Ezra Levant exposes Alberta’s first-ever criminal prosecution of a carbon offset company for fraud, questioning the credibility of an industry he calls a scam—highlighting Volkswagen’s emissions deception, NYT and Guardian rainforest credit failures, and Bloomberg’s South Pole overclaims. Meanwhile, Environment Minister Stephen Gilbo’s 2050 fossil fuel phaseout pledge clashes with his 300-megatons-by-2030 target amid population growth, while his $450M tax-funded offset program fuels suspicions of systemic corruption. The episode ties these critiques to broader concerns: uneven enforcement of Ontario’s 2021 stay-at-home order against conservative politicians like Randy Hillier, whose Superior Court challenge tests freedom-of-assembly limits, and the legal risks of targeting right-wing figures—while inflation and Trudeau’s economic policies remain unaddressed. [Automatically generated summary]
First, I'll tell you the news about Stephen Gilbo, the environment minister.
He made an announcement overseas that he intends to shut down the oil and gas industry by 2050 or earlier.
Now, that might seem very far into the future, but it's only 26 and a half years away.
I'll give you the details on that.
And then we talked to a lawyer who was representing Randy Hillier and Derek Sloan, two conservative politicians who were charged with violating a lockdown law.
We'll tell you the happy result in that case.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Every day I do the show.
You get the video version.
Every week, my friend Sheila Gunread does a show, too.
Do it to get the video stuff, but also do it to support us because you know we don't take any money from Trudeau.
We really rely on you.
So please go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
Thanks.
Tonight, an Alberta company is prosecuted for lying about carbon offsets, but...
But aren't they all lying?
It's July 14th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you sensorism bug.
Two news stories today that fit together like a hand in a glove.
Here's the first one.
Stephen Gilbo, the convicted criminal that Trudeau appointed to be Canada's environment minister, he announced to a foreign audience, of course, that he wants to phase out fossil fuels by 2050 or earlier, he says.
That might sound very far into the future, but it's actually not.
Phasing Out Fossils by 2050?00:12:24
We're halfway through 2023.
It's almost 2024.
So imagine phasing out every natural gas stove, every furnace, every barbecue, every car and truck, except for Tesla, I guess.
Every ship, every airplane, every tractor, every combine, most power plants.
Just here in Canada, though, mind you, the rest of the world is going full tilt with fossil fuels.
Here's CNN.
Their story says, China approved equivalent of two new coal plants a week in 2022, report finds.
China is surging ahead with coal.
A new report shows rapidly approving and building new power plants despite its own promises to cut back on carbon as the world plunges ever deeper into the climate crisis.
Last year, are you feeling the crisis?
Are you nervous?
They want you to be nervous.
The pandemic's gone, so this is how they're going to make you afraid.
Last year, the country approved the highest number of new coal-fired power plants since 2015, according to the report released Monday by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air and the Global Energy Monitor.
You don't say, so China isn't following the rules that we're supposed to follow.
Here's how the left-wing NPR, National Public Radio, put it.
Their headline was, China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds, than other countries combined.
Let me read you the line so you know that's not an error.
They're quoting a research analyst.
Everybody else is moving away from coal, and China seems to be stepping on the gas, she says.
We saw that China has six times as much plants starting construction as the rest of the world combined.
But she's not quite right when she says everyone is moving off coal.
That's just not true.
Brazil isn't.
Indonesia isn't.
India isn't.
India really tied for China.
It's the largest, most populous country.
Look at this story.
India power giant to add more coal plants to meet soaring demand.
Oh, okay.
Anyways, back to our guy.
We're so proud of him, Stephen Gilbeau.
He was jetting around the world as climate activists tend to do.
He was in Brussels, Belgium, which is lovely.
And here's what he told them.
He said, according to this report, Canadian Minister, fossil fuels must be phased out no later than 2050.
World nations must agree to phase out unabated fossil fuels no later than 2050 and earlier if possible, says Stephen Gilbeau, with any residual oil and gas emissions mitigated thanks to carbon capture and storage technology, he told your active in an interview.
They asked a follow-up question.
They said, the EU is, the European Union is pushing for a phase-out of unabated fossil fuels well ahead of 2050.
Does Canada support a date for this?
And he says, in its April communique, the G7 agreed that we needed to eliminate unabated fossil fuels at the latest by 2050.
And I think we will collectively strive to do this more rapidly.
The discussion has started and it will undoubtedly continue until COP28.
COP28 is the name of the annual conference, Conference of the Parties.
This is their 28th annual meeting to deal with global warming.
They love it.
I mean, if there was no fight to fight, they couldn't get together and jet around every year.
They love the crisis.
It's like the poverty industry.
They don't want to get rid of poverty.
It's how they get rich.
It's really an annual reunion of politicians and bureaucrats and lobbyists.
I'll get back to the lobbyist part in a minute.
So back to the oil and gas phase-out.
Get a load of this.
Question.
The phase-out date will be one of the key topics for discussion at the COP28 summit later this year.
What is Canada's stance on this?
And Gilbo said, currently our position said it should be done no later than 2050.
We're certainly open to a conversation to see whether we can agree on an earlier date and what it means.
It's important to set ourselves some objectives and targets, but it's equally important that we understand our capacity to reach those objectives, even if that is 20 or 25 years from the future.
So the oil sands are going to be phased out in case you don't understand what he's saying.
No later than 20 or 25 years from now.
You heard him.
One more thing.
Canada emits 670 megatons of carbon dioxide a year, according to the government, if you believe them.
And of course, Canada is now bringing in a million new migrants every year.
So that's about 2.5%, 3% growth in our population per year.
And all those people breathe out CO2.
Some liberals say they want to have 100 million people in Canada, by the way.
It's nuts.
But of course, everyone who comes needs to cook with a stove, needs to have heat in their home in the winter, needs to move around in a car.
If you're adding 3% of the population every year, you're naturally going to have 3% growth in carbon dioxide emissions just based on population.
If you're worried about that sort of thing, I'm not actually.
I'm not worried about CO2.
But look at this.
This is Gilbo again.
In Canada's case, we need to reduce our annual emissions by about 300 megatons per year by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.
So hang on.
So we need to cut our emissions almost in half.
We're at 670.
He says we've got to cut 300 out of that.
Cars, heating your home, transportation, factories, schools, farmers, whatever.
Cut it in half, even though the population is growing by 3% a year because of immigration.
That's insane.
That's impossible, of course.
But that's their plan, and they are going to try to do it.
That's what they mean by net zero.
It's madness, but don't think for a moment that the elite ruling class won't still drive in limousines and fly on private jets to COP28.
That's how it is for the ruling club.
You're not in that club.
But here's another story that's related in the news today.
This is from Trudeau's CBC State Broadcaster.
Alberta filed first ever criminal charges against a carbon offset firm.
Here's why they may not be the last.
25 charges filed against company involved in auditing carbon offsets highlight regulatory challenges.
For the first time ever, a Canadian province has filed criminal charges against a business for providing false information related to carbon offsets, a spokesperson for Alberta's Environment Ministry said, underscoring the sometimes murky activities of companies in a complicated, rapidly growing industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Carbon offsets are bought and sold under a trading system with governments putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions to compel companies to fight climate change.
Since 2007, Alberta has run a mandatory carbon offset system for large emitters such as oil and gas companies, landfills, and food processing firms.
If they produce more than their allotted levels of carbon dioxide, they must purchase credits to offset these emissions.
The credits are generated by companies that reduce emissions by doing things like building wind farms or installing solar panels to ensure accuracy is my favorite part.
The credits are verified by third-party auditors.
The Alberta litigation centers on the role of one of these third-party verifiers.
But that's the thing.
How do you know?
How do you audit a carbon offset?
How do you audit carbon at all?
It's a natural element in the periodic table.
It's in the air.
It's what a great many things are made of.
Have you ever heard the word hydrocarbon or carbs, carbohydrates, carburetors?
You see the word in there, carbon is one of the most common elements in the world.
It's in most of our food.
It's in most parts of us as people.
It's in the breath we exhale.
It's what plants inhale.
How do you even track it?
Well, you can't.
You can guess, you can make estimates, which is why it's such a beautiful scam.
I mentioned the other day that Gilbo just sloshed around $450 million tax dollars for carbon offsets in third world countries.
You give $450 million to a third world country to build a hospital or an airport.
You're going to have half of it stolen and kickbacks and corruption and commissions.
Sure.
But you're probably going to still have an airport or a hospital at the end of it, probably.
There's something you can measure, something to audit, something to check on.
How do you do that for a carbon offset?
How do you know if a factory reduced their emissions?
You don't.
It's all based on faith.
But these aren't angels.
They're men.
I don't know if you remember a few years ago, Volkswagen was caught with a massive fraud for their carbon emissions.
Trudeau just gave them tens of billions of dollars.
But these people in the climate industry, they're worse than most men.
They're politicians and lobbyists and scammers.
And in the case of Gilbo, he's a convicted criminal.
$450 million for carbon offsets in the third world?
And you thought pandemic spending corruption was bad.
Here's a court document relating to the charges against the offset auditor in Alberta.
I'll just read a paragraph at random.
Count 12.
On or between the 15th day of June 2021 and the 29th day of June 2021, both dates inclusive.
At or near Calgary, this company did perform the functions of a third-party assurance provider and did not have the qualifications referred to in or was not eligible to be a third-party assurance provider under Section 27 of the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation and did thereby commit an offense.
So the person who was hired to provide assurance that carbon dioxide was being upset wasn't an expert assurance provider.
What's an assurance provider?
I know what an insurance provider is.
So's the insurance.
That's a real thing.
What's an assurance provider?
Someone the government says can provide assurance.
It's a fake job if you haven't guessed.
Don't take it from me, though.
Take it from all these left-wing environmentalist publications I'm about to read to you.
Here's the New York Times.
They know it.
We wish buying carbon offsets for your flight helped.
It doesn't.
No.
Here's The Guardian, left-wing paper from the UK.
Reveals more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows.
Yeah, you think.
Here's an investigation into Vera Carbon Standard.
Finds most are phantom credits and may worsen global heating.
Here's Jeff Bezos's Washington Post, a very global warming obsessed.
Airlines want you to buy carbon offsets.
Experts say they're a scam.
Spending a few dollars to offset the footprint of your flight may sound too good to be true because it is.
Climate experts say, oh yeah, it sounds really good.
I'm really excited about spending more on flying.
Here's Bloomberg, which is owned by a global warming maniac.
South Pole, the world's leading purveyor of offsets, is facing allegations that it exaggerated.
No, no, come on.
That it exaggerated climate claims around its forest protection projects.
The uncertainty could influence how legions of companies try to slash their emissions.
Yeah, the 90% who are scammers and frauds are really giving the other 10% a bad name, people.
You know, even the biggest crooks of all, Greenpeace, here's what they have to say.
They know it's a scam, and they are experts at scams, so I would trust them.
Other countries know it.
Here's Reuters in Australia.
Australia to review carbon offsets following fraud allegations.
As in, they're not picking on any one assurance provider or any one company.
They know the whole industry is a fraud.
It's a pixie dust thing.
At least with cryptocurrencies, you know if you have it or not.
That's the one thing the blockchain is good for.
You can track it.
You know if you have a Bitcoin or not.
How do you know where a puff of carbon dioxide went?
You don't.
You can't.
Charges and Discretion00:16:09
It's a joke.
It's for suckers.
It's a scam.
Which is why Justin Trudeau and Stephen Gilbo are shoveling $450 million of it to the third world.
I wonder what their kickback is.
Oh, no, no, no.
They would never take a kickback.
But really, why is the province of Alberta going through the motions of pretending that the industry is a real thing?
That carbon offsets are a real thing.
And that this one scammer that they're prosecuting is an outlier.
They're all scammers.
The whole industry is a scam.
And it's no less of a scam when Alberta does it to itself than when Stephen Gilbo does it.
Stay with us for more.
You know, I've been traveling a little bit around Canada with Sheila Gunn-Reed and Kia Simony.
Kean, of course, is our documentary filmmaker here at Rebel News.
And Sheila is the star of a film we have just released about the persecution of churches across Canada during the pandemic lockdowns.
And there's about five vignettes that tell the story, Arthur Pavlovsky being one of them, the Church of God in Aylmer, Pastor Phil out in St. John, etc.
And the overwhelming and disproportionate police response is shocking and appalling, and watching police enter churches with their hands on their firearms is disgusting and a disgrace.
But what I couldn't help but think was if it hadn't been five churches across Canada, but rather had it been 50 or 500 or maybe even 5,000, there's no way the police could have stopped it.
Not only would they have had no moral authority, the people would obviously have been against them, but there's just not enough police, just not enough courthouses, just not enough prosecutors to go after everyone.
But alas, there were just five churches, and so the police ganged up on them.
And I felt the same way about pretty much every other establishment.
I just referred to the religious establishments.
You'd think the churches would answer to a higher power, but whether it was the media or the law courts or the College of Physicians and Surgeons, everyone was complicit.
I shouldn't say everyone, because there were a handful of elected officials who said no.
And that handful, there were at least four of them in Ontario.
I refer in part to Randy Hillier, the swashbuckling former Conservative member of provincial parliament.
Roman Baber is another name that probably rings a bell, very principled lawyer who opposed the lockdowns.
Belinda Carajelios is another.
There were a handful at the federal level, Derek Sloan, the former member of parliament for the Conservatives.
Now, these folks, I wish there had been 10 times as many.
I wish they had cohered together and started a sort of anti-lockdown political party, but alas they were divided.
But I must give a shout out to Randy Hillier and Derek Sloan for putting their money where their mouth is and like Maxime Bernier, going to a public event outdoors to exercise their freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.
And both Randy Hillier and Derek Sloan were charged with this fake crime.
And they didn't buckle and they didn't ask the queen for mercy and say, oh, please, Master, I'll plead guilty.
In fact, they fought.
And two weeks ago, they won.
The Crown dropped the charges against both men in return for a very modest gift to charity by Derek Sloan and Randy Hillier doing a few hours in a food bank.
I don't think that either man should have done anything, but I'm sure neither minded giving a gift to charity.
They're charitable people.
I'm delighted to say that we have with us today the lawyer who secured this stay of prosecution for both men.
His name is Chris Fleury.
He works with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
He's based in Belleville, Ontario, and he joins us now online.
Chris, great to meet you and congratulations.
Tell me what it was like dealing with the police and the crown prosecutors, because if I'm not mistaken, these charges go back two years.
For two years, they've been coming at you.
You would think that there's no actual crime in this country, no stabbings in the subway, no gun crime, for them to put prosecutorial resources behind getting two politicians two years later.
Thanks, Ezra.
It's a pleasure to be with you.
If I could just, I want to sort of correct one point in your introduction.
Sure.
It's actually much worse than you, that you point out the crime or the provincial offense that these two individuals were charged with.
It's not that they dared to gather and to protest.
It's that they dared to leave their house.
So if you remember back in April of, this is April through June of 2021, the Ontario government invoked the second stay-at-home order, which said that a person may not leave their house unless they're, or sorry, leave their residence unless they're leaving for one of 29 what the Ontario government essentially deemed to be essential purposes.
So four of which had to do with pets, actually, which seemed to, in my mind, get more preference than children in Ontario, but that's another story.
So they're charged with having the temerity to leave their residence, and that's what the essence of the Crown's case was.
That's incredible.
That is literally a police state.
If you cannot leave your house, it's clearly a violation of our Charter of Rights, freedom of mobility, freedom of association, freedom of assembly.
There's no scientific basis whatsoever.
There's no pandemic exception in our Charter of Rights, by the way.
