Under Trudeau's new “fake news” law, calling him a substitute drama teacher would be illegal
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
175.40863
Summary
Justin Trudeau slipped in a change to the Elections Act that calls for censorship of criticism of politicians and a 5 year prison sentence attached to it. No one in the Conservative opposition opposed it, and no civil liberties groups did either. The Canadian Constitution Foundation has now filed a court challenge.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hello, my rebels. Today, I do something I probably should have done a month ago or even months ago.
00:00:05.240
I read through changes to the Elections Act that Justin Trudeau slipped in almost a year ago. Now,
00:00:11.480
how could he slip in changes? I mean, they're done through Parliament. Well, it was an obscure
00:00:16.320
provision that the conservative opposition didn't squawk about, didn't fight about, didn't oppose,
00:00:24.660
and no civil liberties groups did either. I would say that's as close to slipping in a change to the
00:00:29.120
law. As I've seen, the trouble is the law calls for censorship of criticism of politicians and has
00:00:35.580
a five-year prison sentence attached to it. I'll give you all the details. I'll give you all the
00:00:40.440
details. But first, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber. You get the video version of
00:00:45.720
this podcast. Just go to premium.rebelnews.com. It's eight bucks a month, and you get to see the
00:00:51.960
video in addition to the podcast. All right, here's today's show.
00:00:59.120
Tonight, Justin Trudeau slipped in a new fake news law. If you call him a substitute driving
00:01:17.560
teacher, you could go to prison. I wish I were joking. It's October 18th, and this is the Ezra
00:01:22.640
Levant Show. Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
00:01:29.100
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer. The only thing I have to say to the
00:01:34.640
government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
00:01:39.040
One of my favorite guys is John Carpet of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom. He's a
00:01:49.560
true civil libertarian, one of the few in this country who actually stands up for freedom of
00:01:53.720
speech. You won't hear a peep from the Canadian Journalist for Free Expression or Canadian Civil
00:01:59.300
Liberties Association. They're too busy championing Omar Khadr or demonizing Donald Trump to care about,
00:02:05.920
you know, free expression or civil liberties. They really should change their name.
00:02:11.260
But I think I need to pay a bit more attention to another public interest law firm that fights for
00:02:15.280
liberty also. It's called the Canadian Constitution Foundation. Similar in name to Carpet's group,
00:02:20.640
similar in focus. You know, I actually served on their board of directors about a decade or so ago.
00:02:27.100
Anyways, I want to tell you about a lawsuit they filed just last month, and it's very relevant
00:02:32.260
to the election we're in right now, and all future elections. It was a law passed by parliament,
00:02:38.980
written by Trudeau's cabinet. It was one of a ton of changes to Canada's Election Act.
00:02:45.140
And I think this little change didn't get a lot of coverage at all. Tell you the truth,
00:02:48.980
I think it slipped into the law, slipped by me, because no one made a fuss about it. I guess that's my job,
00:02:55.660
to make a fuss about things. But I don't see everything. I didn't quite see this one go by.
00:02:59.820
And the conservative opposition didn't oppose it vigorously at all. And the media, which is also
00:03:04.900
supposed to be a watchdog in our democracy, well, they're on a leash now, most of them,
00:03:08.960
as part of the $600 million media bailout. So no one cared, certainly not the left-wing civil
00:03:14.540
liberties groups, but not the Conservative Party of Canada either. The conservative opposition critic
00:03:19.520
on this file was Calgary's Stephanie Cusey. I never really saw her oppose anything that Trudeau
00:03:25.640
or Karina Gould did on this file. I actually watched a fair bit of the Parliamentary Committee
00:03:31.020
on these changes. And really, the only thing I got from Cusey and the Conservatives was they wanted
00:03:36.260
Trudeau to move faster and harder. That and then just plain old personal compliments to the Liberals.
00:03:44.020
So I'm asking you, please, if you are ready in regards to the social media platform,
00:03:50.140
willing to make the hard decisions, to take the hard actions, and not six months from now,
00:03:55.000
but now, please. Minister, always lovely to see you. I love that necklace, by the way. That's
00:03:58.640
just beautiful. Also, I want to say that I really enjoyed your speech yesterday at the AI. And you
00:04:04.860
know what? It was very informal. And I really, I think you should go with that format more when you
00:04:08.840
come even to committees, because you just, you do it so well. So I just, I wanted to compliment you on
00:04:12.900
that. Yeah, that's not really how you do opposition. So the law is the law, and none of the watchdogs
00:04:19.020
barked. But I'm pleased to say the Canadian Constitution Foundation has gone to court to
00:04:23.380
fight the law. I'm pleased to say they filed their court application, their constitutional challenge,
00:04:28.940
just last month. We'll have to see if we can get an interview with them about it. I'm excited about it.
00:04:35.060
I read it, and I'll tell you about it. But first, let me tell you about the law that was passed.
00:04:39.820
Here's the text of the Elections Act as amended. I'm going to read this slowly, and then I'm going
00:04:45.240
to go back through it again. It's fairly plain English, but I'll elaborate on my second pass
00:04:49.040
through. Here's the law. Publishing false statement to affect election results. That's
00:04:54.660
the name of the section. 91.1. No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results
00:05:02.600
of an election, make or publish during the election period, A, a false statement that a candidate, a
00:05:09.140
prospective candidate, the leader of a political party, or a public figure associated with a
00:05:13.340
political party, has committed an offense under an act of parliament, or a regulation made under such
00:05:19.300
an act, or under an act of the legislature of a province, or a regulation made under such an act,
00:05:23.820
or has been charged with, or is under investigation for such an offense. Very wide-ranging.
