Tom Marazzo’s The People’s Emergency Act offers a firsthand, vetted account of the January–February 2021 Freedom Convoy in Ottawa, where Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act despite constitutional requests like the MOU—drafted by James Botter and Keith Wilson—later retracted amid media backlash. The book contrasts convoy organizers’ nonviolent actions with prosecutorial overreach, like Tamara Leech’s 50-day jail time, fueled by partisan bias (e.g., Liberal prosecutor Kerminji). Marazzo also critiques Canada’s $9B Ukraine funding, questioning NATO’s priorities while Russia’s cyber and military strengths (five Siberian brigades vs. Canada’s three understrength units) go unaddressed, and slams Pierre Poilievre for failing to push peace talks. Available in hardcover, softcover, and soon Kindle/audiobook, it challenges mainstream narratives on both convoy dissent and climate policy, where Alberta Premier Smith’s expert debates highlight Canada’s carbon-negative forests—undercutting global carbon tax demands. [Automatically generated summary]
A Convoy Insider has published a brand new book telling his side of the story.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Many of you may know my guest today from Rebel News' extensive ongoing coverage of the Public Order Emergency Commission.
It's Tom Morazzo.
was a key player in last year's Freedom Convoy, which was the anti-mandate demonstration that was led by truckers and converged in Ottawa the end of January through to the middle of February before the federal government used a never-before-invoked counterterrorism law called the Emergencies Act to give police and authorities extraordinary powers to end
the peaceful human rights demonstration.
Now, Tom has written a brand new book and the interview you're about to hear is a little long, but I think it's great because I love talking to Tom and I think you guys love hearing from him.
So here's the interview we recorded earlier today.
Joining me now is good friend of the rebel, my friend, brand new author, Tom Marazzo.
And he's on the show today to talk about his new book, The People's Emergency Act.
But there's so many things happening in the news right now that touch on things that I know Tom was either involved in or definitely has an opinion on.
So Tom, thanks for taking the time to come on the show.
But first, before we get into the mockery the liberals continue to make of our country and what a bunch of hypocrites they are, I wanted to talk to you about your book.
Now, tell us a little bit about the book.
Don't give away the cow here.
Tell us, you know, a little bit about your book and I guess also why it was so important for you to write a book from your perspective and from your experience with the Freedom Convoy.
Yeah, well, thanks for having me on the show.
I really do appreciate it.
It's really, I tried.
One of the things I really wanted to do was capture this story to get into the hands of Canadians who supported the convoy, but not just them.
Also, I'm hoping that people that didn't support the convoy would read this book and say, that's not what I thought that this convoy was about.
Like that has, that's literally not the same as the narrative that people were consuming in the mainstream media.
And so it's a book for all audiences.
It's not just our side of the story.
But I will say it is a very in-depth look at what happened behind the scenes.
And it's not meant to just be, oh, Tom Marazzo is so great because the book is not, yes, I'm the author of the book.
Yes, it is through my lens, but the book is not about me.
It's about everything and all the people that were participating in the background.
And when I started doing the book, it was about six months after the Convoy that I decided to write the book because I wasn't sure that it was my story to tell.
And lucky for me, a lot of the Freedom Corps board members said, yeah, go ahead and do it because I asked.
I didn't want someone to think that, you know, maybe I shouldn't be writing this book about something that belonged to all Canadians.
But I got the buy-in from, you know, the majority of the board members or the ones at the time that were still on the board.
And I felt that it was important initially that when I first started the project, just write about what I was involved in.
Don't speculate.
Don't interview other people because there are other books out there.
Andrew Lawton did a great book, but Andrews is based on, yes, his own experience, but also a series of interviews.
So I didn't want to go down that road.
I just wanted it to be like, you know, I had a GoPro on my head.
And if it's in the GoPro, it makes it into the book.
So that's kind of where I was going initially.
Second thing is I wanted to show all of the warts from behind the scenes, but I still wanted to be respectful.
I didn't want it to be a book about division and vilification of other people.
You know, not everybody liked me behind the scenes and I wasn't happy with everybody else either.
But I didn't think it was necessary to create sort of this division within the book and to talk about really gossip type of things.
But I wanted to talk about the impacts of bad decisions that myself, that I made and other people made, as well as the good decisions.
So, you know, the book really does, I hope that it captures really the good, the bad, and the ugly of what happened behind the scenes.
But I know I missed out on a lot of stuff.
