Ezra Levant examines Mark Carney’s controversial China trade deal, slashing tariffs on 49,000 Chinese EVs to 6.1%—dubbed "dumping"—while Canadian premiers and Doug Ford’s government stayed silent, risking U.S. automaker shifts under Trump. The Federal Court of Appeal struck down Trudeau’s Emergencies Act use as illegal, exposing institutional overreach amid COVID protests, with John Carpe warning of a "slide toward tyranny." Meanwhile, BC nurse Amy Hamm fights $94K fines and union discrimination after her firing, linking to Elon Musk’s Anti-Retaliation Project, as Edelman’s trust index reveals plummeting faith in Canadian institutions. Her case mirrors broader battles against "woke" capture and legal abuses, underscoring erosion of public confidence and free speech. [Automatically generated summary]
I want to take a second look at what Mark Carney achieved in China.
What did he get and what did he have to give to get it?
It's terrible, Matthew.
I think he's a terrible negotiator.
We'll also talk to Amy Ham, the BC nurse, and then we'll look at the ruling from the Federal Court of Appeal.
They were asked to review the Emergencies Act ruling.
Some good news there.
That's ahead.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
It may not sound like a lot to you, but it sure adds up for us.
Tonight, Mark Carney calls for a new world order with China as his boss.
It's January 16th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
shame on you you censorious bug well mark carney had his big meetings in china but what exactly did he get Well, he got something, a reduced tariff on agricultural products, including those targeting Saskatchewan.
Premier Scott Moe was there, and he's got to be happy about that.
That was a terrible loss to his community.
And for some reason, Mark Carney and Doug Ford and the rest of them never really had a boycott China campaign.
The same way they had a boycott America campaign for much lower tariffs.
Remember, the tariffs on canola, which is a crop grown in the prairies, it's a 100% tariff, effectively making it impossible to buy any.
No reaction from the other premiers or from the federal government who banned, in the case of Ontario, American liquor or who ran TV attack ads in the United States against Trump.
I guess you can't really run attack ads in China, can you?
And that's about all.
That's about all Canada got from China.
So not actually progress, but just undoing some regress, as in China hurt Saskatchewan and it agreed to stop hurting Saskatchewan.
I'm not sure if that counts as a great deal.
That's sort of where the status quo was a year ago.
So that's what Canada got.
If I've missed something, please let me know.
And what did China get in return for stopping hurting Saskatchewan?
It's pretty much the only thing we got.
Well, they now have the right to sell 49,000 Chinese-made cars into the Canadian market at low prices.
Here's Mark Carney describing this, and he's quite excited about it.
He really emphasizes how cheap these cars are.
In trade talks, that's called dumping.
When you dump a product in the market at such a low price, you beat all the domestic competition.
Here's Mark Carney bragging about China dumping 49,000 vehicles in the market.
China's strengths, for example, in electric vehicles are formidable.
They're undeniable.
These are the most affordable and energy efficient and innovative vehicles in the world.
And for Canada to build our own competitive EV sector, we need to learn from, partner with, and access and build supply chains with China.
To help deliver on the full potential of these partnerships and to bring down costs for Canadians, we're going to start by allowing up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market at the most favored nation tariff rate, which is 6.1%.
Oh, I guess he forgot to run this by his best friend, Doug Ford, because was Doug Ford ever upset?
Holy smokes.
He didn't quite say he wanted the deal undone because I don't think he is publicly willing to throw Saskatchewan under the bus that way.
But he basically said he wanted the deal undone.
Absolutely not.
Didn't have any consultation.
He didn't consult with any automakers.
This is going to be terrible for not only just all the people of Ontario, but especially the auto manufacturers, the supply chain.
We're letting China into a market that's going to have lower tariffs than our largest market, the U.S.
And I don't think that's going to go over too well with President Trump, but it's going to hurt every single auto manufacturer, every single supply chain that has anything to do with the auto sector.
This was not thought out properly.
It wasn't consulted.
It was a knee-jerk reaction as far as I'm concerned.
And this is going to be a big, big problem.
In terms of other wins for China, I mean, 49,000 cars is certainly a toehold.
But I think the big win was Mark Carney abandoning any talk about China being a human rights threat or a security threat.
Remember when Mark Carney was running for office and said China was literally the number one threat to Canada?
Here's the clip.
Well, we're in a security section.
I think we didn't have a chance to talk about anything internationally.
I think the biggest security threat to Canada is China.
Well, China has won his total silence.