00:05:28.700
Or B, a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications,
00:05:35.200
or membership in a group, or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader
00:05:41.000
of a political party, or a public figure associated with a political party.
00:05:45.540
By the way, the penalty for breaching this section is up to $50,000 in fines, and incredibly up to five
00:05:51.700
years in prison. I've seen rapists, I've actually been in court, and I've seen rapists sentenced in this
00:05:56.700
country to six months in prison. But if you break this election rule, and say a mean thing about a
00:06:01.220
politician, you can get five years in prison. All right, let me read it line by line now.
00:06:05.920
91.1. No person or entity shall, with the intention of effecting the results of an election,
00:06:11.340
make or publish during the election period. Okay, fairly obvious. This means anyone,
00:06:16.060
including other political candidates, is covered by the law, including journalists,
00:06:19.400
including you, on Facebook. When you write something on Facebook, and click OK, or publish,
00:06:27.920
that means the definition of publishing, even if you just publish it to your friend.
00:06:32.240
So this law targets you. Of course it does, because you're not already under the control of Trudeau.
00:06:36.860
You don't work for the CBC. You're not at one of the bailout newspapers. So this is to shut you up,
00:06:41.200
because you're the last person who isn't gagged. Okay, I'll keep on.
00:06:44.380
A, a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party,
00:06:50.180
or a public figure associated with a political party, has committed an offense. Okay, so this
00:06:55.140
protects just the political party class. It's incredible, really. Candidates, or prospective
00:07:01.360
candidates, as in someone who might become a candidate, what does that mean? A public figure
00:07:06.480
associated with a political party, what does that mean? If someone is a member of a party,
00:07:11.400
just a member, are they covered? If they're a former member? I mean, take, for example,
00:07:15.820
Kim Campbell, the nutty former prime minister, who just does nothing all day, apparently,
00:07:20.220
but publish insane tweets against Donald Trump. Oh, and she's also in charge of vetting Supreme
00:07:26.220
Court Judges for Trudeau. But is she associated with the party? Or how about that old battle axe
00:07:30.700
Sheila Comps, who's a full-time internet troll, just nuts these days. Does she get this special
00:07:36.700
legal protection now, because she's associated with the party? What a weird law.
00:07:41.400
To give immunity from criticism, not only just to the elite political class, but just to political
00:07:47.180
parties and their friends. I'll read more of the law. It says, a person has, I'm quoting now,
00:07:58.060
committed an offense, it's an offense to say a person has committed an offense under an act of
00:08:02.880
parliament, or a regulation made under such an act, or under an act of the legislature of a province,
00:08:08.420
or regulation made under such an act, or has been charged with, or is under investigation for such
00:08:13.740
an offense. That covers almost anything. A regulation in a provincial law, maybe you're under
00:08:22.040
investigation. If you say any of these things, you're in jeopardy of five years in prison. Well,
00:08:27.340
look, right now, if someone slanders you, and says you've committed a crime or something,
00:08:34.000
you can sue them now. Whether you're a politician, a prince, or a pauper. The law is called defamation
00:08:39.280
law. That's something you have to hire your own lawyer for, and go to court and convince the judge,
00:08:44.000
a real judge, in a real court. And there are defenses, fair comment, truth, things like that. At the end of
00:08:49.500
the day, if you're wrong, the person you sued, they get costs from you. But if you didn't really say
00:08:56.760
anything that hurtful, and not many people saw the defamation, you might only get a few bucks in
00:09:01.960
damages. I've seen damages as low as a dollar. Not 50 grand, not prison time. There's no prison time
00:09:07.440
for saying something mean now. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I believe Justin Trudeau has
00:09:14.320
committed criminal obstruction of justice in regards to the SNC-Lavalin case, and probably
00:09:19.840
in the case of Vice Admiral Norman, too. Let me be crystal clear. I believe Justin Trudeau broke
00:09:24.900
the criminal code. Can I get any clearer than that? In the one case, he tried to get the prosecution
00:09:30.460
to drop the case against the guilty party, SNC-Lavalin. In the other case, he tried to get a
00:09:35.200
false prosecution. He tried to frame an innocent man. I think they're both crimes. I think Trudeau
00:09:40.580
himself broke the law, the criminal law. Maybe other criminal laws, too. We know for a fact
00:09:46.380
that he broke the law against illegal drugs. He boasts about using drugs long before he legalized
00:09:50.980
marijuana. If Trudeau wants to sue me for saying those things, he can. But if he does, I'll get
00:09:57.320
to cross-examine him and get access to his records touching on those matters. That's why he won't
00:10:02.500
sue. But not so under this new fake news law. His buddies at Elections Canada can go after
00:10:08.700
me on the public dime with investigators. And I don't get to cross-examine Trudeau or get
00:10:13.580
to see his records. He's delegating his political enforcement to a political office paid for with
00:10:18.920
taxpayers' money. And we know they're extremely partisan at Elections Canada. A conservative
00:10:24.440
MP donated too much to his campaign or something like that. He gets handcuffed and sent to prison.
00:10:30.360
SNC-Lavalin made 100 grand in illegal contributions to the liberals again and again, similar to the
00:10:36.460
Del Mastro story. And they get let off the hook for free in secret. Yeah, I'm not trusting those
00:10:42.020
crooks. Oops. You're going to send me to prison for saying that, too? Now, this next part is even
00:10:46.720
crazier. It's also illegal to make, quote, a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth,
00:10:53.840
education, professional qualifications, or membership in a group or association of a candidate,
00:10:59.520
a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party, or a public figure associated with the party.
00:11:03.280
Really? Okay, so Andrew Scheer said he was an insurance broker in Saskatchewan. Turns out he
00:11:09.520
wasn't. He was an assistant to insurance broker. Now, I honestly don't care. But this law says that
00:11:16.160
to get that wrong is to break the law and risk prison. Andrew Scheer also kept quiet that he's an
00:11:24.760
American. Again, I don't care. He's not really an American. He has American citizenship also because
00:11:30.420
of his dad. If I got that wrong, do I go to prison? Trudeau lies about his background and credentials
00:11:35.640
all the time. He lies and lies. He said he taught free lies. He's made up so many stories about his
00:11:41.980
CV. Look, most politicians lie or embroider the truth. It's not actually against the rules of
00:11:48.660
Parliament to lie. Do you know that? It's against the rules, in fact, to call out an MP for lying.
00:11:53.280
You can't actually call an MP a liar. That's politics for you. But now they want to stop us from calling
00:11:58.800
out those liars. Perfect example. Miriam Monsef. She lied about where she was born. She committed
00:12:06.060
immigration fraud to come to Canada. And she lied her way into Parliament. Remember this?
00:12:10.360
So you were born in Afghanistan, correct? I believe I was.
00:12:13.800
She was actually born in Iran, not Afghanistan. She lied about that. And if Bob Fyfe called her out on
00:12:19.780
that before the truth came out, Bob Fyfe could have been investigated and even sent to prison under this
00:12:24.720
law. Even though, in fact, he eventually exposed the truth. She was lying. What kind of bizarre
00:12:29.340
censorship rule is this? What is this doing in the law? One last quote. Subsection 1 applies
00:12:35.140
regardless of the place where the election is held or the place where the false statement is made or
00:12:39.000
published. So if you're in Prince Edward Island and you tweet about someone in BC, you're subject to
00:12:44.220
the law. Hell, it even applies if you're in America, but probably only if you're an enemy of Trudeau.
00:12:49.220
Hmm. Elections Canada doesn't care about foreign meddling if it's pro-Trudeau, like Obama's
00:12:54.220
endorsement of Trudeau or Greta Thunberg interfering. So what do the Conservatives say to this law?
00:13:01.360
It's anti-free speech. It's meddling. It's so partisan and political. It treats a fancy
00:13:07.680
partisan class as a protected class unlike the rest of us. So what do the Conservatives say?
00:13:14.880
Well, the opposition Conservative critic Stephanie Cousy made one attempt to amend the law.
00:13:18.540
She wanted to add the word knowingly to the law, that you knowingly had to publish something false.
00:13:25.840
I suppose that's a baby step better than it is right now, but the law actually uses the word
00:13:29.980
intentionally. So that's really the same thing. And just tweaking the law is not opposing it.
00:13:35.420
She didn't fight against this law. She didn't stand for free speech. Neither did Andrew Scheer.
00:13:39.900
That's accepting this bizarre censorship. And again, it's special censorship for the special
00:13:45.220
political class because the Conservatives are a part of this political class themselves, aren't they?
00:13:51.280
And you know, they probably want to protect themselves against people who criticize them.
00:13:55.100
Of course they do. Their main objection to Trudeau's changes here isn't, is that Trudeau didn't go far
00:14:00.980
enough, hard enough, fast enough. I say again, freedom of speech is the number one issue of our time
00:14:05.940
because without it, we can't criticize any other issues in our society. And the political class,
00:14:09.960
including Andrew Scheer and Stephanie Cousy, well, they don't mind because they'll have their freedoms
00:14:15.300
as MPs, won't they? And now they'll have special protections, won't they? This is the law of the
00:14:21.180
land now. They didn't stop it. They loved it. And who knows, maybe in three days' time,
00:14:27.800
Andrew Scheer will be the one sending out in forces under the law to crack down on his enemies.
00:14:34.500
Doesn't make me feel any better about it than if Trudeau has the whip in his hand. Stay with us for more.
00:14:42.180
My friends, I must tell you that last Monday was one of the proudest days of my life, my public life.
00:15:01.660
I've had so many proud private moments in my family, but for everything I've done in my life,
00:15:08.220
I would put publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed definitely in the top. But my day in
00:15:14.580
the federal court of Canada with our crack team of legal eagles suing Justin Trudeau's debate commission
00:15:23.180
for the right to attend the leaders' debate, winning that day, being there in alliance with
00:15:31.400
Candace Malcolm's True North News and their reporter Andrew Lawton, succeeding, getting Kian Bextie and
00:15:38.960
David Menzies into the debate that night, and then seeing that night our own reporters grilling the
00:15:45.980
leaders, knowing that we made the decisions to do this and you, our viewers, paid for it. I have to tell you,
00:15:52.800
as I told our lawyers in court that day, it was one of the proudest moments of my life, and I mean that very
00:15:59.300
truly, and even a little bit emotionally. I did my best right after that court hearing to explain things.
