David Menzies compares Mitchell Miller’s NHL rejection—despite his apology letter and no direct victim acknowledgment—to Craig McTavish’s second chance after vehicular homicide, exposing inconsistent redemption standards. He critiques Alberta’s $13,000-per-household carbon tax burden by 2030, calling Ottawa’s pandemic-era deficit spending and inflationary policies punitive for vulnerable groups like single mothers. The Emergencies Act inquiry revealed CSIS dismissed the Freedom Convoy as a threat, yet the government invoked it anyway, radicalizing protesters per its own warnings. Menzies argues Western society’s selective cancel culture and economic mismanagement create unfair double standards, where accountability depends on privilege rather than justice. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, in this day and age of cancel culture, who gets a second chance and who does not?
It's Thursday, November 17th, 2022.
I'm David Menzies, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Perhaps you've heard about Mitchell Miller, a talented National Hockey League class defenseman who will very likely never play a single game in the NHL.
This state of affairs has nothing to do with a contract dispute nor a career-ending injury, but rather something Miller did when he was, as the saying goes, younger and dumber.
Now, if you're not a sports fan, don't fret, for the following is not a hockey commentary nor a commentary on any professional sport for that matter.
No, this is a rant about second chances.
Who gets them, who doesn't, and why.
So back to the 20-year-old Miller.
He was originally the property of the Arizona Coyotes, who drafted him in 2020.
But Arizona took a pass on the 20-year-old when the club learned about his unsavory past.
Miller was then acquired by the Boston Bruins, who signed Miller to an entry-level contract.
However, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman stepped in and declared that Miller is not eligible to play in the National Hockey League, thereby forcing Boston to rescind their contract with the defenseman earlier this month.
So why is it that Miller seems to be so toxic?
Well, it goes back some six years ago when he was still in high school.
Miller pleaded guilty at age 14 to one count of assault and one count of violation of the Ohio Safe Schools Act.
He and another teenager were accused of making another student, Isaiah Meyer Cruthers, eat a candy push-pop after wiping it in a bathroom urinal.
Surveillance video showed them kicking and punching Meyer Cruthers.
And this was apparently not an isolated incident.
Meyer Cruthers' mother, Joni, told the Arizona Republic that Miller started bullying her son in second grade.
That included physical abuse as well as the use of racial slurs.
Isaiah Meyer Cruthers, it should be noted, is black and he suffers from developmental disabilities.
While Miller sent a letter to all 31 NHL teams acknowledging what happened and apologized for his behavior, his mother claims Miller never personally apologized to Isaiah or their family.
Now, first things first, folks, what Miller did to Isaiah was despicable and truly beyond the pale.
He physically assaulted Isaiah, forced him to eat a contaminated foodstuff, repeatedly called him the N-word.
It is equal part saddening and infuriating that this sort of behavior can still exist today.
Really, what the hell was Miller thinking?
In the aftermath of the Bruins signing and then unsigning Miller, Boston Bruins President Cam Neely said in a statement that the organization originally thought Miller's bullying of Isaiah Meyer Cruthers was an isolated incident.
However, the club reversed course based on new information it received.
Indeed, the team is now in damage control mode.
Recently, the Bruins hired a law firm led by former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to review their player vetting process to make certain they never sign someone like Mitchell Miller again.
As for Miller's future, at least when it comes to playing professional hockey in North America, things look grim, just too much baggage.
And while many observers in the mainstream media and elsewhere are downright giddy over what appears to be the permanent cancellation of Miller's professional hockey career, forgive me for saying that I do not subscribe to this cancel culture chorus.
Again, I want to make it clear that Miller's behavior as a teenager was disgusting.
I also want to make it clear that I have great empathy in my heart for Isaiah Meyer Cruthers.
I say this because I know what it's like to be bullied.
Back in 1975, I attended grade eight in a new school in a different province, and I endured a year of physical and verbal hell simply because I was that proverbial new kid in town without a single friend.
That year remains perhaps the worst year I have experienced in my entire life.
But back to the Mitchell Miller Isaiah Meyer Carruthers saga.
