So what were you expecting?

Trudeau met threshold to invoke Emergencies Act, commission finds 

So says long-time Liberal and Trudeau appointee, Mr Justice Paul Rouleau Whitewash. Quelle surprise! Walt's lifetime pct .991.

Meme scraped from Blazing Cat Fur.

Sad tales from the Heart of Wokeness

In "Fearless predictions for 2023" (WWW 10/1/23), Walt predicted that at least one of the three following heads of government would be out of office by Christmas, as a result of resignation, revolution or death: "Pope" Francis,  Demented Joe Biden, and  Justin "F*ck" Trudeau. Lifetime pct .989.

My batting average would be higher had I foreseen the pleasant surprises of the resignations of not one but three authorities of the wokest kind, all of which have occurred in the last month. A big Nelson Muntz HA-ha has already gone out to New Zealand's Queen of the Lockdowns, Jacinda "Karen" Ardern. Today we add two "leaders" from the wokest country on earth, Canuckistan.  

The first is Brenda Lucki, Commissioner (top cop) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, whose retirement was announced yesterday. HA-ha!

Ms Unlucki was appointed by Prime Minister Blackie McBlackface, the well-known "male feminist", because she's a woman. Oh, and she also happens to be married to Ray Gauthie, a relative of former finance minister Bill Morneau. That could explain why M Trudeau was never arrested for violating ethics laws in the SNC-Lavalin or numberous other affairs.

In a statement announcing what she called a "personal decision", Ms Unlucki said she has decided to retire ahead of reaching five years in the role. Her last day will be March 17th.

We are assured that the timing of her resignation has nothing to do with the impending (tomorrow!) release of the report of the Whitewash Rouleau Commission into the brutal repression of the Freedom Convoy, one year ago.

Brenda has been criticized for not speaking up in the cabinet meeting at which Mr Socks invoked the Emergencies Act to quash all dissent, although emails from Ms Lucki show that she thought there were other alternatives. This prompted Alberta's justice minister to call for her resignation, to which Ms Lucki responded by asserting she remained "fully committed to leading the RCMP."

March will see the release of the final report of the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission. They have been looking into how the RCMP handled the 2020 killing rampage in Nova Scotia that involved a gunman using a replica RCMP vehicle. Ms Unlucki has on several occasions denied accusations of political interference in the case. 

But wait, there's more. In 2020, amid conversations around the woke hobby horse of defunding the police, Ms Lucki faced calls to resign after saying that she struggled with "five or six" definitions of systemic racism. She then quickly acknowledged what she called the national police service's "history of racial discrimination."

Looks from here as if Ms Unlucki has decided to fall on her sword to save PM McBlackface from the embarrassment of having to fire here. Further reading: "Hiring based on gender/workeness rather than merit: not a good idea", WWW 23/1/21.

We turn now to news from Toronto, aka The Wormy Apple -- a "world-class city" in the sense that it has world-class problems of crime, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, and did I mention crime? 

John Tory -- Tory by name, "progressive" by inclination -- ran for re-election in October on the "politics of hope", taken whole and unadulterated from the teachings of The Prez. He won in a landslide. Because Toronto.

This week, surprise surprise, he resigned in the wake of the revelation by the Toronto Red Star of his affair with a former staffer. HA-ha!

This is like Lori Lightfoot winning re-election on February 28th [Ya think? Ed.] and then resigning because she's been sleeping with Hunter Biden!

According to Hizzoner, the relationship began during the Covid-19 Dempanic, when he and his long-time wife were spending "lengthy periods apart." Honesty John, has always made much of his reputation for integrity, said he was stepping down so he can "reflect on my mistakes" and "do the work of rebuilding the trust of my family."

That's all? Errr, no. Mr Tory also said the relationship "ended by mutual consent" earlier this year, adding that the former staffer had also decided to pursue employment outside of city hall. The word on Bay Street is that she landed in the executive offices of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, with which, by virtue of being a trustee of the Rogers family trust, the now-ex-mayor has some connection. 

