Then…tomorrow is Friday & the LAST day of the Emergencies Act Inquiry…where PM Trudeau testifies…leaving little to no time for cross examination…
The culmination of the testimony to date comes as the prime minister, who announced the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, will face questions about his decision on Friday.
Once protesters arrived in large numbers, Trudeau and his family were ultimately moved to an undisclosed location (Bat-Cave…Shhhh…just quietly imagine his costume) for security reasons.
In a display of arrogance surprising even for the arrogant Trudeau government, it has refused to provide the public inquiry into its use of the Emergencies Act with the legal opinion it relied upon to invoke the legislation in order to break up the Freedom Convoy protest.
That was a brief prepared by the federal justice department — referred to by CSIS director David Vigneault in his testimony — which Prime Minster Justin Trudeau and his cabinet used to justify invoking the EA.
This even though the convoy protest wasn’t a threat to national security, according to the EA’s wording.
Without that threat, the government wasn’t supposed to invoke the EA, as it did for the first time since the law was passed in 1988.
Justice Paul Rouleau, presiding over the inquiry, asked Attorney General David Lametti, who refused to answer questions about the legal brief, how the inquiry could determine the reasonableness of what the government did without knowing the information it acted on?
In a display of arrogance surprising even for the arrogant Trudeau government, it has refused to provide the public inquiry into its use of the Emergencies Act with the legal opinion it relied upon to invoke the legislation in order to break up the Freedom Convoy protest. That was a brief...
apple.news
Rouleau said he still doesn’t know what Trudeau and his cabinet members were thinking when they invoked the EA, “and I guess the answer is, we just assume they acted in good faith in application of whatever they were told. Is that sort of what you’re saying,” Rouleau asked Lametti, who responded, “I think that’s fair.” (?)
WATCH BELOW as Sun’s political columnist Brian Lilley says Justice Paul Rouleau doesn’t have the legal reason the Liberals invoked the Emergencies Act just the government’s attitude of just trust us. What do YOU think? Tweet and Facebook us!
apple.news
“Yeah, that’s the ticket!! Just(-in) trust us ‘cuz Daddy knows best!!” (???)
Commission counsel asked if they were correct in understanding Vigneault’s line of thinking at the time, that “if you take a broader definition and then look more broadly, you come up with the advice you gave to the prime minister of your belief that it was required to invoke the act.”
Vigneault added, “Yes, that’s exactly it.”
Indeed, the government’s use of solicitor-client privilege in this context — as if it was on trial and needed to be able to speak to its lawyer in confidence and vice-versa — is absurd.
The inquiry isn’t a trial. No one is going to be charged or convicted of anything and the Trudeau government was essentially giving legal advice to itself.
Which raises the question of what’s in that advice it doesn’t want Canadians to see?
WATCH BELOW as Sun’s political columnist Brian Lilley says Justice Paul Rouleau doesn’t have the legal reason the Liberals invoked the Emergencies Act just the government’s attitude of just trust us. What do YOU think? Tweet and Facebook us!
apple.news
Trudeau will likely be pressed about this recommendation, as well as any others he might have received, such as from his national security advisor Jody Thomas, that led him to invoke the act.
There are FOUR possible scenarios that meet the definition of “threats to the security of Canada” under the act.
“Lawful” protests don’t qualify, and neither do phone calls (regardless how timely) from Joe Biden.
1) Espionage or sabotage against Canada or detrimental to the country’s interests
2) Foreign influenced activities, in or related to Canada, that are detrimental to the country’s interest, are clandestine or deceptive, or threaten people
3) Activities in or related to Canada that threaten, direct or use acts of serious violence against people or property to achieve a political, ideological or religious objective in Canada or a foreign state
4) Activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.