I mean, there's a lot packed into this book.
But I also tried to capture what later on became a lot of the controversial issues.
Now, I don't talk about the money because that has been talked about and picked over, you know, like a carcass out in the middle of the desert by many, many, many people in different podcasts.
But I did talk about, for example, this great document that Keith Wilson and many other people drafted called the Roadmap to Freedom.
What we were trying to do, what was sort of the intent of that document.
I spent a lot of time talking about my personal desire in my attempt to influence everybody to get as many vehicles up onto Wellington as possible.
And it turns out that that later became a very controversial issue.
So I spend a lot of time talking about what my thinking was and why I was trying to influence that action.
So there's a lot of stuff in there that has been later deemed to be controversial amongst the supporters of the convoy and social media.
I did talk about a few times I had missteps doing live streams, which the legacy media just completely capitalized on, went after me and people that, you know, other organizers of the convoy and tried to create this awful narrative.
And, you know, I also spent a lot of time talking about the MOU because I think it's an important chapter to understand what, you know, what the intent of that MOU actually was.
Now, I didn't draft the MOU.
I wasn't part of it.
I didn't submit it.
I don't even think I signed it.
But over 300,000 Canadians did sign that as a petition and wanted that presented to the Governor General of Canada.
So there was a lot of support for the MOU.
Let's just stop right here because people have described the MOU, so the Memorandum of Understanding from Convoy supporters.
I don't think it was from the Convoy directly as a manifesto to overthrow the government.
That's what it's been described by in the media and by the liberals, although I think I always say I think I'm repeating myself when I make a distinction between those two parties.
But why don't we stop right there and just explain what was going on with, as you say, the MOU, the Memorandum of Understanding?
Yeah, so it's important for people to understand that Canada Unity, which was an organization, James Botter is the one who called me and got me to the convoy.
But I didn't know who James was when he called me the morning I actually went to the convoy.
No involvement in Canada Unity.
But Canada Unity had been working on this memorandum of understanding for at least six months prior to the convoy.
And it was something that they sent registered mail to the governor general and to various departments within the federal government.
So it had sort of a clear objective to get the governor general to exercise what Canada Unity believed was within her power to exercise.
So it's not like they were trying to create a new body of law or a new mechanism.
They were asking for the governor general to do what they believed was an actual mechanism within government.
And if you read through the document, there's no or else.
There's no threat.
There's like, if you don't do this, we're going to do that.
There's nothing of the kind in there.
And there's one little tiny sentence in there that is a little bit wishy-washy, but it's not very, I never perceived it as something that was aggressive or threatening.
It was actually, in my read of it, was sort of a sentence of desperation.
Right.
You know, and this is what I'll say about it.
One, it's not illegal to request that your government do something.
Two, if it's not threatening and you're actually sending it by registered mail to the government, does that sound like you're an insurrectionist?
I mean, really?
Did the mainstream media pick up on that point?
It's like, well, how did you give it to the, oh, we sent it registered mail.
Oh, you mean you didn't storm the front gate and run across the grounds at Parliament Hill and, you know, demand.
No, they sent it registered mail.
So, you know, that's an important chapter because I never felt like the Canada Unity and the drafters of the MOU got a fair shake in the media or in the public eye.
And I wasn't involved with it.
The reason it came onto my radar is because after it blew up in the media, I had a difficult conversation with one of the drafters of the document.
And I don't know that it was my influence, but I think he was getting the same pushback from a lot of people at the same time.
But they retracted it.
Like they made a public statement basically retracting the MOU.
And that's something that was never also put out in the legacy media.
You know, it was this big manifesto, as you said.
But I think it was a disgustingly unfair indictment by the legacy media and the political opportunists to go after the convoy for something that really, you know, to use a, it was a nothing burger, which was the majority of the things that we got accused of were all just ridiculous accusations.
So, you know, it was, it was just unfair.
And I, I felt that Canada Unity deserved to get something in writing to discuss their side of the issue.
Now, I never interviewed anybody from Canada Unity for the book because I was looking at it from my own lens because it came up at the Public Order Emergency Commission, which is, which is another thing.
Like I wasn't going to write about the commission.
I wasn't going to do that.
But because I was there for seven and a half weeks, it became apparent to me.
So I delayed the launch of the book because I realized I need to bring in a lot of the testimony that we heard at the Public Order Emergency Commission.
