from the CBC.
The CBC is an activist organization, not representing its taxpayers and viewers, but representing one man, Justin Trudeau.
And they know it.
Because if they were truly independent journalists, would they not report on the news of the day?
The news of the day is, as I said at the outset, Danielle Smith was found in breach of these ethics rules by a judge who had a hasty hearing to make sure she got it out before the election on the day of a debate, which is a little sketchy.
That is news.
And it's news about the Arthur Pavlovsky video, which we'll talk about a little later.
But half the entire case, and by far the more serious part, was the fabrication, the lie that the CBC claimed emails, a series of emails was sent to prosecutors.
That is a damnable lie.
New Sponsor Announcement00:06:23
And yet, show the CBC article again.
How do you do a lengthy, detailed article, lengthy, and not mention that?
Like, not even in one sentence at the very end.
That's not journalism.
That's campaigning.
That's Justin Trudeau's state broadcaster directing their government journalists to attack a political foe and to hide their own involvement in it.
Not just their own involvement, but the fact that their own involvement was completely false.
Every single prosecutor, every single staffer said, it did not happen.
And the CBC will not even say they were rebuked, let alone own up to it.
That's the deep state.
But I'm afraid that, I mean, before I came on the show half an hour ago, I read probably 50 tweets about this by different journalists in Alberta, and other than the independent journalists at True North and Counter Signal and Western Standard.
The media party, the CBC, the Post Media, City TV, not one of them mentioned the CBC lie.
Why wouldn't they mention it?
They don't have any skin in the game, or do they?
Of course they do.
They're on Trudeau's payroll now, too.
Very interesting times.
It's 1:35.
We're going to take a short commercial break.
Don't go away.
We've got more to say.
Stay with us.
I am doing something today that I have never tried before.
Listen up, I'm looking for collaborators in a new and exciting initiative.
As you most likely know, YouTube a long time ago demonetized Rebel News, and we are 100% viewer funded.
Now, while our supporters are fantastic at helping us cover legal campaigns and special reporting missions, unfortunately, the reality is our day-to-day operational expenses often exceed our income stream, which is crazy if you think about it, because my videos across all platforms attract hundreds of thousands of views and sometimes even millions.
So I want to share that reach with the right partners.
If you have a product or business and want to enter a win-win relationship with me, please go to rebelnews.com forward slash ads and fill in the form to let me know.
I won't be accepting anyone.
I need to believe in your business or product so I can sell it proudly for you.
And for successful applicants, I will guarantee a minimum view count.
Meaning, even if your ad is published on the less popular reports, we'll keep promoting your business or product until it gets the agreed minimum eyeball.
So again, if you have a cool company or product that either wants to take advantage of my reach or want to support my work through advertising in a way that you can write it off as a tax deduction or both, head over to rebelnews.com forward slash ads and hopefully we can join forces soon.
Hey, welcome back.
You know what?
I want to talk to you about something because we have a new sponsor.
And I came across them on my own and I said to the team, hey guys, this looks interesting.
And I was told, Ezra, they have already reached out to us to advertise.
I said, come on.
But it doesn't surprise me because we know some of the leaders of it.
We know Dr. Julie Panessi, PhD.
She was the ethics scholar at the Democracy Fund for a year.
We know Dr. Roger Hodginson.
I have interviewed him on a variety of occasions.
And they are part of this new organization called the Wellness Company.
And they are now sponsors of our live stream.
Can you believe it?
And here's my favorite part.
They give a discount to Rebel viewers if you use the coupon code Rebel.
Let me tell you a little bit about them.
I'm going to give you their philosophy.
Our medical system is failing because of oppressive government health policies and the lack of appreciation for natural approaches to staying healthy.
Isn't that the truth?
They shut down the gyms during the pandemic.
This is where the wellness company comes in.
By unequivocally and unapologetically standing up for medical freedom and the right to affordable health care, TWC, the wellness company, the vision champions the right to make one's own choices for their body.
They strive to build a new health care system that earns people's trust, governed and operated with transparency and offering the highest quality practitioners who align at their core with the fundamental belief to put the patient first.
So it's medical and philosophical.
The fabric of this company has been woven together by its medical team, whose courage and bravery in their fight for medical freedom and truth, as well as their devotion to the public, will help to ensure improved health outcomes, convenient access to physicians, and lower costs of health care for patients.
And I know two of those people personally.