00:16:06.220
As you know, I'm a former lawyer. I had a sense of what was going on, but I thought, let's call in the legal
00:16:12.240
eagles themselves, the men who worked all weekend and all day to get us that surprising victory. Have them explain
00:16:20.760
what happened, and interesting to me, explain why we must continue with the lawsuit, even though the
00:16:31.040
leaders' debates are over for the year. Joining me now in studio is our legal team. Immediately to my left,
00:16:38.560
Aaron Rosenberg and David Elmaleh from ReLaw. It's so nice to have you guys here in studio. The dust has
00:16:46.100
settled. Your court win, I'll say our court win, because we were all in it together, made front
00:16:51.940
page news the next day. I want to say thank you to you guys. It was an amazing day for me. I'd like
00:16:59.200
to hear, now that the pressure has receded a bit, some of your thoughts, and then some of the questions
00:17:04.240
I've just touched on. Well, I have to say, it was an amazing, amazing experience. I mean, to get that
00:17:10.240
call Friday afternoon, the debate's happening Monday night, we need to get our guys in.
00:17:16.100
This is a very, very unique situation, obviously, and so much had to align in the right way for us
00:17:24.240
to get this, to obtain this injunction. Extremely, extremely rare to get this type of emergency
00:17:30.380
injunction, and we got that call. We knew that we were being called upon for a much higher purpose.
00:17:36.460
This wasn't just about getting two of our guys into the debate. This was about freedom of press.
00:17:41.800
This was about holding the government to account and government transparency, and we think that we
00:17:47.320
broke that, we broke through on Monday afternoon, just hours before the actual debate, and then we
00:17:55.240
left it to the rebel staff, to the rebel reporters to do it, to ask those questions, and I think everyone
00:18:01.400
was shocked at just how well they did, asking our federal leaders some tough questions that none of
00:18:09.140
the other reporters were willing to ask. Well, thank you for that, Aaron, and I agree. You know,
00:18:14.560
you made me think that of a moment in court where Justice Russell's in, the federal court judge who
00:18:19.980
was just handed the case that very morning. I mean, he only had a few hours to read all the materials.
00:18:25.580
I found him very engaged in the courtroom. He's obviously a very bright man.
00:18:30.060
He said a few things that stuck with me. One of them was, well, there's so many reporters in there.
00:18:38.280
How many will really have a chance to scrum the leaders? It's almost like winning a lottery.
00:18:42.860
And I thought, well, that's sort of right, but wouldn't you know it, our guys won the lottery again
00:18:47.260
and again and again and again, because between the two debates, I think our guys, and Andrew Lawton,
00:18:51.760
I'm calling him one of our guys, I think we had 16 questions for, 16 questions, I think, of Trudeau
00:18:59.800
and the other leaders. So if Justice Zinn was watching, he must have said, wow, these guys really
00:19:04.700
made the most of the court order. Like, I think we lived up to it. Yeah, and I don't think we could
00:19:10.260
fairly say, because no one knew. No, we couldn't fairly say, this is how many questions we're going
00:19:15.600
to ask, because we're a scrappy, a little news outfit, but we asked some really tough questions.
00:19:21.080
And we couldn't say with a straight face how many questions we were going to ask, but we knew
00:19:26.060
that given the right opportunity, that just maybe we'd be able to put those questions in,
00:19:29.880
they did, and they were amazing. Yeah, well, thank you for that. Aaron, you and I know each other
00:19:33.180
because you had an internship at the Old Sun News Network, and so I got to know you that way. And then,
00:19:39.180
of course, now you're a crack lawyer, so it's a pleasure to see you again. I had not met your
00:19:43.120
colleague and your partner at Relaw, David Elmaleh. David, I got to know you only on the day of the
00:19:50.460
court. Yes. And you were eloquent. You expressed complicated legal matters plainly, seriously enough
00:20:02.960
that the judge took them seriously, but plainly enough that they were understandable. You didn't
00:20:08.160
get lost in the weeds. It was outstanding. We have probably a dozen lawyers who helped the rebel out
00:20:15.760
because we're always fighting something. That was, and I'm not just buttering you up because you're here.
00:20:22.020
It was so eloquent. I was very proud to have you as a lawyer in court arguing the way you did that day.
00:20:29.640
Thank you very much. And it's a pleasure to be here. And it was an absolute pleasure
00:20:33.060
to argue on behalf of Rebel News and on your behalf. And one thing I will say is that any time
00:20:40.140
we advocate in courts, we're presenting a message. And the message that day was so important that it
00:20:48.580
was almost natural to argue. And it was somewhat surprising that we had to be there in the first
00:20:56.220
place to argue on behalf of a news outlet, a media organization, say, hold on a second here.
00:21:04.360
The debates commission is supposed to be independent. Yet you received notice from the chief
00:21:12.100
of the press gallery. And that was one thing that the federal court was questioning the other side
00:21:19.900
about. Well, hold on a second here. It says, in our view, Rebel News engages in advocacy. Well,
00:21:26.440
who is this our? Are they governments? Are they independents? The lines were blurred. And that was
00:21:32.140
the message that we really wanted to get across to the judge, that there's a strong prima facie case
00:21:37.840
that the commission was not acting independently. So that was lesson number one that we wanted to
00:21:43.540
convey. The reason why, to go back to your earlier question, why, in our view, it's imperative that
00:21:50.180
Rebel News continue on this battle, that we just won the first battle, but there's still the war.
00:21:56.240
And there are a lot of issues that still need to be hashed out in courts.