The shadow of #MeToo looms in the background. Further reading: "Canada's top general latest victim of 'Me Too'", WWW 4/2/21.

Was the Freedom Convoy a threat to Canada's national security?

As noted earlier this morning, Mr Justice Paul Rouleau, presiding over the eponymous commission, must decide whether the Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to the security of Canada. He has to review his notes and transcripts of six weeks of oral testimony, plus over 7000 pages of documents (many of them heavily redacted), and the written submissions of counsel for a dozen or so (I lost count!) parties with standing, and the Commission itself.

The Commission was supposed to lift the veil of secrecy shrouding the events of February and the Liberals' decision to invoke the Emergencies Act, but much remains hidden. 

In refusing to release minutes of Cabinet meetings, counsel for the government of Canada relied on the principle of cabinet confidentiality. Questions about what was said in those meetings, or by one minister to another were objected to and disallowed.

Moreover, the documents produced by the government were so heavily redacted as to leave only the titles visible in many instances. Counsel for the Freedom Convoy organizers and other parties made several motions to have sight of uncensored versions of the documents, but almost all such motions were denied.

The other means by which the government kept secret key elements of its decision-making process was solicitor-client privilege. The Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice [!] said that he had considered a legal opinion on the matter. What was the opinion? He couldn't say -- solicitor-client privilege. Was the opinion shown to Cabinet? Same answer. Would he let the Commission see the opinion? What do you think?!

Agent 3, our non-resident legal beagle thinks that Mr Justic Rouleau is entitled to draw inferences from the government's refusal to waive solicitor-client privilege, and/or* release unredacted versions of the 1000s of documents which were censored. If the government has nothing to hide, if the legal opinion and other papers raised no doubts about the legality of invoking the Emergencies Act, why not show let Canadians see these things?

Is Commissioner Rouleau bothered by the government's stonewalling? Maybe not. In his closing statement Friday evening, he said he is satisfied that he can now make factual findings and answer the key questions the commission was mandated to explore: Why did the federal government declare the emergency? How did it use its powers? And were those actions appropriate? "These are questions that, as I said at the outset, the public wants answered," said the judge. "I'm confident that I am now well positioned to provide those answers."

In his deliberations, Mr Justice Rouleau will have to consider the argument made repeatedly by counsel for the Freedom Convoy organizers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and others that the protest did not constitute a threat to the security of Canada, as defined by the Emergencies Act, which incorporates by reference the definition of a threat contained in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. 

Section 2 of the latter act says: "threats to the security of Canada" means

(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,

(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,

(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and

(d) 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, but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d). [Walt's emphasis.]

M Trudeau's minions kept referring to Jan. 6th, and to the sighting of one (only) "Nazi" flag and one (only) Confederate flag (both likely carried by agents provocateurs), as evidence that "IMVEs" (Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremists) were behind the protests. 

That gruel being shown to be pretty thin, they then switched to the argument that the protests were detrimental to Canada's economic security, i.e. bad for business. Ms Freeland said she'd had calls from Michigan Governor Karen Whitmer (D) and Mr Socks said he'd been on the phone with President Brandon. The Americans, they said, might not invest so much in Canada, in future, if it became "unstable". Judge Rouleau said he didn't see anything in the CSIS definition about economic insecurity.

In closing statements on Friday evening, a lawyer for the federal government said it's clear after six weeks of testimony that there were serious threats of violence by demonstrators, that blockades posed threats to the economic security of Canada, and that there were reasonable grounds to declare a national emergency. 

But are "reasonable grounds" sufficient? What about legal grounds?! Lawyers for the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan said provincial governments were not consulted enough on the special powers. 

A lawyer for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, argued that the use of the act was inappropriate, and that a "creative and privileged legal opinion" from the government isn't enough to conclude that the legal threshold was met. She said the act was ultimately a way for the government to be seen to be doing something about the protests, which had gridlocked downtown Ottawa for weeks and halted trade at several Canada-US border crossings. 