The more I read into it, the more I pondered if there is not another remedy here other than permanent cancellation, that there is not some sort of compromise in the offing that would result in a win-win solution for both Isaiah and for Mitchell.
After all, even in the criminal justice system, second chances abound, even when it comes to the worst sin of all, namely someone intentionally taking the life of another.
Indeed, in our great dominion, unless one is deemed to be a dangerous offender, which is very rare, one is given a second chance to taste freedom after 25 years of incarceration if convicted of first-degree murder.
And if any organization should know about second chances and ultimate sins, surely it is the Boston Bruins Hockey Club.
I speak specifically of Craig McTavish.
Now, McTavish was drafted in 1978 by the Bruins and played two full seasons for the club.
McTavish is known for being the last player in the NHL to play without a helmet, but he's also known for something else.
For a 12-month period, he never played any hockey games at all.
That's because McTavish was doing prison time given that he was found guilty of vecular homicide.
On the night of January 25th, 1984, in Peabody, Massachusetts, McTavish was behind the wheel of a car, and he was also under the influence of alcohol.
He would collide with another car driven by 26-year-old Kim Radley of West Newfield, Maine.
Radley would die in hospital four days later due to the injuries she sustained in the crash.
McTavish would eventually be sentenced to a year's imprisonment.
Now, I would argue that his sentence was a joke, but nevertheless, after paying his debt to society, was Craig McTavish canceled by the NHL?
Oh, hardly.
He enjoyed a splendid playing career lasting almost two decades.
He played for a total of five NHL clubs and actually got to hoist the Stanley Cup in 1994 as a member of the New York Rangers.
And when his playing days ended, McTavish also enjoyed a lucrative career in the NHL, first as a coach, then later as a general manager.
Indeed, prior to being convicted for the death of Radley, The Bruins did not condemn McTavish, but rather continued to embrace him.
Immediately after the accident, McTavish did not play in the Bruins' next two games due to a shoulder injury, thanks to the collision, and get this, due to, quote, emotional distress, end quote.
The Bruins general manager at the time, Harry Sinden, said McTavish's status with the team was unchanged.
Stated Sinden, quote, he's still a full-fledged member of the team.
Like any injured player who was injured in mind or body, we won't use him until he's ready to play, and right now he's in no state of mind to play, end quote.
While Sinden was making this pronouncement, Kim Radley was in no state of mind to do anything.
She was in a coma, fighting for her life in hospital until she eventually succumbed to her injuries.
But the crux of the matter is this, Craig McTavish paid his debt to society, if you can call a one-year prison sentence, a debt for taking a life, and then was given a second chance by both society and the National Hockey League.
It should be noted that Kim Radley, mowed down in the prime of her life by the drunken McTavish, never received a second chance.
You know, Kim Radley would be 64 today.
Maybe she'd be a mother, perhaps even a grandmother.
But she was killed, some would say murdered.
Surely her friends and surviving family members still mourn Kim Radley, whose only sin on January 24th, 1984, was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But gee, how times have changed vis-a-vis the Mitchell Miller saga.
Indeed, it's been noted in media reports that Boston opting to sign Miller did not go over well with many of the team's players, including Captain Patrice Bergeron, who stated the following, quote, the culture that we built here goes against that type of behavior.
In this locker room, we're all about inclusion, diversity, respect, end quote.
How odd.
A drunken driver who took a life fits into the inclusion, diversity, and respect mantra of the Boston Bruins Hockey Club.
But a prospect who was a bully in his younger years, he is forever cast out.
Fascinating.
Perhaps Miller's biggest misfortune is that he's an American as opposed to a Canadian.
In this country, thanks to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, if someone commits the most heinous crime imaginable, as long as that person is one day younger than 18, his identity will remain forever hidden.
That is not the case south of the border, however.
And even when one is older than 18 and is publicly outed for their crime, our nation seems to be all about giving the most despicable people second chances.
Case in point, serial killer Carla Homolka, thanks to the incompetence of the Niagara Regional Police Service, she is a free woman who now resides in the Montreal area.
