Rebel News Podcast - Under Trudeau's new “fake news” law, calling him a substitute drama teacher would be illegal

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, 0.85

00:07:20.220 but publish insane tweets against Donald Trump. Oh, and she's also in charge of vetting Supreme 0.68

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 1.00

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 0.87

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 0.76

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 0.69

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 1.00

00:12:06.060 immigration fraud to come to Canada. And she lied her way into Parliament. Remember this? 0.62

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 0.99

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.

00:22:25.440 Absolutely.

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

00:23:09.880 now that the debates are over?

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.

00:23:30.000 Because we'd never get that chance again.

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.

00:24:12.820 National Observer, for example.

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

00:24:55.180 were let in for supporting the government?

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 0.82

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...

00:26:09.060 That's my colleague, Kian, right? Yeah. So...

00:26:11.060 I mean, just to make sure that every media gets a chance to ask questions.

00:26:16.380 Well, you're first in line, right?

00:26:18.340 Yeah, not for me. I'm just asking for everyone else.

00:26:20.740 I think you're good to ask.

00:26:22.380 I'm not talking about me. I'm just talking about, like, yeah, yeah. What I'm saying is

00:26:26.280 that everyone can ask questions.

00:26:27.400 But you only want us to ask one question, just...

00:26:30.740 Sorry?

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.

00:26:57.020 Better memory than me.

00:26:57.700 Oh, yeah, but we were never here. That's the thing.

00:26:59.840 Are you here?

00:27:00.800 We are here now.

00:27:01.480 We are here, too.

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.

00:27:08.560 Oh, 100%.

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.

00:27:15.760 You're too ahead of me in the line.

00:27:17.400 I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about people here, TVO.

00:27:21.460 Okay.

00:27:22.160 Yeah.

00:27:22.340 You're talking about other medias?

00:27:23.680 But we have been excluded, sir, from the entire campaign until...

00:27:27.620 You're here? Is that right?

00:27:29.000 I am planning to ask a question, yeah.

00:27:30.240 Two questions.

00:27:31.600 Well, I don't know. I mean, it depends if...

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?

00:27:41.140 Yeah.

00:27:41.240 That's the rule.

00:27:42.300 That's what's going to happen?

00:27:43.240 Yes.

00:27:44.060 Oh, that'd be interesting.

00:27:44.400 Question and follow-up.

00:27:44.940 I found... That irked me. I'm glad Menzies held the line. But that makes me think, David, 1.00

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

00:28:04.580 relevant to our case. Is that right?

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?

00:28:22.060 We don't even know that right now.

00:28:23.280 We don't know any of that. And like David so aptly said at the hearing of the injunction motion,

00:28:28.640 something smells here.

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.

00:31:28.740 What kind of materials?

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.

00:31:45.580 It's going to be more expansive.

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

00:39:02.380 my estimate.

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.

00:45:31.920 And that's it.

00:45:34.320 Thank you.

Rebel News Podcast - October 19, 2019

Under Trudeau's new “fake news” law, calling him a substitute drama teacher would be illegal

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript