Sure, but the libs and dips said they did and that's enough to pass it. The senate on the other hand was going to shoot it down.
Public Inquiries into Emergencies Act begin September 19
- Thread starter The_Foxer
- Start date
Here’s some of the cross examination of PM Justin “Slippery Weasel” Trudeau:
…& some analysis of the PM’s testimony:
…& some analysis of the secret legal opinion that justifies the use of the Emergencies Act that not even Judge Rouleau is allowed to here somehow:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5cXlzMyiixk
The Canadian Constitution Foundation closing argument at the Emergencies Act Inquiry:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uPRwQqSi00w
…& a Meme, ‘cuz really, why are we here?:
So in the end we’re not much closer to being able to understand the legal basis for the government’s use of the act than we were before it started, other than to learn that there is apparently a legal opinion, somewhere, that says they were justified in doing so.
Who wrote that opinion? What does it say? Sorry, that’s covered by solicitor-client privilege. The absurdity of the situation was such that when Justice Minister David Lametti testified earlier this week, Commissioner Paul Rouleau was left to observe the difficulty of trying to do his job of determining whether the government acted within the law if he is left in the dark as to the government’s understanding of what the law actually required.
…& as of 02/20/23 the written report is due to be presented to Parliament.
…& some analysis of the PM’s testimony:
…& some analysis of the secret legal opinion that justifies the use of the Emergencies Act that not even Judge Rouleau is allowed to here somehow:
The Canadian Constitution Foundation closing argument at the Emergencies Act Inquiry:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uPRwQqSi00w
…& a Meme, ‘cuz really, why are we here?:
So in the end we’re not much closer to being able to understand the legal basis for the government’s use of the act than we were before it started, other than to learn that there is apparently a legal opinion, somewhere, that says they were justified in doing so.
Who wrote that opinion? What does it say? Sorry, that’s covered by solicitor-client privilege. The absurdity of the situation was such that when Justice Minister David Lametti testified earlier this week, Commissioner Paul Rouleau was left to observe the difficulty of trying to do his job of determining whether the government acted within the law if he is left in the dark as to the government’s understanding of what the law actually required.
…& as of 02/20/23 the written report is due to be presented to Parliament.
No, our national anthem is the benny hill theme song, but circus music is often mistaken for it
Amid the media praise for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s performance as the final witness at the public inquiry into his invocation of the Emergencies Act, keep in mind his government refused to give the inquiry a key piece of evidence Justice Paul Rouleau wanted to see.
That was the legal brief prepared by the federal justice department — referred to by Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) director David Vigneault in his testimony — which Trudeau and his cabinet used to Justin-ify invoking the EA.
Vigneault and other government witnesses repeatedly referred to this government document as the reason they supported invoking the EA, even though the Freedom Convoy didn’t fit the definition of a threat to national security that it contains.
Without that, the Emergencies Act isn’t suppose to be used.
The government’s position — based upon legal advice it received from itself — was that the EA could be applied to broader situations than those specified in the EA, which cites another law, the CSIS Act, in defining security threats.
apple.news
In retrospect, so long as the government refused to waive the requisite privilege, the entire inquiry process was doomed to reach this dead end. Canadians will apparently just have to trust the government that a legal opinion they’ve never seen gave the government license to apply criteria they won’t discuss, in order to invoke the most draconian law on the books.
apple.news
That was the legal brief prepared by the federal justice department — referred to by Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) director David Vigneault in his testimony — which Trudeau and his cabinet used to Justin-ify invoking the EA.
Vigneault and other government witnesses repeatedly referred to this government document as the reason they supported invoking the EA, even though the Freedom Convoy didn’t fit the definition of a threat to national security that it contains.
Without that, the Emergencies Act isn’t suppose to be used.
The government’s position — based upon legal advice it received from itself — was that the EA could be applied to broader situations than those specified in the EA, which cites another law, the CSIS Act, in defining security threats.
GOLDSTEIN: Trudeau government fails another test of its so-called ‘transparency’ — Toronto Sun
Amid the media praise for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s performance as the final witness at the public inquiry into his invocation of the Emergencies Act, keep in mind his government refused to give the inquiry a key piece of evidence Justice Paul Rouleau wanted to see. That was the legal...