Along with her husband, Paul Bernardo, she was complicit in the deaths of Leslie Mohaffe and Christian French, and even her own younger sister, Tammy Homolka.
Oh, but life goes on thanks to Homolka getting off scot-free on essentially a technicality.
At the time, Homolka's plea deal was described as a, quote, deal with the devil, end quote.
But nevertheless, after a few years in the slammer, Homolka got to skate on July 4th, 2005, even though the presiding judge at the time cautioned that she still posed as a risk to the public at large.
And then there's our very own homegrown al-Qaeda terrorist, Omar Cotter.
He murdered an American ally and partially blinded another.
He confessed to these crimes.
And yet, after being released from Gitmo Bay, the Justin Trudeau liberals thought Omar was deserving of a $10.5 million check in 2016 due to Omar Cotter essentially suffering from hurt feelings.
These days, not only is Omar Cotter living life high off the non-halal hog, but he gets invitations to speak at certain woke universities.
And apparently, the authorities routinely turn a blind eye to enforcing the no-fly list when it comes to this grenade-throwing enthusiast who tends to hop aboard Air Canada flights no problem.
Hey, forgive and forget, eh?
Meanwhile, just what was the liberals' unspoken motivation behind that unnecessary and immoral eight-figure payoff to Omar?
Were they trying to curry favor with the Islamo-fascist demographic in Canada?
If so, mission accomplished, guys, because what a message that was sent by you, namely, commit terrorism against our allies, and not only will you not be punished, but you might just get a lotto 649 payoff.
Wow.
Please bring me the head of the man who coined the phrase, crime doesn't pay, will you?
But then again, Justin Trudeau is a prime minister who has become accustomed to being the recipient of multiple second chances.
He can repeatedly don blackface, or he can grope a female reporter, or he can commit numerous ethics code violations, or he can lie through his teeth about everything.
But in the eyes of many, including too many members of the media party, which he continues to fund with your money, of course, it's no harm, no foul.
Hey, give him another chance already, will you?
He'll do better next time.
Seven years later, we're still waiting for the proof in the pudding regarding that hollow promise.
Which brings me back yet again to Mitchell Miller and the increasingly complicated matter of second chances and who gets them and who does not.
Carbon Tax Controversy00:12:30
You know, I think I may have a solution here.
How about the NHL gives Miller a second chance, just as it did to Greg McTavich decades ago, who committed a far more egregious sin?
And secondly, with an NHL contract under his belt, let's compel Miller to make amends for his despicable past treatment of Isaiah, which is to say, how about Miller enters into an agreement to pay Isaiah a percentage of his contract or a significant lump sum?
He's not legally bound to do so, of course, but from a moral and ethical standpoint, it would be the right thing to do.
I think my solution is win-win.
Miller moves on with his life as a professional hockey player while Isaiah is given reparations for all the cruelty he endured years ago at the hands of Miller.
Is this really too much of an ask?
Or in 2022, in this day and age of political correctness and wokeism and Marxist mobsters tearing down statues with impunity, has the concept of a second chance, at least for certain offenders, gone by the wayside?
If so, Western society, which is continually under the ongoing tyranny of cancel culture, is all the poorer for it.
Well, folks, during her first press conference as Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith said she plans to make new arguments to the Supreme Court against Ottawa's carbon tax.
The question is, will she be successful?
And hopefully, I have the man who can give us an answer to that question, and that would be Franco Terrazano, who is the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Hey, Franco, how are you doing, my friend?
I'm doing great.
Thanks so much for having me on today.
Well, my pleasure as always.
Well, you know what?
That was music to my ears.
There's a premier in our great dominion that is saying this is a nonsensical, economy-harming, Canadian-harming tax.
That would be the carbon tax, which keeps going up and up and up under the Justin Trudeau Liberals.
Franco, I guess the main question is: is this political theater, Daniel Smith, going to bat for Albertans just for the sake of going to bat, you know, knowing that deep down there's no way she can win this?
Or is there that proverbial snowballs chance in hell that she might pull out a victory here?
