The Emergencies Act Inquiry has finally wrapped up 6 weeks of testimony from some 76 witnesses. 

Canadians were able to hear from convoy organizers, Ottawa citizens, Police and Public officials to name but a few.

Surprisingly the Honorable Paul Rouleau in his closing remarks, stated, that he is satisfied he has the evidence to make a factual finding and answer the questions. 

If anything, most Canadians should now have more questions regarding how a Justice is to determine the outcome based on redacted documents, refusal to answer questions and in Canadian terms, “passing the puck.”

One thing that is abundantly clear from this inquiry, it is the blatant disrespect for the law, especially the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Jody Thomas, the national security advisor to the PM admitted the protest did not meet the definition of a national emergency under the current law, and simply changed the definition as she felt fit. 

Never has there been such an abuse of law in Canadian history.  But wait it gets even better.

David Vigneault, director of CSIS can take it even further.  The definitions to a National Security threat are clearly laid out in law as is any law.  All the elements of the law or breach must be met in order for action to be taken.  From the simplest matter in the Criminal Code to the more egregious and power law being the Emergencies Act. 

Vigneault in his evidence was clear the protests did not meet the elements of the CSIS Act which has identical wording to the EA.   Two different Acts, same section requiring the same elements to proceed. 

But then Vigneault advises the PM in any event to evoke the EA.  Starting to see a pattern here?

And it even gets better.  Day 30 of the inquiry documents revealed that Chrystia Freeland was warned not to use the banks as a political weapon.

But Freeland was also advised by an undisclosed banker if the people subject to sanctions were labeled “Terrorists”, then the banks could move swiftly.

 It is clear that Freeland was looking for ways to punish versus a quiet resolve.  Again, we see manipulations of laws to get the outcomes desired.

So, what about Prime Minister Trudeau and his testimony on the last day.  He is the man who evoked the EA so therefore he should have the most information from all parties involved.  Isn’t that what should happen?

Comm. Brenda Lucki (RCMP) advised the inquiry that a plan had been forwarded to the PM prior to the EA being invoked. 

This plan was entered into evidence at the inquiry.  When questioned on this the PM admitted that he never read it but still had no confidence in it. 

One has to wonder how you cannot have confidence in a plan submitted by 3 Police Forces who want to end the protest peacefully without reading it first. It is simply really, either he had no faith in Comm. Lucki, in which case she should be removed from the RCMP or that he had made up his mind and simply wanted to invoke the EA.

As Canadians we should have better from our Politicians.  The redacted documents, the blatant disregard for the truth, and the lack of transparency over a cumulation of events that disrupted the lives of every Canadian for almost 3 years deserves better from our elected officials and their appointees. 

The inquiry now moves into the next phase of round table discussions with 50 hand picked individuals.