I didn't think the book would be as good if I didn't demonstrate what we were trying to do and what we were thinking with what the actions of the government and the law enforcement were doing to counter what we were there to do.
And so I thought it was beneficial to the reader to see that I hate to use the phrase, but compare and contrast.
I'm going to trigger people from their grade eight testing, but it was important to get that testimony and to also look at the outcome of the actual Public Order Emergency Commission.
And I'm absolutely disgusted by the outcome.
And I wrote about, you know, Brendan Miller's involvement in that in the case that he was building and all the agreement that he got from law enforcement and government.
But in the end, Injustice Rouleau ruled that the government was completely justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.
So, you know, I touched on a lot of different things and I probably could have doubled the size of this book, but I'd be 60 by the time I published it.
So I kept it down to 50 years old and that was my line.
Now, I'm glad you mentioned the Public Order Emergency Commission because that was really the first, I don't know, airing of the evidence for the government to do the things that they did to, I think, Canada's largest human rights demonstration of our time, if not ever.
And you were intrinsically involved in that, not as an organizer.
You always preface that, look, I wasn't an organizer.
I was just a guy doing things, which I think is fair and quite humble.
But you were, I guess, the person who was really working hard to execute those good faith agreements that the convoy had reached with the city, you know, to alleviate the congestion in the downtown core, to alleviate some of the pressures on the people who live and work in the downtown core, albeit most of them were working from home, but that's another story.
You know, and so what was it like to have lived through that, experienced it firsthand, been an intrinsic part of all of it, showing that you were working hard to make this not an emergency, and yet it's declared a valid emergency for which the government could use any and all means by which to smash the freedoms of Canadians.
Shoe Protest Echoes00:03:32
Yeah.
Do you remember when George Bush Jr. was leaving office and he was at a podium and somebody picked up their shoe and fired it at him?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, I can tell you, I have a size 14 shoe and I had moments of, you know, fantasy where I was throwing my size 14 across the room at people on the witness stand during the commission.
You know, you're working really hard, really, really hard to, and I always use this term because I believe it to my core, to be safe and responsible.
If you're going to exercise your, you know, Section 2 charter rights to peacefully assemble, you have to demonstrate that through action.
And we tried our best to do that.
And I believe that all the truckers understood that intuitively, that they needed to be good custodians of the area that they were inhabiting, take care of it, and to be appreciative of the fact that, yes, people do live there.
It's not, you know, it was never the citizens of Ottawa that we were there to interrupt.
We were there to basically protest against the actions of the federal government.
And we used every tool at our disposal, but we were safe.
We were responsible.
So to go to the commission and see government bureaucrat after bureaucrat after bureaucrat get up there and literally tell lies.
And here's the interesting thing, if you contrast that there's that word again if you contrast that with what the law enforcement said, it's a totally different picture.
And you know why is because we never ever, met with a single elected official from any level of government in Canada during that entire convoy.
But we did meet repeatedly every day.
We had good communications with the police on the few occasions.
You know, I met with the city manager, Steve Canilakis um the, the safety uh, the person responsible for safety and emergency preparedness, I think um Arena uh, Kim Arnott or Auth i'm i've lost that yeah uh, you know their, their testimony at the commission were like yeah, like it's, it's actually pretty good.
Like when the fire department testified uh, it was like yeah, the lanes were open.
Like the people we directly interacted with from the government, the non-elected officials actually told the truth and I don't want to say advocated for us, but they told the truth of the situation on the ground.
The elected politicians at every level got up there and had a completely different story.
Uh, why would that be when they never, ever once, engaged with us.
They never spoke to us and they never, ever followed the advice of law enforcement, and that was a thing.
They outright rejected all suggestions that it would be a political solution or an engagement solution.
Every politician wanted to go to an enforcement solution and that's what they did.
And that's why there's two different narratives, by those who interacted with us and by those who refused to because they couldn't give up on the lies that they had already started telling before the convoy even arrived in in Ottaw.
Two Different Narratives00:08:40
Now our friend, Tamara Leech, is currently on trial in Ottawa right now for her role in the convoy as an organizer.
She spent 50 days in jail already and the government still wants their pound of flesh from her.
Even if she were convicted of all the charges against her, she would never see the inside of a jail cell uh, people convicted of, you know, mischief and counseling to commit mischief in and out, they wouldn't even see that like wouldn't even serve a day in jail, and yet the government is wasting infinite resources to try to throw her behind bars.
I think it's because the convoy and, by extension, Tamara herself being, I think, the face of the convoy but also the spiritual leader of the convoy that this was a peaceful movement, a unity movement of our fellow Canadians.
I think it's the single greatest example of opposition that Justin Trudeau's government has ever faced.
She embarrassed him internationally.
That's her real crime here.
What do you think?
Absolutely, I agree.
I totally agree.
And I've said this publicly many times before, is I think that the crown prosecutor who originally went after her thought that he was going to break her.
And he just, he completely didn't know Tamara.
He didn't know the strength of Tamara Leach.
And he chose wrongly.
He thought that he was going to break a Canadian who organized the greatest protest in our history.
And what he did was actually create a martyr because there's no way that Tamara was ever going to bend to the will of fools in criminals that are now occupying various levels of government in this country.
So I think it is political prosecution.
And what's interesting is Kerminji, the crown prosecutor who started all of this, has been removed from the case.
And the case has now been handed off to this new guy.
And from my read, you know, trying to follow as closely as I can with this trial, he was handed the worst possible case.
He doesn't understand the evidence or he does.
I don't know.
But it doesn't seem like he's prepared.
It doesn't seem like he's doing a great job of presenting something that is damning towards the defense.
In fact, everything he put ups ends up putting egg on his face.
So you look at the strategy and nobody understands the current crown prosecutor's strategy.
I don't think he has one.
And I don't think he even knows what it is.
I don't think he could have one.
I don't think he could have one given the mess that he was handled.
I think, you know, I don't know him personally.
I don't agree with his prosecution of Tamara, but I think he was given a mess and he's trying to make the best of the mess that he was given by Karimji, the prior crown on the case.
Yeah, that's my read too, is that he inherited absolute garbage.
I don't, you know, whether he believes in the case or not, it's, it's irrelevant.
He has to prosecute this if he's been told you will prosecute this.
But I really, once they get through all the evidence phase and the crown has, you know, made their case, I just don't think that this judge currently is going to have a lot of patience and tolerance.
And she's probably, I don't think this trial is going to go to the, go the distance, to be perfectly honest.
That's my prediction.
I'm wrong all the time.
So take that for what it's worth.
But I don't think it's going to go the distance.
I think the crown is going to have to just yield and say, look, this is my case, but we don't, we don't, based on the evidence that we've presented, we don't see a prosecution here and that they're going to have to yield or basically quit, throw in the towel on this one.
And as a as a result, and this is what I hope, because it is a grotesque waste of resources and time.
It's putting a lot of Canadians under stress, not to mention Chris and Tamara.
It's impacting their lives, their families, their communities in this country.
So I think I'd be shocked if it went the distance because clearly there's nothing here.
There's nothing here.
And the judges repeatedly said, this is not a trial.
These two are not on trial for the convoy.
They're on trial specifically for what their role was.
So it's their actions that need to be examined.
It's not what the rest of the truckers or anyone else did.
This is about them.
This is their trial, not the convoys trial.
And she's been doing a really good job of maintaining that.
You know, you said something really poignant there when you spoke about the first prosecutor thinking that he could break Tamara, which was a gross misread of the situation.
And frankly, the people who participated in the convoy, because these were people who were conscientious objectors to all the bad things they saw happening around them for two plus years with regard to the government's response to the pandemic.
These were people who refused to participate in a vaccine passport system, skeptics of everything.
These were the kind of people you normally would elevate to positions of management in society, in your public institutions.
Instead, they were the ones purged.
So I think you're right when he, you know, someone who doesn't understand the mindset of somebody who sees the world in black and white and right and wrong, that prosecutor couldn't understand why Tamara just wouldn't bend, wouldn't just plead guilty, wouldn't just behave herself and put an end to all of this.
Yeah, I agree.
And I believe it is what we're seeing, this emergence of this very fierce liberal hubris, because as we found out, this crown prosecutor, the first one who was targeting her, was a, you know, a member of the Liberal Party.
And it was discovered that he was quite a huge financial supporter of the Liberal Party.
And so you can't say that there's an ethical point of view for this guy's actions when he's literally doing stuff on behalf.
He's not recusing himself.
He's not examining his own ethical behavior in the prosecution of Tamara.
I mean, this guy issued a Canada-wide warrant for Tamara's arrest because she appeared in a photograph with me at a dinner for which we were surrounded by our lawyers and we were not in violation of the bail.