"Instead of establishing clear and appropriate lines of communication, having frank discussions and putting instructions about strategic priorities to police in writing, the government gave law enforcement the biggest and most public nudge it could," she said, "it invoked the Emergencies Act and handed law enforcement across the country sweeping and unnecessary new tools and a clear political mandate to use them."

Counsel for Freedom Corp., representing some of the protest organizers, said the Emergencies Act constituted state violence. "The sad irony is that the protest in Ottawa was fundamentally about government overreach. Canadians felt that the current government had gone too far with the COVID-19 mandates. The government's response to the protest by invoking the Emergencies Act was a further reach of power over people instead of power by the people." 

Let us say, using the current buzzword, that there's a lot to unpack there, and Mr Justice Rouleau is going to have his work cut out for him. His report is due in February 2023. That's a pretty short time in which to mix up so many gallons of whitewash!

* Footnote from Ed., regarding "and/or". Lawyers love "and/ors". You see them all the time in contracts, statutes and other legal documents. They are expensive, though... because they are imported from Andorra.

COMMENT, from Carson Jerema, National Post, 28/11/22. Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act was a profound attack on the rule of law, and any finding from the Public Order Emergencies Commission that it was legal would be an unfortunate precedent. Despite that, polls have shown that Canadians supported the move in high numbers, much higher than support for the Liberals generally.

Comment from Walt: Are Canucks really that careless of their freedom? Hard to believe.

Rouleau Commission public hearings end with a week of bullshit

While Americans were giving thanks at the end of last week, Canadians were giving thanks for the end of the public hearings of the Rouleau Commission of inquiry into whether the Liberal government of Canuckistan was justified in invoking the never-before-used Emergencies to quell the Freedom Convoy protests of last February. 

As reported in Walt's first post on this subect, the public fact-finding hearings began six weeks ago with the Parade of the Snowflakes. The week before last saw the Parade of the Minions -- the Commissioner of the RCMP and assorted deputies and secretaries of the Privy Council (Americans read: Cabinet) Office and the Prime Minister's Office. Most of them were shady-side-of-50s females so smitten with Blackie McBlackface that they would say or do anything, anything to protect him from harm -- physical or political.

This past week was the big finale, the Parade of the Ministers: the Honourable William Bliar (President of the Privy Council and Minister of Emergency Preparedness) [Seriously? Ed.]; the Honourable Marco Mendacious (Minister of Public Safety); the Honourable Omar Algebra (the Saudi-born Syrian-Canadian Minister of Transport); and the Honourable David Lamentable (Minister of Justice [sic]).

The semi-finalist was the fragrant and Honourable Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister). At right is a note from Ms Freeland, tendered in evidence. What does the handwriting tell you about her?  

The star attraction though, the big finish on Friday, was Emperor Trudeau II, his own self. Those who expected him to wilt under questioniong about his decision -- and it was his alone -- to order the most sweeping suspension of Canadian civil liberties since the October Crisis of 1970 (his father was prime minister then) were deeply disappointed.

Not only did he deny doing anything wrong, hinting that the "worst" might have happened had he not invoked the Emergencies Act, but he proclaimed himself "serene" -- confident that he could and would do the same again if he thought it was the right thing to do. That's exactly what Canadians are afraid of!

The lawyers refrained from questioning Mr Socks about his whereabouts at the height of the peaceful demonstration, so as not to draw attention to the fact of his hiding at a cottage somewhere in the hills north of Ottawa. Nor did they press him on his characterization of the protesters as a "tiny minority with unacceptable views." 

They did, however, ask him if he was wrong to call unvaccinated people names like "racists" and "misogynists". He denied having done so. Those epithets were uttered in a September 2021 appearance on La semaine des 4 Julie (a Québec talk show), in which Junior said, "We all know people who are a little hesitant (about vaccination), and we're going to try and convince them, but there are also people who are fiercely opposed to vaccination; who don't believe in science, who are often misogynists, who are often racist as well."

