Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 20, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:43:20

Trudeau EXONERATED! Interview with Convoy Attorney Keith Wilson! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Did you see the fucking article today?
	There was a thing on the CBC and it was talking about the word freedom and that the word freedom is being used many times by far-right activists.
	Freedom.
	Here, I'll send it to you, Jamie, because this is so fucking...
	Canada is so fucking wild right now.
	It's such a...
	Such a really crazy place.
	Here it is.
	Why the word freedom is such a useful rallying cry for protesters.
	The word has become common amongst far-right groups.
	So by putting that far-right in there, far-right.
	But like, there's no indication whatsoever that those truckers in Canada were far right.
	A lot of those are working class people that just did not like the idea that they were being forced to do this medical procedure in order to keep their job.
	And so they label them as far right.
	Trudeau personally labeled them as racists and misogynists.
	Just like, just so he could disparage them.
	Just so like, whatever they say doesn't mean anything.
	So this is what they're doing here with the term freedom, which is like one of the most basic tenets.
	For human rights.
	Your liberty as a human being.
	Your ability to express yourself.
	Your ability to talk about things.
	To protest.
	To do what you want.
	Freedom is so fucking important.
	Inherent in the idea of a free country is the right to protest.
	They go hand in hand.
	That's why that headline is Beyond Parody.
	It's a real headline, people.
	Nobody got duped again by the onion that was passed off as reality.
	I'll pull it up later as well.
	How freedom became the rallying call of the far right.
	Right now, people, if you love freedom, you're a fascist.
	War is peace, ignorance is strength, and whatever the heck else George Orwell said.
	So, you know.
	But it's actually something that's being pushed on the CBC, which is really crazy.
	Well, it's sinister.
	They're setting you up for this idea that you're requesting freedom.
	It's like it puts you in the category of anti-vaxxers or racists or far-right people.
	It's just these weird ways that mainstream media has fallen into labeling people in order to pass an agenda and to put this narrative out there.
	I'll just stop it there.
	Only to correct Joe in one sense.
	The mainstream media hasn't fallen into anything.
	They're part and parcel of propagating that narrative.
	They're part and parcel of making that a reality so that the person who employs them, who funds them, will continue to remain in power and continue to fund them.
	It's a vicious circle of a captured media, and it's what fascism is in its truest form.
	Government working with media, working with big corporations to consolidate power and exercise it against the citizenry.
	Oh, and that was recent.
	That was a recent episode of Joe Rogan with Bridget Phetasy, but it was before the news, Commissioner Rouleau exonerating Justin Trudeau, ratifying Justin Trudeau's cracking down on that far-right thing known as freedom.
	Today we got Keith Wilson in the house.
	The lawyer for the convoy.
	The lawyer for Tamara Leach.
	Testified during the commission.
	And the lawyer who looks like a lawyer is going to break it all down.
	Because I went on a diatribe on Saturday.
	I said what I think on Saturday.
	Now we're going to get someone who is closer to the action.
	Who's currently practicing.
	Although I think what I'm doing here is the practice of law.
	I'm just not doing it for...
	I'm doing it for my own...
	Trying to understand what's happening to my country.
	Before we bring in Keith, however, you may have noticed...
	Ooh, I hope I did.
	Let me just see.
	Let me just make sure.
	Let me just make sure, because I don't want anyone feeling duped.
	Did I specify that this stream contains a paid promotion?
	Yes, I did.
	It actually contains two.
	We'll do them real quick before...
	Before I bring in our guests for the day, let's start with four Patriots people.
	First of all, I have got to appreciate the companies that offer products that people need and that are not afraid to sponsor the channels of the fringed minority holding unacceptable views.
	For patriots, something that everybody should have, generators, solar power generators.
	National security experts are warning our aging power grid is more vulnerable than ever.
	In January, not sure if you heard about this, I think you did, the third time a power station was vandalized, assaulted, desecrated, shot up.
	I've moved to Florida right before Hurricane Ian.
	I went out and got a huge diesel power generator just in case.
	We didn't actually lose power because the hurricane went around us, but then my parents...
	Old, you know, nervous people, they say, David, you shouldn't get a power generator.
	Those things will kill you.
	More people die electrocuting themselves with generators.
	I don't know if they're right, but I returned it the next day, and we'll be getting a solar power generator.
	A blackout lasting longer than a few days, weeks, months, your life would be frozen right there.
	That's why having your own portable solar-powered power station is more important than ever.
	With the Patriot Power sidekick, and for Patriots, you get a solar generator.
	It doesn't install in your house.
	Quick, easy, portable.
	You get the power of the sun.
	It powers fridges.
	A fridge, computer, solar, not solar, cell phones, etc.
	It's very good.
	Let me see here.
	Make sure I don't forget anything.
	Not only that, you get 10% off your purchase by typing promo code VIVA.
	So go to 4patriots.com.
	It's a small, portable, solar-powered generator.
	Powerful for your essential needs.
	If you go camping, it's good for camping as well.
	And I like to...
	Thank my sponsor.
	And something that's worth its weight in gold.
	Could be nothing other than gold itself.
	Birchgold.com.
	The other sponsor.
	One day I'll have like a Scrooge McDuck room with gold coins.
	I'll never have it.
	Even if I had the money.
	But gold.
	Biden administration's New Year's goals of tax and spend.
	Turn a blind eye to inflation.
	Are they at odds with securing your savings?
	It's very easy.
	To lose the money that you've made.
	You work hard for your money.
	It's easy to lose it.
	You can go buy Nortel, GM, Ford, Bitcoin, and you can lose your money, your hard-earned money very quickly.
	One way to ensure that you actually, you know, retain the money that you worked hard to earn.
	You know, even if you stick a hundred bucks in a bank account with the inflation in Canada and the United States, you'll lose eight, 10% just by letting it sit there.
	Gold.
	For over 5,000 years, gold has withstood inflation, geopolitical turmoil, and it looks cool to hold in your hands and say, hmm, this is, you know, a small car in my hand.
	You can protect your savings, birchgold.com, promo code Viva, slash Viva.
	You'll get a free info kit as to how you can roll over your investment savings into precious metals.
	When you buy gold, you're buying gold.
	It's all 99 point whatever, 999% pure gold.
	You're buying a service, depending on who you go through.
	Birchgold.com.
	Phenomenal service.
	Thousands of four-star ratings.
	A-plus with the business of beer or whatever it's called.
	Birchgold.com.
	Find out how to invest in gold.
	Save the money you've worked hard to earn.
	Promo code Vito.
	You get a free info kit.
	And all the links are in the description of the video thingy thing.
	It's in the description box, people.
	Okay.
	Now, talking about a world going to Shiat, inflation because of corrupt, incompetent regimes who are hell-bent on taking the tax dollars of the citizens they represent, shipping it elsewhere.
	It's nice.
	We're working for other people right now.
	We're working for other people.
	Opioid crisis in Canada and the United States.
	Mental health crisis in Canada and the United States.
	Justin Trudeau's found his solution to the mental health crisis.
	Let them kill themselves.
	Phenomenal.
	You'll save some money in the healthcare system, too.
	The world seems to be going to absolute shite.
	And if the black pill of Justin Trudeau suppressing the most beautiful, peaceful protest violently, maliciously, opportunistically, if that wasn't the black pill of black pills...
	Well, the black pill of black pills of black pills came Friday when Commissioner Rouleau ratified.
	Exonerated, emboldened Justin Trudeau and his rabid sycophant followers on social media.
	They have been vindicated, people.
	Justin Trudeau was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.
	Okay, that's one heck of an intro.
	Keith, I see you in the background.
	One of us is crooked.
	Hold on one second.
	Okay, bring me in.
	Neither of us are crooked.
	It's that chair in the background that was throwing me off and that slant on the wall a little bit.
	For anybody who doesn't know Keith, Keith Wilson.
	Attorney for the Freedom Convoy, the corporation, the entity that was raising funds, that was organizing the protest.
	Tamara Leach.
	Who else were you representing, Keith?
	I mean, you've been on the channel now a number of times.
	Everybody should know.
	Who were you representing?
	Was and am representing Tamara Leach, Chris Barber, a number of the other individual original road captains like Miranda.
	And a number of other individuals who were the original convoy leaders.
	Tyson, who led the Southern BC portion of the convoy, the Southern BC road captain, heavily involved in the various logistics rooms in Ottawa during the protest, and he's been on the board ever since.
	As well as, I'm not going to name them all, but I'll just touch on a couple of profile ones, like Tom.
	Former Army Captain Tom Marazzo, who was a veteran of our Canadian Armed Forces for, I believe, 17 years, as well as former RCMP Danny Bulford.
	So the real core group, I think, is how you could describe the clients, the people I've been representing in Ottawa during the protests, as well as...
	As well as dealing with the $400 million class action lawsuit, dealing with all the Attorney General orders, forfeiture orders, seizure orders, criminal code orders relating to the remaining donated funds that weren't already returned to the donors, as well as helping coordinate the criminal defense teams, because remember Tamara and Chris still have a three-week trial coming up in September where the Crown is seeking five to ten years in jail.
	Yeah, we're going to touch on the impact of this order, not just on Canada, but on the individuals who are currently still facing charges and that civil lawsuit.
	Keith, before we even get started, I clarified it on Saturday.
	I'll clarify it again.
	I think it is definitively known Commissioner Rouleau is not the uncle-in-law of Justin Trudeau.
	I think a number of people have broken down the family connections.
	What looked like Paul Rouleau, Being the brother of Pierre Rouleau, who a Pierre Rouleau was married to Justin Trudeau's aunt.
	It's, I think we can agree now, definitively not the same Pierre Rouleau or Paul Rouleau.