00:22:01.320
Well, thank you for raising that, because it was such a rush that day. I mean, you guys rushed all
00:22:07.940
weekend. The judge, he got up that morning, knew nothing about this. He came to court.
00:22:15.460
A deputy chief judge said, surprise, dropped it on his lap. He read all the material. Like,
00:22:21.800
he went from zero to 100 miles an hour, even faster than you guys did.
00:22:26.040
And I thought he did it. Obviously, I'm pleased with the result, but I found him very, very attentive
00:22:31.120
in court. I felt like justice was done. But for our viewers at home, they'd be thinking,
00:22:36.280
okay, well, you guys got into the English-language debate, and you got into the French-language
00:22:39.840
debate, and the election's almost over. So why on earth are you proceeding? Because, and I didn't
00:22:47.440
even really get that until we talked a little bit afterwards. We have, that was just a, hey, judge,
00:22:54.160
please let us in now. We don't have a time to have a full hearing. If we miss this, we'll never get
00:22:58.860
this opportunity again. We have enough of a case to be heard substantively later, but let us in now.
00:23:04.560
What is that later substantive case that we're still chasing? What's the big battle yet to come
00:23:11.180
Sure. So the injunction preceding federal court at 3 p.m., the eve of the debate, literally that day
00:23:18.940
of the debate, two and a half hours later after we got the judgments, that was about getting rebel
00:23:24.300
news into the debates. Because if they would not be there, you would suffer irreparable harm.
00:23:31.420
You'd never get that chance. You'd lose that opportunity to ask such important questions
00:23:36.020
to the leaders. Afterwards, now that the dust has settled, there still is that judicial review
00:23:41.760
application where we're seeking declarations and orders that the commission acted unreasonably,
00:23:48.200
unlawfully, unjustifiably, undemocratically. And we want access to how the commission made their
00:23:57.040
decision, how they let in over 200 other individuals.
00:24:01.140
Including Al Jazeera. They let Al Jazeera in, but not us.
00:24:04.240
There were three members of Al Jazeera that were there.
00:24:07.760
Other organizations that are clearly engaged in advocacy on its face.
00:24:14.920
Absolutely. We want to know why they were let in and you weren't.
00:24:18.160
We want to know what criteria the commission used. We want to know how independent or not
00:24:24.900
were they. And it's important because this commission was established pursuant to an order
00:24:31.340
in council. The commission outlasts the debates. There will be more debates in future elections.
00:24:39.200
And it's important for Canadians to understand how that process came about. And why was it that
00:24:47.380
reputable news organizations were shut out for criticizing governments when other organizations
00:24:58.120
You know, you just made me think of something. You mentioned that the rejection letters that
00:25:02.620
our journalists and that Andrew Lawton received, he's with True North News, came from the
00:25:09.060
head of the press gallery, which is not part of the base commission.
00:25:12.960
At the French language debates, Andrew Lawton, Kian Bexley, David Menzies were so, took the
00:25:18.960
initiative, they were first, second, and third in line at the mics. It was quite something.
00:25:24.360
And the president of the press gallery, who's a journalist for Radio Canada, that's the French
00:25:30.720
version of the CBC, he didn't like that. So he actually went to David Menzies and said,
00:25:36.120
come on, you've had too many questions. Don't be in line. I want to show you this clip. I
00:25:42.460
don't know if you've seen this. Here's a clip of the president of the press gallery, who
00:25:47.240
happens to be our rival, who happens to be very friendly with the liberals. We had a court
00:25:52.680
order to be there. You guys want us the court order. And he was scolding Menzies for asking
00:25:58.380
too many questions. I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it. Take a look at this.
00:26:02.720
Five CBC questions, since there's many, many medias. I think your colleague here...
00:26:11.060
I mean, just to make sure that every media gets a chance to ask questions.
00:26:18.340
Yeah, not for me. I'm just asking for everyone else.
00:26:22.380
I'm not talking about me. I'm just talking about, like, yeah, yeah. What I'm saying is
00:26:27.400
But you only want us to ask one question, just...
00:26:31.380
I'm just saying that there's a lot of medias, but two of you will have one question before
00:26:35.540
I have mine. That's his point. Maybe every media could have one before you have two.
00:26:41.580
Sure. Well, we're just all in line, right? It's one at a time, right?
00:26:45.140
Yeah. But I'm saying that some medias won't have questions, and you'll have two.
00:26:50.760
Well, usually we have none. We have to get a court order, sir, to get in here.
00:26:54.200
I understand everything. I'm just saying that, I mean, we're all here.
00:26:57.700
Oh, yeah, but we were never here. That's the thing.
00:27:01.960
But you're telling me not to ask a question, because there's two of us...
00:27:04.740
I'm not telling you not to ask a question. I'm telling you, we can all play in a team.
00:27:09.320
No, it's not 100%, since you're not playing in a team right now.
00:27:13.360
Because some medias won't have questions. That's what I'm saying.
00:27:17.400
I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about people here, TVO.
00:27:23.680
But we have been excluded, sir, from the entire campaign until...
00:27:33.440
So that's a... You are planning to ask two questions.
00:27:35.300
Well, as you know, the Prime Minister has a penchant for not answering questions.
00:27:39.360
It's one and a follow-up. It's question and follow-up, right?
00:27:44.940
I found... That irked me. I'm glad Menzies held the line. But that makes me think, David,
00:27:54.060
what were the emails back and forth? What did they talk about? And this battle to come,
00:27:59.220
this big judicial review you're talking about, we would have access to the internal documents
00:28:08.060
That's correct, yeah. I mean, we're going to uncover everything that was going on behind the
00:28:12.980
scenes. All the decision-making that was going on, the materials that were before the decision-maker,
00:28:17.880
that were before the commission. Who was making the decision? Who was influencing the decision?
00:28:23.280
We don't know any of that. And like David so aptly said at the hearing of the injunction motion,
00:28:30.160
Now, if I looked at the pleadings filed by the government, there was the Debates Commission itself,
00:28:40.100
and then there was the Attorney General, right? So one is the Debates Commission. The other is
00:28:45.320
Justin Trudeau's Justice Department. I think there were five lawyers on the front of the pleadings by
00:28:51.000
name. I think there were four in court. That's a lot of firepower on the other side. That was just
00:28:56.800
for the emergency injunction. If we take on the Debates Commission substantively, seriously,
00:29:02.700
at this judicial review, I think they're going to throw everything at us but the kitchen sink.
00:29:08.320
If they had that many lawyers, I think there were four in court, five on record for the government,
00:29:14.120
they're going to want to stop us. They're going to do anything to stop us from seeing how they
00:29:20.320
made those decisions, who they talked to, who really pulled the strings. I would imagine that
00:29:24.420
embarrassment would be something they would do anything to stop.
00:29:27.520
I think so. I think it's all about protecting the various power players. As you said,
00:29:34.240
there are a lot of people that seem to be interested in keeping Rebel News out.
00:29:41.320
From an objective perspective, from a non-media person, it's quite startling, the efforts that
00:29:49.440
go into keeping right-wing media outlets such as Rebel, such as True North, out of these types of
00:29:56.260
events. It's horribly frustrating to watch. What's fascinating about the president of the press
00:30:03.740
gallery, using sort of soft power, cajoling Rebel? Isn't that fascinating that once the major tools
00:30:14.160
are out of the toolbox, we have a court-ordered injunction, like King Bexty said to the leader
00:30:19.620
of the Bloc Québécois, well, we have a court order, so I'm going to continue asking the questions.
00:30:24.160
That's the spirit that needs to be continued, and that's why we're so excited to continue on with
00:30:30.160
this. Well, I'm glad you are so in sync with us. David, let me ask you, and I haven't even asked
00:30:35.020
you this privately, because I think we're all still excited at what happened a week and a half ago.
00:30:43.900
What's the next step? So the emergency application's over. We won that. That was great.
00:30:51.100
What happens now? Do we have to exchange documents? Is there other legal pleadings? Is there a...
00:30:57.900
Just tell me the steps in the court case. So it's a great question, Ezra. It's going to be a battle.
00:31:05.440
We're just getting started. Hard as that is to believe, because of all the effort and unfortunately
00:31:10.580
the legal fees that were involved in going into this. It is incredibly expensive to fight the
00:31:16.100
government. Incredibly expensive. We're going to need to put in a full record, further affidavit from you,
00:31:22.720
volumes of materials. We're going to get volumes of materials from the other side.
00:31:30.100
So we're going to put in the notice of application for judicial review that has already been before
00:31:35.300
the courts. We're going to put in a further detailed affidavit from you, outlining again a lot
00:31:41.260
of the things that were before the courts, but we're not going to just have one day to do it.
00:31:46.780
And what do we expect the government will file? Because they put together their response also
00:31:53.160
on that weekend in a speedy way. Will they have to, in, I mean, I haven't practiced law in a long
00:31:59.260
time, but in a lawsuit, parties have to disclose emails, internal memos, in a list of records,
00:32:08.480
a list of documents. Will they have to do that in the same way?
00:32:11.340
They will. So what's going to happen, we're going to file our materials in the next couple
00:32:15.720
of weeks. They're going to have about a month to respond, and they're going to put in the
00:32:20.940
information that was before the commission when they made the decision, the rationale,
00:32:25.880
the reasons, the emails, the memos, back and forth.
00:32:29.160
Let me ask you a question. We do a lot of access to information requests, and we're frustrated
00:32:33.580
because they hide things from us, and we often have to appeal the information commissioner,
00:32:39.260
and months and sometimes years go by because they're not giving us what they ought to under
00:32:44.660
law. I am worried, and this is the political bones in me talking, I'm worried that they
00:32:50.540
will try to obscure or hide or, God forbid, even delete their chatter, because I think when
00:32:57.460
they didn't realize we were looking at them, they probably said incredibly inappropriate
00:33:02.760
things. They probably were very disparaging towards Rebel, our journalists in particular,
00:33:08.260
Andrew Lawton. I think they said things in private emails that they would almost die from
00:33:14.980
embarrassment if they came to light, and I think they'll be so motivated to keep those from coming
00:33:20.280
to light, I think they would actually consider defying the courts and deleting them. I don't want you
00:33:27.320
to give away any secret moves in public, but how can we be sure that we get all those chatty,
00:33:34.280
catty conversations that they would have had? So there are mechanisms in place in the court proceedings
00:33:39.600
in order to identify the key documents. The first step is to get their records, see what they do
00:33:45.460
disclose. We're going to have access to cross-examine them, and then we can ask again from start to finish,
00:33:52.940
the chronology, when was the decision made? Who was involved? Can we have access to those emails,
00:33:58.420
to this, to that? If push comes to shove, if you are of the view that there are other documents,
00:34:05.540
or there may have been, but we didn't get, then we have access to the courts, and we can use that route.
00:34:11.740
One thing that you've demonstrated to your constituents is that you will not sleep until you get justice.
00:34:19.460
You will, no matter what the cost, you will pursue justice. You are an advocate for the freedom of the
00:34:26.580
press. You are an advocate for democracy. You are somebody that your readership looks up to. And, you know,
00:34:34.460
the short time that I've come to know you, you know, with the conversations we've had, you said, David,
00:34:39.460
do what you need to do to get justice. There are ways that we can go about doing that. So I just wanted to,
00:34:46.460
you know, assure you and to assure the listeners that we will do what we need to do to get the key
00:34:51.860
documents that we need in order to succeed. Excellent. Getting us in the debates was almost
00:34:59.300
miraculous. And we use that opportunity and credit to Kian and David and Andrew. Having this moment of
00:35:06.900
truth where we pull back the veil and see how this debate commission worked will have a longer lasting
00:35:13.840
effect. It'll reveal if there was any bias or tampering. And I'm afraid there is, but I only
00:35:20.840
have a hunch we'll reveal it. You said months to come. It's almost November. Do you think, when do you
00:35:28.080
think the actual hearing of this case, will it be the spring of 2020 most likely? I mean, our people
00:35:35.140
want, I mean, I know the wheels of justice grind slowly, but do you think we'll have our hearing
00:35:40.740
in the spring? I think so. That's, that's what seems to be on track when we look at the procedural
00:35:46.580
steps. Now, of course, the, the, the wheels of justice turn slowly. And so there's potential that,
00:35:54.860
that matters will be delayed and certain steps will require a little bit more time than what's provided
00:36:00.180
for in the very, in the statutes. But ultimately what we want to do is we want to get to justice as
00:36:05.340
quickly as possible. And, and part of that is really keeping the commissions and the government's
00:36:11.120
feet to the fire on this and making sure that we proceed as expeditiously as possible.
00:36:15.500
All right, fellas. Well, let me tell you, seeing is believing. I saw you guys in action on Monday.
00:36:20.340
I also have to compliment the lawyer for True North, who I thought did very well. And in fact,
00:36:25.280
the two of you, the three, all three of you, but the, uh, David, you did, uh, the bulk of the speaking
00:36:30.920
and the lawyer for True North, very well balanced. Uh, do we know if they're going ahead? Do we know
00:36:36.780
if they're going to, uh, continue the appeal? It appears that they will. Uh, we haven't received
00:36:41.860
formal confirmation as of yet. We're pretty good friends with them. We'll check it out. Okay.
00:36:46.140
Now let's get down to business. Uh, when I retained you on the Friday afternoon,
00:36:50.920
you were very candid. You said, Ezra, we're just going to throw aside everything else. We're going to
00:36:55.720
work all weekend. In fact, you came and met me. I was with my kids at Canada's Wonderland.
00:37:00.620
And came there for me to sign a document. I've never had that kind of
00:37:04.360
attentive service before. It's amazing. So you guys worked all weekend late into the night.
00:37:10.560
I remember we were talking quite late at night. You had to study everything, write everything.
00:37:15.520
And then all day Monday, you said, Ezra, I need $10,000. So we sent it to you right away on the
00:37:21.080
Friday. And then you did so much work, the two years, your support staff, that the total bill,
00:37:27.260
if I'm not mistaken, was just over 18,000. Yes. So we still owe you $8,000. And I want to say to
00:37:33.280
our viewers, that is absolutely a moderate bill for the kind of effort and time spent. Believe me,
00:37:40.600
we get legal bills. So I thank you for keeping it light. Thanks fellas. So we owe you $8,000 for the
00:37:47.980
success. It's the happiest check I'll ever cut. But going forward for this battle royal,
00:37:55.180
I just need you to tell me. Because we crowdfund our money. We're not like the government. We don't
00:38:01.220
have an endless resource. I believe we'll get it. I believe our people were so enthused by the win.
00:38:06.600
And we'll see the opportunity of not only having a permanent blow for justice, but smoking out what
00:38:12.340
really went on behind the scenes. I think that's incredibly valuable. Just give it to me plain.
00:38:16.480
And I'm not going to hold you to the precise number, because I know if the government tries
00:38:20.200
any tricks, it might make the cost go high. But if you had to ballpark it, a normal fight of this
00:38:27.120
sort, other than the 18 we've already incurred, what are we looking at to go the distance?
00:38:34.840
I mean, it's a very tough question. But in matters like this that we've handled in the past,
00:38:41.380
I'd say easily 50,000. I think it could go as high as 75,000. There's a lot of work that needs
00:38:48.320
to go into it. The legal issues are nuanced. We're looking at a full day hearing itself. But you could
00:38:55.800
also have as many as two or three days of cross-examinations and the records. That would be
00:39:02.980
I have to tell you, I believe you will spend more time trying to hunt down those emails,
00:39:08.500
because I think they're going to do their best to hide them. I should tell you that the numbers
00:39:13.500
you've quoted me, although they are staggering to a normal person, I have been through enough
00:39:19.240
lawsuits, usually defending our freedom here at The Rebel, to know that those are, and I'm not looking
00:39:25.060
for you to jack up your fees at all times, but I can tell you that that is on the modest side of what
00:39:30.580
we paid. We spent $350,000 on lawyers last year. And almost all of that was defensive.