No, Premier Smith is doing what Albertans want their premier to do.
Look, every chance Albertans have got to vote, it has been to vote against the carbon tax.
It is to stop being treated like the cash cow of Confederation.
And look, the Trudeau government carbon tax is all economic pain without the environmental gain, and it is doing real harm to many Alberta families.
Let me just give you some numbers here on the actual cost.
This year alone, even after the rebates, the carbon tax will cost the average Alberta household $671.
That's from the government's own independent budget watchdog.
But of course, it's getting worse because the Trudeau government is going to continue to crank up the carbon tax to nearly 40 cents per liter of gas by 2030.
So if you look from now, all the way through 2030, the carbon tax will cost the average Alberta household about $13,000 over that time period, even after the rebates.
You know, this is very important, Franco, because I know these checks are going out with the carbon tax rebate, and maybe Canadians who aren't so in tune with what's going on are probably like, oh, isn't that nice?
I've got this nice little gift.
We can, you know, pay down a credit card bill or something like that.
And yet what you're saying is that net, you are running negative $671.
I'm just wondering, is there really an awareness when it comes to the numbers you've crunched amongst just regular Canadians out there, Franco?
Well, here's the problem.
You have the federal government playing word games with Canadians.
We've heard the Trudeau government time and again mislead Canadians saying that the carbon tax and rebates will make families better off.
Well, the parliamentary budget officer, that's the government's independent, non-partisan budget watchdog, is showing that the Trudeau government is using magic math.
Let me just repeat the numbers one more time because it is so staggering.
This year, net, even after the rebates, the carbon tax will cost the average household $671 from now through to 2030.
The Trudeau government carbon tax will cost the average Alberta household more than $13,000 between now through 2030, even after the rebates.
So the Trudeau government is running around increasing the price of gasoline and to add insult to injury, misleading Canadians.
You know, it's amazing, Franco, because I hearken back a few years ago.
It was just during the aftermath of the Jody Wilson-Raybolt scandal and SNC Levillin.
And you had Trudeau and senior liberals in Toronto at the music hall.
It was really kind of like a political campaign event.
And Catherine McKenna, then the guest the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, she was selling the carbon tax.
And basically her pitch, and I couldn't believe it, was hands up everybody here who is against pollution.
Well, of course, no reasonable person is going to go, no, I'm for pollution, but that's not what the carbon tax is about.
But that's how these liberals are selling it.
What are your thoughts, my friend?
All economic pain, no environmental gain.
Right on the West Coast, you have British Columbia, which has had the highest carbon tax in Canada for years.
And what have emissions done?
Well, they continued to go up and up.
I mean, look, I think everyone wants to have a great environment, but what the carbon tax is doing is punishing you for fueling up your car on the way to work.
It's punishing you for heating your home during the cold winter months that all Albertans and all Canadians experience.
And look, even if you look around the globe, Canada makes up such a small percentage of global emissions.
So even if the Trudeau government brought all of our industries to a screeching halt, which sometimes it seems like that's what the government is trying to do during some days, well, even if it did that, it still wouldn't do anything or do much for the global environment.
Now, what we have seen is we have seen the Trudeau government continue to raise the carbon tax three times since the beginning of COVID-19, all while many other countries have cut gas taxes.
Australia cut its gas tax in half.
You had the United Kingdom announce big-time gas tax relief.
You had the Netherlands.
You had South Korea announce gas tax relief as well.
So while Ottawa continues to raise our tax bills, other countries are cutting gas taxes.
No, and you know, I want to take a deep dive into that issue too, Franco, because if you look at the price of a liter of gas in Canada, and it was ever thus going back decades, so much of that price that you're paying is taxes of one kind or another.
And originally, the reason for those taxes going on to those gallons and then liters of gas was that it was to maintain existing roads and build new roads.
But we all know all that money, all those billions goes into that nebulous black hole called general revenues.
So I guess what I'm saying is that if I knew I was paying carbon tax on a liter of gas and it was to build more road infrastructure, I might have a soft spot in my heart for that.