In his testimony to the Commission, M Trudeau said that "using protests to demand changes to public policy is something that I think is worrisome." How about that! Doesn't every protest have as its object the changing of public policy?

Now it falls to the Honourable Mr Justice Paul Rouleau -- a Liberal appointee and former Party apparatchik -- to decide whether the Liberal government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was lawful. We'll let Agent 3 pick up this thread later today.

VIDEO: Freedom Convoy inquiry: testimony the liberal legacy media don't want Canadians to hear

I'm back, with thanks to all who have sent their good wishes. The result of the procedure was good and it looks as if I'll be able to continue ranting for some time yet.

I know our American readers will be waiting for me to say something about the mid-terms, and I will. But the Rouleau Commission hearings continuing in Ottawa this week are important not just to Canadian readers but for all concerned with protecting the freedoms of speech, assembly, and peaceful protest.

This week the Commission is hearing evidence from the Freedom Convoy organizers, the people Canuck Prime Minister Just In Trudeau called "a tiny minority with unacceptable views." Agent 3, who has been watching the live stream, writes:

Have you had a chance to see any of the Rouleau Commission hearings? If you're just seeing clips on the news, you're missing a lot of fun, because the lickspittle media are cherry-picking the clips that make the truckers look bad and make the feds look justified in invoking the Emergencies Act. But I've been watching them live, streaming online, and it's like a Saturday Night Live sketch. 

E.g., the characterization of Diagolon as a dangerous right-wing conspiracy. It was actually a joke started by a couple of guys in Alberta, and the feds took it seriously. The crowd in the hearing hall actually laughed out loud, and Rouleau threatened to clear the room, as he has done several times now. Pretty soon what was supposed to be an open hearing is going to be closed. Already they've decided that the CSIS [the Canuck equivalent of the CIA. Ed.] spies can testify in camera, so we won't be able to see their incompetence.

Ed. has searched the Net and has come up with hours of video. Links will appear below. Here's one clip -- not one seen on the legacy TV network newscasts, featuring Tamara Lich, the little lady from Saskatchewan who was arrested, denied bail twice by Liberal judges and finally released on appeal, and is still under house arrest awaiting trial. I found her testimony very calm and rational, and yet moving. 

 

I should have put "organizers" in quote marks. A thread common to the testimony of Ms Lich, James Bauder, Benjamin Dichter, Tom Marazzo, Chris Barber and the controversial Pat King, is that none of them knew more than two or three of the others and had divers motives for being involved in the Freedom Convoy.

There were a number of different groups and sub-groups, and no unifying command structure. No-one knew for sure what the others were doing or trying to do, the prime example of the disconnect being the so-called "Memorandum of Understanding" authored by James Bauder, which some of the leaders never saw and others regarded as "fake news".

Tamara Lich agreed with previous testimony that there were "power struggles" between groups involved in the Freedom Convoy, and felt like some were just looking for an opportunity for self-promotion, while others were more interested in getting their hands on some of the millions of dollars raised through GoFundMe and other sources. That was a problem for her as she was tasked with handling a lot of the money.

She said there were tensions between herself and Pat King, whom she described as “very controversial.” She confirmed she had a tense conversation with King about his involvement and that she’d both told him he should not come to Ottawa and to “check his ego” after he claimed he’d organized the convoy alone./

Ms Leach characterized the Ottawa protest as a "love fest" and said she had seen no evidence of the harassment and intimidation alleged by local residents, businesses and police.  about harassment and intimidation. "I can’t say I ever witnessed any of that."

She described herself as "concerned" about Mr King’s controversial rhetoric. Some months before the Ottawa demonstration, he said in a video circulating on social media that Prime Minister Trudeau might "catch a bullet". He also spoke of a the Great Replacement conspiracy to reduce people of Anglo-Saxon descent to a minority. Said Ms Lich, "I was getting messages and phone calls from a lot of people that were concerned that he was involved."