In retrospect, so long as the government refused to waive the requisite privilege, the entire inquiry process was doomed to reach this dead end. Canadians will apparently just have to trust the government that a legal opinion they’ve never seen gave the government license to apply criteria they won’t discuss, in order to invoke the most draconian law on the books.
Aaron Wudrick: Justin Trudeau's 'just trust me' moment — National Post
Even accepting that cabinet has the latitude to take a wider view than CSIS, surely it cannot have a completely free hand
I consider myself pretty neutral on this subject. I'm no fan of True Dope, and I thought the Twucktards were. . . well. . . tards.
At this point I can only conclude that this was an abuse of power that, in the U.S., would rise to impeachment levels.
At this point I can only conclude that this was an abuse of power that, in the U.S., would rise to impeachment levels.
Honestly, I don't know what to freakin' think.
Abused power, yeah, it seems like it.
But I can't help but keep thinking what if he hadn't? I don't think the Convoy would have left 'peacefully'. I'm not sure things at the border would have been handled with less issue.
Overall, I don't know what to think other than when the report comes out it'll be interesting reading. And IF the Judge states that Trudeau did overstep himself, the SOB better step the hell down as PM and call an election.
Which one? Trudeau or Singh?
The Emergencies Act is a legal document. The legal requirement to enact it, & the court of population opinion are two very different things. Trudeau is good at the sales pitch, but this isn’t about the sales pitch, is it?
Trudeau would have ordered the fire at Kent State .Little more trickling out:
OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offered a vigorous defence of his decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to a public inquiry on Friday, insisting he met all legal thresholds (?) to declare a public order emergency because the so-called “Freedom Convoy” protests COULD HAVE provoked serious violence IF the federal government had not acted.
Speaking at the final day of public hearings at the inquiry into that controversial and unprecedented decision, Trudeau admitted he had a private moment of hesitation before he invoked the act on Feb. 14, but ultimately determined he could not wait and possibly see someone killed or injured because of the protests across the country….just like he couldn’t wait for the BLM Protests, and the indigenous railway blockades, and every other protest during his entire reign since he took the PM Hat & the balanced budget from Stephen Harper.
Trudeau also said there was a “clear consensus” in support of the move from HIS cabinet ministers, as well as from his national security adviser and top officials at Canada’s national spy agency, the RCMP and the federal public service?
But the final call was his to make — and the decision weighed heavily, he said, asking how he would explain his hesitation “to the family of a police officer who wasn’t killed, or a grandmother who got run over by a reindeer, or a protester who knocked over by a horse. Won’t somebody think of the children? Those square cardboard…Uhm…water bottle..Uhm juice box water bottle things.”
“The responsibility of a prime minister is to make the tough calls and keep people safe,” Trudeau told the inquiry on Friday.
“I am absolutely, absolutely serene and confident that I made the right choice.”
In his testimony, delivered before a packed audience and presiding Ontario Judge Paul Rouleau, Trudeau also gave the government’s most direct explanation yet for why it felt the legal threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act had been met during last winter’s protest crisis.
The government decided to use a broader interpretation of the law’s definition of a national security threat, which is taken from the CSIS Act that governs Canada’s spy agency. And the inquiry has heard that CSIS decided the crisis didn’t meet that definition.
(When I was younger, I used to use broader interpretations of speed limits, but now I seem to use broader interpretations of stop signs…)
As Trudeau argued, the words in the two acts are the same but the context is different, with the Emergencies Act looking to evidence and advice from a broad range of police, security agencies and civil servants — not just CSIS. He also stressed that the decision to trigger the Emergencies Act, and determine whether the definition of a national security threat is met, lies with the prime minister and cabinet alone???
Uhm…does the Senate get a say? Not in this case but usually?
After one moment of hesitation, Justin Trudeau says he’s ‘serene’ he made right call to use Emergencies Act, inquiry hears — Toronto Star
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears as a witness at the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa Friday.
.An overhaul means the government shore up its weaknesses prior to its next inactment
LOL - good point.
Considering there is NO leader of any party worth being PM now... we're screwed regardless.
No. Which is why I've not really kept up on this Emerg Act inquirey, because in the end it's people trying to justify/not justify the use of the Act. You can pick a side for this and likely be right.
