Exchange Between Lawyer for Canadian Trucker Convoy and Canadian AG David Lametti Over Use of Emergencies Act inquiry


Canadian Trucker Convoy Lawyer Brendan Miller and Canadian AG David Lametti

The Trucker Commission in Canada has showcased testimony from top Trudeau officials regarding the designation of the trucker convoy protests as a “threat to national security” requiring invoking the Emergencies Act.

An estimated 50,000 Canadian truckers traveled across Canada in a massive caravan protesting the COVID mandates. Canadian media tried to paint the protests as Russian propaganda.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau employed the Emergencies Act against the protesters and utilized his near-limitless powers to terrorize and harass the grassroots trucker convoy.

TRENDING: New Video of Ray Epps on Jan 6 Uncovered by Jason Goodman at “Crowdsource the Truth” – Epps Brushes Past Another Man Making Hand Signals

While the Canadian Parliament initially voted to uphold Trudeau’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act against the truckers, he was forced to revoke it days later, likely due to lack of support in the Senate.

One would think that Canadian officials would have a bevy of documents and proof of the alleged threat the trucker convey represented.

Yet in grilling after grilling of Canadian officials, the lawyer representing the truckers, Brendan Miller, has shown they are unable to provide anything concrete to justify the Draconian crackdown.

Miller had a heated exchange with Canadian AG David Lametti.

Miller:

From being a lawyer and a law professor and Attorney General, I take it you have an intimate understanding of attorney client privilege is that correct?

Lametti:

A reasonably good one, yes.

Miller:

And of course you have a reasonable understanding of section 39 of the Canadian Evidence Act and cabinet confidence, is that fair?

Lametti:

Again, a reasonably good understanding.

Miller:

Now, one of the documents produced by DOJ in the record, and I am assuming it was just produced to provide it was done, is the redacted legal opinion, it’s just to document itself that was given to Cabinet, it’s fully redacted, but of course you agree that the Cabinet received an opinion about the Emergencies Act, is that fair?

Lametti:

I will not confirm…(point of objection entered)

Miller:

Okay. Now we have evidence in this proceeding from the Privy Council Office and Miss Joey Thomas that the government of Canada’s position is that, of course as you’ve said, that Section Two of the CSIS Act has a difference in that it has a different scope based on its reference in the Emergencies Act, that’s right?

Lametti:

I will neither confirm nor deny that. I spoke giving, giving an opinion based on the text of the Act that is as I was careful to point out at the time that that was neither a waiver nor a confirmation of any advice that was given based on that text and based on the facts that was given. I took great care not to link the two and I have no comment on what Miss Thomas said. I will leave that to our lawyers to discuss in the final argument.

Miller:

Right. And you’ve testified to the same thing, that you are going to leave it to counsel. And I take it, as a lawyer preparing for your testimony here today, you reviewed all of the relevant records and documents that you had access to and in your possession and power to obtain. Fair?

Lametti:

I reviewed documents, yes.

Miller:

In the record in the proceedings and the documents that you reviewed, and the ones we have available, unreacted, can you point to me, of a document, a record in this proceeding, that existed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, where there’s any recording whatsoever, or discussion where there is a broader scope of Section Two of the CSIS Act when it is applied to the Emergencies Act…can you point me to a document that says that.

Before Lametti could respond, an objection was entered claiming there are too many documents involved and that the question was unfair.

Miller:

I’ll then narrow it down. Was there any such document that you reviewed in preparing for your testimony here today that existed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act that it was discussed, that isn’t subject to solicitor client privilege that it was discussed that there was a broader scope of Section Two as it applied in the Evidence Act?

Lametti:

Once again, that’s asking a question of me to effectively divulge legal arguments. I remind my learned friend that it is very odd to put a lawyer on the stand. I’m really here as a cabinet minister in order to speak to facts. I know it is, it is to some extent and obligation for me to try to answer questions as best I can. But you’re asking me to answer questions as a lawyer and it is…it would be remarkable to put a lawyer in the middle.

Miller:

Well, I understand sir. So, again, I would just like the question answered. Did you see any documents that talked about this interpretation that you’re discussing that existed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act

Lametti:

Again, I am going to rely on solicitor client privilege.

Watch the full exchange below.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *