Late last year, the Calgary-based Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) distributed an amusing 20-page report to its supporters titled The 12 Days of Christmas - Public Order Emergency Commission Edition.
This organization sent lawyers to Ottawa to participate in the Emergencies Act hearings. It appears they didn’t enjoy themselves. In the words of this report, “Ottawa in November is no vacation.”
The CCF refers to “those bleak weeks in Ottawa.” It also describes the setting in which these hearings took place as “bleak” - at the National Archives, located “at the very fringe of the downtown, nestled among these hulking concrete bureaucratic buildings.”
Regarding the government’s secret legal opinion that supposedly legitimizes its use of the Emergencies Act (an opinion that would be wholly at odds with the clear and obvious language of the Act), the CCF says that although:
the government gave us this new legal theory, they actually kind of cheated. Because they didn’t actually give it to us. It would be kind of like if you bought your husband a leaf blower for Christmas, but didn’t actually give it to him. You just told him its exists…
Elsewhere, the CCF calls RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki’s “the top cop in Canada,” before describing her apparent ignorance of certain fundamentals as “astounding”:
we asked Lucki to confirm that a court order is generally needed to freeze or seize assets. Lucki claimed not to know this. To be clear, it is required, and this is extremely basic police knowledge.
Then there’s the CCF’s description of its cross-examination of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. More provoking than amusing, it’s nevertheless a solid summation of what transpired:
The Prime Minister had testified on the last day [of the hearings] that the Emergencies Act was necessary because there was no – what he called – ‘real’ policing plan to remove the Ottawa protesters. He said the policing plan that he saw before the Emergencies Act was invoked was no plan at all. He said we should read it.
[Our lawyer] pulled up the first page of the policing plan. Then the Prime Minister said he hadn’t read it. Which is strange, since he had said it wasn’t any good. How would he know it wasn’t good if he hadn’t read it?
Then the CCF lawyer showed Prime Minister Trudeau the next few pages – completely blacked out with redactions. The CCF lawyer asked the Prime Minister, “you told us to read this plan. Will you agree that we cannot?”
When the lawyer then asked the Prime Minister to make the document public so everyone could, indeed, read it for themselves his request was refused.
A year ago, the Canadian government invoked an extreme, anti-democratic, last-resort law. In response to an extraordinarily peaceful protest by working people.
To this day, that same government imperiously insists Canadians aren’t entitled to see its secret legal opinion. A legal opinion that taxpayers paid for. Nor are we allowed to read a long list of other relevant documents. We’re just peasants, after all.
The 12 Days of Christmas - Public Order Emergency Commission Edition is available from the CCF website here. In exchange for your name, they’ll send you a download link by email.
Fair warning: that process adds you to their mailing list automatically.
To me Donna it indicates what kind of biased findings we will be presented with when the report will be released with a month’s time - very sad and disappointing- Canadians deserve more!
Just finished reading the 12 Days - Being retired and having spent 22 days parked on Wellington- I was very interested in the Inquiry And watched pretty well all of it! That being said - didn’t read anything in this e-book or anywhere lease during and sense the completion of the Inquiry any concerns about the fact that when Trudeau testified under oath openly perjured himself by stating he didn’t call anyone names - the Commissioner didn’t even remind him that the whole world was watching and that perjury is a criminal offence! he was very quick to warn and threaten the spectators in the hearing for their gasping and laughing at the P.M. statement - wasn’t or isn’t the commissioner supposed to be impartial?