Another convoy organizer, Benjamin Dichter, a former Conservative candidate who Ms Lich described as "a friend", testified that he was frustrated by the decision-making, or lack thereof. He complained about a deal that some convoy members struck with the City of Ottawa to move vehicles out of residential areas and onto Wellington Street, in front of Parliament Hill. 

Mr Dichter said the deal was a bad idea and the people pushing it weren’t aligned with the protesters broader goals. "I think they were focused on ending the protests and getting everybody out of the city as quickly as possible," he said. Dichter. And he accused Keith Wilson, a lawyer who had represented the convoy, as being "Pat King in a suit."

The commission also heard from James Bauder, a self-described "tirbal person" [like Pauxcahontas? Ed.], who came to Jesus not long ago and felt that God had led him to organize not just this convoy but a "Beat Hug" convoy which had staged a protest in Ottawa some months previous.

Mr Bauder was the publisher of the controversial "Memorandum of Understanding", which he wrote himself in spite of being unfamiliar with legal terminology, Canada's government structures or Constitution. The MoU called for the Senate and the Governor General to work with a "citizens' commission" which would take over from the government. 

His proposal would have suspended all Covid-19 mandates and refunded any fines people had paid for breaching the Covid rules. Several other organizers testified that they didn't want anything to do with the memorandum. Mr Bauder said he stood by the document, but ultimately no one was willing to sign on. "It means nothing because nobody signed it. nobody entered into it."

The hearings continue this morning with cross-examination of Tamara Lich. If you want to see the drama [or farce? Ed.] play out, try the National Post website. So far they're the only one of Canuckistan's mainstream media to stream the hearings in real time. But be warned. You may find yourself behind a paywall.

Ed. has found a couple of full-length (hours and hours!) videos of previous sessions, viz.:

Click here to see the testimony of former Canadian Army Captain Tom Marazzo and Pat King. And here to see James Bauder, Tamara Lich,  and Benjamin Dichter testify.

Freedom Convoy: Will Trudeau be held to account?

You remember, eh, the Freedom Convoy, the peaceful -- not mostly peaceful, but totally peaceful, except for the actions of Trudeau's storm troopers -- protest which tied up Canuckistan's capital city in February, giving Prime Minister Blackie McBlackface what he thought was a good excuse to invoke the never-before-used Emergencies Act to crack down on Canadians' civil liberties.

If you've forgotten, or just weren't paying much attention at the time, check out these WWW reports. "True Facts about Canada's Freedom Convoy" (includes video with John-Henry Westen), 9/2/22

"Matt Taibbi on 'Justin Trudeau's Ceauşescu Moment'", 11/2/22

"'The Catastrophe of Canada': Jordan Peterson & Rex Murphy" (video) 21/2/22

"Kelly McParland: The world thinks Justin Trudeau blew it", 23/2/22.

The Emergencies Act includes a provision that requires a public inquiry, after the Act is used, to determine whether its use was justified. Sort of like: verdict first, trial later. Anyhoo, the inquiry finally got underway in Ennui-on-the-Rideau this week. It is to be known as the "Rouleau Commission" because the presiding judge, appointed by Mr Sock, is Paul Rouleau, a justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal for Ontario. 

Mr Justice Rouleau is a graduate of University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, and has previously served on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of Yukon, the Nunavut Court of Justice, and the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories in 2017. 

Before getting these nice jobs, Mr Rouleau worked for the Liberal Party of Canada. In 1983, he was part of John Turner's campaign to take over the Liberal leadership (and thus become prime minister) when Emperor Trudeau I announced his retirement. Later, he had a hand in helping pick Mr Turner's cabinet, and is described as either his executive assistant or appointments secretary in various media reports from that era. Can you say "whitewash", boys and girls? I knew you could.