Dr. Roger Hawkinson, MD, Dr. Julie Panessi, PhD.
I'm excited about these folks.
Check them out at TWCCanada.health.
So it's not a .com, it's a .health.
And by the way, Peter McCullough's with them.
That's amazing.
That's amazing, isn't it?
So go to TWCCanada.health, but you've got to use the promo code REBL if you want the 10% discount.
And you can go directly to TWCCanada.health slash Rebel as well.
So I am excited about these guys because A, I know them.
B, ideologically, they're ringing my bell.
And C, sounds like a necessary effort to fill a major void in our system.
So I think that's the kind of thing that Avi was talking about there.
Polls and Hoaxes00:06:09
If you are fit for Rebel News, we would love to have your ads.
And TWCCanada.health is absolutely that.
I'm excited about this.
When was the last time you saw me do an ad read?
I don't do ad reads if I don't understand and agree with a company.
I'm not going to do an ad read for the NDP.
They'd say, here's $100,000, do an ad read.
I'm not going to do that because I don't believe in them.
It's a pleasure to have an advertiser that we can actually believe in.
So use coupon cone Rebel, though, if you want your 10% off, and I hope you do.
All right, that was the ad break.
Thanks for that.
So, as I mentioned, there were two reasons for this investigation, two purported reasons of this investigation.
It really, you know, these fake investigations with fake timing.
It really feels, you know, in a way it feels like what they did to Donald Trump.
You know, constant accusations, constant media lying.
Oh, she misspoke this.
She said that.
She used the word amnesty instead of staying prosecution.
She said prosecution instead of attorney general.
Ha ha, we got you.
And in the end, no, it was all alive.
The hoax, it was a hoax, like the Russia hoax, this email hoax.
It's a hoax.
But once the CBC has told the lie a thousand times, and finally you have a judge here saying, no, that's a lie, they're still not even willing to correct the lie, but they've done their damage.
Rachel Notley has a friendly, neighborly smile.
She comes across as mild-mannered most of the time, which is the perfect cover for her absolutely devastating attacks on the economy and civil liberties.
Danielle Smith, every misstep or misspeak is magnified, and then they just outright lie, as the CBC does, as I've shown you.
And so I fear that 11 days to the election, I think it's 11 days, It's not about substance, it's not about ideology, it's not about who's going to destroy the province or not.
It's about chaos around Danielle Smith.
And why is it chaotic around here?
Well, of course, because she sent these emails.
Oh, no, she didn't.
Well, the CBC says she did.
A judge said that was false.
Well, the CBC still says it.
The CBC are not journalists.
They are the NDP war room here.
Hey, put that new poll up.
I appreciate that.
I see you've got a poll here.
Alberta Provincial Polling from Research Co., I guess.
NDP 49, UCP 47.
Green Party, 1% SMA.
I don't even know what that stands for without refreshing my memory.
That's within the margin of error.
I'm actually more interested.
I wonder if that's Janet Brown's polling company.
Is there a link to click on there?
Go to the next tweet.
They often link to the actual poll in the next one.
Oh, Solidarity Movement of Alberta.
Yeah, I didn't know what it stood for.
That's Arthur Pavlovsky's new political party.
Click on 338Canada.com and maybe they have a link to that.
We're going to take a minute to look at it.
Can you scroll down a little bit?
Okay, so the latest projection here, that latest poll projects the UCP squeaking through.
But this late hit might make a difference.
Odds of winning the most seats.
They say the UCP majority, they're tilting towards it.
But I saw a poll just the other day that frankly looked the opposite way.
Scroll down.
All right, well, that suggests three polls in a row.
Put the UCP ahead.
Seat projection.
They suggest 49 to 38.
All right, well, these polls are less traumatic than what I saw earlier.
Odds of winning the most seats, whatever math they're using.
Okay, thanks for that.
Those polls aren't as bad as the ones I saw.
I'm not sure which one I was looking at.
Maybe it was an Abacus poll that I saw.
I think it was.
Now, of course, Abacus is part of the liberal octopus as well.
Because I like their pollster, David Coletto.
I think he's a good egg and I think he's a fair-minded guy.
But the company is owned by Bruce Anderson, who is the father of Justin Trudeau's former director of communications.
So they're pretty tightly tied together.
Yeah, click on that one there.
Click on that.
Yeah, so this is from yesterday.
This is the poll.