In fact, more than that, you saw in the meeting Michael Ma, the defector from the Conservative Party to the Liberals, basically a stooge of the Communist Party of China, gets his reward by going to China.
Mark Carney is now closer to Xi Jinping in China than he is to Donald Trump.
So that's all new, that we've changed our ideology and our outlook, a totally new foreign policy, according to Foreign Minister Anita Nand.
But remember why they said they were going to China in the first place?
For investment, for jobs, to diversify our economy, right?
But how does selling Chinese cars in Canada benefit Canadian industry?
How does that undo our over-reliance on the United States?
If the whole idea was to make Canada more resilient, more independent, open up new markets for us, isn't it true that the only new market that was opened up is Canada's automobile market to Chinese producers?
Now, there have been some instances, I understand, of China agreeing to build their car factories elsewhere, but no surprise, they use Chinese workers to do it.
There's no local benefit.
You're not going to have an auto industry for a Chinese company based in Ontario paying Ontario workers Ontario wages.
That's not how it works.
The way that China undercuts its competitors is precisely because they're built in China with no environmental, no labor, none of the regulations that push up the health care.
I mean, where is, I see the investment payoff for China, but where is it for Canada?
They said they will buy our natural resources, but only if we can get them to market.
And I'm not sure if we can get them to market because the Liberal government has stopped the pipelines for 10 years.
They've stopped it first under Justin Trudeau, and now under Mark Carney, there's the tanker ban.
There's kowtowing to lobby groups on the West Coast.
It's still not clear how Mark Carney can actually increase non-U.S. Exports, let alone dramatically.
Remember, he said that was his goal.
But even if he could, even if he could double the amount of exports to non-American buyers, the numbers are so tiny compared to U.S. trade.
I went through them yesterday.
I mean, you could quadruple, you could multiply by 10 the exports to China and won't even come close to what we sell to the United States.
I think what will linger here, other than some breaks for Saskatchewan, I think what will stay on and how this trip will be remembered is this comment from Mark Carney spoken so deliberately, looking around after every word.
He was trying to make a big impact when he said, Welcome to the China-led new world order.
You saw this clip.
Mine is the first visit of a Canadian prime minister to China in nearly a decade.
The world has changed much since that last visit.
I believe the progress that we have made in the partnership sets us up well for the new world order.
Gone is any pretense of being alert to China, either on human rights or security or industrial espionage.
We have completely shifted our orientation.
We are now orbiting China, not America.
It's like when Canada abandoned our historical position on Israel and sided with Hamas repeatedly, so much so that it received regular thank yous.
That was just a change.
There was no election over that change.
There wasn't even a debate, let alone a vote in the House of Commons.
Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney just decided to change our position 180 degrees, and that's what just happened when it comes to trade.
All of which happens to contradict Donald Trump's plans.
But maybe actually they accelerate Donald Trump's plans.
Here's Trump today when he was asked about Canada doing a deal with China.
Again, the deal is not to get Canadian access to the Chinese market.
What are you crazy?
It's to give China access to the Canadian market.
Here's Trump on that.
Prime Minister Carney is in China.
How do you see the deals?
Canada and China, I've just signed trade deals between the two partners.
Well, that's okay.
That's what he should be doing.
I mean, it's a good thing for him to sign a trade deal.
If you can get a deal with China, you should do that.
So Trump says he's positive about it.
Although I don't think Trump knows the details.
Trump's focused on other things.
I don't think he saw the news particulars.
But if he learns that Canada has given Chinese auto industry access, opened the tent like the proverbial camel's nose in the tent, I think that makes things a lot easier for Trump in explaining his decision to relocate the big three automakers to the United States.
If he's going to say, well, if you're allowing these Chinese cars, which are basically spy mobiles, what I mean by that is all the GPS, all the sensors, it all goes through Chinese routers.
It's like, I don't know if you ever heard of that drone company called DJI.
There's a lot of fun drones that kids have.
There's industrial drones that farmers have, the journalists have.
Any drone that says DJI on it, that's the leading drone company for sale in Canada and the United States.
They're amazing drones.
I've got a DJI drone.
We use them here at Rebel News.
All the footage goes through China.
That's where it's stored.
So think about that.
Every single drone, and there's got to be millions of drones in Canada.
Everything they film is in Chinese databases.
They're big data.
They know every single square foot of this country, everything you've ever shown on your drone, China knows about.
What's that got to do with cars?
Well, it's the same thing.
These days, Tesla drivers know that it's really a computer with four wheels.