	So there's no family relations even extended through marriage between the commissioner Rouleau and Justin Trudeau.
	So everybody should know that and not repeat that inaccurate information.
	There's political connections which might be, you know, holier than family.
	Are you familiar with Commissioner Rouleau's political history, link to the Liberals?
	Yeah.
	First of all, I should let everybody know that I'm not in my office with my normal setup, with my high-speed internet.
	I'm in a hotel room, so we're all at the mercy of hotel Wi-Fi.
	I do have a backup plan here, Viva, to switch to cellular if it becomes problematic, so please let me know if I start breaking up.
	Will do.
	And I'm not on my normal camera.
	I have never been preoccupied with the various rumours about a family relationship.
	Because to me, the greater concern has been the fact that Mr. Rouleau was, and it's not in dispute, was the Chief of Staff to former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner.
	He's also held a number of several high positions.
	In the Liberal government, in political type positions within government, his ties to the Liberal Party are deep and well established.
	We were immediately concerned when he was selected last year, 60 days after the revocation of the Emergencies Act.
	We were very cautious as to whether he would truly provide impartial and an unbiased approach.
	We planned that he would prepare, that we would be part of political theatre that they created, and that his report would be a whitewash.
	Keith, I feel like an idiot.
	I thought it was a foregone conclusion.
	That it was so egregious that at best for Trudeau, it would be a slap on the wrist, you know, a sternly worded, we understand he had the best of intentions, but it overreached the bounds of justice in a free and democratic society.
	Freezing bank accounts, which tied in innocent spouses, was a bridge too far.
	We have the courts for injunctions.
	We have the courts for Mariva injunctions for seizing of bank accounts.
	Although he meant well and thought he was protecting the citizens, he should not have done this.
	And that's what I thought it was going to be, at best for Trudeau.
	I could not have envisioned this in my worst nightmares.
	Well, we did, but remember my prediction, which was wrong, was that...
	And here's what I think their smart move would have been.
	I think they've made a mistake.
	I think politically, they've miscalculated.
	So let me first remind, I think you and I talked about this in one of our interviews.
	Here's what I thought the report was going to say.
	I thought the report was going to emphasize the fact that his mandate, if you actually read it, was not to determine whether the invocation was justified.
	His mandate was...
	To inquire into the circumstances that led to the invocation.
	So that cleared the way for him to write a report that said those who felt that the invocation was not required, including all of the police officials, CSIS, and so on, as well as the protesters, etc., felt that it wasn't needed to be used for these reasons.
	And then he would say those who felt that it was needed, felt the Prime Minister's office, the Privy Council office, Mendocino cabinet ministers, felt that it was needed for these other reasons.
	The end.
	And then we would look to, I would look to the things that were supportive of my clients and say, see, and then the government would look to things that were supportive of their position and say, see.
	It'd be like a Rorschach test, right?
	They didn't do that.
	Remember the pattern, and Tamara's pointed this out to me, Tom Marazzo, Danny, when we were in Ottawa, on the ground during the protests, the peaceful protests that were not violent until the police used violent on peaceful Canadians, was the government always overplayed their hand.
	And I've said this before.
	So the government, for example, and I love this one, and I know you love it too, as do many Canadians.
	No fuel to the truckers.
	That was an overplay because they had to survive.
	It was minus 25, minus 30 degrees.
	So they need fuel for the heaters in their trucks.
	Well, what was the reaction of the Canadian population?
	I am Spartacus, right?
	Everybody showed up with jerry cans.
	It was beautiful.
	Then, even leading up to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, They didn't need to do it.
	Their challenge, as we confirmed and as we suspected while we were on the ground, as was confirmed by the testimony in the inquiry, was they didn't have enough police resources to deal with the number of truckers and protesters on the ground.
	So they were slowly building to the point where they had what they thought were sufficient forces to make a move.
	It wasn't the Emergencies Act that...
	It had anything to do with that.
	So they overplayed their hand by bringing in the Emergencies Act when they really actually didn't need to if they wanted to end the protest.
	Well, but they didn't need to if they wanted to end the protest.
	To me, it became clear during the commission that Trudeau did not want to end the protest.
	He wanted to trigger a violent response.
	That's what he wanted to do.
	And everything he did...
	was an attempt to trigger a violent response from the crowd, which never happened even when they came in with armored trucks and snipers on roofs and drones and horses and beat the shit out of the protesters.
	It was clear from the commission evidence that Trudeau was trying to provoke a response, that CSIS was telling him, if you do this, it's going to I agree with you in the sense that he didn't have to, But he had to because he had a specific end goal in mind, which he still somehow got to, Keith.
	Well, and I take it just a slight step further.
	I think that what he was angry about.
	And I've described him as a petulant child prime minister, because we've seen his behavior, right?
	So he was angry, and I think he wanted to lash out and intimidate those Canadians that had stood up to him.
	So I'm agreeing with you, but why did he want a violent situation?
	It's because he was angry.
	He wanted to show his power, his disdain for hard-working truckers, Canadians, blue-collar Canadians of all ethnicity, and not just blue-collar, of all backgrounds, that went to Ottawa to protest two years of government overreach and mandates.
	So I agree with you in the sense that I think his ultimate endgame was to take steps so that he could intimidate, punish, retaliate against the people.
	That we're rising up against him and calling him out.
	And yes, so if you're mad and you've got a bunch of clubs and there's one that's really big and it's the biggest of them all, you grab it, right?
	Even though you don't need to grab it in the circumstances.
	So, but look at the dominoes it created.
	The domino it created was, and we knew this on the ground, we remember because we heard rumors.
	A number of days before the invocation.
	So it would be earlier in the week before.
	We started researching the Emergencies Act with my legal team.
	And I noticed right away, hey, if they do invoke, they're going to have to call an inquiry.
	So it's like, oh boy.
	I said to Eva, my wingman, I said, well, I guess we're on this ball for at least another year.
	And so now they've got a problem.
	Trudeau and his cabinet have invoked the Emergencies Act.
	They revoke it after a number of days, only a mere number of days of being, you know, miraculously, this national crisis has resulted.
	But a few days, showing it wasn't a national crisis at all.
	And now he's like, oh, we got to have this national inquiry.
	Who am I going to pick?
	He picks Mr. Rouleau.
	Okay.
	And then...
	You know, when we entered into this, I'm in Calgary right now, along with Tamara Leach, Chris Barber, the rest of the board.
	We had previously scheduled to come down because, as you may know, a German member of the European Parliament, Christine Anderson, is in Canada.
	She arrived here and there was a number of events.
	And also the board needed to get together to do some planning, to deal with some of the legal issues.
	We held a press conference yesterday.
	But I don't know where I was going with this.
	I lost my train of thought.
	Christine Anderson was on.
	She came on for a half hour last, a couple weeks ago.
	Fantastic.
	Fantastic person.
	Okay, so actually, one last question about this subject.
	Before we go on over to Rumble, I'm going to play a video just in case anyone forgot about it.
	Rouleau, not a family relative.
	Rouleau is a common last name.
	But politically connected, Keith, some people are going to say, dude, that doesn't prove anything.
	That was 40. It was 30 years ago that Rouleau was politically involved with the Liberal Party.
	I forget the name of the prime minister.
	1980s, 1990s.
	On the one hand, I don't know that that's true.
	I don't know if he's been apolitical or politically not involved since then.
	But even if that's the best case spin, does being a highly partisan political player 30 years ago, Should that not have sparked a lot more concern than it did spark for spectators to this commission?
	Well, you know, as one should do, one should go into these processes in good faith and hope that you're dealing with unbiased decision makers, as we always do as lawyers when we go into courts or into hearings.
	But we're not naive either.
	So we did plan and assume that it could be a whitewash report and this could be political theater.
	And I guess my high-level comment on the report, Viva, is this.
	You were there.
	You were in Ottawa.
	You know what you saw.
	Your viewers saw through the lens of your camera.
	They know that that was undoctored feed, that that was reality coming to them on a flat screen.
	And just stop.
	Clear the air for a minute.
	Don't worry about the 2,000 pages of BS.
	And just ask yourself, in the context of the War Measures Act, now called the Emergencies Act, having only been needed to be used in Canada in three other instances, World War I, and imagine the state of the country and the anxiety and the fears.
	Of what was going on in World War I and conscription and people dying on great scale and all the heartache and fear and rationing and changes to the economy and lives.
	Same with World War II.
	And then the FLQ crisis where there was bombings, kidnappings and murders.
	Ask yourself if what you saw through, you saw with your own eyes and what your viewers saw through your lens.
	Whether that comes anywhere even remotely close to that kind of scale.
	Keith, I'll take it one step further before we move over to Rumble.
	I saw that.
	There were hundreds of thousands of people who saw that.
	I watched the freaking commission.
	Nothing was adjuiced as evidence during that commission that could possibly justify the drafting of that report.
	I have not read the entire thing.
	I've been searching for keywords.
	For subject matter that I find relevant for my purposes, the report, it was as though it was, I'm not suggesting it was, it was as though it was drafted by Justin Trudeau before.
	It's as though that piece of work was the justification to invoke the Emergencies Act in the mind of the person who's hell-bent on invoking it and not the post-mortem analysis based on the evidence that we saw.
	Microaggressions.
	The sense of, the fear of violence or the fear of aggression.
	An incompetent police force that was not in tandem with negotiations.
	Nothing in that report reflects the evidence that was actually adduced, which is the most, it's the most blackpilling thing about it.
	It's like, I was watching Rouleau, it looked like he got it.
	That report could have been drafted before the evidence was adduced and not after it.
