02.17.2023 12:27 PM

And they did. And they were right to do so.


  1. Martin Dixon says:

    Of course the judge agreed with the government. Did any serious person think that a life long Liberal like him would come up with any other decision? Maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong, who knows, but anyone who expected that there was even the possibility of any other decision is naive.

    • Sean says:

      Nice try. Nominated to the Appeals Court by Left Wing Woke Activist Stephen Harper.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        Do your research.

        • Sean says:

          I did. Stephen Harper thought this guy was a pretty good judge and that’s why he nominated him / advanced his career. What’s your point?!

          • Martin Dixon says:

            That is a reflection on Harper not on Rouleau(if true). The bottom line is that he was a lifelong Liberal. Irwin Cotler put him on the court of Appeal. He was one of John Turner’s closest advisors and he killed time at Heenan Blaikie while waiting to be appointed to the bench. Heenan Blaikie is where Trudeau and Chretien went after they left politics. Well know Liberal firm(book on their demise by Norman Bacal is a must read for anyone in a professional partnership by the way). What am I missing here? Seriously? Must be something because you normally know what you are talking about and Warren is saying the same as you are. Harper put him on some court in the Yukon but that looks more like a punishment than a promotion.

          • Martin Dixon says:

            One of my HB peeps confirmed he was ABSOLUTELY(his word) a Liberal appointee and said he had deep family ties to the Liberal party. So I took a look at The Google. Justin’s aunt was married to a Rouleau for crying out loud. Husband’s name was Pierre.


            I assume Paul’s dad Paul was his brother but have not been able to confirm. Paul’s dad Paul was appointed to the court in the early 80s by JT’s dad. So he is not just a life long Liberal, it would appear he is family to JT for crying out loud. You’re welcome.

            Again, what am I missing?

          • Martin,

            I think this debate is turning into not seeing the forest but for the trees: first off, most nominations to the bench are political. Not to pick on Joe Clark but Clark lobbied the Liberals for his own brother. So…no matter who’s in power, expect basically partisan nominations a lot of the time to the first instance level of courts. Appeal-level nominations and above tend to be the exact opposite with occasional notable exceptions.

            Now, to inquiries in general. So many come out with countless recommendations only to be almost or completely ignored by the incumbent government. As to this inquiry, a judge was ruling on law and order issues. A JUDGE. How the hell else would your average bystander expect him to rule? Of course, in favour of our political institutions and system of government. That’s a no-brainer. So, it’s alleged he’s a confirmed Liberal. Strikes me, at best, as decidedly being beside the point.

          • Martin Dixon says:

            Ronald, there is no debate. It is not an allegation. What have I said up there that is wrong? He is a life long Liberal, period, full stop. It looks like being a Liberal was pretty well the family business. Here’s another one:


            Point stands.


            Had that not been challenged, I would not have noticed that it looks like he is related to the PM for crying out loud. Couldn’t they find someone just a tad more independent-not that anyone noticed in any event which is a whole other problem, but I digress. You would think this was the House Of Lords.

            It sounds like we agree as to how meaningful(not) the report was but for different reasons.

            The Laurentian Elite at work again protecting their own.

          • Warren,

            That’s the scourge of modern-day politics: every assessment, judgment, and even decision must necessarily be filtered through one’s own political lens and biases. The left and the right are equally culpable, much to their respective discredit. Politics once meant something: a calling, if not a profession, where a person’s almost sole interest was to work on behalf of his or her fellow citizens and make a difference in as small or as large a way possible to enhance the betterment of fellow Canadians or to do good works for one’s country. That’s long gone and all the political parties get to share the blame for that and effectively wear it.

            Like I said before FFS, they don’t even go to each other’s holiday parties. Not even at CHRISTMAS!

          • Martin Dixon says:

            Right Ronald and in this case, the left is defending him but saying he was appointed to the COA by Harper-not accurate. And that he is NOT related-also not accurate(deep family ties was how he was described to me by someone close to him). So if the reverse is actually true, then by their own logic, his report is meaningless(and you said it was basically preordained too). That was how I started this thread. So I am not sure where we disagree.