Now that he's a judge, Mr Rouleau is supposed to be apolitical, non-partisan, and open-minded. He accepted without hesitation the terms of reference for the mission: not merely to look into the government's actions and whether they were justified, but to investigate the behaviour and financing of the protesters. (Junior claimed that they were directed and financed by foreign extremists.) In his opening statement, Mr Justice Rouleau said, "Uncovering the truth is an important goal."

What is the truth? Depends on whether you're on the side of the self-righteous, liberal police state... or of freedom. The Freedom Convoy was appropriately named, standing up for freedom from oppression by the nanny state. The invocation of the Emergencies Act severely restricted the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association.

In opening statements on Thursday, civil liberties groups, including the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, noted the sweeping rights implications of the act.  The Emergency Economic Measures Order, made in pursuance of the act, chilled freedom of expression, by mandating banks to freeze bank accounts of those connected to the protests, without any warrant or notice to the account-holders.

Counsel for the Liberal government argued its view that Canada faced an "unprecedented and critical" situation in the face of ongoing protests and blockades, including threats of "ideologically motivated violence" and impact on Canada’s trade, international relationships, and reputation. Even as opening statements were being read, the Emperor [Prime Minister, shurely! Ed.], rather than saying that since the matter was before the court, or that he would be testifying later, was making his argument publicly in every "media availability".

"We knew from the very beginning," he told the CBC and the rest of the lickspittle media, "that invoking the Emergencies Act is a big step that had never been done before. But given these unprecedented illegal protests, we needed to take action. We took it in a way that was measured, that was responsible that was time limited."

Lawyers for the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, begged to differ, expressing disapproval of the federal government's failure to consult them before invoking the act. Yes, they were called, according to counsel for Saskatchewan, but "the call was not so much about consulting as it was about telling." Saskatchewan also opposed the financial measures, which required banks and other institutions to take significant steps with little guidance from the government.

Several provinces requested that the act's application be geographically limited, which it was not. Counsel for Alberta noted that the province was able to deal with the Coutts AB border blockades under existing laws, and that none of the powers under the Emergencies Act were necessary, or indeed invoked, in that province.

Counsel for the various police forces involved, and residents of Ottawa who say they were affected by the protest, backed up Mr Socks. The residents' lawyer called the protests "highly disruptive, even traumatizing", what with continual honk-honking throughout the night, loose jerry cans lying the streets, and "general disorder."

On Friday, the commission began hearing evidence from witnesses, starting with the Parade of the Snowflakes -- Ottawa residents whining about the supposed disruption of their lives. At the head of tyhe parade was a "legally blind" lady who entered the hall wearing sunglasses (and a mask, of course) and tapping her white cane. She said her condition had been worsened by the protest because she was afraid to go out, even to shop, for fear of being lost in the crowd.

A Chinese-Canadian lady said the noise of the air- and truck horns was so loud that she and her husband had to sleep in their car, in the basement of their condo. Even worse, she says she was bullied when she went into the street, and was told that she wasn't smiling under her mask!

Another Karen, a well-fed businesswoman, said she was afraid... very afraid. Why? "Because when I heard that the Ottawa police chief [Peter "Moves" Sloly] said he was afraid, I felt I should be afraid too." Seriously. 

Mr Sloly, a diversity hire, was a "victim" of the protest, losing his job a couple of weeks in, for failing to get tough with the freedom fighters. [Your bias is showing. Ed.] The new acting chief called in the Toronto Police "Service" mounted unit, who got the job done without trampling on more than one little old lady.

The Rouleau Commission is expected to hear fro as many of 65 potential witnesses, including Prime Minister McBlackface, as time will allow. Given that 20 different organizations have standing and will be allowed to cross-examine witnesses, the hearings could take more than a little while. 

However, the Commission's final report must, by law, be laid before Parliament by 20 February 2023. That wouldn't be a problem, though, for Mr Justice Rouleau if, as Walt suspects, his exoneration of Chief Walking Goose (Mr Trudeau's honorary Indian name) and all his minions has already been written by... ohhh... let's say Gerald Butts.