	Now, with that said, I'm going to end on YouTube, everybody.
	Head over to Rumble or Locals if you want to do that.
	And Keith, I'm just going to show a quick video to refresh everybody's memory here.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Link to Rumble is in there.
	3, 2, 1, done.
	And for those who may have forgotten, let me just pull this up here.
	Viva footage.
	Here, footage from Russia's violent invasion.
	That was the joke.
	What is happening in Ottawa?
	And it appears that there is another arrest.
	Hold on.
	I don't know why it's glitching when I try to use incognito.
	Here, let's just do this.
	This is Canada, people.
	That's a policeman right there.
	interject there and just say, yes, I want to bring to our viewers'attention that we're watching live images right now.
	CBC accidentally, I think it was CBC, accidentally broadcast this live before they realized that what they were witnessing was a policeman beating the ever-loving piss out of a veteran.
	That's...
	No one should forget that image.
	This is, by the way, as Justin Trudeau is condemning.
	The anti-democratic tyrants elsewhere in the world.
	Okay, Keith.
	You gave the 30,000 foot overview of this report.
	Getting into a little more detail.
	Where do you start?
	It's Confuse and Conquer.
	Where do you start with this report?
	And what are the most shocking and egregious findings that Commissioner Rulo came to?
	Uh-oh.
	Well, the list is long.
	And I think what you've already indicated is that it's the great disconnect between the clear evidence that came out in the inquiry by the witnesses and how they distilled it down in the report.
	That's just the problem here.
	And I see, I know I'm still staying up at the higher level, but for a moment, is I think, you know, if you want somebody to read something, Make it a page.
	If you want someone to not read something, make it 2,000 pages.
	If someone is going to read it, confuse the hell out of them.
	Take them every which way.
	Like Andy Lee from The Andy Lee Show.
	She's already started going through it and she's tracking all the contradictions.
	Like the contradictions throughout it.
	It's clear that this thing was written, and I'm not surprised, by a whole group of people.
	It was probably 10 drafters or 15 drafters.
	And they all had their little sections.
	And they were all probably told what the style was.
	And they were given a voice to try and mimic.
	And away we go.
	I just think this is a big smoke scream.
	It's a big...
	You said it.
	You combined some words together a minute ago.
	That's exactly what it is.
	It's a distraction.
	That's what this whole report is.
	It's a distraction to get us arguing about details that are irrelevant.
	Because I come back to the base point is we all know that, as I've said in some of the interviews I did on Friday, no reasonable thinking person looking at the base facts can come away with the conclusion that the circumstances warranted the government stripping Canadians of their civil liberties,
	overriding charter rights, removing the rule of law, removing due process, allowing the government To arbitrarily seize your personal bank account and your business bank account.
	There was nothing going on in Canada that warranted that level of authoritarian reaction by the Trudeau Liberal government.
	And there's nothing that Mr. Rouleau can write in his report that will change those base facts that so many Canadians know from watching live streams From participating in the protests themselves on a grand scale.
	So I think the government has overplayed its hand.
	Well, I'm just looking for something in the report because at one point in the report, Rouleau makes a distinction between the Emergencies Act in its current legislative iteration as compared to the War Measures Act, where he basically said, Yeah, sure.
	It followed the War Measures Act, but it's not exactly the same.
	It's sort of a little bit more forgiving.
	It's a little bit less stringent.
	I mean, these are not his words, but basically he said, although it follows the War Measures Act, it's not the War Measures Act.
	So you can have a little bit more of, I think the words he used were, shoot first.
	He didn't say shoot first and ask questions later.
	It was freeze first and ask questions later.
	Act first and ask later.
	First question.
	There's no appeal to this commission of Hulot's findings, correct?
	That's correct.
	And let's talk about that.
	So yes, because it's a commission inquiry report that's laid before the House of Commons, all the parliaments in Canada, provincial as well.
	That's it.
	That's the end of it.
	So we can't do a judicial review.
	We can't appeal to any body.
	It's over.
	However, remember, as you...
	We'll probably recall that immediately after the invocation back on about February 16th or 17th of last year, a number of groups, including the CCLA, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association,
	the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, and others, filed judicial review applications in federal court saying that the legal Legal requirements for the government to invoke the Emergencies Act were not met, that the legal threshold was not met.
	That case is proceeding.
	It's in federal court before Justice Mosley.
	It's scheduled to be heard in May.
	We had some procedural motions a number of months ago.
	Brendan Miller's on that case, by the way.
	And has been from the get-go.
	And we had made an application to get some of the evidence from the inquiry into that case.
	Our motion was extremely broad and it was denied.
	But some of the other applicants were able to get a number of key documents from the inquiry accepted in evidence in the judicial review.
	So judicial review is a separate process in law where if you feel a government decision has harmed you or is...
	Is unreasonable and wrong, or is without legal authority, you make an application to the courts, federal court in this instance, on that basis, and you ask that the decision be declared unlawful, illegal, and it be struck, so if it's still in place.
	And that's the same move we made on the Peckford Charter Challenge, by the way.
	It's the same process.
	It's a judicial review.
	So that's currently before the court.
	The court's decision-making is confined to the record, and so the court is supposed to go like this and pretend it doesn't see the Rouleau report.
	So it'll be interesting to see what comes June, because it's probably when the decision will come out, as to whether or not the federal court will say that the legal requirements were not met.
	It's a much more technical analysis, as you can appreciate as a lawyer.
	So we've still got that going on on a separate track.
	And all three of the cases, maybe a fourth one that I'm not remembering, they've been consolidated.
	So all of the legal organizations challenging the invocation of the Emergencies Act on legal grounds have been consolidated in one case and will be heard together, much like happened on the Peckford case.
	And then if it's the case...
	That the federal court strikes down and declares that it was not legally invoked.
	Not going to happen.
	I know.
	Come on.
	Oh, let me guess.
	You're specially authorized by the mayor of New York to sell me a bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge?
	No, but Keith, first of all, just to remind people what happened with the Peckford Charter Challenge, the federal court comes in and says, well, the government paused those measures, so moot.
	even though you've been in court for nine months, so bugger off.
	And in this case, although I understand that the federal court in a judicial review is supposed to look at the file and the file only, I do presume nonetheless that they can take judicial knowledge of certain facts, prior decisions.
	And in this case, why would it not be judicial knowledge that Rouleau ratified what Trudeau did?
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Fair point.
	You know, I'm not trying to be naive.
	I haven't offered a prediction.
	I'm too nervous to do so.
	I mean, and I've explained this to you before.
	Like, why did I bring all these different cases?
	Well, I mean, that's how you test institutions, right?
	Is you don't just give up on them, at least not initially.
	You bring your cases.
	You make sure they're properly structured and formulated and well-argued and on a solid, factual, evidentiary basis.
	Good experts and good witnesses and all those things.
	And then you go to a court and you hope that you have a blindfolded judge, you know, lady justice, so to speak, that's unbiased and is going to objectively look at things.
	And we haven't had that.
	We just haven't had that.
	It's a dark time for our institutions.
	I was going to bring up something there.
	Yeah, the judicial review is all predicted.
	It's dead in the water.
	It's inconceivable that you would have any federal court, even in the absence of Rouleau's decision, I mean, the federal court thus far, talk about losing faith in institutions, the federal court has ratified the quarantine hotels, although it did acknowledge that not giving the individuals the right to access a lawyer before unilaterally detaining them in a government...
	designated quarantine facility.
	That was a bridge too far, but you could lock them up against their will for a couple of weeks.
	The federal court dismissed your charter challenge.
	Provincial courts ratified curfew as not violating charter rights.
	Even in the absence of Hulot's findings, you were gonna lose.
	There's not a chance, there's not a snowball's chance in summary you're gonna succeed on this But Keith, the decision...
	It's so preposterous for those who watched the hearing where this was a national emergency that was so serious, Trudeau had to invoke the Emergencies Act, and yet you had the Ottawa, I forget which Ottawa mayor, policeman it was, who was quibbling that it wasn't hundreds of thousands of protesters, it was thousands.
	And so, on the one hand...
	It wasn't the biggest protest ever.
	There weren't hundreds of thousands of people participating, just thousands.
	There was no violence, no broken windows.
	There was microaggressions for people who weren't wearing masks.
	There was a sense of feeling abandoned.
	And yet it was so serious that Trudeau had to invoke the Emergencies Act and ratified, just ratified.
	That's it.
	That's the new standard now for invoking the Emergencies Act.
	Oh, I had no question.
	I just had to get that off my chest.
	No, it's terrible.
	There's nothing that we should be feeling good about right now.
	I get that.
	100% trust me.
	I get that.
	Let me just illuminate something, what happened here.
	I'm down in Calgary right now.
	Friday morning, I was in a...
	A business meeting for my other clients downtown when the report got released.
	So I got back to the hotel, came into a room similar to the one behind me.
	Tamara Leach was there.
	Eva Chipyuk was there.
	Chris Barber, a number of the others.
	Or Chris hadn't arrived yet, but a number of the other board members were in there.
	Ryan and Miranda.
	And there was a lot of crying going on.
	And it had the same feeling like going into a room when family assembles after an unexpected and tragic death of a family member.
	There was a tremendous sense of loss.
	All of us knew that the chances of Rouleau condemning the government's actions and saying, come on, man, you shouldn't have done this, were like so slim.
	They were still there.
	There was this little glimmer of hope.
	I suspect even you had this little sliver of hope that maybe, maybe he would do the right thing.
	I thought it was impossible that he come to this decision.
	Okay.
	And even more so after the evidence was a juice, but I became a little more nervous listening to the policy debate the week after the evidence because then Rouleau was entertaining discussion that I thought was on its face.