And she spent another 25 days in jail for appearing in a photograph with me.
We didn't violate the bail condition in any way.
And yet he was still left on the case for months and months.
Like we don't, we don't issue in this country Canada-wide warrants for people's arrest for even things like rape.
They have to be violent, dangerous offenders who are on the loose before we issue a Canada-wide warrant.
And yet we issued a Canada-wide warrant because she was in a photograph with somebody and flew a detective out to Alberta to pick her up.
Yes.
And she was denied bail from a justice of the peace.
By the way, you don't have to be a lawyer, even to be a JP in this country.
It took days before she went before a judge.
When she appeared in court, she was in shackles around her ankles and wrists because she appeared in a photograph.
And because this crown prosecutor, who is a liberal card-carrying member and donor, had a vendetta against her because it was his city of Ottawa, his city that this was done to.
Ottawa Protests Echo Nation's Capital00:03:00
I'm sorry, you live in the nation's capital.
This is Protest Central.
The city of Ottawa, one in three, every third day on average, there is a protest in the city of Ottawa.
And if you chose to live there and be a lawyer, well, you're going to have to just live with protests like normal people deal with train crossings.
And, you know, it might be his city, but it is the nation's capital.
So it's the nation's capital for all Canadians.
And, you know, to for the people who live and work in Ottawa to be so offended that Canadians converged on their nation's capital.
It was always very, it was very strange to me.
Now, I want to ask you, because I, Tom, you know, I could probably talk to you all day, but I want to make sure this video is watchable for our people.
I want to ask you about what's unfolding in Ottawa right now with regard to Justin Trudeau trotting out a Waffen-SS veteran and acknowledging him and not just acknowledging him in the House of Commons, but giving the man a standing ovation and a hero's welcome after, you know, he because he fought the Germans, or sorry, fought the Russians.
That was the reason they gave.
You were, you know, called all manner of names by Justin Trudeau himself, you know, a white supremacist, fringe extremist, a radical.
You were accused of being, you know, perhaps maybe influenced by the Russians, you're a Kremlin-backed operation.
And now after Justin Trudeau spent upwards of three years calling anybody to the right of Chairman Mao who might disagree with him, a Nazi, the man trots out a real Nazi and says, oh, no, no, no, it was the Speaker of the House.
It was, it was, it wasn't, it had nothing to do with us.
Give me your opinions about what's going on in Ottawa right now.
It's wild.
I'm not sure.
I think heads are going to roll.
We're filming this on Tuesday.
I think we might see somebody thrown into the volcano today, but I think there might be a few more down the road.
Yeah, you know, I think one of the things, so from where I come from, you know, it's called falling on the sword, right?
You, you take the heat for your boss, but on the condition that you really screwed up, you know, you screw up, you own it.
You do have to protect your boss, you know, and that's from a military point of view.
But you only protect your boss if your boss is worth protecting.
Right.
And when I, when I look at the liberal government, I mean, this party, no matter what this man does, they, they circle the wagons around Justin Trudeau and they all become bullet catchers for him.
Ukraine's Complex Conflict00:09:52
And, you know, as far as Rhoda, yeah, he made a mistake.
I don't know the nature of the mistake, you know, and I'm going to take a shot on the official opposition as well on this one.
Because I, you know, I've got a bone to pick with them as well.
But this is the way I look at it.
And I want to say this before I continue.
The thing that really burned me today, I think the biggest thing that burned me today is one of the liberal MPs stood up in the commons and said, hey, can we just forget about it?
Can we just erase all record of this thing happening?
Yeah.
Karina Gloria.
You've got to be kidding.
I bet she wants to erase it because she's the one holding hands with him in her Instagram photo that she wants erased.
And the worst part of it all is she should know better.
Her grandparents were at Auschwitz.
Her parents met on a kibbutz in Israel.
Her own family history is tragically linked to the actions of the Waffen-SS.
And she didn't realize that when the speaker said he fought against the Russians, she didn't stop and think, oh man, actually the Russians were on our side.
That woman should know better.
So of course she wants her mistake erased from the annals of history.
course, we want cancel culture, right?
And it's convenient.
And so what really disturbs me about this whole thing, excuse me, is the fact that since 2014, you know, when this conflict in Ukraine had happened in the Donbass region, you know, there's this whole true story about, okay, so true is relative, but this whole story about what has been happening in the Ukraine since 2014 with the Americans,
the ties to Nazi Germany and actual, you know, neo-Nazis within the government of Ukraine.