This self-driving, especially, it happens only because of all the cameras.
All that information goes through the servers in Tesla.
Well, you bring in 49,000 Chinese cars.
It's all going through China.
Do you think the United States would allow those Chinese-made spy cars, malware cars, spyware cars into the U.S.?
If you're driving a Chinese vehicle, do you think they're going to let you into the States?
I doubt it.
But I think more than that, Trump's going to say, okay, you've made your bet.
You've made your choice.
You want Chinese cars?
Good.
We'll just take the Ford and GM and anything else down here.
I think that Trump, in a way, is happy to have Canada look around for other opportunities while he reshores the auto industry.
I don't know.
Maybe I'm wrong on that.
But there will come a point in time when Canada, I don't know, realizes that America is probably a better guy to have as an ally, even if Trump is a little bit prickly.
Trump will be gone in three years, by the way.
Let me ask you, if you saw Mark Carney meeting with the Chinese Politburo, with his China-compromised MPs, and saying so deliberately that he wants to join the China-led New World Order, if you were an American or a Brit or a New Zealander or an Australian, would you say we really trust Canada with our most sensitive secrets?
You know what I'm talking about?
It's called the Five Eyes.
There's NATO and there's NORAD and there's all these different defense agreements, but there's a very special agreement called the Five Eyes.
Canada, United States, UK, Australia, New Zealand.
It's like they're the super friends, and they share the most sensitive information with each other, not with France, not with Italy, not with Israel, just the five Eyes.
How long would you continue to include Canada in the Five Eyes if it cozies up to China, if it allows Chinese heavy industry into our country?
You know, a Trump official mused about that very question last year.
Here's a Financial Post article about a Financial Times story that the U.S. was considering dropping Canada from the Five Eyes.
Now, that didn't come true, but the idea is out there.
I think that Carney is a globalist.
I think that Carney loves China.
Carney's Qatar Deal?00:02:35
China has made him rich.
He got a quarter billion dollar loan from China for Brookfield.
He still has Brookfield shares.
I think that Kearney, as he just demonstrated in Beijing, like he has demonstrated in Washington, D.C., I think he's just a terrible negotiator, like Justin Trudeau was.
And before you say Ezra, he was the boss of Brookfield Asset Management.
How could he say he's a terrible negotiator?
He wasn't the CEO.
He wasn't the executive.
He wasn't the guy who would go in every day, roll up his sleeves and solve problems.
He was the chairman.
So once a quarter, he would chair a board meeting and he would say, well, what do you have to report?
And how's this?
And is there a resolution we have to pass?
He wasn't a hands-on, get-dirty kind of guy.
In fact, his main job was flying around the world, just sort of going to conferences and flying the flag.
I don't think he actually did any deals.
And I think it shows.
I think he just got a terrible deal in China.
And he has no deal with the United States, despite claiming he would get it.
It's so clear now that he wasn't an executive.
He was just the mascot of Brookfield.
No idea how to handle any tough cases, Trump or Xi Jinping or Hamas.
In fact, he's off right now to the World Economic Forum.
I don't think we'll see him there now.
He'll only be in limousines.
I don't think he'll be walking the streets like he did before.
He'll be at the World Economic Forum and then he's off to Qatar.
You know, Qatar is an OPEC bully.
It's a natural competitor to Canada.
If OPEC had their way, if Qatar had their way, Canada wouldn't have any oil sales at all.
Canada wouldn't have any pipelines.
We simply wouldn't be a competitor.
But Mark Carney will probably still sell some of our sovereignty, some of our country to Qatar for, I don't know, some promise of investment in Canada that will likely not materialize.
It would just likely undermine our security.
I think Mark Carney is all hat and no cattle.
I think he's an empty suit.
I look at his past almost year in office and I can't point to a single achievement.
And yeah, getting a tariff taken off canola that was put on on your watch, that's not a win.
Welcome to the New World Order.
Well, one of the unexpected heroes in Canada who rose to the occasion, not through the trucker convoy, but through a personal battle, is our guest today.
Doctors Under Attack00:12:10
Her name is Amy Hamm, and she was a nurse.
She still is a nurse, but because she dared to stand up for the idea that there is such a thing as a woman and it excludes being a man, and that she dared to put up a billboard in Vancouver saying, I heart J.K. Rowling for that alone.
She was prosecuted, and I would say persecuted by the College of Nurses and Midwives in British Columbia, drumming her out of her jobs, fining her, basically going full lawfare against her.