Over the weekend, we released a new poll that found the NDP taking a lead over the UCP.
Several other polls have been released, which have found varying results from a large UCP lead to a large NDP lead.
So I wanted to verify and update the province-wide picture and conducted a quick survey with just under 500 eligible voters.
Here's what I found: statistical tie.
Looks like it.
Scroll down a little bit, please.
All the movements from our last surveys win within the margin of error.
Okay.
But the undecided are pretty low.
Current vote intention, likely voters.
NDP slightly ahead.
Keep going.
If, okay, keep going.
Just likely decided.
Choice by community.
So Edmonton, look at that.
You'd be lucky to get a single Conservative re-elected.
Calgary, the UCP is ahead.
Voting Trends Unveiled00:09:06
I mean, it would be devastating if they weren't.
Rural parts.
That's what other areas mean.
If this holds, I think you've got yourself a conservative win, but boy, an ugly win, eh?
Scroll down a little bit.
When you remove the undecided, the results by region are Calgary, 51 to 44.
Edmonton, just a crushing win.
Vote by age and gender.
Young people are socialists in Alberta, which is too bad.
They've lost the Albertaness in them.
Older people are conservative.
Men are more conservative.
Women are more leftist.
That's how it is, I regret.
Scroll down.
The Alberta Party is a minor party.
Impressions of Danielle Smith are negative.
You can see that they're negative in every demographic, except for Calgary, where she's a little bit positive.
They're negative in Edmonton.
They're sort of tied in the rural parts and barely ahead in Calgary.
I hope she gets a chance to get her sea legs under her.
She has been premier for more than six months, but I don't know if she has a core team around her.
Do we have any super chats?
Sounds like we have one.
Let me move on over to that.
Oh, Kidok, I don't see it here.
Feel free to put that right there in the live stream Slack account.
You know, I didn't deal with the Arthur Pavlovsky thing.
Rachel Notley had a phone call with Arthur Pavlovsky where he talked about staying prosecutions and she said something like, I'll look into it or something.
And the judge said that that was an inappropriate thing to say.
I don't know if I have strong thoughts on that.
But I think it was destructive by Arthur Pavlovsky to do that.
I don't think it moved the lockdown amnesty movement forward to release that video.
Don't know why he did it.
I support Arthur Pavlovsky's legal cases.
We crowdfund.
We've crowdfunded for 16 of his court hearings, if you can believe it.
I don't know why he did what he did.
I think it was counterproductive.
And if this ethics violation is the thing that tips the balance, it was his leaked recording that was the source of the conviction.
The lie about the emails was found to be a lie.
So that would be an embarrassing and unfortunate and inappropriate legacy for Arthur Pavlovsky if that were the case.
Here's a super chat from someone named Justin Turdeau.
Five bucks, election should be postponed until the wildfires are under control.
Funny how the old communities in Alberta are under threat of evacuation or on fire, and those people are going to go vote.
I disagree with you.
There's always an excuse to not have a vote.
I mean, the excuse of the COVID, there's COVID out there.
We can't have people go vote in person.
We need to have mail voting, vote harvesting.
We need to have all these kind of iffy and less hard to verify systems for collective vote.
No.
If there are some districts, I mean, across Alberta, the air is very smoky.
That's not a reason not to vote.
In those particular areas where there is an evacuation, let there be solutions just in those areas.
I think it's fair to guess that those areas would vote UCP because they're typically rural areas.
But hold the results until then.
Or do whatever engenders the most trust and verification.
You don't want to mess around with this election.
You don't want to mess around with any elections.
But you don't need to delay the If you reward politicians by delaying the election for there being an emergency, they'll come up with emergencies every time.
So I disagree with you, Caller, but thank you for your point.
Well, it's 1.50 in Eastern Time, 11.50 in Alberta, and normally we go the full hour, but I feel like I've covered the basis on this.
Let me sum up my views.
I think it is absolutely legitimate for a political candidate to say in advance of seeking office that her campaign platform is to decriminalize civil disobedience during the lockdown.
If Justin Trudeau can decriminalize marijuana, why can't Danielle Smith decriminalize opening up a church in the middle of lockdown?
She said she would do that if she became Premier.
She became Premier, and she asked the Justice Minister to look into it.
How on earth is that possibly?
Interference.
That's her job.
That's her campaign promise.
The CBC lie is being conflated with what she actually did.