I mean, that whole thing has been out there in the open.
And prior to Russia going into the Ukraine, it was widely known by the West that Ukraine, not really a friendly country here, like literally full of Nazi lineage units who wore the swastika on their current uniforms.
I mean, there's some really bad people in this country with a very, very dark history.
And yet here we are with a federal government, all parties unanimously are getting behind this regime.
And I find that to be unbelievably disturbing when you consider the fact that Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Ukraine, as a former member of the old Warsaw Pact, were literally mortal enemies of NATO and the West.
Now, we don't have an obligation under any treaty to come to the defense of Ukraine.
We don't.
I don't understand why Canada is at this point contributed almost $8 billion of our tax dollars to the war effort for Ukraine to fight the Russians.
And I want people to understand this.
It's not about being pro-Russia, pro-Ukraine, or anti-anything.
It's ask the serious bloody questions.
You know, in 1960s, early 60s under Kennedy, he had the Cuban Missile Crisis and the world got behind him because they objected to the Russians putting nuclear weapons in Cuba.
Okay.
Back with George Bush Sr., he knew let's not have NATO expansion towards the border of with Russia.
Stay out of it.
And some of the presidents after started to say, no, let's start to encroach, get more NATO members on the border with Russia.
So now all of a sudden, NATO is creeping on the border of Russia and Russia saying, hey, we don't want any part of this.
We don't like you on our border anymore.
And they've been pushing back.
But all of a sudden, we are now pushing and advancing towards Russian territory.
And we're aligning with a former mortal enemy.
And we're saying that that mortal enemy, who just a few years ago we didn't like, we literally, our media was reporting about the Nazi connection with Nazi units in Ukraine.
But we're sending our money and we're supporting their righteous cause to defend themselves.
Like we are aligning with Nazis, modern day Nazis, neo-Nazi units in the Ukraine.
You know, these are people that have a long lineage of killing Jews and other nations.
Men, if you look at the history of the Ukrainians towards Poland, it's incredibly sadistic.
And yet here we are propping up this government and sending them billions upon billions of our tax dollars to real Nazis.
And now, yes, when they come into the House of Commons and we're celebrating them with the leader, Zelensky, of this regime.
I mean, look at the history of this guy.
Look what he's doing to journalists in this country, what he's doing with elections, what he's doing with the official opposition party.
I mean, this guy's not a nice guy.
And hey, at the end of the day, we got an actor in charge of Canada who's given almost $8 billion in support to another actor of the country of Ukraine.
And if that's not the greatest show on earth, I don't know what is.
But to go back to your original question, these are the people that vilified Canadians and called them Nazis.
These are the people who under the anti-hate network were vilifying a five-time deployed combat veteran, James Topp, who walked from British Columbia to Ottawa, and they called him a Nazi.
And the Royal Canadian Legion in this country canceled a bunch of venues that his supporters were trying to host for him.
Well, they host, you know, story time with drag queens for children, but they don't let a Nazi like James Topp into their legions.
But we can just have the Liberal government of Canada march in a no-Nazi.
By the way, I think Ezra reported on this story.
He's been investigated by the government of Canada at various levels two different times.
The latest being in 2000.
So why is it that we're marching a no-Nazi into the House of Commons?
Yeah.
And we want to just forget about it?
Yeah.
I don't think so.
Yeah.
And I don't think so.
I think the news broke this morning, again, that we're recording this on Tuesday.
Something good might come of all of this and that this man might get the justice he so rightly deserves coming his way because it sounds like Poland is interested in extraditing him.
And as I said yesterday on the live stream, this man should not have lived the last seven decades comfortably in obscurity in Canada.
He should have lived in fear every single day of a Mossad execution coming his way like his comrades did on Argentinian beaches in the past.
Now, Tom, I, again, I said I could talk to you all day.
And let me just preface your Russian comments there.
I'm anti-invasion, but I don't think that there's a place for Canada to get involved in whatever's happening there.
And I think the tally, according to Justin Trudeau's screaming fit that he had on Monday, is approaching $9 billion now of Canadian money being dumped into a foreign war when there's very clearly a diplomatic solution to be had there if someone would just come to the table and do it.
And the Western world has to encourage it.
If the viewers want to really learn a different side of what the legacy media is saying, I suggest that they follow a guy named Colonel.
He's a retired American colonel, Colonel Douglas McGregor.
