Public Hearings Inquiry Comment

Just a quick comment. I'm one of the few Canadians listening - where and when I can - to the public commission inquiry regarding the invoking of the Emergencies Act during the trucker's convoy. 

I haven't taken notes because I barely have time to even listen so much if it is right here...in my head. I'm getting the general tone and gist of it.

Bottom line for me? Lotta of blah, blahing about how things were done, what agency dealt with which newly created task force and who contacted whom and what was the chain of command of this and which police department consulted what minister and all that jazz. It's interesting if not tedious. You get to see the inner workings of how the bureaucracy works and thinks.

I'll leave it to Rouleau - to the extent I trust him. Though he seems to be quite fair so far - sort it all out. I don't expect anything to come of it except that the feckless PM will just keep screaming it was a deadly threat to our national security.

Which is clearly not the case. Not even Jacques and Sabia strange testimonies met the threshold of what is a threat.

I sympathize to a point that indeed their job was to keep basic trade going and to ensure things didn't get out of hand but none of it was a threat. Sabia made the dubious claim their actions 'saved millions' from having their economic well-being ruined. I think the threat to trade was over stated. I would have liked to have seen actual documentation of what the Americans were actually saying. I'm sure they expressed concerns but not sure if they were to the point where Canada had to over react.

I have no trust in Justin Trudeau so I keep a hyper-critical position in all this. I'm highly skeptical of any of his claims.

Because horns is NOT a reason to install Marital Law. Simple as that. And that's all I'm getting here.

Anyway. 

Testifying today is Assistant Deputy Minister, COVID-19 Task Force (Lionel Hutz shudder), Health Canada Jacquie Bogden.

Just a quick comment here.

In a government document there was a section titled 'Federal Narratives'. She was asked to explain it. Basically, it was to bring into focus and in line the message the government wanted to maintain and convey to itself and the public.

Part of it was to understand and have empathy as to why this was happening. She correctly said it was because of the mandates. 

That message was an appropriate one.

Except Justin Trudeau didn't do that. 

He called the truckers as a 'fringe minority' made up of racists and misogynists.

He chose to use inflammatory and divisive rhetoric thus obliterating whatever 'narrative' they had set.

Ultimately, this entire mess should have been avoided - and you can tell the entire state apparatus was not prepared for any of this -  and lays strictly at the feet of Trudeau.

He wanted this mess.

He got it.

I fail to see how any of this benefitted Canada in any way.