The CBC has the most to answer for here, but they're answerable only to Justin Trudeau, who loves it.
What a disgrace for any journalist who would write this story without referring to the fact that the CBC are proven liars.
That said, I would say the fact that myself and other outside people gave advice to the Premier, we should always be allowed to give advice to whoever we want.
But I think it's a sign of the deep state, so to speak, that within the government, the Premier of the province, who has at her disposal maybe 1,000 lawyers in the Department of Justice, I don't know how many work for the Albert Department of Justice, that there was no ally there to listen to the Premier as a client and help her find a path here.
Maybe that person was supposed to be Tyler Chandra, the Attorney General, but he is a conflicted party.
He was the health minister who enforced all of these lockdowns in the first place.
I think maybe there ought to have been a special lawyer in the Justice Department who was given this task to do it carefully and lawfully, which, by the way, I think Danielle Smith did it carefully and lawfully.
I think the timing of this late hit on the day of the debate is suspect.
I think the fact that literally a quick phone call with Arthur Pavlovsky from which nothing came is grounds for a conviction is laughable.
I don't think that Danielle Smith is going to appeal this ruling.
I don't think she wants to prolong it.
But the NDP are gleeful, and I bet Arthur Pavlovsky is because his party, I just, Solidarity Movement Party, it's a 1%.
It ain't going to win, but it may help Rachel Notley to win.
Interesting days.
I'll tell you one thing.
Here at Rebel News, we will always fight for freedom.
If you want to know what our motivations are, just read us or listen to us every day.
We serve our viewers in Alberta and abroad and afar, near and far.
We fight for freedom.
We hold politicians of every stripe to account.
We give the same advice in private as we do in public.
Let me close by reading Danielle Smith's tweet on the subject.
I see you had that up there.
The Ethics Commissioner report has confirmed the CBC and NDP lied regarding Crown Prosecutor contact.
I was gratified to read the Ethics Commissioner's finding, confirming that neither I nor anyone in my office tried to or did contact any Crown prosecutors regarding any COVID-19 prosecutions.
Read my full letter below.
And I'll let you read that letter on your own if you want to find it.
I'm ending this live stream more upbeat than I started it because I was under the impression that the polls were dark to begin with and this might just nudge things over.
If I'm reading the polls right, the last three put the UCP in the lead.
And I think anyone who would vote against Danielle Smith based on this, they probably already made their mind up to vote against Danielle Smith no matter what.
Danielle Smith is correct.
This report does absolutely vindicate her on the CBC NDP lie that she contacted prosecutors.
It'll be fascinating if there's any justice there at all.
She has threatened them with defamation action.
I don't know if she's taken it, but it sounds like the CBC just made it up and has no proof of it.
And the fact that they did not acknowledge that they were rebuked in this report today is incredible to me.
Interesting days.
If you asked me today who's going to win the election, I would say, you know what?
It's 50-50.
If I were a conservative voter in Alberta, I would say if you don't stop Rachel Notley, you are going to not only lose your civil liberties, but your economic prosperity.
And the knock against Danielle Smith is that her wording is sometimes imprecise.
Conservative Voter Concerns00:01:40
She sometimes has ideological or policy flights of fancy, and I'm sure that's true.
I think one of her problems is she has not yet been fully accepted as the team leader by the team she has taken over.
Remember, she was not an MLA.
Most of the people she's working with are Jason Kenney MLAs and cabinet ministers, including Tyler Chandra himself, the right-hand man who was there at the Sky Palace, breaking the COVID rules, looking down at the little people, having a party, a liquored-up party with Jason Kenney while they were banning gatherings down below.
That's the guy who's the justice minister now.
No wonder you're having problems doing anything.
I think it's important that Danielle Smith win this election and then the next day that she cleans house.
Until next time.
Oh, before I say goodbye, I'm told there's one more chat.
Is it in the live stream?
Yeah, I think it's in the same statement.
In the same area.
Okay, I read that one in the wrong stream.
There we go.
I love Canada says 50 bucks.
Thank you.
My picture says it all.
Okay.
And the picture is a Trump shirt.
Yeah, I see it there.
Okay.
Well, thanks very much for the 50 smackers.
I really appreciate that.
And thanks for giving that through Rumble.
That's our show for today.
I'll be talking about this subject again tonight on my APM show.
You can sign up for that at RebelNewsPlus.com.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here to you at home, goodbye.