ExFlyer

When did Trudeau "ask to extend the EA"??? Suck it up dude, he invoked it and he revoked it...no senate involvement ...they failed. Your assumption about the senate is unfounded as they did not vote. The had 10 days to debate and vote for or against it and they did not accomplish that.

Do not wonder about my principals. I do not compare Canada to any other country, ever. Our issues are ours, made here and controlled here and resolved here. Look, you accused me of approving protests in China. I never said or mentioned anything about China. Once again, I could not care less about China. Do not ever think of China or Chinese unless I am ordering Friday night chow mien. I could also not care less what you think about China.

You have comprehension difficulty?? The senators did not vote... for or against....it never made it that far.....period.

Do you just argue for the sake of doing so? Or admitting you are completely wrong so difficult for you? LOL The senate has the opportunity to invoke it as well as to revoke it but...they did neither. They were too late in both in this particular case. As the article stated, the senate never even voted on the implementation, let alone revoking it. Once more, just for you: "Just a day after MPs approved it and potentially hours before being put to vote in the Senate, emergency measures invoked by the Trudeau Liberals last week have been revoked." https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/breaking-justin-trudeau-set-to-revoke-emergencies-act

The senate gets no credit, It was invoked and revoked before the senate had even done anything. That is 100%. "Just a day after MPs approved it and potentially hours before being put to vote in the Senate, emergency measures invoked by the Trudeau Liberals last week have been revoked." https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/breaking-justin-trudeau-set-to-revoke-emergencies-act Try as you might, your take is BS, fake news, and totally false.. LOL

My question to you is not in a bubble. You accused , or asked me if I support Chinese protesters. I asked you where you got that information. I asked you to prove that I had such inkling. I ask you what you are talking about. I could notcare less what happens in China yet you seem to think I support something there. That is the stuff you are making up.

Uhh, no, it is not simple. Why are you accusing me of supporting Chinese protests? Why can you not answer my questions? Is it because you once again are making stuff up? Again "What Chinese protests? How and when did I ever say anything about China, Chinese or Chinese protests? How did I support them? What are you deflecting to?"

I cannot believe you think I am apologizing when all I am doing is stating fact. Your post is about way more than what I said or even care about. I only said Trudeau invoked and Trudeau revoked the EMA. No more, no less. All the other stuff you and some others are posting to me is extraneous and only touting your own position. Here it is again, like it or not, Trudeau invoked and Trudeau revoked the EMA. It is what it was, all is history now.

Bottom line is Trudeau enacted it and Trudeau revoked it. You can play and imagine whatever you want but you have no proof of your assumptions. He did it and it got the action he wanted and that is what it was about.

What Chinese protests? How and when did I ever say anything about China, Chinese or Chinese protests? How did I support them? What are you deflecting to?

Thank you. I told you Trudeau revoked the EMA.

No revisionism at all. If Trudeau did not revoke the EMA, who did and how. You tell me your version of how and by who it was revoked. Why would have Harper use martial law? Who said he did? Harper used his majority power to bring lots of things into law. Many of them were subsequently revoked by the Supreme court.

I said Huh? Your questions make no sense to me. You asked how I feel. I wanted to know why you even cared. I have never spoken, written or talked about China. I have no idea where you are coming from or trying to go.

Huh? China? Do you have a point? I am trying to have a civil conversation. I think my posts are clear. You have issues with them, by all means, go ahead. that is what civil conversations are all about.

I have a grip. It was Trudeau that revoked it. It was officially enacted and officially revoked. Before Trudeau, Harper had all the power, and he used it numerous times to do things his way.

Officially is the way it went down. Trudeau revoked it. I disagree. There are things and times when action must be taken. Stalling could make things worse. Far too often consensus is not reached and things do not get done. Like being a parent where one does or says something without consulting the spouse. Our government control is as it has always been. Majority rules. Be it conservative or liberal governments.

Actually, it was revoked by Trudeau. Giving bipartisan oversight would just stall everything.

Actually, according to Oxford dictionary "check" means "examine (something) in order to determine its accuracy, quality, or condition, or "to detect the presence of something." and "an examination to test or ascertain accuracy, quality, or satisfactory condition." Play your conspiracy game all you want. The rest of your babble is babble. As I said "We all have to wait. Everything until then is speculation, rumour, innuendo or conspiracy theories. " You fall into the third category.

This commission is the check and it is required by law if the EMA was enacted. Like I have said, I do not know what the report will say, what the outcome or what the repercussions will be. We all have to wait. Everything until then is speculation, rumour, innuendo or conspiracy theories. All plans have faults. Post action analysis will (should) correct and/or change procedure. That is the challenge of this commission.

The definition differences were amongst agencies (departments). Each having different mandates therefore having different definitions. Fire can also mean losing your job or discharging a gun or weapon or yes, combustion. Context is important. A woid or phrase in one context can mean something in on context bit something else in another. Not defending but I hope you can understand. I am sure you have gotten orders that could be misunderstood or misinterpreted or interpreted differently buy other persons. I know I have. Understand that the definitions and such were around for a long time, to all political parties in power. Not defending but I can see lots of fingers in the EMA pie and since no one has ever enacted it, I can for sure see power plays and too many bakers in that kitchen. I hope the report will not only determine if it was needed but put forth reason why there was confusion and assist in clarifying all the confusion it created. I most of all hope it will identify who should be in charge (form the policing side) from he beginning of such situations.

As I have said all along, This is a report. Not to lay blame or to chastise but to determine if the enactment of EMA was warranted? What do I think will happen? Well a lot of things actually. Although, I think, none of them with legal recourse though. For sure the public can be outraged either way and the press can make at least a weeks worth of headlines out of it. A loophole is something a person or group or government can take advantage of. Did they? The report should determine that too. Rarely do government departments agree with each other. My tour at NDHQ and then as a civil servant I have many encounters and disagreements with different departments as each department has a mandate that may and often will not coincide with another department. The people working within those departments have internal procedures, rules and regulations to work within and they will often conflict with other departments. Anyone that thinks governments or corporations or organizations have seamless internal interaction is living in an unrealistic world.

Huh?? What does that blather mean?? So what??

So what? Was in response to your "And then - what? Just wow. "D-i...m...a" what was it, again? " Point is, as I have told you but you disregard, a report carries no weight. It can and will provide political fodder for opposition parties but, that was not what the commission was about or for. Oh and "no real accountability for abuses of power" is an opinion from a person that does not agree with policy. You are entitled to that opinion. And as for your statement "it's missing the main defining attribute.". What is "it's" and what is "the main defining attribute." of what?

You do understand the difference between a royal commissions and commissions of inquiry a public inquiry and a commission? Seems like you do not. Some have legal repercussions, some have procedural repercussions and some just present a report of investigative findings. A commission in this case just presents findings. That is what the law requires of this commission. And yes, so what?? No legal repercussions at all. Maybe political ones?

Incompetence is not a "loophole", it is a trait. It is also an accusation made by those that do not have a grasp of a total situation.