Follow him because he's getting and he's getting out there with the other side of what's actually happening in Ukraine.
I mean, the Ukrainians were getting killed 10 to one, right?
10 to one.
And, you know, you mentioned the speech that Trudeau gave.
He must have rehearsed for that one for like hours.
But let me just say this.
We are not a nuclear power.
We do not have a combat effective military at this point.
We have more people leaving the Canadian forces than we do joining.
A few years ago, just before the pandemic, Putin activated five brigades.
They were old.
It was a naval station, a naval base, and five brigades he activated in Siberia.
To put that into perspective, Canada doesn't even have five brigades.
We have three brigades across the entire country of regular force, and they're all under strength.
So for him to go and antagonize not only a superpower or former superpower, but a nuclear power, but Russia's cyber attack capability is outstanding.
They are very good at it.
And we are antagonizing a power like Russia because why?
We think the Americans are going to come to our defense.
I think the Americans have their hands full.
Right.
And they know that.
You know, so does the rest of NATO.
So I think it's disgusting not only to see Trudeau doing it, but also to see Pierre Polyev supporting this war.
It is his job to oppose what the government is doing.
That's why we give him a house.
You know, as the leader of the opposition, he gets a house.
Opposing Government Actions00:09:52
His job?
Oppose.
So on this, for the love of God, Pierre Polyev, would you just oppose this war and stop supporting it and, you know, rubber stamping billions of dollars getting sent to a war.
If you want to do something, Pierre Polyev should be talking about peace talks.
Right.
Peace talks.
Right.
So if like, that's my position.
I'm anti-Russian invasion.
I'm not sure we should be giving money to a Ukrainian government that has a history of corruption and extremism.
And I think that there's room here for peace talks if the Western world would encourage them and said the Western world continues to fund a war, a proxy war, really is what it is at the end of the day.
It is a proxy war.
Now, Tom, I want to give you a chance to let people know where they can buy your book because your book does something that I think is part of the journalistic mission here at Rebel News, and that's tell the other side of the story and do your best to set the record straight.
So how do people get their hands on it?
You can buy the hardcover, the softcover, both on Amazon.
And you could just, you know, type in the People's Emergency Act or just type in Tom Morazzo.
It'll pop up in books.
And we are working on the audio book and I am not recording it myself.
I would have to listen to that.
Yeah, you know, it's funny because we listened to some demos, some great guys, and we're really, really happy with Mark, the person that we chose.
He's doing such a great job.
I hear chapters when he's done.
I get them sent for review.
He's doing a great job.
And he's actually done some custom music in between chapters.
So I'm really excited about that.
But the Kindle should be out probably, we're looking, we're aiming for the 1st of October.
So we will have Kindle out shortly, and we are looking to get the audiobook out in the very near future.
Wow.
Hopefully before Christmas.
Great.
You know what?
That's a great idea.
Get the Tamara Leach book, hold the line, get Tom's the People's Emergency Act for the, I was going to say for the Convoy supporter in your life, but also for the liberal who needs their mind changed.
Your book is a book for everybody, and so is Tamara's.
Yeah, we did a live stream, or sorry, a Twitter space.
I'm still going to call it Twitter because that's what I'm used to.
We did one and Chris Vandenboss from Police on Guard, he came on, he co-hosted, and he said, you know what?
Buy this book for people who didn't support the convoy.
Buy it as a gift.
And, you know, not because I'm trying to sell a book, but I agree with that sentiment.
Like, this is as close to historical fact that I can possibly put onto paper.
And, you know, I vetted all of mine.
I had my chapters reviewed for the other participants of people that I wrote about.
And I said, is this accurate?
Should I change?
Like, do you remember something different?
And it was unanimous.
I believe I captured the truest of the true version of what really happened.
And I would like for Canadians who didn't support the convoy who may be curious to read this book and say, okay, what was really, really going on behind the scenes?
And what are these people about?
Because I promise for those people, I did show the warts, not just all the happy stuff.
So I'm proud of this book.
I'm very proud of this book.
I read it and I think you should be too.
Tom, thanks so much for coming on the show.
And, you know, it's Rebel News.
We'll talk to you very, very soon.
Yeah.
Awesome.
Thank you for having me.
Thanks Tom.
Well, we've come to the portion of the show where I invite your viewer feedback.
I say this every week, so it might seem redundant, but I actually do care about the no, let's try that again.
Well, we've come to the portion of the show where we invite your viewer feedback.
It may seem redundant because I say this every week, but I want to reiterate it because it remains evergreen.
I actually care about what you think about the work that we do here at Rebel News, because without you, there is no Rebel News because we don't take a penny from Justin Trudeau.
Like our, I don't want to say peers, but I guess maybe that's the right word.
In the mainstream media, our competitors in the mainstream media, although I don't think we really compete with them, they play catch up with us.
Anyway, it's the reason I give out my email address right now.
It's Sheila at RebelNews.com.
If you've got an opinion about what I've said here, just put gun show letters in the subject line.
That's G-U-N-N show letters in the subject line.
But sometimes I also go poking around on one of the platforms where you may be watching the free version of the show on Rumble or on YouTube.
And I'll do what I advise many of the staff here at Rebel News not to do, and that is check the comments.
Sometimes it's a good idea not to read the comments because you can get a little bit too in your head.
But if I'm poking around looking for poignant things to answer, well, I might find them in the comment section.
But today it comes from the email inbox and it comes from Jason.
And it's on last week's show with my friend Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition.
And he was talking about how conservatives must not adopt the language of the left to talk about issues like climate change.
And Jason writes, regarding conservatives' need to reject climate hysteria and the hyperbolic language of the left, he says, finally, a real possible solution for our dilemma in policy on the climate change front.
You are absolutely right.
We have to stop acknowledging their language.
It's not real.
I am in total agreeance that if there is a real debate on this subject with experts on both sides of the issue, the true facts are so overwhelmingly against the narrative that supporters of the climate change agenda would be forced to either concede to common sense and factual information or take a page out of the trans agenda and just put their fingers in their ears and stomp and say climate change matters.
There really is no argument, not to mention Canada as a landmass is effectively carbon negative when you take into account how much carbon our vast forests suck up.
In reality, we should be getting carbon taxes from other countries for absorbing their carbon emissions on a global scale instead of bankrupting our economy for absolutely no benefits per dollar spent on this boogeyman called climate change.
Your guest plan for Daniel Smith would absolutely work.
He said, Tom said, that Daniel Smith, the Alberta Premier, should bring in experts from both sides of the debate and let them discuss.
And then whomever wins, that's the agenda, we adopt.
And, you know, being confident that climate change is not some sort of catastrophic doomsday.
I welcome that debate.
Anyways, this is absolutely an issue that would win an election and definitely change public opinion.
And with your loud voice, I know that Smith must listen to your newscast.
I do believe she sees this as an issue to run on and sees the support she gets that other conservatives will jump on board.
Sheila, this is one interview that may very well change the entire country and change the entire power structure in other nations as well.
I hope you know how important rebel news is to changing how people view what is really happening around them.
Yeah, we did see that during the pandemic, didn't we?
The entire country owes you a huge debt of gratitude.
Oh, come on.
You can literally pull our country out of this recession that we're in.
Oh, I think you're giving me way too much credit.
By eliminating so many unneeded carbon taxes and other schemes that our current administration forces us to pay.
I truly believe that common sense must prevail.
I don't know what my role is in that except for giving the other side of the debate a platform.
And I think that has a bit of the convoy effect.
What I mean is that you're constantly bombarded with information telling you that climate change is real and it's deadly and you must pay a tithe to the climate gods or they're going to be very, very angry about your SUV and then boil the earth.
And, you know, when you are hearing from all sides that that is the case, you know, every time you turn on the TV, listen to the mainstream media, pick up a newspaper, do those things even exist anymore, hear a politician talk, turn on the radio, whatever.
It's all the same, right?
It's homogenous.
Until somebody says, wait, no, you've predicted this doomsday for God knows when, and it's never coming, and I'm not a part of your little cult.
Then you don't feel crazy because, you know, you know that to be true, but everybody else is saying one thing.
You just need someone to act as that anchor to say, you're not wrong.
You're not crazy.
It's okay to think the way that you do.
And the convoy did that for a lot of people who felt isolated.
And then they saw this convoy rolling across the country and they saw the throngs of people out on the bridges.
And all of a sudden, you didn't feel crazy and you didn't feel alone.
I think that's my role in the climate change debate.
You're not crazy.
You're not alone.
A lot of other people think that way.
And here are the arguments that you can take out into your day.
Arguments that don't involve paying a stipend to an angry weather god.
Well, friends, that's the show for today.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place next week.