But I don't think they counted on her being so resilient.
I think she was an ordinary person thrust into extraordinary circumstances, and she rose to the occasion.
And I mention all that because it's interesting and because it shows that she was willing to suffer for the truth, which I think is a sign of character.
But I think it also feeds into her latest article she writes weekly in the National Post.
And her latest, a couple of days ago, is called Canadian Trust in Institutions is at a low point.
And that's a good thing.
Joining us now is Amy Hamm.
Amy, great to see you.
You would know the BC College of Nurses and Midwives is one such institution that I don't think anyone would have even thought to question.
That's just they're there like the wallpaper or the furniture.
No one even thinks about it.
But actually, they've been utterly infected with the woke mind virus.
And so many institutions that we just used to trust reflexibly are the same way, aren't they?
They are.
You know, we see these high-profile cases.
Mine became a high-profile story, as did Jordan Peterson's with the College of Psychologists in Ontario.
But the sort of persecution that's happening is it's happening to hundreds of Canadians across the country.
It happens every day, cases that we don't hear about.
There's another woman in Ontario right now named Amy McKay, who similar to myself has made publicly comments about gender ideology and the existence of two sexes, and her college is attempting to pressure her out of her teaching license.
They basically want her to surrender her license for the comments that she made.
So we have just such rot in all of our institutions in Canada.
What I wrote about is the fact that we've sort of just handed over power to these woke progressive zealots.
And there aren't enough people who are really willing to stand up and say that we've had enough.
But now that we're seeing, you know, these surveys of the Canadian population, it's clear that the vast majority of Canadians do not trust these institutions.
So I think the next step is we really have to take action and prove that.
You know, every year, Edelman, which is a large public relations firm, publishes their trust index.
And I find it very interesting because it's one of the few sort of fancy elite institutions that's willing to acknowledge that there's even a problem.
Let me just read the sub-headline of your article.
It's: We've allowed activists, judges, educators, politicians, public health officials, and bureaucrats to operate without accountability for too long.
Like, you just basically listed all of society other than, I suppose, private sector.
And you know what?
I remember when I was younger, and all these students were going into gender studies and vegetarian studies and all these different studies.
And I sort of thought, ha ha, they're not even going to get, there's no such thing as a job in those things.
Like, I sort of, in my mind, I mocked them.
But was I ever wrong?
That's absolutely the pipe, that's the pipeline to $200,000 a year equity jobs.
I'm the idiot trying to work in the free market as an employee or even as an entrepreneur.
I was wrong.
All of those things you just listed or that are listed in your article, that's where the woke schools dump their outflow into.
Now, I noticed you didn't say mom and pop shops, corner groceries, you know, ordinary people.
We have specifically riveted our left-wing schools to all these public institutions.
So it was inevitable, wasn't it?
It was.
And, you know, what you're talking about is exactly what I saw working in healthcare.
I was with Vancouver Coastal Health as a registered nurse for 13 years.
They fired me just about a year ago after I was found guilty of professional misconduct for stating that there are two sexes, male and female, during a nursing shortage, by the way.
But over the more than a decade that I was with this institution, the type of people you're talking about, these people that, you know, they have arts degrees, they've studied gender.
More and more of these people are hired into these pointless roles and they're making better money than the nurses are making on the front lines in a healthcare system where patients are actually dying in emergency rooms and we don't have enough care providers and yet we're just giving away millions and millions of dollars to these ideologues.
It's just completely bonkers.
You know, let me read a little bit from your article and you refer to the Edelman study.
Only 28% of Canadians gave Parliament a rating of four or five.
That's a trustworthy score.
Media got 36%.
Schools, 45%, courts, 48%, and police were the highest at 63%.
I think police have shat the bed a little bit in recent years.
I mean, their conduct during COVID, when many police forces allowed themselves to become tools of public health social engineering.
I mean, the New York police department was one notable exception.
They really said, we're not going to get into this.
But I remember seeing police in many countries.
Australia, they were brutal.
California, they would arrest lone people sitting on the beach.
I think police did themselves an atrocious disservice.
But come back to the media.
I think so.
36% of people trust the media.
I want to know who those 36% are because I want to go back to the before times when I would, when I, I mean, I don't think I ever trusted the media.
At a very young age, I realized that any story I knew about firsthand, I would find many errors in a story.
So I would have to assume that the stories I didn't know about the firsthand facts, why would they be any more accurate?
And then it was no longer a case of accuracy.
It was deliberate spin, which is a different thing.
It's not that there is a mistake, it's a deliberate propaganda.
I don't know.
Let me ask you about your headline, which is it's a good thing.
I suppose it's a good thing that we're waking up to this mismanagement of these industries, but that means we don't know what to believe in.
And there's so many false prophets and scam artists out there.
I mean, I think of Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, their strength is that, well, we're not the establishment.
You can't trust them.
So trust me.
It's the second part that's dangerous.
I don't trust the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC.
I don't trust any of those, like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes.
I'm a distruster, but I'm not going to go with charlatans like them.
No, I think if you could stratify this 36, what was it, 36.8% or something of people who trust the media, if we were looking at independent media in Canada versus the mainstream media or government-funded media, I think you would see vastly different numbers there.
Because I do think there are a lot of independent outlets that are gaining a lot of public trust and they demonstrate accountability and they demonstrate that they're looking for the truth in their reporting, you know, as your outlet included.
But you're right that these charlatans can sort of step in without having sort of any cohesive message.
They're just spouting nonsense, as we're seeing with Candace Owens in particular right now.
Yeah, I mean, and I think a lot of this has to do with, again, COVID, where you had doctors and pharmacists amongst the most trustworthy people in the world who just started, you know, being Pfizer salesmen or something.
I mean, I remember my own doctor, who I really like, started giving me the whole Pfizer line.
And I just didn't want to argue with him about it.
I mean, he wasn't going to change my mind, same the other way.
I just was there for another reason.
And he started giving me these talking points: like, well, did you know that Facebook made $4 billion through false posts?
Like, what you, are you persuaded?
Do you like, I just, that wasn't a doctor's argument.
That was a lame political argument.
And imagine how my trust in medical experts found Teresa, all these white lab coats with the clipboard.
So therefore, you must trust me.
Oh, but you can't use ivermectin.
And like, it's just, I can't believe how badly they detonated the belief in one's doctor.
Everyone used to love doctors, look up to them.
I think they massacred their reputation.
I just, and I hate to say it.
I mean, my father was a doctor.
I mean, I do look up to the work that doctors did to the smart, but holy smokes, did they ever sell out?
I still have a lot of respect for the medical profession as well.
And you don't become a doctor if you're an idiot.
They're intelligent people.
But I think what happened during COVID, so much of the public lost trust, especially in public health officials, that sold us lies.
And if Canada were to enter into an actual emergency, like say we had an Ebola outbreak, as unlikely as that is, we would be absolutely hooped as a country.
Because after what happened in COVID, nobody is going to be following public health orders.
And, you know, today, it's kind of funny that today is the day that we saw the appeal of the Emergencies Act was put down at the Supreme Court of Canada.
And, you know, that goes to show, again, we still, despite the truth that has been reported and that has been outed since then, we still have a government in Canada that was willing to waste years and who knows how much money and resources and time just trying just trying to undo a court ruling that, of course, they were going to lose that appeal of the Emergencies Act.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I still see people wearing masks, COVID style.
I know people who won't do certain social things that they did before.
So I think some people were absolutely persuaded.
And by the way, almost every provincial premier, and by the way, the prime minister in Canada who went to the people in an election during the lockdowns, they won.
Jason Kenney was booted out by his own party, but Doug Ford won and all the way down.
So the lessons they took from it all were we can do this, we can get away with this.
Here's one thing I was thinking about, you know, well, what happens when you detonate a source of authority that both sides of the spectrum can agree on?
Like, I think both the left wing and the right wing trusted doctors and pharmacists before, and they would say that's not even a left-wing or right-wing thing, they would have said before 2020.
But now, let me give you an example in social media.
You've got the president of the United States, he has his own truth social, and that's only for right-wing Trump supporters.
Who else would be there?
But boy, would they be enthusiasts?
And on the other side, you've got this left-wing swamp called Blue Sky.
And same thing, what Republican would ever go there?
So you have two different echo chambers.
And I'm not, listen, I think you've got to follow the facts wherever they lead and find truth wherever it is.
But what I'm worried about is because we've detonated or self-detonated these authorities that used to bind us together.
I mean, I don't know what the common ground is anymore.
I mean, and I think you need some of that because you can't have all of life becoming a war between partisans.
Political Act During Lockdowns00:05:37
Like, it's exhausting, I think.
It's demoralizing.
There has to be a time, again, where not everything is political, where you go out and walk the dog and it's not a political act.
By the way, it became a political act during the lockdowns.