How many other people were charged with this fake offense?
Because it looks awful lot to me like Randy Hillier and Derek Sloan were targeted by the police and the prosecution.
Obviously, countless people left their homes.
I was living in Ontario during that period of time, and I didn't obey that law for one minute.
Were there a lot of people charged under this bizarre and North Korea-style law, or did they just go after political leaders like Derek Sloan and Randy Hillier?
So I represented four individuals who were charged in relation to that protest.
The other two are Mr. Henry Hildebrandt and Mr. Aaron Rock, both of whom are religious leaders who spoke at the protest.
Generally speaking, the police seem to target leaders and organizers and speakers at the protest as opposed to just the individuals who peacefully gather.
I'm not surprised.
I think a real, the authoritarian bully, I suppose there's a small devil, an angel within each of us, and the authoritarian bully within police and prosecutors certainly had its time to shine then.
Tell me, how many prosecutors and police, by your estimate, did you deal with over the last two years?
I imagine there was a police officer who issued the ticket, and then there was perhaps another police officer, and then there was a prosecutor, maybe more than one.
I'm just trying to get some measure of the public resources that were put towards hounding Randy Hillier and Derek Sloan for two years.
There is, and I should clarify, Ezra, I haven't been acting for Mr. Sloan and Mr. Hillier since 2021.
I came on board with the Justice Center in January.
Before that, I was doing a lot of criminal defense work and suing insurance companies and a more traditional legal practice.
Since I came on board, I'm representing individuals all across the province, well-known individuals and politicians, religious leaders, and lesser-known individuals.
The amount of resources spent is, quite frankly, is extraordinary.
In some cases, they're bylaw officers that are giving out these tickets.
So individuals who would normally be giving out traffic or parking violations.
But in some cases, and in Stratford in particular, there were a number of officers who showed up at this protest and took very detailed notes and did a very detailed investigation in support of the Crown's case.
What in the end made the crown cut a deal?
And I can imagine if there was a risk of some sort of a conviction and penalty, and if the two men were told, look, just work in the food bank for a day, you do that anyways.
Give a hundred bucks to charity, you do that anyways, and this whole thing's over.
I can imagine it made sense just for the men to do it.
But, you know, you don't have two years worth of police investigation, two years worth of prosecutorial chasing to end with a whimper like that.
Something must have changed.
What or who made the crown blink?
You know, it's difficult to say, and I don't want to speak for the crown attorney.
What I can say is that one of the most frustrating aspects of defending, again, these cases all over the province is the lack of uniformity of treatment.
That even Mr. Hillier, who is facing charges in relation to essentially the exact same conduct of attending a peaceful protest in over a half a dozen now jurisdictions across the province, many of those charges were withdrawn in the early days.
Many have been, or some I should say, have been what I would call diverted, meaning that they entered into an agreement to make a charitable donation or to do community service.
And then in other cases, the Crown is seeking very large fines.
And it's quite frankly, it's difficult to make sense of.
And in a certain sense, I have some sympathy for the prosecutors that they're not given any guidance on this.
They know that if an individual is charged and they're not an organizer, there's no minimum fine and it's a $100,000 maximum fine.
But the prosecution has enormous discretion within that range.
And to be clear, no one's talking about $100,000 fine for any of these individuals.
But there are certainly fines into the $5,000 range that prosecutors are talking about.
And other prosecutors are exercising their discretion to withdraw the charges, stay the charges, divert the charges.
And it is, quite frankly, it's difficult to make heads or tails of why a particular decision is made.
Well, I think that chaos and the punitive nature of it was the point, actually, just to scare people so much.
I think that $100,000 fine was exactly that.
It was a psyop to make people say, well, I'd better not go out.
I could lose my whole life savings.
And I think the punitive nature, the abusiveness.
I recall in Toronto when one man opened a barbecue.
It was Adamson's barbecue, Adam Skelly, if I recall his name.
And over 100 police were sent to shut down this barbecue, including riot horses.
And that was not a police operation.
That was a theatrical operation, a shock and awe to deter others from doing so.