But that's not the case at all, is it?
Well, and let's just remember that the carbon tax is being layered on to the fuel tax, right?
So we're seeing a layering of cost after cost after cost at the worst possible time.
And, you know, I hate to be the bearer of even more bad news, but the Trudeau government is getting ready to hammer Canadians next year with a second carbon tax through fuel regulations, okay?
And that will increase the price of gasoline by up to 13 cents a liter by 2030.
Now, there is no rebates coming with the second carbon tax.
And the second carbon tax is not replacing the current one, is being layered on top.
Now, you know what?
Let's get back to what's going on in Alberta.
Premier Smith, she's right to stick up for Albertans against those money-hungry politicians in Ottawa.
But she has to do, she has to go even further to protect Alberta taxpayers because she needs to protect Albertans from money-hungry politicians at home.
And the best way for her to do that is to live up to a 2019 United Conservative election promise to expand the Provincial Taxpayer Protection Act to also include the carbon tax.
And, you know, Franco, here's the thing: all indicators are pointing to next year, 2023, as being a brutal one in terms of inflation, in terms of, you know, heating and energy costs going up.
And there just seems to be this stubbornness by the Trudeau liberals.
And I think it's all in the name of virtue signaling that we're going to keep increasing the carbon taxes to fight climate change.
But isn't there a way out for them?
Couldn't they say, you know what, we are committed against the fight against climate change, but given the economic hardship, given that so many Canadians you hear are in the position of eat or heat, we have to take the foot off the accelerator.
We have to scale back now.
Now is not the right time to keep increasing these lowsome taxes.
Why won't they do that, Franco?
I just don't see the loss here, especially if you're looking ahead at some point, maybe it's 2023, 2024, who knows?
There's going to be an election.
They have to be seen as doing something positive for the economy.
Yeah, I mean, you would think so.
You know, I can't believe I have to say this, but at the very least, it should have been a no-brainer for the federal government to not raise taxes during the lockdowns when you had so many people losing their job, taking pay cuts in the private sector, or so many people who may have lost their small business.
It should have been a no-brainer to, at the very least, not raise the carbon tax.
But you know what?
I think that you have the Trudeau government patting themselves on the back every time they see the high gas prices.
I think they're patting themselves on the back because let's not forget the whole objective of the Trudeau government carbon tax is to make it so that you pay more every time you fuel up your car, to make it that you pay more every time you got to heat your home.
And also, the second carbon tax coming into place, well, we read the government's own analysis of that second carbon tax, and it makes it very clear just who is going to feel the most pain from the second carbon tax.
It's those who are already middle and low income Canadians, those already struggling through energy poverty, the single mothers, the seniors who are living on fixed income, who are going to be hurt the most from those rising gas prices.
And you know what?
Let's not let these politicians off the hook for this inflation here because we saw crazy deficit spending for years, a huge amount of money printing and tax hikes during the pandemic, which is making these tough times tougher.
No, 100%.
And Franco, one last question.
Should the Supreme Court decide to hear Premier Smith's challenge, I don't know if you're a betting man or not, but what would you say are the odds of her scoring a victory at the Supreme Court level regarding these carbon taxes?
Why Lemieux Isn't Fully In00:03:39
You know what?
I got to leave that question to the legal beagles.
Here's what I will say, though, is that Premier Smith is right to stick up for Albertans against those money-hungry politicians in Ottawa.
We are just pushing Premier Smith to also make sure that she's protecting the Albertans from the money-hungry politicians in Edmonton.
There you go.
Well, thank you so much for your time, Franco.
Greatly appreciated.
It's my pleasure.
Thanks for having me on.
All right, you take care.
And folks, that was Franco Terrazano, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Keep it here.
More of the Ezra Levent show to come right after this.
Well, folks, lots of feedback regarding my monologue on the Halton District School Board for ever accommodating that which is known as Busty Lemieux.
Redwiter writes: back in the day, if this was our shop teacher, we would have had this thing running for the closet.
You know, I don't advocate violence, of course, but if this is a fetish of his, I think sometimes it's good to at least remain in the closet.
Warren 1010 writes, it would be funny if you incorporated the audio from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where they're yelling, run away from the ferocious rabbit.
Well, that's the thing.
I don't think this guy is a ferocious rabbit.
He might be a sexual pervert.
There is a lot of evidence emerging that this is a fetish of his, that he is actually getting aroused donning the haberdashery of a drag queen.
And if that is true, folks, he should be nowhere near impressionable minors.
Elki Summer writes, Well, I also take off my wig and relax my persona when I get home.
I can see why many parents are disgusted by this beyond crazy trends, but to invade his apartment window, isn't that being a peeping tom?
Well, here's the thing: he lives, that is Carrie Luke Lemieux, aka Kayla Lemieux, at a Burlington condo.
He's on the ground floor, and we were simply reaching out to him.
His window is not, you know, a bathroom or anything like that.
It is the living room.
And that's when we spotted him without his wig, without his short shorts, and without his 36-pound breasts.
And a couple of things here, folks.
I think one is if this is a genuine transition, why isn't Mr. Lemieux all in by being a female 24-7?
He has the luxury of taking off those prosthetics, unlike a natural woman who would have Z-cup breasts, which is forever affixed to the body, unless one is going to undergo breast reduction surgery.
Secondly, we were simply trying to get his side of the story.
And it meant talking through a glass window.
He wanted nothing to do with that, called the cops, and we left.
That is my defense.
No peeping tom incident here.
Geez, who would want to peep into the inner sanctum of Busty Lemieux?
Well, folks, that wraps up today's show of the Ezra Event Show.
Thank you so much for accommodating me.
Stewart On The Emergencies Act00:08:15
Sheila Gunnreid will be guest hosting tomorrow, Friday.
Then the big boss man, he's back on Monday.
Thank you so much.
And as always, stay sane.
Hey, everyone, Will MDS here with Rebel News.
And today I'll walk you through the extremely interesting testimony we heard from Rob Stewart and Dominique Rochon on the 22nd day of the Emergencies Act inquiry on November 14th.
Before we begin, let's remember that the inquiry is taking place because Justin Trudeau invoked a never-seen-before anti-terrorism non-peaceful protesters who gathered in Ottawa from all across the country to protest his own COVID-19 management Freedom Convoy 2022.
You can see and support our independent coverage of this inquiry taking place here once again in Ottawa at truckercommission.com.
The witnesses who appeared in front of the Commission were Rob Stewart, Deputy Minister of Public Safety at the federal level, and one of his colleagues, Dominique Rochon, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister from the National and Cyber Security Branch with Public Safety Canada.
Now, Rob Stewart was working closely with the Liberal cabinet and Marco Mendicino during the Freedom Convoy.
Rob Stewart, his name appeared often since the beginning of the inquiry, but we finally had a chance to hear what he had to say in front of the Commission.
Before we began, Rob Stewart was the one who informed Marcel Baudin, the head of police liaison with the Ontario Provincial Police, the OPP, on February 13 that the government would not meet with the protesters, even though Baudin strongly suggested that they do so.
Baudin was the one who concocted a plan suggesting that the Liberal cabinet meet with the protesters, part of the Freedom Convoy.
And that plan was presented to them, to the cabinet, the day prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Then, remember this?
Did you know that that meeting was at 3.30 p.m. and that it was with cabinet and it was the incident response group of the political executive meeting and that your proposal was provided to them?
No.
Okay, it was.
I can tell you that.
And then they invoked the Emergencies Act.
Thank you.
Now, Stewart and Rochan were grilled by Freedom Convoy lawyer Brendan Miller when undergoing cross-examination.
Take a look at how this went.
That at no point did the service, being CESIS, assess the protests in Ottawa or elsewhere, those referred to as the Freedom Convoy and related protests and blockades in January and February 2022, constituted a threat to the security of Canada as defined in Section 2 of the CESIS Act, and that CESIS cannot investigate activities constituting lawful protests.
CESIS assessed there was no indication of foreign state interference occurring in the course of the protest.
