in

Justice Minister Lametti gets GRILLED by lawyer on cross exam in #POEC

A lawyer for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Janani Shanmuganathan, cross examines Justice Minister David Lametti about his belief that the definition of national security threat under the Emergencies Act is broader than the definition under the CSIS Act, which is incorporated by reference into the Emergencies Act.

Ms. Shanmuganathan puts to Mr Lametti excerpt from Hansard that show that the Emergencies Act definition is the CSIS definition. Lawyers for the government of Canada try to stop the line of questioning, but Minister Lametti pops in and gives an opinion on a paragraph from the Hansard excerpt. This allows the line of questioning to continue. Little does Minister Lametti know, the next paragraph from Hansard undermines him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

29 Comments

  1. who is white and who is colored here, as usual we see the truly white privileged and psychopathic power hungry patriarchal old white men running our government and calling freedom lovers, misogynistic, racists. Something smells fishy here and that is psychopaths in our government projecting their internal world and twist reality. Shame on our government.

  2. I changed the definition but I can't talk about it because of client privilege. This is the same guy who wanted to give SNC Lavalin a pass on wide spread corruption. Why does Rouleau not see that the CSIS and EMA use the same definition? I am surprised that Lameti spoke up to state they need to use the definition used in the CSIS act for the EMA and yet he tries to say that the gov't can use a different definition. Only a Trudeau Liberal can make sense of that.

  3. I am not a lawyer yet I can understand the points you are making. So why is it the Justice Minister, Commissioner and government lawyer do not? It appears they do understand very well that agreement severely undermines the government’s rationale to invoke the EA. Justice Minister is so arrogant and condescending. Excellent work CCF!

  4. Last resort? Where was mention of addressing the truckers concerns about mandates?
    After all, that was the point of this protest. Shouldn’t negotiations be considered before discussing tanks on the streets, even with the looming threat that the bouncy castles imposed?

  5. Their disregard for CSIS as a critical requirement, while potentially a valid concern, remains moot as the EMA is a parliamentary act which require parliamentary action/debate/approval in order to change and cannot, should not and must not be changed by a GIC based upon their own interpretation and desired outcome. Their actions were unconstitutional, undemocratic and unethical under a fair/free system in particular given the decision making process remains cloaked under Cabinet Confidence and solicitor-client privilege.

Sneaky Redactions Convoy lawyer Keith Wilson on government secrecy during

Sneaky Redactions: Convoy lawyer Keith Wilson on government secrecy during Emergencies Act inquiry

How US Blackmails Other Countries – Explained By German Diplomat

How US Blackmails Other Countries – Explained By German Diplomat