	Outlandish.
	But we saw the evidence, Keith.
	We saw it in real time.
	We saw incompetent government, lack of communication, a malicious Trudeau who was provoking the crowd, provoking the protesters through lack of engagement, escalation.
	I was at a loss of words.
	And when you say it was like watching someone die.
	I say it's like watching William Wallace in the end of Braveheart.
	Getting drawn and quartered.
	This is what I feel like I've witnessed with respect to my country.
	And Keith, look, I didn't want to mention it earlier, but it's a reality now.
	And you've sort of alluded to it.
	Tamara and I know people were crying, but not out of their own selfish reasons.
	I'm sitting here thinking, well, she's Louise.
	As far as the civil lawsuit goes, this emboldens Lexi Lee.
	As far as the prosecution of these non-violent mischief charges, well, holy shit.
	The chances of Tamara Leach, Barber, all these other people getting acquitted or having the charges dropped, well, that's gone out the window as well.
	And I don't think Tamara Leach is crying about her future prospects.
	I don't think she'll get sentenced even if she's found guilty.
	But the chances of the charges being dropped or being found innocent just went down radically.
	I'm not wrong.
	But she wasn't crying for herself.
	And I think we've already figured out her personality and her character.
	She was crying for Canada.
	And so, you know, it was a dark day.
	It was like a gut punch, right?
	Even though we had a very low expectation that we would get a positive result.
	But I need to say this.
	If it...
	The smart move for the government would have been to do what I said and go right up the middle, to have Rouleau go up the middle.
	Right now, Canadians who are concerned about what just happened here are going to have to say, okay, do we just give up?
	Or is this yet another example that this country is so badly off track?
	Because the implication of this decision, and you fully get it, that's why you're...
	Passionate about this, is that Rouleau is saying that when you look at his recommendations, not only was this the right thing to use the Emergencies Act for, it should be made more easy to use for future protests.
	Are you kidding me?
	Like, this is Canada.
	We're supposed to be this true, nor strong and free.
	We have Charter Rights of Peaceful Assembly, Section 2D.
	We have the Charter Rights of Free Expression 2B in the Charter, Section 2B.
	You know, this is crazy.
	And the groups of people that I'm meeting, much like those so many great Canadians I met in Ottawa during the protests, all have the same concern right now.
	And that's the future for their kids and their grandkids.
	Is this the type of country where...
	Where we are condoning and blessing extreme authoritarian action of violence against peaceful citizens, of this economic warfare, this economic incarceration by mere whim of politician.
	If they don't like what you're saying about them, they can freeze your personal bank account and just knock you out of society and your business bank accounts.
	I don't think Canadians are going to stand for this, to be honest.
	I think this is an overplay, and I think there's going to be a strong reaction.
	Well, Keith, this is my other fear, and not a fear hiding a wish.
	This is my fear.
	Everything Justin Trudeau has done along the way has been an act of provocation to get a response that would justify further escalation of his own draconian, tyrannical man.
	This seems like the next step in that.
	Keep ratcheting it up where people...
	At some point, people in the chat here, they say, and I say, don't say it.
	I don't entertain those ideas.
	The only solution, you know, you can't fight your way out of, sorry, you can't laugh your way or you can't vote your way out of tyranny.
	This feels like the next escalation in the provocation of Canadians.
	They wanted a militia.
	They wanted a militia so badly they had to fabricate one with Diagolom.
	They wanted violence so badly to justify this that they had to manufacture and fabricate the violence.
	This feels like the next step.
	Take away anyone's reasonable prospect of freedom.
	Because right now there are only two solutions, one of which is not a solution, and that is the violence.
	The only other solution is, all right, elect somebody, elect a government who's going to come in and amend the emergencies act.
	Bring in a Poilier who's going to run on the platform of I will amend this so that this never happens again.
	But Keith, my black pill of black pills is that people seem happy with this.
	The residents of Ottawa, the snooty snobbery from elsewhere in Canada that had no idea what was going on there but for the CBC.
	Are happy with this.
	And now Pierre Poiliev, who sort of went all in a little late in support of the convoy, he's going to get lambasted and demonized to the point where his prospects of ever getting elected in a Canada where the media is captured by the Trudeau government just went down exponentially and you have people voting in their own imprisonment.
	They don't realize it.
	And meanwhile, those who oppose it...
	Too many of them might only see one alternative, which is not an alternative, but it seems that that's what the government wants.
	Tell me I'm wrong, but I don't...
	Tell me I'm wrong.
	You're wrong.
	Now tell me why, because I think you're lying.
	What is the solution, Keith?
	Honestly, that was easy.
	Tell me I'm wrong.
	You're wrong.
	But let's dig down into that a bit, okay?
	Because there's a bunch of really good, big...
	Pieces in there.
	Let me get one off my chest first.
	Did you watch the press conference that Pierre Polyev had in response to the Mr. Relois report?
	I didn't.
	Okay.
	Well, don't yet, because I can tell it may not be good for your well-being.
	Here's what he said.
	He talked about the great Canadians.
	That travelled to Ottawa to protest in Ottawa last year.
	Because under the Trudeau Liberals, the cost of rent has doubled.
	The cost of a mortgage has doubled.
	The protesters in Ottawa were protesting the fact that the cost of living is so high under the Trudeau government.
	I'm mimicking here, at least trying.
	30-year-olds are stuck with no future and having to live in the basement of their homes or of their parents' home because of Trudeau's economic failures and the high cost of living.
	And I'm sitting there going, wow, I met a lot of people when I was in Ottawa at the protest.
	And I do remember the odd one saying, you know, in addition to the reason they were there, this guy's really screwed up the economy too.
	But it wasn't like, I don't remember, I saw.
	Mandate freedom or freedom mandates, you know, on trucks and mandates.
	I don't remember saying bring interest rates down on trucks.
	Stop inflation.
	He's pivoting.
	I don't know if some people aren't familiar with this expression.
	I don't know if you are.
	Too cute by a half.
	Too cute by a half.
	It's like, come on, man.
	No, that's not why people went to Ottawa.
	They went to Ottawa.
	Because they were disturbed to their core because they have seen the harms of the incredible overreach by municipal governments, by provincial governments, by the federal government, the tens of thousands of, when you combine them, of soldiers, of police officers, of prison guards, of rail inspectors, of Transport Canada employees, of CATSA workers at airports, of baggage handlers.
	Pilots, etc., etc., etc., that lost their jobs because they were concerned about taking this experimental vaccine.
	They were there in Ottawa because they saw the harms to their children developmentally by not being able to participate in their sports.
	Or their music.
	Or be with their friends.
	Or go to playgrounds.
	Or go to a swimming pool.
	Or go to a birthday party.
	The social harms caused by not being ill.
	To celebrate weddings and graduations.
	And 50th anniversaries.
	I could go on.
	They saw the harm that these governments.
	Including the federal government.
	Were doing to people that they loved.
	That they cared about.
	And they said enough.
	And they were situationally aware, and enough people had done their own research, and they saw the corrupt practices of the medical, the public health authorities, of the medical associations censoring doctors, and I could keep going.
	This bizarre judicial notice that our courts started to take of anything related to COVID in the absence of any evidence, like they just destroyed the court of judicial notice.
	That ended up turning out to be, in fact, false.
	They were taking judicial notice back in the day that the shot prevented transmission.
	I mean, it was...
	All the things.
	You lose track now, right?
	Of all the things they got wrong.
	But they took judicial notice of it.
	Even though people and other lawyers, including myself, were prepared to provide evidence to show that there was no basis for you to even accept it as a fact.
	A finding of fact, let alone give judicial notice.
	Because notice means you never have to prove it again.
	They take, just for your listeners, judicial notice is a big deal.
	It used to be.
	So, for example, if I don't have to prove in court, let's say in a traffic car accident case, right, and the guy says he was blinded by the sun, I don't have to prove that the sun sets in the west.
	The courts have taken judicial notice that the sun sets in the west, right?
	Something fell off an apartment building that was under construction and hit somebody in the head.
	I don't have to prove that gravity exists.
	You follow me?
	It's that base.
	It's that base and that rare.
	Everything else you've got to prove.
	So the fact that the courts took judicial notice, that the vaccines were effective, that the vaccines were safe, that masks were effective, that there was a need and there was no risk for disputing spouses in a divorce where one wanted the kid to be vaccinated and the other one didn't, and forcing that kid to be vaccinated.
	It was travesties all over the place.
	So, why did I just go down this rabbit hole?
	Those were the reasons everybody I met was in Ottawa.
	The curfews in Quebec.
	All that madness, right?
	So, Pierre comes out on Friday afternoon and says, seeming to praise the protesters and acknowledge their goodness, but misdescribes the reason they went as nothing to do with COVID, nothing to do with mandates.
	As being about their concern about Justin Trudeau's failed economic policies and the cost of living.
	And I'm like, we actually joked, joked, Crown Prosecutor, if you're listening, joked that maybe we should start an inflation convoy.
	You know, like, come on.
	So I'm disappointed that Pierre did not hit this head on and address the core issue.
	And I'll say this, I did not hear that press conference, and I know that it's going to piss me off because one of the things I've been saying about Pierre is that his support for certain issues comes out when he feels politically safe to come up with that support.
	I'm not selling the PPC on anybody.
	In fact, I might be deterring people from the PPC by saying this.
	Maxime Bernier...
	He was against certain policies which are unpopular in the very riding in which he lives, calling into question the equalization payments in Canada.
	It's not very popular in Quebec because Quebec is the biggest recipient of equalization.
	He is either principled, stubborn, or wrong, depending on who you are, but he doesn't change his position based on the political tide.
