The Sun's Adrienne Batra and Brian Lilley take a look at how Justin Trudeau's testimony tried to justify invoking the Emergencies Act even when the law was not on his side.
I think Brendan Miller came to the realization that the whole enquiry was a show and decided to call them out on their false narrative! The only way to stop the lies is to bring them to light.
I've said right from the beginning that this is just a farce that is going to cost us the Taxpayers another 20,30 million dollars and nothing will ever happen
yes I would agree, 6 Weeks of his time wasted being stonewalled, every time he had gov can exposed Roloux stopped him. then there's the Fact that a certain journalist did an investigation in march/April and proved that it was a false flag attack and traced it back to the gov....
But this kind of action is perfectly aligned with the country that Trudeau admires which he has said is essentially a dictatorship because 'things get done'.
@@calicokat4172 They read comments like that and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know, KNOW, this government is going down. We are getting our Canada back. Nothing less is acceptable.
I watched most of Trudeau's testimony today and I heard nothing that would allow him to invoke the Act. The disgusting smirk was on his face for most of the time. Any information about how the Government came to the conclusion that the Act must be invoked should not be subject to Cabinet secrecy and no Brian economic harm does not allow this. No amendments! Just follow the law.
@@sandrabrearton5781 I think he is most certainly a narcissist, but ppl throw that word around all the time now I feel like it’s lost it’s impact. His self satisfied smirking today (many times) was truly disgusting. He brought that Trudeau smile, often inappropriate given the subject matter.
I wonder why he didn't invoke the act when we had rail blockades a few years ago by indigenous groups! That screwed up trade in the same way, except it was about something Trudeau is fighting against, Fossil Fuels and Alberta. So if this type of protest happens in the future, the Emergency Act better be used and bank accounts seized, as was done this time, but I dought it!
@@12monkies123 That smirk after he was asked when did he and his government become afraid, and he said they weren't, and aren't... I don't think I've ever wanted to punch someone in the face so badly. He turns my stomach. He's decided he's above the law and that's that.
This drama teacher can lie with a straight face. He probably even believes he is justified in doing so. He and his finance minister who has zero experience in finance. I'd laugh if it wasn't so devastating to democracy in Canada. By far the worst PM and finance minister in Canadian history.
He is a traitor by every definition. - one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty - a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust. - a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
@@roymaddocks3184 Not occupy it for 23 days, but yes, indeed, to stay until their voices were heard and/or there was some action, some gesture even, on the part of the government to recognize that what the many thousands of people in the streets were going on about was of deep concern to millions of Canadians who supported the convoy for speaking on their behalf. Had Trudeau offered even the slightest gesture of communication with these citizens that he supposedly was elected to serve, things might have turned out differently. My two cents.
@@roymaddocks3184 And in those 23 days not one liberal attempted to ask the protesters a single question. It makes me think that Trudeau believed if he ignored the protesters they would go away.
Exactly right. And Trudeau rationalized the invocation by saying that there was the 'possibility' that there might be other blockades, that there might be serious violence if the 'occupation' wasn't ended in a timely manner. I'm sorry, but the 'possibility' of violence, the 'possibility' that protesters may exercise their right to protest elsewhere, is not enough to justify the invocation. Hell, a BLM protest could potentially have individuals connected to it that have violent thoughts that might lead to violent action. You wouldn't see him invoke the EA in that context. It's all so Goddamn aggravating that these criminals are going to get away with abusing millions of Canadians over a two year period, and then get off scott free in regards to their illegal use of the EA. Canada is truly f*cked.
Brian also missed the fact that the product that usually moved across the Windsor Bridge was diverted to other crossings. That is not to say there was no inconvienience to some jobs and manufacturing, that is what strikes and protests are designed to do. Everyone is benefiting from strikes whether they wish to admit it or not.
The letter of the law was not met. I feel that has been made clear. The notion of a "broader context" is what revisions to existing legal definitions can be based on, but not acted on until adopted into law. Legally, I don't see any wiggle room. Politically....well, these days, it's all about the wiggle, isn't it.
Either Canada is a country that respects the rule of law or we allow our politicians to make it up as they go along. As for reading it in a different context he just experienced it differently.
@@StandardEnvy We are not in ancient Rome But to clear up your misinformation Rome had codified laws and they were followed until the fall of the Republic. Caeser went to great lengths to make sure everything he did was legal until he was backed into a corner and had to move his army across the Rubicon. Even at that point he was upset that the Senate would not respect his legal rights and forced him to break the law..
remember how Trudeau lectured the Chinese during the Hawuei crisis about Canada being a country of laws; then vice admiral happened; then during the Lavalin crisis he fired JWR and brought in Lametti who represented the Lavalin riding.
Brian, I completely disagree with you. Emergency Act is supposed to be for the extreme situation where national scale defense such as army is necessary, and it is beyond the exisiting laws. Just because law enforcement was not effective in deal with this particular protest doesn't mean we should eagerly argue for the expansion of government power. Since this first invocation was clealy an abuse of power by the government, first thing to work on should be to put some measure in place to prevent future abuse. The talk about broadening the scope is absolutely premature at this time. Talking about broadening is only appropriate if and when the government is expected to act within the confine of the law. I normally appreciate your commentary, but this time I am deeply disappointed.
They severely overstepped and they’re still trying to justify it, or make Canadians believe they were in the right…the worst thing is, they most likely won’t feel any repercussions for it!
the problem with this is that everytime a govt wants to use the act - they can simply redefine a la liberal style to use it whenever they want. it's become a joke now. ---- the act is now weakened.
I live in the UK and it appeared to many here that, during covid, a majority of Canadians literally loved authoritarianism, and loved the opportunity to turn on their fellow citizens. Same as Australians. We were shocked to see how Canadians thought and acted
Not a cheap or flippant idea to drive a truck across Canada to spend weeks in the coldest capital in the world. The convoy was well anounced and then, when berated, Trudy ran out of Parliament and hid. Did they really break a law or was the law written to make them illegal
If liberal appointed Justice rules the invocation was justified, the authoritarian tyrants will be fully unleashed from civility and rule of law-Freeedland(oh the ironies of the name) will be fully endorsed to pick up where her grandfather left off. Pray and be as much of a change agent as you can in your circle of influence-we need to dialogue lovingly, like never before, with those who love government control to wake them up
Hearing Tradeau talk about the trucker convoy sounds eerily similar to Biden and Jan.6 in the US. Both blown so far out of proportion so it can fit their narratives and procure more power.
Disagree with the Miller comments and I thought he was effective. He wanted to really question the establishment and realised what a pony show it was. Especially with all the redaction.
Lilly also said the mystery flag carrier wasn't who they said it was. Which was wrong because Miller wasn't allowed to see the evidence or call witnesses. because the commish deemed it unimportant. So it never got to the point prove who it was. I believe he was trying to establish the government was trying to instil fear in Canadians by planting a hate symbol to support his narrative. Could Mr.Miller have asked more direct questions like Lilly suggested, sure he could've. But they would have far less impact and go nowhere and his Tim was short.
Like I have previously mentioned Trudeau is going to use this inquiry to change the emergency act to suit him and his minions. Secondly can you imagine the uproar if government officials were joking about bringing tanks to a BLM or a alphabet protest ?.
50 years ago they did it to québec and everyone agreed it was the right thing to do until they started to rethink the whole situation and realized it was wrong. but they forgot pierre trudeau was wrong
Let's remember that in 1970 the FLQ kidnapped British trade diplomat James Cross and murdered beloved Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte. They had also blown up numerous mail boxes. When they were caught, they demanded an airplane be provided to permit their escape. Heroes? Not a chance
@@roymaddocks3184 I remember this same argument a couple of weeks ago destined to muddy the truth that the war measures act in 1970 was a mistake as explained today. You repeat yourself as a cisis rcmp officer would do. well are you paid to maintain the propaganda ?
@@attiliobarcados8178 in October 1970 I was a 4th year political science student at a small liberal arts university in Ontario. My prof, Denis Smith, was one of few Canadian academics who opposed the imposition of the War Measures Act in 1970. In retrospect, I believe it was justified in 1970. I am not convinced the Emergencies Act was justified in 2022
Basically Lilley just said only the government may cause financial hardship. If its the people, maybe the government should make amendments to allow them to use the emergency act to stop them
How is shutting the bridge down and shutting plants down as part of the protest any different then plants shutting down to go on strike to protest their pay and benefits? Is the government going to use the EMA to keep employees from striking?
I think your assessment of Miller is rude and uninsightful. He is the opportunity the truckers had to have a voice and they fcking deserve that in the face of the evil, egregious, strong arming, and blatant ignorance and the vilifying of the Truckers. Thank you very much.
You want to add economic harm to the emergencies act? There is a lot of things that can be defined as economic harm. When a union goes on strike that would be economic harm. I’m sorry, but the Emergencies Act is a very powerful act. It was made that way in order to be used as a last resort when the country’s security is threatened. War might be a reason to enact Measures Act. Similarly an organized attempt to kidnap, assassinate, or harm physically government or foreign officials could also be considered a reason to enact the Measures Act. These are physical attacks on the country. Financial just doesn’t cut it. There are a lot of protests that could be argued to have financial impact and even cause a certain amount of financial harm. If you’re worried about finances then you need to create another act that is not of the same calibre regarding government powers. Unless of course you don’t mind having your rights and freedoms taken away because your Prime Minister doesn’t like a labour strike.
Lill must have recently been chastised by his boss over his recent reporting on Trudy and his corrupt group of overpaid henchpeople. The way to the hearts of journalists appears to be tax payer dollars.
When Trudeau read the Emergencies Act requirements he believed "people experienced things differently" so he just did as he pleased & said to he ll with Canadians.
The drama teacher rehearsed his role well for today so he could appear sincere, calm and reasoned. The provinces kept him from enacting it a couple years ago when he wanted to do it. This time he was able to do it without that opposition .
And by the way, if "economic harm" is reason enough to invoke the Emergencies Act, then you can invoke the Emergencies Act for EVERYTHING - because everything has a cost. This was already debated before the Emergencies Act was drafted. Study your history.
The whole defense is that he gets to use the emergency act whenever he wants for whatever he wants. If this is true, Canada does not have a constitution and isn't a country.
Definitions are easy to change. It has been done many times in the last couple years. However, invoking the emergencies act had to be done because just like the kids version of fuddle duddle was done, same thing for the emergencies act, because his father did it.
Trudeau's skill at being "plastic man" is so developed that he reflexly utters platitudes rather than facts in response to every inquiry. The art of speaking without actually saying anything is on full display.
I disagree with Brian Lilly...there is never a need to use the Emergency Measures Act against in ways in which negates the rights the Act was written to uphold. Read the Preamble of the Act and watch what was done during the protests and it is clear that the Liberal government used the Act to inflict cruelty & degrading treatment. Punished those involved and continued for months to with degrading treatment to the organizers.
Joke is...this is theatrics and WE the people see through it and it’s all clearly wrong and corrupt we know sadly that nothing will happen to hold these demons accountable.
It's because he had months of listening to everybody's disclosure on every little tidbit that they had on them to formulate rebuttals for any possible scenario. The system is a scam or government is a sham
Trudy asks a lot of WHAT IF questions "What if" Trudy spoke to protestors on day 1 The protest would have been over on day 2 Trudy has RCMP and the KINGS GUARD (PPS) Who protect Trudy from danger And he still turtled and didn't face citizens
After two years of lockdowns and printing billions we are suddenly concerned about economic harm caused by truckers blocking one bridge along a 2500 mile border.
He literally admitted that the plan that was used to break up the protest he "disagree with and wasnt adequate" but he didnt read it so he had no idea. That proved beyond reasonable doubt that the EA wasnt needed.