I think police and prosecutors both allowed themselves to be used as political weapons, which is one of the hallmarks of a police state, where the police are there to scare.
We saw that during the convoy when the bully police would announce, if you have a child with you in your truck, we'll call child family services and seize him.
If you have a pet with you, the SPCA will seize your pet.
Both of those were lies, by the way, but it was part of getting people terrified of the government.
And I think it was super gross how police and prosecutors went along with it.
I got a question for you.
If the events that led to the charges happened, if I'm not mistaken, back in 2021, at what point in time do these cases age out?
Because, of course, there's a charter right to a speedy trial.
And there's been different cases that say, well, that means 18 months, that means 24 months, et cetera.
What's the rule on that?
Because you have thousands of lockdown tickets and offenses, and some people paid them willingly.
They rushed to pay them just to get the stress out of their lives.
But for those who didn't, when will they be in the clear?
So the cases that you're talking about, say 18 months, Ezra, that the Supreme Court of Canada has said that a case in the provincial courts has 18 months to get to trial.
And then after that, there's presumptive prejudice to the defendant, and the charge will likely be stayed at that point.
That applies to the Ontario Court of Appeal, has said that that applies to not just criminal matters in the provincial court, but also to provincial offenses act matters, which is what we're talking about here.
There is a concerning line of cases that's coming out of the provincial offenses court or that has come out of the provincial offenses court adjudicating these what are called Jordan motions,
referencing the Supreme Court of Canada decision or 11B motions, which essentially say that the entire period that the Provincial Offenses Act court was closed, that is considered an exceptional circumstance and is not counted towards the period of delay.
And the viewers probably won't know this, but the unless they perhaps had a traffic ticket throughout this period.
But the provincial courts, the criminal division, was open beginning in, I believe it was June or July of 2020.
They closed for the initial period of COVID and then opened back up to in-person matters and were open to in-person matters throughout most of the pandemic with some small exceptions.
The Provincial Offenses Act court remained closed, even though it's still a division of the provincial court.
It remained closed to in-person matters up until the spring of 2022.
But I'm sure they all have no paid.
I mean, that's what the pandemic was for the governing class.
It was a staycation.
I mean, no one was laid off.
No one wasn't paid.
They were paid, weren't they?
The prosecutors and the court staff, I'm sure, were working throughout that period.
So they love the pandemic.
Pandemic's the best thing to ever happen to them.
All the pay, none of the work.
And then they prosecute, or I would say persecute any political dissidents.
Hey, congratulations on this.
And of course, we love the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, and this is a big win.
Persecution During Pandemic00:06:35
I understand that not very long from now, Randy Hillier is challenging the constitutionality of some of these laws.
Can you tell us a little bit about that?
So Randy's on defense.
I'm calling him Randy.
I know him.
Randy's on defense for this charge, and you managed to make it go away.
But tell me about his constitutional challenge where he seeks to have the entire lockdown deemed unconstitutional.
Can you give me some details on that?
So as I mentioned, Mr. Hillier is charged in jurisdictions across the province.
And rather than bringing what at the time would have been 10 separate charter applications in the provincial offenses court, what we've proposed to do, and the prosecution has agreed, is that there will be one Superior Court challenge in Toronto, which adjudicates the issues.
And specifically, whether The stay-at-home order that I was referencing from April to June of 2021, whether or not that was a breach of Mr. Hillier's right to freedom of assembly, and indeed all Ontarians' right to freedom of assembly, and whether or not that, if it was, whether or not it's saved by Section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit.
Yeah.
Well, I think we better send a reporter to the court to watch that, but I got some bad news for you.
Not a single lockdown measure, whether it was the stay-at-home order or the curfew in Quebec or the quarantine detentions at airports or the ArriveCan app, or of course, firing thousands of people for not getting jabbed.
Not a single lockdown provision has been found to be unconstitutional in Canada that I'm aware of.
Maybe you're aware of a case.
And our Supreme Court of Canada is too busy.
They've been busy with other things, you see, so they just didn't bother getting around to anything regarding the pandemic.
Maybe they will in a few years.
So I'm glad that Randy's fighting, and I understand that you're part of his legal team that's fighting.
But I think I know how it ends.
It ends with the governing class confirming that they did everything right.
And yes, they absolutely had the legal power to treat us like prisoners.
So call me a pessimist, but I've seen about 20 lawsuits fail.
Who knows?
Maybe you're lucky.
Maybe you'll get a judge who's the scales have fallen from his eyes, but I'm a pessimist.
I think I'm a little more optimistic than you, Ezra.
I'd acknowledge that your summary of the Canadian judicial landscape as it relates to COVID is accurate.
That the courts have not been our friends in terms of the fight for freedom in Canada, particularly during COVID.
There is one case out of BC where the Superior Court in BC did rule that a similar provision was in breach of the BC citizens and the particular applicant in that case, his right to freedom of assembly.
In that case, the BC Crown actually conceded that it was a breach of freedom of assembly.
But other than that, you're correct that the decisions just have not been favorable.
The other thing to note, though, is that this case is relatively unique in the sense that we're talking about literally locking people in their houses, a form of house arrest.
That we just haven't seen a legal decision on something of this nature to date.
So we're quite optimistic.
Well, I appreciate that.
And that is such an extreme thing, although they had a form of that in Quebec with their curfew.
And by the way, for part of that, they did not have the pet exemption.
Imagine a health law that says you're not allowed to take your dog outside to poop.
It's got a poop in your house for health reasons.
That was the madness of the lockdowns.
Well, Chris, congratulations on your achievement to get the two men out of those charges.
Good luck in the charter challenge coming up.
Thanks for the tip about the BC case.
I'll brief myself on it to make sure I understand it.
And congrats to the Justice Center for another job well done.
Thanks, Ezra.
It's a pleasure to be with you.
Right on.
You too.
Keep up the fight.
Well, there you have it.
Chris Fleury, a lawyer who defended Derek Sloan and Randy Hillier.
He's with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom.
Stay with us more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me, Mary2023, says, most of us know that the new Toronto mayor was placed, not elected.
The election fraud and CCP foreign influence continues in Canada's elections.
I'm going to disagree with you.
I absolutely believe that Communist China wanted her to win.
There was also another candidate named Gong who was deeply connected to the Chinese Communist Party, really bizarrely.
But I do not think she was placed there.
I think that Toronto is that woke.
She's the widow of Jack Layton, the saint who led the NDP.
She's a socialist.
She's a bicycle activist, anti-car extremist, defund the cops.
She just had name recognition.
There were over 100 candidates for mayor.
She was the name people knew.
So, yeah, Communist China is happy she won.
But don't kid yourself, Toronto, the left-wing city, the woke city, they love her.
IB 9511 says, Ezra, but there seems to be no consequences to our politicians' behavior.
What will make Olivia Chow accountable?
What would trigger Trudeau's removal?
Well, I mean, Doug Ford just gave increased powers to the mayor of Toronto, which is terrifying.
There is a city council, but it's largely in the same vein as she is.
Trudeau will be removed when voters vote him out, or which is unlikely to happen, if his party removes him as a leader.
There is no such thing as removing a prime minister in our system, other than through the parliamentary processes.
And if you think that he's going to be charged with some crime and removed that way, you are wrong.
Trudeau's Removal: Myths Debunked00:00:50
And you want to be wrong, because if we could remove politicians through some tricky legal process, don't think they wouldn't do that to any politicians on the right.
They would be the first to go.
Og Chaka says, interest rates being so low for so long as part of the problem.
Too many people got comfortable being over-leveraged and now they're in trouble.
Well, that's true.
And I suppose, buyer beware, it's everyone's own risk that they had to assess.
But Justin Trudeau said, oh, rates are low and will be low forever.
And then he's the one who made them go high by stimulating inflation, by printing so much money and by jacking up taxes on basic items like energy.
So yeah, I suppose if you got a variable rate mortgage, it's on you.