The Canadian puppet show

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As there is nothing more important to do for the nation, a show is being put on in the usually dull capital city of Ottawa. The actors are many and the audience is the nation. It takes the form of another taxpayer funded commission of inquiry, this time, into the invocation of the Emergency Act, in response to the truckers' Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa. The Public Order Emergency Commission is in its sixth and final week of public hearings, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expected to testify on the last day of the proceedings. A final report is expected to be delivered to Parliament by early next year. The cover up is astonishing, with different definitions of 'threat to national security' emanating from the Canadian Security Agency Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Justice Department. Earlier this week, the commission heard that while CSIS Director David Vigneault didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security as defined by the CSIS Act, he did support invoking the Emergencies Act. He testified that he sought a legal interpretation from the Department of Justice and that it was his understanding that the Emergencies Act definition of a "threat to the security of Canada" was broader than the one in the CSIS Act. Do you find this interesting, or even reassuring, that the nation is well protected? At his end, the Canadian Constitution Foundation lawyer Sujit Choudhry argued, that the solicitor-client privilege shielding on the legal opinion should be lifted. "In fairness to the commission's process, the federal government should waive solicitor-client privilege and publicly release this opinion," he said in a media statement last week. A spokesperson for the Justice Minister David Lametti told CBC that the principle of solicitor-client secrecy is vital to the judicial system and the minister doesn't have the authority to waive it in this case. How nice! Is this how justice is being served? "Minister Lametti is committed to transparency and assisting the inquiry led by Commissioner Justice Rouleau in their work," the spokesperson said in an email. "[But] he is unable to speak on matters that are covered by solicitor-client privilege without violating his obligations to the government as his client and affecting ongoing legal proceedings." It seems the Minister is both client and solicitor, but the show goes on. The legal interpretation of the Emergencies Act has become a key point as the commission works to determine whether the federal government was justified in invoking the law. Under the Emergencies Act, the federal cabinet must have reasonable grounds to believe a public order emergency exists - which the act defines as one that "arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency." For the record: CSIS's definition : Service?means the Canadian Security Intelligence Service established by subsection 3(1);?(Service) 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).?(menaces envers la sécurité du Canada) The act then points back to such a threat - which cites serious violence against people or property "for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective," espionage, foreign interference or the intent to overthrow the government by violence, which, let's be serious, is difficult to point to in the convoy protest, especially in Ottawa. It is true that citizens of Ottawa might have been disturbed, but hey, this is the Capital of Canada for the moment, and people have the right to protest. By the way, with the woke culture in vogue in Canada, perhaps the time has come to move the Capital of Canada to a more suitable location in the centre of the nation. Such moves have been accomplished in other nations, such as Australia and Brazil. Do not forget that Ottawa was established as the Capital of Canada by Queen Victoria. As she has become less popular in some strata of the population lately, witness the toppling of her statue in front of the Winnipeg legislature without judicial consequence for the perpetrators, this move might prove popular, at least with the Liberal Party. Beside the Minister of Justice, let's look at the less than brainy performance of the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, Bill Blair. This is the same Bill Blair who, as Chief of Police in Toronto, made a mess in the city during the G20 summit. His record shows his inability to deal with protests, even less demanding ones. But the crowning glory of incompetence, awarded for his arrogant and contradictory actions and statements regarding the protest in Ottawa, belongs to the Public Safety Minister, Marco Mendicino. He received intelligence from both the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP, that there was no serious threat to Canada from a badly organized protest that offered no tangible plots of violence nor had any ideologically motivated violent extremist groups in attendance. Instead of acting on that intelligence, he pursued his own feelings, like a Moses on the Holly Mountain. At one point, commission counsel asked what prompted his concerns that the protest could spiral and overwhelm police services across the country. "It came from observation," he said, a classic example of marshalling evidence to confirm predetermined convictions and dismissing evidence that contradicts them. Considered a seasoned and competent lawyer, the legal profession must be proud of Mendicino's specious justification for his actions - that CSIS's mandate is confined to espionage and foreign interference threats, not an illegal, national protest. What a unique interpretation. Well done. No wonder he is famous for his arrogance in action and inaction. This is the man in Canadian government, who stated, among many other pompous and misleading declarations, that a NATO allied nation is guilty of genocide. So the puppet show goes on, and we wait for the chief puppeteer to close it. Yours to watch and rate the show.