	Pierre Poilievre wasn't pooping on Aaron O'Toole when Aaron O'Toole was being an idiot.
	He came out in support of the protesters when it was cool and politically opportunistic to do so.
	And now that it just got shut down and he knows that he's going to eat crow from the media, from politicians, he'll be called the individual that supported extremists, supported a protest that was so violent and so bad, it warranted invoking the Emergencies Act.
	And like a true political coward, he has to now not backpedal, but sidestep and say, yeah, I supported the protest.
	For inflation, not for that radical purpose.
	Yeah, it's true to form with Pia.
	I'm just surprised.
	I'll see.
	Did he bring out the coin and show you how much has been shaved off the coin for inflation?
	That's a joke.
	No, he didn't.
	So why did I take you to that?
	I think that's a miscalculation.
	I could be wrong.
	He's clearly afraid, and his advisors are telling him not to embrace what the Freedom Convoy stood for, even though we all will recall that he clearly embraced it, as did Leslie Lewis and Bobber, was it?
	There was another one.
	When the leadership review was on for the CPC, for the Federal Conservative Party.
	And in fact...
	The lead contenders were in a competition amongst themselves as to who was the bigger supporter of the Freedom Convoy and Canadian protesters who were protesting government overreach.
	And the number of times he said, freedom, freedom, freedom.
	We're going to restore Canada.
	We're going to make it the freest country on Earth.
	Do you remember all that stuff?
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm going to find it.
	It's pretty bad, Viva, that I'm having to ask you, sir, whether you remember it.
	It means he hasn't said it for a long time.
	So what the hell happened?
	What happened?
	And I'm not sure.
	I got no inside scoop on this stuff.
	Frankly, my view and my experience is, and it's a positive thing I'm about to say, and it's borne out by experience, is my experience is that most politicians and political parties are a whiteboard.
	There's nothing on it.
	And all they want is power.
	Fine.
	They want to be in political office so they can make the decisions.
	And they can have the fancy offices and the ministerial cars and have everybody call them the Honourable and the Honourable this and the Honourable that.
	And then they feel wonderful about themselves, right?
	Great.
	Well, if enough Canadians or if enough voters, it doesn't matter where you are, if the voting system is solid or solid enough, Then what happens is if enough people articulate a view, articulate a position on a topic, the politicians that want to get elected will start to compete amongst themselves as to who's a better champion of that topic.
	I've done it before in my past where years ago, around 2010, I got into a big battle with the Provincial Conservative Party because they've gone to the left.
	They're bringing these anti-property rights laws.
	And we had three political parties in the province at that time.
	I launched a province-wide campaign, town hall meetings.
	It was before all this technology.
	Oh, my God, if we had this technology back then, I wouldn't have driven the tires off my truck.
	What ended up happening, it was hilarious.
	I remember laughing my head off.
	They'd be in question period, and the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives, all provincial, were competing amongst themselves as to who was the true champion of property rights in Alberta.
	And I was like, you guys, it was so obvious what's going on.
	My point is, this is an optimistic point.
	So I think that...
	Let me just pause before I tell you the optimistic thing.
	I remember when we were in the inquiry, it must have been, and I meant to get a chance to research this before I came on with you, and I am going to research this, and I'll maybe send you an email with what I find.
	So just, I'm going to speak conceptually, and I'm in the absence of specific dates.
	What happened was, I think it was about halfway through, and you may remember this, a poll came out and said like, 70% of Canadians thought the invocation was justified, right?
	And I'm like, oh, well, that's interesting timing.
	Well, then a few weeks ago, another poll came out saying, you know, 63% of Canadians expect that Mr. Rouleau will find that it was justified.
	Well, what I found out was, when I researched this, They conducted the second poll at the end of the week that they released the first poll.
	Okay?
	So you're some, you know, 65-year-old person who still has a tube TV with cable coming into the back of it, and you're watching, and you've got a landline phone, diddle-a-ling, hello, hello, and you see on the news, In this particular week on the Tuesday, suppertime news, 72% of Canadians think the occasion was justified.
	Phone rings on the Thursday.
	Hello, sir.
	I'm with so-and-so polling.
	We're conducting a poll.
	I have some questions for you.
	It will only take three minutes.
	Oh, sure.
	Okay.
	And he parrots what he or she hears from that poll.
	And then they hang on to it, and they use it in this tactical chess, political chessboard, and then they release the results of that second poll just before Rouleau's report's coming out.
	Pause for a minute.
	You will have seen and talked about, I'm sure, those scientific experiments, the experiments they have done, and they've replicated them over and over.
	There was one on Twitter I found a couple weeks back.
	And there's these university students.
	Sitting in a lab, and all but one of them are in on it, and they put three lines up, vertical lines, or they have a vertical line, and then they have one that's bigger, one that's shorter, and then one that's perfect.
	And the one that's perfectly matches C. And they go through the group, and it's the fourth, there's five of them, and the fourth guy is the actual thing, and the rest are actors, right?
	They go to the first one.
	Which line is identical to the sample?
	And the first guy says the wrong one.
	The next guy says the same wrong one.
	The next guy says the same wrong one.
	You look at this guy's face, he's like, what are you talking about?
	Obviously it's not.
	So he tells the truth, they go to the next guy, and he also gives the same wrong answer.
	Then they do it again immediately.
	They put another one up.
	It doesn't take long before the true person...
	Actually gives a knowingly wrong answer because they want to be part of the group.
	They don't want to stick out.
	They don't want to go against the flow.
	They want to be part of a beehive, right?
	And that's well established as a reality of our condition as human beings.
	And the liberals are, I want to say an F-bomb, I won't, are F-ing playing us.
	And the perfect example of it was that example I gave in the start of a couple of weeks into the inquiry.
	They do a poll and they release a poll that says 73% of Canadians think it was justified.
	They poll a few days after with a similar question.
	Catch the people who are sitting at home still have landlines and still have cable to the propaganda tube.
	You see where I'm going with this?
	So they keep playing us.
	And now, you said there's people that...
	Uh-oh.
	Hold on.
	You froze up there.
	I think you're good now.
	Yeah, you are too.
	So repeat.
	Okay.
	No, no.
	I was going to say...
	Well, before you get there, I remember those polls.
	I also remember the...
	I think the sample size of the poll or the polling...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	The polling group was like a thousand people.
	From which they then deduce 70% of Canadians.
	I can't find the tweet.
	The tweet that I did find right now is this one.
	This was back when it was cool.
	When in January, at the height of this protest, it was cool to support the protest politically because it looked like it was going to win.
	Pierre Poilievre, this is January 31st, 2022.
	Hold on one second.
	Yeah, that's the protest.
	Just chalked with hundreds of cheerful, peaceful salt of the earth give you the shirt off their back Canadians at the trucker protest.
	They choose freedom over fear.
	Yeah, they're there for inflation, Pierre.
	Well, and the real dramatic ones, and people will remember this, was during the campaign when he stood up.
	And he talked about freedom and government overreach and all the same things that was the essence of the values and the concerns and the aspirations of the tens of thousands of Canadians who heroically lined the highways in sub-zero temperatures for hours and hours waiting for the convoy to cheer them on and the many tens and tens of thousands of Canadian heroes, truckers and Canadians who went.
	To Ottawa to protest.
	So he's playing this game right now.
	But you made another point, and it was, you know, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think you're indicating that there's a percentage of our population that was highly skeptical that any good of this, and they're at their wit's end, and there's some that have some very extreme thoughts.
	I've always been concerned about that group and I hope nobody does anything stupid and we've got to keep our heads on and we've got to be smart about this and we've got to be reason Canadians about this.
	There's no reason for us to suddenly become unreasonable people and do silly things and stupid things.
	However, that's not where my eyes focused right now.
	There's a bigger group, I believe, and I could be wrong about this, but I think there's a much bigger group.
	That it's this quiet group that has started to become engaged over the last two years.
	The number of people, Viva, I have met who are very, very awake.
	And they tell me they never paid attention to politics.
	They never voted.
	And this will be a middle-aged person.
	Or they rarely voted.
	Or they just always voted a certain way because their dad or their mom always voted a certain way and their family always...
	And they're not anymore.
	They're like, oh boy, this stuff matters.
	So I think there's a group that's so awake and seen how bad everything is and has been from the get-go that this will be...
	give them...
	affirm their view that the whole system's just busted, right?
	But there's, I think, I believe there's a bigger growing group of Canadians that are like, no, no, no, no.
	This is not right that a government should so easily be able to free someone's personal and business bank accounts.
	And I don't know if you've seen the data on assuming it's accurate, the polling.
	The largest demographic that was apparently concerned about the Emergencies Act was not, like if you had Venn diagrams or a bar chart, The largest group was not people who thought the COVID mandates were wrong and overreach and authoritarianism.
	There's people out there who got four boosters, thought COVID was the new plague, everybody was going to die, thought the government handled it great.
	They might even be mad that the government still doesn't have masks and didn't close schools for longer, something ridiculous.
	And they didn't support the truckers and they didn't support the protests.
	But they say, you know...
	I don't like the idea that the government can freeze my bank account.
	So they've really opened up a very large group of people, I believe, that are thinking about the future of the country and how badly off track we are.
	And I think some of them were hoping that the Rouleau report would come out and send the message to bring things back into more control and normal and check and balance.
	And now they're like, uh-oh.
	This is not good.
	This is actually going to make it easier for a future government to do whatever the hell it wants to its citizens if the government doesn't like what the citizens are saying about the government.
	That's not cool.
	Well, you're more optimistic than me.