In Quebec, for example, it was illegal to walk your dog during the curfew for health reasons.
I don't know.
I just lament this fact.
You say it's a good thing, and I understand what you mean because you have to expose the woke radicals, but it's also a terribly sad thing, too.
Yeah, you know, it's a good thing as long as Canadians take action and start to push back against these institutional abuses that are happening and start because there won't be any change.
And like I said, you can't just respond to Statistics Canada surveys or vote the way you want if you're not actually stepping up, telling people in your workplace that you disagree with land acknowledgements or whatever DEI policies are being enforced upon you.
If you don't speak to your MLA or your MP, you know, go to your MLA and say, my province needs the same legislation that Danielle Smith is trying to enact in Alberta called Peterson's Law, which restricts the power of professional regulators to infringe upon the free speech of its members.
There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of professionals in this country.
And I know from being in a regulated profession that the vast majority of my colleagues agreed with my stance, but were too afraid to come out and support me or say anything.
But what you can do is you can go to your MLA and say, this is what I want to happen.
Like, that's what I mean is you really, we have to start taking action in a serious way to change our culture.
Yeah.
I think most people don't know how to do it, don't have the time to do it, are too busy just earning a living or going to school or whatever they're doing.
I think politics should be so inconsequential that it is a hobby for those who like it.
But unfortunately, every bloody thing is so political, especially the schools these days.
Let me ask you in closing for an update on your own case.
Are you still in litigation?
Are you still fighting in some way the BC College of Nurses and Midwives?
Yes, absolutely.
So the latest is while, so my guilty verdict came down about 10 months ago.
And about six months later, I was sentenced, so to speak.
And I owe about $94,000 in legal costs.
And I am to have a one-month license suspension.
That's been put on hold because we've appealed to the Supreme Court of BC the entire ruling.
So that it's still, there are delays in it.
This is part of the problem with Canada.
There are insane delays in our court system.
It's so backlogged all of the time.
So nothing has moved forward yet.
I'm not, you know, as I talked about, we have activists, judges, activist court systems.
I'm not hopeful about winning my appeal at the BC Supreme Court.
I'm just hopeful that going through this process will sort of expose gender ideology for what it is.
So, you know, at the end of that, I'm going to still, I'm sure, have to pay this $94,000 and take a one-month suspension.
And so aside from that, I also have two BC Human Rights Tribunal complaints on the basis of discrimination for political belief, which is a protected category in the BC Human Rights Code.
And then in addition to that, because I was fired from Vancouver Coastal Health after my 13 years of employment, once I was found guilty by my college, I have this sort of union battle going on.
But as you are well aware, Ezra, the unions in Canada are extremely woke and captured by woke ideology.
So so far, you know, it's been a year and nothing has happened.
I still don't even know if they're going to represent me at arbitration.
And after that, I would be left in a position where I'd have to sue my union for a failure to represent.
So essentially, I have four lawsuits going on, all as a result of just going on record and saying men aren't women and women deserve their privacy, their dignity, their safety in their own spaces.
It's just, it's pretty unbelievable.
Are any of those lawsuits related to Twitter or X?
So the a lot, well, you know, Vancouver Coastal Health sort of would cite a lot of my ex posts when they would haul me in and out of human resources.
But in my ruling from the college, they only found me guilty on the basis of four items out of more than 300 pages of my statements, articles, podcasts.
They were not able to use any of my tweets to find me guilty because I never went on Twitter and said, you know, I'm a nurse and this is why I think that men aren't women.
It was just these few items where there was sort of an inconsequential biographical detail.
Like I wrote an article and it just said, Amy's a nurse and she has a nursing degree, journalism 3 works as a nurse.
So that was how I was found guilty.
You know, the reason I ask is because I've learned over the years that Elon Musk, since he bought Twitter or X, as it's now called, has something called the Anti-Retaliation Project.
Elon's Anti-Retaliation Project00:02:42
And if anyone is fired or prosecuted because of what they do on the platform, he will consider helping them.
And I know this because miraculously we managed to get him to support Tommy Robinson, our free speech crusading activist journalist in the UK.
So if there is a connection to X or to Twitter, and I'm not sure if there is, but I know he's very alert to the trans issue.
That's very close to his heart.
It's something.
Maybe Elon would be interested in helping me if my union stops representing me.
They've done very little to represent me thus far, but if they drop me, maybe Elon will help me because that was definitely my tweets came into play with being fired from the public health authority in BC.
So that's something that I would look into for sure.