CESIS did not assess that any foreign state supported the protests through funding, that foreign states deployed covert or overt disinformation techniques, or that any foreign state actors attempted to enter into Canada to support the protest.
There, Director Venew states that he learned that the EA referenced the threat definitions set out in Section 2 of the CESIS Act once the federal government began to seriously consider invoking the EA between February 10th and 13th.
He requested that the service prepare a threat assessment on the risks associated with the invocation of the EA.
He felt an obligation to clearly convey the service's position that there did not exist a threat to the security of Canada as defined by the service's legal mandate.
The threat assessment prepared by the service was that the invocation of the emergencies legislation risked further inflaming IMV rhetoric and individuals holding accelerationist or anti-government views.
You were told that.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
This cross-examination by Miller shows that Steward Rocha and their teams completely disregarded crucial CSIS intel in order to invoke the Emergencies Act.
CESIS's opinion was that invoking the act would radicalize protesters and they didn't indicate it was crucial to do so.
Steward was unable to point to a reasonable authority that stated that the threshold under Section 2 of the CSIS Act was met.
Here's the moment from Miller's cross-examination of the panel of two witnesses that completes this assessment.
Okay, so what intelligence bureau or agency or law enforcement agency told the government, here's the evidence of reasonable and probable grounds, or reasonable grounds, of a Section 2 CSIS Act threat.
And you know, I take it now, because it's advised to you, that that's required to invoke the Emergencies Act.
It's in the documents.
You were advised of that.
Yes.
Right.
So what agency gave you the evidence and the intelligence that said, hey, we have reasonable grounds of a Section 2 CSIS Act threat?
There wasn't one, was there?
So let me explain.
Nobody bringing advice to the table other than CSIS is assessing against that threat.
Nobody advising the cabinet.
The cabinet is making that decision.
And their interpretation of the law is what governs here and the advice they get.
And their decision was, evidently, that the threshold was met.
Later, the counsel for the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom, the GCCF, got his chance to cross-examine Stewart and Rochon.
And it was very revealing and relevant as well.
Take a look.
Numerous witnesses from the OPP and the OPS have testified that the invocation of the Act may have been helpful, but it was not necessary to clear the protests.
Would you agree with them on that point?
I believe that the invocation of the Act provided very useful tools to law enforcement.
Useful tools, but not necessary tools.
Well, I'm not in a position to render an opinion on that, I don't think.
I would only observe, as I've observed already, that upon the invocation of the Act and the use of those tools, the protests diminished and stopped.
And that goes beyond useful.
Now, the Liberal Research Bureau is an interesting taxpayer-funded entity.
We'll talk more about it another time.
But here it shows that prior to the Emergencies Act being voted on, the new Democrats were already going to vote in favor of it.
However, Stewart claimed that he only learned about the NDP's support of the Act, quote unquote, upon the vote.
Finally, another noteworthy moment from his testimony was when Stewart explained that the Emergencies Act is only a tool of last resort and that there were, quote unquote, many other tools as well.
But specifically with respect to the Emergencies Act, would you, you know, based on your understanding of the discussions that took place around that, in your view, would the Emergencies Act have been an appropriate tool to deal with the situation in Ottawa had it not been for those other events?
The Emergencies Act is generally considered to be a tool of last resort under very exigent circumstances, urgent, time limited.
So there were many other tools in the toolkit.
Indeed, Ontario used one.
And, you know, it was not used until quite a bit later in time.
So I would say, you know, we were all conscious of it as being a tool.
But in the minds of those who were, you know, sort of discussing it with counterparts, there were other tools as well.
My colleague Celine Gallus also asked a question to Stewart.
Check it out right after his testimony.
Mr. Stewart, you admitted that the Emergencies Act was the wrong decision.
In hindsight, what would have been the right decision?
Well, there you have it, folks.
Here's everything that you need to know about what went on during this extremely interesting and very revealing day.
Make sure to stay tuned because, well, I'm telling you, the remaining testimonies will be as interesting as this one.
And we'll make sure to bring you the best coverage that we can.