	The other part of Hivemind that I think might be more at play now is that there were a lot of people who are now going to feel very empowered to jump on what they perceive to be the winning side.
	They're going to support Justin Trudeau.
	They're going to feel vindicated in their hatred and resentment for the anti-vaxxers.
	They're going to want to double down on covering up what they might subconsciously feel to be their own mistakes.
	But now they think they're on the winning side.
	Pierre Poilier, like a turncoat political coward that he is, is going to have to pivot.
	Whatever support he publicly offered because of how it's going to come back and bite him in the ass right now.
	And others feel...
	And I want to bring up one part of the report.
	I'm going back to Andrew Lawton's highlights of it.
	Andrew Lawton.
	Is this it right here?
	Okay, no, it's this one right here.
	You talk about the inconsistencies in the report, and I do want to get into the diagonal extremism element of this report, which is laughably stupid.
	But before we even get there, the part...
	About defending the bank accounts.
	Let me see here.
	There is one aspect of the freezing regime that, in my view, well, actually, hold on, before we get there, because he defends the freezing.
	He defends the freezing.
	Given the overall effectiveness of the asset freezing regime in bringing the emergency to a safe and speedy resolution, I conclude that it was appropriate and effective measure.
	I read it the other day.
	The absolute intellectual incongruity here is where he says...
	That screenshot you just said, and they ought to be given more flexibility in its use, if I'm reading right, right?
	I have the...
	Hold on one second.
	That was the one before it.
	What's my problem here?
	Hold on one second.
	It was...
	Here we go.
	I can see it was a...
	As I have found, there ought to have been mechanisms providing for flexibility in the application of the regime and for the unfreezing.
	Yeah, but nobody...
	The thing here is the words.
	Effective, appropriate, and effective.
	That's not the terminology of the law.
	It was like essential and necessary.
	And then he says, okay, freezing the bank accounts was appropriate and effective, but I'm reluctant to acknowledge that.
	Let me just get back to the window so I can see what I'm talking about.
	But it was too far in freezing joint accounts because spouses...
	You know, who weren't there and might have even been against their husbands or spouses going, they got frozen too.
	Well, so what, Agulo?
	You know what's very effective and efficient in suppressing protests?
	The most draconian measures imaginable.
	Seize their house.
	Why not cancel the insurance?
	That was too far, but freezing bank accounts was effective.
	Well, if effectiveness is the measure for justifying the invocation, go further.
	There was no logic as to why Cancelling insurance was over the top, but freezing bank accounts and preventing people from buying groceries wasn't.
	I mean, it doesn't make sense on a legal basis, but let alone even on a logical basis.
	Well, and on that point, so he says in a couple of different places in the report that he concludes that the high legal threshold for invocation of the Emergencies Act is met.
	However, I'm just going by memory here because he says it in three different places, I believe.
	Each volume seemed to have a lot of repetitive stuff.
	Just designed so that everyone's intimidated from even picking it up.
	It should have been 50 pages max.
	Sorry, Keith, carry on.
	I agree with what you just said.
	And I do believe it's totally designed to distract and get us focused in on debating about little points that don't matter at the end of the day.
	But he says...
	The high legal threshold was met, although the factual basis was not overwhelming, and that someone else reasonably could come to the different conclusion.
	Verbal diarrhea, I'm sorry.
	No, well, we're lawyers, man.
	Let's go back to first-year law school, all right?
	Okay.
	Let's say there's a three-branch test.
	Of something, you know, whether it's a tort, whether it's something in the civil code, whether it's something in a statute, whether it's a common law test like the Oaks test under charter law.
	Those tests, the three-part test, or the three elements to meet the threshold, hypothetically, are empty boxes.
	So there's box one, box two, box three, right?
	You know, like the Oaks test, it has to be proportional.
	It has to be minimally invasive.
	So that's a box, right?
	Proportional, minimally invasive.
	They're empty.
	They've got labels on them, but they're empty.
	You fill them with facts, and the facts either allow you to check the box or not.
	So this idea to say that the very high legal threshold was met, and then go on in the same sentence or the following sentence to say, But the factual basis is questionable.
	Means the box wasn't met.
	Okay?
	You can't do that.
	If you wrote that kind of answer on a first-year law school exam, you would get an F. That's not how the law works.
	So there's this incredible sleight of hand all over the place.
	You know, wah, wah.
	It's terrible.
	It is, you know, I just, pardon me, like, it's such a bad fail.
	Did he mean to toss it?
	Does he really think he's helping his friends in the Liberal Party by doing this?
	Again, I know you and I are disagreeing on this, and I don't think I'm naive.
	I just don't.
	I know about hard decisions, and I know about hard roads, and I know about risk, and I know about...
	Lots of awful stuff because, you know, I experience it all the time.
	You know, no good deed goes unrewarded from all the people attacking me all the time.
	But I do honestly believe that this is going to wake up a lot of Canadians.
	And I even think a lot that, you know, like, have you?
	I have had people in my friend group.
	And these are people.
	Long-standing friends that are pre-me meeting Rutgers and pre-me getting hired by former Premier Packford that thought COVID was the most serious thing, you know the drill, that thank God for the vaccine and now they've concluded that the reason they have this advanced stage cancer is because of the vaccine.
	Or they've seen the sudden deaths in their family.
	And they have come over.
	And they apologize to you.
	They're embarrassed.
	They have shame.
	Frozen again there.
	Hold on.
	He not just froze, he disappeared.
	While Keith...
	While we have the spinning wheel...
	The government's come for Keith.
	Oh, he's back in another window.
	Okay, here we go.
	Keith.
	Freaking CSIS, eh?
	You know, whenever I get to the good part...
	Okay, sorry.
	You were talking about, you know, people being awakened to the prospect that whatever illnesses they might now be suffering could potentially, you know, be related to...
	On the other side.
	I don't know when I cut out.
	And I was being pretty intense, so if I'm repeating part of it, because this is a very important point, because I think it can give us hope, is that when they've experienced some of this firsthand and they're actually feeling shame and regret and a sense of guilt that they got duped by this, right?
	And they're now not, they're like, okay, oh my God, I've got to get involved.
	This is so serious.
	Things are so off track.
	And I don't think people need to have that extreme of a shift to be unsettled and being willing to become more politically active because of what Rouleau has just done.
	But there's both of those groups of people.
	Again, I was giving a goofy example of my history here in Alberta where I was fighting the government over property rights and how all the political parties on every end of the spectrum were competing with themselves as to who was the better champion.
	The reason they did that, I believe that politicians have these weird antennas that we can't see.
	And I think it's connected down into their ego.
	And it's how their ego gets food.
	You can vibrate them.
	And if you vibrate them, they'll do exactly what you want them to do.
	And you vibrate them by enough people talking about an issue, just like we saw Pierre do last summer, what enough people were talking about.
	The loss of freedoms in Canada, how we're no longer the true nor strong and free, how we've slipped into this authoritarianism and how it seems like we're going to keep going that way with the climate alarmism and slipping into digital ID and credit scores and all this, you know, what I'm talking about, right?
	And so I really think if enough people reasonably, rationally, articulately express what aspirations they have and make absolutely clear, Which policies of a government they will support with their vote, that they will support with their voice, that they will support with their donation dollars.
	That will start to vibrate those stupid antennas on these politicians' heads and feed their egos and go, oh wow, great, I can get power now if I just come out and say Canada slipped into authoritarianism and elect me and I'll take it in another direction.
	That's what we need.
	And again, call me naive, but it's worked before.
	I think that's the superpower of democracies.
	We have new challenges because of things we've seen particularly happen down in the United States with the election system.
	So it's like, oh, what kind of chessboard are we on here?
	But we also have new powers.
	We have this media here.
	Keith, not to go black pilly again, you have this media here for now.
	Wait until Bill C-11 comes through.
	Wait until Bill C-11.
	And Keith, the problem is you see people who are getting motivated for change.
	I see that to some extent as well.
	I see too many people who are now saying it's not so bad.
	Oh yeah, well that was a racist, xenophobe, extremist occupation.
	Trudeau was right.
	And it'll be limited to that.
	They'll surely never come after my BLM or my gay pride stuff.
	They won't because they like that now.
	And then I look at Pierre Poilievre, who, you know, even Aaron O'Toole, when he was running, he said, if I get elected, I'll repeal Bill C-11.
	And I said, you idiot, it hasn't even passed yet.
	How about you just run on not getting it passed instead of repealing it when you're in power?
	Because you might not want to do that when you're in power.
	So I'm very blackpilled.
	And my thinking is...
	I think too many Canadians are okay with this because they just don't...
	It's not that they don't understand.
	They feel comfortable.
	They feel safe with it.
	I think the way to get this to the international limelight so that internationally Canadians then say, well, hold on.
	If the rest of the world thinks this is dumb or bad or tyrannical or too much part of the NWO, the WEF, whatever, you get like Americans talking about it.
	I'm going to try to make sure that Steve Bannon...
	They were interested in the protest at the time.
	I'll get back on right now so they can let America know this is what's happening up in the North.
	It doesn't just stop there.
	That's where I think maybe you can get Canadians to realize if it's internationally mocked, if everyone's looking at Canada and saying, hey, it's mini North Korea, maybe then Canadians start to say, this is not exactly the country that they want.
	For the time being, I think a lot of people feel too comfortable.
	They feel protected.
	They feel safe.
	And now they're looking to say, yeah, look, hey, if Rouleau said Justin was just trying to protect Canadians, who am I to disagree?
	It's the hive mind.
	And it's the ratification of their own foregone conclusion.
	So I'm not optimistic, Keith.
	And I typically am.
	Well, I'm glad that I'm here for you then.
	Well, I'm going to suck you into the black hole.