Well, let's you and me talk offline because, you know, obviously I'm not in a position to make any decision, but I was able to assist with Tommy's case.
And I know you rely on the goodwill of the public through the Justice Center for your legal defense.
So I'm glad you're in their good hands.
And who's your lawyer, Lisa Bildie?
Is that right?
I have Lisa Bildy.
She was with the Justice Center when she started.
And she has her own practice right now, but the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms has very generously agreed to pay her legal bills because I wanted her to continue representing me.
Right.
Well, that's great.
And those are good people all around there.
We're familiar with them.
Well, listen, it's nice to hear from you.
And I'm sorry these things are still hanging over you.
But, you know, you are suffering, but it's for the good of the public.
And there's something very giving about that.
And I hope you get some moral satisfaction in helping not just yourself, but others.
I think it's obviously a case in the public interest.
And if we can help along the way, it sounds like you are in good hands.
But, you know, maybe I'll look into the possibility of bringing this to the attention of the CEO and owner of X, because if you were indeed fired because of what you wrote on X, that may be something he could help with.
And again, I don't speak for him, but it would be amazing if that could be arranged.
Well, listen, great to see you.
Thanks for the catch-up, and congratulations on the weekly column.
Thank you, Ezra.
It was great to talk to you.
You too.
There she is.
Amy Hamm, weekly columnist with the National Post and a crusader for women's rights, if I may say.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, instead of letters, I want to show you a very exciting moment today.
It was very nerve-wracking at first, but very satisfying.
Supreme Court Resolves Bank Account Freeze Case00:10:38
I'm talking about the Federal Court of Appeal issuing their judgment in the government's appeal of the Emergencies Act case.
So, sorry, I'm using so much jargon.
Remember when Justin Trudeau, under the leadership of Justice Minister David LeMetti, put Canada under martial law, invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canadian history.
It had never even been used during 9-11.
That was the pretext for seizing bank accounts, freezing bank accounts, sending the riot police out there.
It was a disgraceful moment.
They were taken to court, and the federal court was asked, was their decision to destroy these civil liberties, was it done lawfully?
The Emergencies Act has a process.
Was it followed?
In a stunning ruling, the federal court said no.
It was completely illegal and unconstitutional.
That was a disgraceful moment that led David LeMetti, the justice minister, to quit and skulk out of the building.
He's back, by the way.
But the government, of course, wouldn't take that lying down.
So they appealed to the federal court of appeal.
So three judges reviewed the lower judge's case.
And today, all three said no.
That lower judgment stands.
It was completely illegal and unconstitutional.
A very exciting outcome.
Anyways, we had our dear friend Tamara Leach, who is now working with Rebel as a journalist, on our live stream today.
We had other guests on the live stream, Chris Barber, Keith Wilson, the lawyer.
Without further ado, let me end today's show, not with letters, as we usually do, but with this from our live stream, just as the news was released.
Good night, everybody.
Have a great weekend.
And the next time you see me, I'll be at the World Economic Forum in Davos chasing oligarchs down the street.
Good night.
So, yeah, you're absolutely right.
Thank goodness for independent media like Rebel News, True North at the time, and the citizen journalists that came out and actually talked to Canadians and got the footage that was on the ground.
And I heard from a lot of people that literally went to Ottawa because of what they were seeing on TV and how it was completely opposite from what they were seeing coming through on these live streams.
And a lot of them went to drove to Ottawa to see for themselves.
And when they got there, they realized that the mainstream media was lying.
We've got John Carpe on the call with us right now.
I want to bring John in because I think we have, do we have the decision in yet?
John Carpe is with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
He's just jumped onto the call.
Sorry to cut you short there, Chris.
Bring us up.
He looks like he's got a lot to say.
I can't wait.
I see him.
Jessica, John.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can hear you, John.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Conclusion, paragraph 506.
In light of the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the appeals by the Attorney General of Canada in files, blah, should be dismissed, as should be the cross appeals by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
Since neither the Attorney General nor the public interest litigants have requested costs, none will be awarded.
So the lower court ruling is affirmed.
I obviously haven't read the preceding 505 paragraphs, but paragraph 506 says that the appeal of the Attorney General in files, blah, should be dismissed.
Awesome.
Oh, gosh.
Tamara and Chris, how are you guys feeling right now?
Relief.
I think Tamara's going to, you're crying.
I'm not going to cry.
I'm not crying today.
And all three, it's unanimous.
All three judges.
All three judges signed on.
Good.
Oh, thank you.