00:39:37.300
It was either pre-publication defamation review, fighting against the censorship of the Alberta
00:39:42.320
government. So if you're telling me that it's the 18,000 we've already incurred, and we owe you
00:39:47.600
eight grand, and then another 50 to 75 to take on this Debates Commission, to smoke out their
00:39:53.600
collusion with the Parliamentary Press Gallery, I would say that's probably the best legal money
00:39:58.120
we're going to spend in the next six to 12 months. So I would look directly to our viewers and say,
00:40:03.980
if you believe that these two fellas who nailed it in federal court, and I mean nailed it,
00:40:11.940
if you believe they're the ones to do this, as I do, and if you agree with me that $50,000 to $75,000
00:40:18.560
is reasonable, I know it's crazy, but welcome to the world of lawsuits. I need your help,
00:40:24.380
my friends. Go to LetUsReport.com. LetUsReport.com. If you can chip in $10 or $100, we've got to get
00:40:33.380
these guys going. Because we were able to be in that debate, we asked the questions that no other
00:40:41.100
journalists would. I think we made a difference, and we'll continue to do so, not just for us, but
00:40:46.540
for freedom in general. Fellas, I really appreciate you coming in. I say again, that was one of the more
00:40:53.200
meaningful days of my life being there. Let me give you each a final thought. I mean,
00:41:00.700
we're very enthusiastic. All three of us here, our viewers are too. Give me a closing thought,
00:41:06.640
whether it's legal or political or journalistic. Let me just leave it with you, Aaron, and then David.
00:41:12.220
Well, you know what? To be perfectly frank, this has been an honor of a lifetime.
00:41:17.080
And it really has. It's very unusual for a lawyer to have this type of opportunity to fight
00:41:24.680
a legal case in such a short period of time. And to have such success has just been wonderful. And
00:41:31.460
we owe you a great deal for that. But what we're really excited about is the second act. And the
00:41:37.220
second act is going to be very, very interesting. I can't wait to find out more about the situation.
00:41:43.020
We're just starting to peel the onion, so to speak. David?
00:41:46.980
You know what? I just wanted to echo what Aaron said. But also, I wanted to say that it's rare
00:41:52.960
in the life of a lawyer to be on a case where you're on the right side of the case, no pun intended.
00:42:01.640
The law, the facts, but more importantly, the lasting legacy. And what we're going to do going
00:42:09.920
forward is, with your help, we're going to try and send a message, not only to governments,
00:42:16.440
not only to the elected officials of our country, but to every single Canadian, that diversity of
00:42:25.600
opinion matters, the dissenting voice matters, your voice matters. And it doesn't matter whether
00:42:32.380
you're critical of government or not. That's not a reason to not accredit someone, to attend one of
00:42:41.240
the premier events of an election cycle. And to be able to participate in that process,
00:42:49.280
have a client like you who fights daily. We do this occasionally when we have these types of cases.
00:42:56.520
You do it every single day. And it's truly an honor and a privilege to represent you and Rebel
00:43:02.580
News. And we're just looking forward to what's to come.
00:43:05.380
Well, that's amazing. I'm very grateful for your kind words to both of you and for the great success.
00:43:10.220
Well, thank you for spending some time with our newest legal hotshots, David Elmaleh and Aaron
00:43:16.560
Rosenberg. They're with the firm ReLaw. And they gave us the great victory last week. And as you heard,
00:43:22.900
we have plans for the second bigger battle. I would ask you to help me cover the legal bill.
00:43:29.860
I think you'll agree with me that it is worth every penny, not just for Rebel News, but for the
00:43:34.160
state of freedom in our country. You can ship in what you can at letusreport.com. And we are doing
00:43:39.940
the work that used to be done by groups like Canadian Journalists for Free Expression,
00:43:45.000
Penn Canada, Canadian Association of Journalists, Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Not one of them
00:43:49.900
was in the courtroom that day, but these two fellows were. Let me close in on that. Go to
00:43:54.500
letusreport.com. And let's fight for freedom a little bit, my friends. Thank you.
00:44:08.040
Hey, welcome back. Let me share with you some final thoughts. At the beginning of the show,
00:44:12.360
I told you about a very underreported change to the Elections Act. It's already law right now.
00:44:17.100
Now, that fake news provision is the law of the land right now. But it's not really a ban on fake
00:44:22.020
news. It's only a ban on fake news that affects and insults the political class. Politicians can
00:44:28.200
still lie about you. You just can't lie about them. And what is a lie about a politician? If you said
00:44:34.320
that Miriam Monsef lied about where her immigration was from, well, you would have been against this law
00:44:40.500
until the facts had come out. This is a terrible law. But the worst thing about it is that the
00:44:44.680
conservatives were fine with it. That's what makes me nervous about an Andrew Scheer win,
00:44:49.840
if it does happen on Monday. Andrew Scheer did not vocally oppose the revival of Section 13,
00:44:55.980
the censorship provision of the Human Rights Act that the liberals have proposed. Andrew Scheer has
00:44:59.900
not vocally opposed Trudeau's plan to censor social media with a 24-hour knockdown notice of any hurtful
00:45:08.540
tweets or Facebook posts. I'm worried about that. I think free speech is the key issue of our time.
00:45:15.180
And the fact that the conservatives are really identical to the liberals on this is something
00:45:19.300
that should cause all of us concern. Those are my thoughts for the day. I'll see you on election
00:45:25.100
day on Monday. Until then, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters,
00:45:29.440
to you at home, good night. Keep fighting for freedom.