Rather I'll wait until the summary because at least the Judge knows more and the legality of it than I do.
My overall opinion is still that Trudeau was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. That doesn't mean I support him; far from it. But it's more I at least realized he was fucked, is now even more fucked but we'll see how bad the fucking was in February.
The inactment of the act must have been divided long before hand . Police from all across the country had already arrived in Ottawa . Complete with all their weapons of choice , face masks shields , body armour , helmets , tear gas and bean bags . Did I miss any ?
I've seen Jaggers already distancing himself from the fact he supported it enthusiastically at the time. It'll be interesting to see if the media holds his feet to the fire if the report is negative.
Horses?
Which media?
They thought they had after the first Trudeau dug out the War Measures Act for the first time outside of Canada being in an actual war….with strong safeguards so it couldn’t be abused…and thus the evolution of the War Measures Act into the Emergencies Act with its Mandatory reviews, inquiries, and a written report to be presented to Parliament within a year.
Took another Trudeau though to “interpret” the laws “differently”….in a “Broader” manner…
The Emergencies Act (which replaced the War Measures Act) needs to have a “Narrowly Interpreted” clause that states this Act can’t be enacted if a Trudeau is PM. This alone would have dealt with the only two times, ever, the Act was used outside of Canada actually being at War…
Trudeau was damned long before this Trucker Convoy Goat Rodeo. There were many protests and such before this one, and he’d set a precedent with all the previous ones…from BLM to Idle No More to Wet’suwet’en Railway Blockades (which might have negatively affected the Canadian economy) to Nurse’s COVID Mandates protests…and those didn’t include freezing assets and bank accounts or the Emergencies Act suspending the Charter, etc…
Would’a could’a should’a. If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle? I can’t help thinking that would come down to how he self-identifies. People can’t be stopped for speeding because they might speed. People can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be punished for probably or maybe.
The Trudeau/Singh Government, regarding this protest, didn’t meet the legal requirement to enact the Emergencies Act, and “broadening” the interpretation to fit his narrative doesn’t change that.
I agree on both points. The Truckers made their point the first weekend when Trudeau retreated and wouldn’t meet with them, after the propaganda campaign against the Truckers long before they got to Ottawa. By about Feb 3rd, it was time to go back to work, if they where able to like the previous couple of years during COVID, with the 10% or so now not able to cross the border any longer without having to self-isolate for two weeks every time they entered Canada.
Yeah…well, Canada isn’t the US, and Jagmeet isn’t going to let Trudeau fall until 2025 so…
The Senate was going to shoot it down, but not if it was retracted hours before they had their say.
Last edited:
A few - for example he was on ctv question period oct 23 2022 (still on their site i believe or on youtube) and he's asked point blank if he'd continue to support the libs if the ruling goes against them and he does a fine little dance basically saying "well we COULD bring them down at any time and as you know we're still holding them accountable even tho we're propping up their gov't but we woudln't bring the gov't down over the emergency act (unless public opinion starts to turn against us). "
A few other places as well. He's suggesting that a) - even if it was the wrong decision the people who made that decision don't deserve to be punished (because he helped make that decision), and b) - it's totally the liberals problem and the ndp will have to hold the liberals accountable because they're NOT just propping up the gov't. (they're totally just propping up the gov't).
NDP unlikely to pull support for Liberals if commission concludes use of Emergencies Act was unjustified: Singh
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says it is unlikely that his party would pull their support for the Liberals if the Public Order Emergency Commission examining the federal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act concludes that doing so was not justified.
Jagmeet Singh injected himself into Co-Governing with his Non-Coalition Coalition’s Coalition, & whatever Justin Trudeau wears…Jagmeet Singh wears.
They’re like Siamese…things. Jagmeet provides the “good” touch for Trudeau in exchange for his thirty pieces of silver, unlike the narrative from Freeland on the phone calls returned in a day instead of weeks…
“Many people are rightfully concerned that using the Emergencies Act now, will mean a crackdown on protests in the future. This is not a protest. It is not peaceful. The organisers of this illegal occupation have been clear from the beginning. They came here to overthrow a democratically elected government.”
“It is funded by foreign influence. It is fed on disinformation. Its goal is to disrupt our democracy.”
“I have been at many protests and strikes. I have witnessed the full and brutal power of the police used against peaceful protesters. Indigenous land defenders, climate change activists, workers fighting for fairness. And any Canadian using their voice to peacefully demand justice – should never be subject to the Emergencies Act – New Democrats will never support that.”….& yet, they did. The Above three quotes are from…Jagmeet Singh.
Jagmeet Singh Speech on Emergencies Act
Canada's NDP Leader, Jagmeet Singh, made the following statement in the House of Commons:
Ryan Alford: Jagmeet Singh's disgraceful promise to delay reckoning over Emergencies Act
The FLQ were terrorists. People with views outside of the mainstream are not
Well he's trying his best to do a little creative history revisiting. He's like that guy in the Simpsons episode who keeps speaking up and then when everyone gets mad and says "who is that" he points to the guy beside him and says "There he is! Gettim fellas!"
He wasn't just 'going along' with it - he was a very vocal proponent and all but demanding it. He SHOULD wear it.
He wasn't just 'going along' with it - he was a very vocal proponent and all but demanding it. He SHOULD wear it.
If you think that’s revisionist, try this one from less than 90 days before the Emergencies Act was enacted & the Liberal/NDP Non-Coalition Coalition’s Coalition was also exposed to the light of day:
Nov 21, 2021- Federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has said he does not plan to be part of any deal with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to form a coalition government with the Liberals.
Singh told reporters recently there’s no discussion of a coalition, saying it’s, “a firm no for me.”
While there are other ways for the Liberals and NDP to co-operate, history shows it’s a no-win proposition for any opposition party to form a coalition, formal or informal, to prop up a minority government.
The opposition party ends up wearing the government’s bad decisions while the governing party takes credit for any of its successes.
EDITORIAL: Singh must avoid deals with Trudeau
Federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has said he does not plan to be part of any deal with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to form a coalition government with the…
Trudeau’s government was plagued with scandals, from the SNC Lavalin debacle to the WE boondoggle. Time and again, Trudeau showed questionable judgment on everything from his shameful appearances in blackface to his fancy dress tour of India. Many Canadians find him an embarrassment on the world stage.
Feb 23rd, 2022 (Two days after the NDP/Liberals rescinded the Emergencies Act:
Jagmeet Singh must be the most embarrassed person in the country today. Less than 48 hours after the federal NDP leader compromised every principle he and his party had ever stood for, just so he could support the Liberals’ invocation of the Emergencies Act, Singh had to watch Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pull a complete 180 and announce he was ending the state of emergency (presumably so he didn’t have to watch the Senate do it for him).
GUNTER: Trudeau's about-face on Emergencies Act the move of a shameless political plotter
Less than 48 hours after the federal NDP leader compromised every principle he and his party had ever stood for, just so he could support the Liberals’ invocation of the Emergencies Act, Singh had to watch Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pull a complete 180
Wait a minute, you say. Shouldn’t Trudeau be even more embarrassed? After all, Monday he was claiming there was still a nefarious plot to overthrow our democracy, but Wednesday he was insisting the bad bogeymen were all gone. Meh…& the next day Russia invaded the Ukraine.
Monday (Feb21,2022), Trudeau stood in the House of Commons and insisted his government needed — absolutely needed — to seize bank accounts, cancel mortgages, hold convoy leaders without bail, make arrests without warrants, ban otherwise lawful protests and exercise all sorts of police-state powers arbitrarily without oversight by Parliament or the courts. Singh (& Elizabeth May) supported this. Wednesday (Feb23,2022) Trudeau calls it off.
In announcing his climb-down on Wednesday afternoon, Trudeau said, “We are confident that existing laws and bylaws are NOW sufficient to keep people safe.” But somehow they weren’t sufficient as recently as Monday afternoon when he insisted the plot to end Canada was so real it could only be thwarted by bringing into force the most restrictive law on Canada’s books?
Less than four months later, the NDP/Liberals drop the vaccine mandate:
Suspension of the vaccine mandates for domestic travellers, transportation workers and federal employees - Canada.ca
Suspension of the vaccine mandates for domestic travellers, transportation workers and federal employees
It’s amazing how “progressives,” who see themselves as the great guardians of freedom, tolerance and democratic values, can flush all that down the drain in the blink of an eye — and still claim to be defending citizens’ rights.