There's some justice in Canada.
Thank you.
Thank you.
John, if you're interested, all you guys have done to put into this, please, if it wasn't for the GCCF and like you said, the Democracy Fund, we wouldn't be in this position right now.
So thanks and kudos to all those donors.
Kudos to all the donors.
Yeah.
John, tell us about the Justice Center's role in all of this, because you've done such important work holding the government to account.
You're really the driving organization behind this.
You are crowdfunded.
So I want to make sure that you get the credit that you're due in upholding the civil rights of Canadians in this country.
And if you can, please explain to the viewers what this means going forward and what it would mean if the government had won this appeal.
Well, this ruling is super, super important because it said that the federal government failed to meet the necessary requirements of the Emergencies Act.
There's several requirements, including that local law enforcement cannot handle the situation, that it's a serious threat to national security.
Neither of which was true, because when the Emergencies Act was invoked, we were down to a local protest only in Ottawa.
It was peaceful.
Local law enforcement hadn't, as was pointed out by Tamara yesterday on a live stream, neither she nor Chris Barber was arrested under the emergencies measures.
They were arrested pursuant to ordinary law enforcement.
So this was a really important accountability check that a court said to the Prime Minister Trudeau and the federal government.
You guys were wrong.
Abused, you didn't comply with the legislation of which says that you can only use emergency powers when there's a bona fide national emergency and other law enforcement mechanisms are not going to work.
So that's just really, really important for the sake of accountability, for the sake of preventing or at least slowing down our slide towards becoming a police state, because that's what we're on track with right now with all the bad bills in parliament.
But I won't get into that right now.
So if the court today had allowed the federal government's appeal, it would just be giving a green light to tyranny and saying, yeah, you know, the government can just, if the government feels like there's an emergency, you know, it doesn't matter what the facts are, you can just go ahead and do it.
And that's actually this government, they were even talking about that the requirements are too high.
You know, the government should be able to find an economic emergency and invoke emergency powers, you know, because the economy is doing poorly.
So I'm thrilled.
Good press.
Yes, I am thrilled too.
So, John, what do you?
I mean, nobody has a crystal ball.
I mean, what now the federal government basically has been proven wrong.
I mean, what do you expect or would you anticipate the next steps from the Liberal government are going to be in this proceedings?
Do you think they're going to appeal this?
They would need to get the Supreme Court's permission first, which is true for everybody.
It's not just the federal government.
But if you want the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal, first you say, would you please, you don't just file it and get your appeal heard as you would ordinarily.
So it's a two-step process.
So first, the federal government would have to go to the Supreme Court and ask if they would please hear the appeal.
In order to win on that application, they have to show that there is an unresolved doctrine of law that the Supreme Court should address because there's a lack of clarity in the law.
And that happens from time to time, right?
You get different provinces come out, courts in different provinces have contradictory rulings.
So the Supreme Court resolves it.
So I would say the federal government's chance of getting this heard by the Supreme Court appear to be pretty small because I don't know what they're going to say is some doctrine of law that Canadians are clamoring to get clarity on.
This is kind of a one-time decision.
Did the federal government comply with the Emergencies Act?
Yes or no?
This is a very fact-specific decision.
You know, so that's another reason.
I mean, the Supreme Court would probably look at this and go, well, the judge made a decision based on the facts as to whether or not the federal government met the criteria it was supposed to have met.
And anyway, so the federal government could appeal it.
The other side, our side, we could appeal it.
But I would say the chance of this getting going into the Supreme Court is small in my view.
So what does this mean?
And so I understand, well, and we're one of them.
There's a lot of lawsuits before the courts, or there will be before the courts about the bank account seizures.
And Chris and I are one of them.
Keith Wilson is representing us on that matter.
So what is that going to mean for people like us and other people that have filed lawsuits against the government for the unconstitutional and illegal, not to mention banana republic-style freezing of the bank accounts of 208 innocent Canadians?
It's good news for you and other people because the lower court said that the freezing of the bank accounts was unjustified.
And that can only help other Canadians in a civil claim.
I'm not sure if I would go so far as to say that that guarantees you success in other court actions, but it's very, very helpful that we have a lower court ruling now affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal that the freezing of the bank accounts was not justified.
It was an unjustified violation of the charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
So it's just very, very positive.
Again, without necessarily guaranteeing victory in other court actions, it's really good to have this as a precedent that you can say, hey, here's the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada, which is on par with the Ontario, BC, Alberta Courts of Appeal.