Under Grilling From Lawyer for Canadian Trucker Convoy, Trudeau Officials Can’t Name Evidence That Justified Emergencies Act

Image: Screenshot of Trucker Commission/Rebel News

Last week, the Trucker Commission in Canada showcased testimony from top Trudeau officials from the Privy Council Office who were forced to justify why the trucker convoy protests were designated 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 unleashed his authoritarian leadership on Canadians who dared to push back against the government, including arresting two leaders of the Freedom Trucker convey protest in Ottawa.

Trudeau employed the Emergencies Act and utilized the near-limitless powers to terrorize and harass the grassroots trucker convoy protests.

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.

A lawyer representing the truckers, Brendan Miller, questioned members of Trudeau’s regime over the unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act.  He absolutely humiliated them.

His questioning of Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, Drouin was troubling.

Rebel News reports:

On Friday, November 18, the Trucker Commission featured the testimony of top civil servants from the Privy Council Office, including Jacquie Bogden, Jeff Hutchinson, Janice Charette and Nathalie Drouin.

The lawyer representing the truckers, Brendan Miller, questioned Drouin, who served as the Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada from 2017-2021, and is now Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet. Miller grilled Drouin on the proper process of drafting legislation and its implications for designating the convoy protests as a threat to national security.

A movement, a movement, can represent a threat to security of Canada. A movement, a situation.

An activity.

An activity.  Without having having individuals, or groups, into it, that do meet the threshold of CSIS. I think we need to make the difference between what the movement represented at that time for Canada, versus the composition of the movement, whether or not we had individuals…

What evidence and what information of violence at Windsor were you aware of when the Act was invoked?

I think it would have been a mistake to do assessment site by site while we were facing a national movement and situation.

Watch the full exchange below.


Thanks for sharing!