	I think I'm going to be more powerful.
	I know.
	I'm feeling the pull, pal.
	And then, like, what do you do?
	Some of the lines have been coming into my head, but I won't say them because I don't know what the rating system is here.
	But I'll keep it family.
	Let me say two things, if I can remember them.
	One is, oh, like, you know, part of what you're saying, I agree.
	Like, listen to the prime minister.
	He always uses this phrase, and it drives me insane.
	My government is committed to keeping Canadians safe.
	We had a balloon that entered our airspace.
	And because we have no army or air force, we had the Americans shoot it down for us to keep Canadians safe.
	Right?
	He always says, keep Canadians safe.
	And you know, my mind is, no thanks.
	Could you, though, maybe try and run the passport office?
	Maybe start with that, right?
	But I know there's a whole group of people out there.
	I know.
	I know them.
	They're in my relationship spheres.
	That all they want is the government to look after them.
	They want the government to make decisions for them.
	They want to make sure the government keeps them safe.
	I get it.
	And I think we'll always have elements and not insignificant ones within our society that have that viewpoint.
	So I get that.
	But I also go back to my funny thing about those silly antennas connected to their egos.
	I don't know if you had an opportunity or felt that it was wise.
	For your well-being to watch Prime Minister Trudeau's press conference last Friday afternoon.
	Oh, I broke that down Saturday.
	And someone in the chat said, Viva, you're going to have an aneurysm.
	I said, Viva, calm down.
	This is the seven and a half minutes of absolute verbal diarrhea where...
	Caleb, remind the listeners of some of his themes, sir.
	Oh, the Windsor Bridge was his major theme.
	The border blockades was his major theme to justify the invocation, failing to mention that those issues had been resolved judicially by the time he invoked the Emergencies Act.
	I mean, I went, if that's what you were getting at, I went hard on that on Saturday because people are stupid.
	And I say that respectfully.
	I mean, like, people are unintelligent.
	Some people are uninformed.
	Some people are willfully blind.
	And some people are dishonest.
	He was talking about the blockade, the economy, billions of dollars cross that bridge every day.
	And I'm like, you lying son of a beasting, that was resolved by the time that you invoked the Emergencies Act.
	And how was it resolved?
	By getting an injunction from court and applying the legal system and the current laws.
	So yeah, if that's what you were going to get at.
	Was that where you were going with that?
	No, I'm going somewhere more positive.
	Okay.
	Am I messing you up with all this positivity?
	I hope I'm going to digest it later on and then maybe it'll sink in, but I'm not feeling...
	You're never going to have me on again.
	You're going to say, Wilson, stay too positive.
	You're always welcome, Keith.
	And I hope it rubs off.
	I think I'm going to rub off on you and you're going to, at the end of the stream...
	Be very, very dark-pilled.
	Walk in the hallway and punch the first person I see.
	Don't do that.
	No, so where were you going with his press conference?
	Two things.
	But first of all, because I need to pause for a minute, and I made a note to myself so I don't forget the real important point I wanted to make, is, you know, on those economic points, during the inquiry, they put three witnesses up from federal finance.
	And this guy was talking at length about the modelling that they did as to the economic costs of the Windsor blockade and closing the Windsor border, which the folks in Ottawa at the Ottawa protest had absolutely nothing to do with, and it seems Rouleau got that part right.
	And so we ended up putting in evidence the actual Statistics Canada data that is now available.
	And there was no reduction in trade, and there was an increase in trade from previous years.
	And the reason Statistics Canada said that the border blockade had no negative economic impact was because there's other crossings right by there.
	In the same way that if a trucker is trying to drive up through the Golden Triangle of Ontario and finds out that the 401 is closed because of some massive pileup, he doesn't go...
	Oh, great.
	Well, I guess I'll stay on the 401 then.
	He goes, oh, I'm going to bypass onto this other highway, right?
	So the border's closed at Windsor.
	No problem.
	I'll just go to the crossing, next closest crossing.
	So the truck's just diverted.
	But their witness is saying, well, we were modeling this and we were challenged with this externality and we felt we had to include this variable and we excluded these other variables.
	And he's going on and all these lawyers are asking questions about it.
	And Brendan and I are like yanking our hair out.
	So Brendan gets up, well, you don't need a model when you have actual data, right?
	You don't need to guess and predict when you can actually see the actual statistical evidence, right?
	And so we put that in.
	The clear evidence was there was no net economic impact.
	And you're right, it wasn't though just the injunction that the evidence showed that caused that border to open.
	It was the stakeholder engagement plan that was developed by the OPP and implemented there.
	And it got paused.
	And it got paused because the senior inspector responsible for the OPP for implementing it Paused its implementation, she testified, because she was concerned they weren't doing the same thing in Ottawa, and she was concerned that if they opened up a dialogue with the protesters at Windsor and not in Ottawa, that that would be perceived as a provocative move.
	So it was the opening up of dialogue combined with the injunction.
	That caused that border to be reopened.
	And a lot of the evidence was...
	I'm just making sure we've got connection here.
	I hear you, but you're paused.
	Okay, I hope I'm back.
	Anyway, just a further example.
	You can pick any one thing and show so much bullshit on the government's side.
	But back to my optimistic point.
	So, one of the things I picked up...
	About the Prime Minister's press conference on Friday was...
	Are you frozen?
	Am I frozen?
	We hear you.
	Can you hear me viva?
	Yeah, we can hear you.
	Now we're going to go black.
	So one of the things that I picked up...
	Keep going, Keith.
	We can hear you.
	Keep moving.
	If you can hear me, we can hear you.
	All right, thanks.
	So one of the things that I picked up...
	Awesome.
	Well, that's what's making me nervous because I only hear you some of the time.
	And that's not your fault.
	It's this hotel Wi-Fi.
	So if you look at what the Prime Minister, some of his messages and the phraseology he was using, he was talking about unity.
	He was talking about respect.
	He was talking about freedom.
	He was talking about rights.
	And he was using all of the key phrases.
	That Tamara Leach has always used.
	Why did he do that?
	Go back and look at it.
	And try and look past the really frustrating parts.
	Keith, I'll tell you why.
	He's a psychopath.
	He is a manipulative, narcissistic psychopath.
	And now that he's had his victory, he's going to be benevolent and gentle on the victims of his abuse.
	It's, oh, I wish I had rephrased the, whatever he called the, I wish I had done it.
	He's a manipulative, if he's not borderline personality as a diagnostic, he is a narcissistic, manipulative psychopath.
	That's why.
	And now he's got his victory and he feels emboldened by his abuse, so he's going to show benevolence and kindness to the victims of his abuse.
	Yeah, no, I'm not making my point clear enough.
	I agree with everything you just said and more, okay?
	My point is that he was using the same messaging that Tamara and the other freedom fighters have been using because I think he and his people know It is a concern of Canadians.
	Canadians are concerned about the divisiveness.
	Canadians are concerned about what's happened to our freedoms.
	And it goes to my point that those little antennas are vibrating, right?
	That he's feeling he needs to co-opt and take over the messaging so that if you're a Canadian and you're concerned about freedom and you're concerned about unity...
	And you're concerned about respect and having respect for others.
	You need to vote for me, the Liberal Party.
	You see what I'm saying?
	Like, I just, again, I don't say this naively.
	I say it based on my own experience where it's worked before against what seemed overwhelming odds.
	And I do believe that at a very practical level, yesterday I was asked to go on to a Twitter space, which is...
	A very interesting forum.
	It's quite fascinating, these Twitter spaces.
	They're quite intimate.
	And because you can't see anybody, it's all voice.
	There's something interesting there that I try to get my head around.
	It's a new...
	I don't think it's going away.
	I think you're going to see more and more of them.
	In any event, I was asked to go on one with Eva Chipiuk and Andy Lee.
	And I don't know if you know of this fellow, but his name's Jerry Ritz.
	He's a well-known person in Western Canada.
	He's a former federal minister of agriculture and a conservative government.
	He's a former MP.
	And so we were having a discussion about similar things we're talking about here.
	And, you know, I said, somebody asked him a brilliant question.
	It was Dan Knight, the host.
	Brilliant question.
	He asked him, as a former MP and cabinet minister, what was it that people did, constituents, voters, that caused him to change his mind on a policy issue?
	So what is it, as a former cabinet minister and a member of parliament, what techniques and tactics did people use to cause him to change his mind on a policy?
	And he explained, it's simple.
	You use every opportunity to communicate.
	You send an email, you send a letter.
	You use social media, you request a meeting.
	We talked about very specific things.
	I had a mentor in my life who was a former member of parliament, and he said the most important thing you can do on a letter to a politician, the most important thing, is the CC line.
	The CC line on the bottom.
	He said when he'd get all the letters come into his office as a member of parliament and somebody's writing about something and there's no CC on it, he would put it to the side and it would get to later.
	If there was a CC on it to the party leader, to another MP, to the opposition leaders, he would read that because he didn't want to go into the parliamentary cafeteria and have that member of parliament come up and say, did you see that letter from John Smith from Stetler, Alberta about X?
	Right?
	So, lots of practical things Canadians can do.
	You know, we can be angry, and we can have despair, or we can say, no, we're not going to take this.
	We're going to fight for the future of our kids.
	We're going to fight for the future of our country.
	And you reach out to every elected official, and you share with them your views.
	Jerry said, too, he said, by this point about long reports, he said, I read the letters that were one page.
	He said, especially when he was a cabinet minister, it was more than one page.
	It went to a staffer who synthesized it down to a paragraph, right?
	So one page letter to your members of parliament, to other members of parliament, CC'd to a few of them.
	And then Jerry said, what would happen is one of them would get a response from one of the people.
	And then people would write to him and say, I got a response from your colleague.
	How come you didn't respond, right?
	Just stimulate those antennas, man, and really tell them what you feel without shouting at them and calling them names as much as I really want to shout at them and call them names and explain the values that are important to you because at the end of the day, they want two things.
	They want three things from you.
	They want your voice.
	In other words, they want you saying, yes, that's the dude.
	This is the party, right?
	They want your...
	Your dollars, your donations, and then they want your vote.
	And you control those things.
	You do.
	No one else.
	So that's what we got to do.
	And call me naive?
	No problem.
	And I know you're not doing that, but you're challenging me as I want you to, as everyone should.
	I'm calling you too optimistic, but I'll just say one thing.
	Absolutely.
	Above and beyond, you know, calling names, I still think it's the wrong tactic.
	Violence is the absolute wrong tactic.
	And I'll dare say that anybody who does it or talks about it, I think they're saboteurs deliberately trying to sabotage by doing that which, you know, it would be like mana from the heavens for the government to have some lone wolf or some militia try to do something stupid because it would justify.
	Everything and more, and I think anybody talking about it, anybody seriously promoting it, it's deliberate saboteur or agent provocateurs, whatever.
	It's deliberate sabotage.
	So, full stop, no qualification, Keith.
	Just on that, though, if you can hold your thought, because I want to really accentuate what you just said.
	I had occasion on one of the family holiday to meet an American, he was an army ranger, and he had spent a number of tours in Iraq.
	And he was always on these deployments where he was in urban environments, you know, and kicking in a door, an entrance to an apartment building, going up the stairs in the middle of the night, him and his team.
	He was telling me how they did it.
	The hand signals on the back, how they'd fan in, kick in, you know, and then there's mom and dad with the kids and they all think they're going to get shot, you know.
	And he said to me a couple of times, and after I got to know him, we kind of became friends.
	On this trip, and I said, and I'd never met him before, just met him.
	It was on a cruise, actually, cruise ship.
	And he said to me, he said, Keith, kinetic force is not the way to solve disputes.
	Kinetic force is not the way to solve disputes.
	And so I'm just emphasizing your point that violence and bullets is not the way to do this.
	It's by people having dialogue.
	And not letting their voice go unheard.
	And using some of the base tactics.
	Oh, the other thing.
	Ever brought this up.
	One of the things that came out of the inquiry that really surprised me, I don't know what your reaction was to it.
	The extent to which these politicians and their staffers watch Twitter.
	They're obsessed with it.
	You'd see these things.
	Did you see what so-and-so tweeted?
	Twitter's blowing up over X. Hey, guys.
	You know, you've got a couple of followers, Aviva.
	I've got a growing number of followers.
	Please put my Twitter handle down there so more people don't mind.
	It's at IKWilson, IKWilson, at IKWilson.
	Let's use Twitter.
	So one of the things that former MP Jerry Ritz said yesterday in this Twitter space is we kind of got brainstorming with a few hundred people listening in, as you do on a Twitter space, is...
	Let's combine everything together.
	So do a paper letter, take a picture with your phone, put it on your Twitter and say, hey guys, this is the letter I just sent to all the political parties in Ottawa, right?
	That kind of thing.
	Let's just combine all these medias together and really hammer home with clarity the vision that we want for our community, our communities, our neighbours and our kids.
	With such clarity and force of persuasion that we vibrate those damn antennas on these crazy politicians' heads so they can barely sleep.
	All right, Keith, we're going to leave it at that, because I think...
	Leaving it on a tone of optimism...
	Oh, no, well, we can still hear you.
	When you catch up with me...
	CSUS is jamming the signal.
	We can still hear you.
	Okay, while your connection comes back...
	You're frozen.
	Okay, one second.
	You'll hear me in a second, but before then, I'm gonna read the Rumble Rants that are still up here on the side.
	Let me see if we're seeing this.
	Oh, Keith is gone.
	He'll be back in a second, people.
	Let me read the Rumble Rants'cause the software works.
	Astro Sweat says, "Remember Soros Tides Foundation and Dominion Voting Machines share the same That's a $2 rumble rant.
	$2 Rumble from Astro Sweat, says Keith.
	Great Justin voice.
	The cadence was spot on.
	$2 Rumble from Ken.
	Media reader Viva.
	My concern is that the ruling has ignited the escalation chain.
	Imagine you are protesting.
	Must hide my wealth.
	An underground economy that distrusts the government on slippery slope.
	I agree.
	People are going to pull their money out of Canada now that the freezing of bank accounts has been ratified.
	$5.
	Bulgadari says, is the ruling appealable?
	No, we got over that, but there's some court cases which are, don't hold your breath for success.
	Ricky Dickey and Don, 22, says, the government investigating the government is like the police investigating the police.
	I'm sincerely amazed you, Viva, really thought this would be anything but a sham.
	I think there's a lot of people pretending that they always said it was going to be a sham now that the sham result has come out.
	I won't apologize.
	I thought it was so clear in fact and in law and even more so after the hearing.
	That I think this is an outrage, and I don't think anyone was predicting this level of buffoonery from the beginning, because if they did, they predicted it with inaccurate information.
	Anyone who predicted this was a foregone conclusion from the beginning, you might have made the right guess, but it was not based on the six weeks of evidence that actually was adjuiced during this hearing.
	And after that six weeks, I said, there's no way the judge is going to say it was justified.
	I was wrong.
	I will be wrong again in the future, but you understand why I was wrong, and I may be wrong.
	But I'm always honest.
	Undead UrScience says, can you put me in touch with an Ontario medical malpractice lawyer who is a good person?
	Love the show.
	Viva.
	Peace.
	I would suggest my brother, LionAdvocacy on Twitter.
	He's a good dude.
	He's a lawyer, too.
	Now, Keith is back to connection, and I'm going to bring him back in so I can say our proper farewells.
	Keith.
	I switched to cellular, so it'll make it a little harder for the hotel.
	At this point, well, I think we should end it on a good optimistic note.
	I had a couple of questions on other issues, but I think maybe we'll just save that for another stream.
	Sure.
	The Chinese money infiltration into the election, as per a Globe and Mail report.
	Maybe we'll talk about that later, but I think...
	No, I think...
	Look, you've left us on a positive note.
	The Commission's report is a load of crap.
	You know, Diagalon, Patches and Coots, distant from Ottawa, but yet...
	Sufficient to warrant...
	Goats, the general man.
	You know that drug-addicted, psychotic goats?
	Yeah, what's the name?
	Philip?
	Philip.
	Of course it's Philip.
	I think the way out of this...
	You know that Diaglon was in a war with Circolon, right?
	I know it now.
	I know it now.
	Circolon.
	It's just like Buzz Lightyear, Evil Emperor Zerg, right?
	It's the whole idea.
	Yeah, because if you've got a line, well, the opponent's got to be...
	It can't be a line.
	It's got to be a circle.
	So yeah, that diagonal was created to fight Circolon.
	It's a parody.
	It's a joke, Keith.
	And I think the only way that Canadians make an overt effort, a willing attempt to change is when they get sufficiently mocked on the international scale.
	And when Joe Rogan starts off a show viewed by however many tens of millions of people talking about how Canada has weaponized the term freedom, although it's been done in the States as well.
	That's where change comes from.
	It comes from shame and it comes from external pressure.
	But that should give us hope.
	I know we're going to wrap, but that should give us hope.
	Not just are we seeing through this.
	If it's the case, and sometimes people from a distance see things you don't see when you're in the middle of things.
	I get that.
	But clearly others are seeing that things are so badly off track.
	We are being constantly manipulated and we know that it's going to go off the scale worse if some of these bills finally make their way through the lawmaking process and there's no indication they won't.
	So it's really time for Canadians to say, have that hard discussion with themselves.
	This is going to get ugly and we can only imagine if these crazies that are now drunk on authoritarian power and that's the thing.
	They got so...
	Intoxicated through COVID when they got us to wear our compliance flags, you know, the mask.
	They got us to do all of these things and shut down everything and we went along with it.
	They want that power again.
	And they're going to use the climate BS and we're going to get, you know, only so many...
	Carbon credits for driving and everything else at the rate we're going and I really am optimistic That enough Canadians are saying, nah, this sounds really dystopian to me.
	I'm uncomfortable about this.
	I'm fearful for my kids.
	And I guess I've got to stand up and take a stand.
	I've laid out some practical things that people can do.
	And I really appreciate you having me on.
	And I apologize for the technology glitch.
	Done is better than perfect, Keith.
	And it's the substance and not the form.
	By the way, hold on.
	Let me just show this to everybody here.
	I got a neon light.
	Oh, cool.
	The only problem, it was cheap, but that's not the problem.
	The problem is neon on white is invisible to a camera, so I've got to put up a black backdrop so that it actually can contrast against something.
	So we'll be working on the studio, but done is better than perfect, and we're here for the content and not for crystal clear microphone on whatever this mic is.
	But Keith, thank you very much for taking time out of your day.
	Wish my best to Tamara Leach and everybody.
	We'll do this again sooner than later because there's going to be other stuff to talk about.
	So whenever you have time, you're always welcome.
	Thank you, sir.
	And I'm going to pin your Twitter handle, IKWilson.
	Go follow him because it's good.
	Keith, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes to everyone in the chat.
	Thank you very much.
	Tomorrow, I'm live in studio with Paul Figueiredo, and we're going to be talking about Brazil.
	Now I have to go do some homework on the Brazilian situation, but tomorrow's going to be live in studio at noon.
	So stay tuned for that.
	Keith, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everybody, enjoy the day.

▲