      • Peter Williams says:


        Re selecting a judge to review the Emergencies Act invocation; do you really think Justin would appoint a judge who would find it unnecessary?

        • Martin Dixon says:

          Not to mention that what Sean said is just plain factually inaccurate. I am still trying to understand that. Is this post fake?


          Why are people that are usually pretty reliable saying he was appointed to the COA by Harper?

          That seems to be the only fake news regarding this story despite the fact that the mother corp said that the fact that the Rouleau family has family ties to the Trudeau family is fake news(Cochrane said that on Monday on P and P). Can it really be that hard to get some junior Jimmy Olsen to check that in this day and age on The Interweb or The Google or maybe just ask Rouleau? I independently checked that fact with people that know both families very well. And I did it before the twitverse fired up-I just hadn’t looked into Rouleau’s background yet because I knew the result would be baked in.

          Rouleau’s uncle may not have been married to JT’s aunt. But that is a distinction without a difference.

          This is not a comment on the report at all. I am just trying to understand what is true and false here.

  2. Dave says:

    If the sauce is good for the goose so shall it one day be good for the gander.

  3. EsterHazyWasALoser says:

    Something had to be done, although it is difficult to believe that the every day law and order statutes on the book were not sufficient. IMHO, they were.

  4. The Doctor says:

    I’m glad he went after the policing and intelligence failures as vigorously as he did. I always thought that that was the most underreported aspect of the whole fiasco.

    Fact is, if the police and intelligence agencies had not fucked up the way they did, there would have been no problem to address with the Emergencies Act or otherwise in the first place.

    • Doc,

      A reasonable supposition to be sure. But on the other hand, if the OPS had cracked heads with blood in the streets, would we have been any better off? I doubt it.

      As for the convoy protesters, they broke the law, period.

      • The Doctor says:

        Nobody would have had to crack any heads if the police and intelligence agencies had done their jobs in the first place and prevented the big rigs from coming into the Center of Ottawa en masse. You set up a roadblock. It’s pretty fucking basic.

        • Martin Dixon says:

          Yes. It certainly is but the current government sees this sort of thing through a woke lens plus the world revolves around Ottawa and Toronto to some. Everyone needs to refresh their memory as to how long it took to resolve the pipeline protests in 2020 or Caledonia(various protests), etc, etc. Quite laughable.

  5. Martin Dixon says:

    Rosie was practically grinning from ear to ear. She was giddy. Quite funny.

    • Martin,

      My position is Warren’s position and I’ll never change it come hell or high water.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        Ronald-not my point. My point is that the opinion was preordained and the media is gleeful about it. But in the opinion itself, he said that reasonable people could disagree. I haven’t even weighed in on it.

  6. Gilbert says:

    The Emergency Act wasn’t necessary. The prime minister was upset with the truckers and decided to show his power. Forcing people to get an injection without informed consent is a violation of the Nuremberg Code.

    • Gilbert,

      Of course, invoking EA was at its base a political decision. But look how it turned out for the Liberals: at least a plurality of Canadians agreed with the government. Put another way, we Conservatives need to pick our battles, and defending convoy participants is at the very least a net negative for CPC polling numbers. The more we push this, the more Liberals and New Democrats will make it to the polls.

      As for the vaccine debate, it all comes down to this: how many people would have died without vaccines? A lot more than the 6,790,506 confirmed deaths. My GUESS, is probably at least double that number.

      • Gilbert says:

        How many would have died without the vaccines? That’s a good question. What we do know is that the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) has reported too many injuries and deaths, and the mortality rate for COVID is low.

  7. PJH says:

    One of the few things Ive been proud of our Prime Minister for doing. If it had been up to me, the rabble rousers would have been given a weekend, and then forced bodily out of Ottawa’s downtown….and they wouldn’t have even been given the chance to occupy the Ambassador Bridge and hold the businesses of S. Ontario, and indeed Canada, hostage. Lets not forget the illegal occupation of the border crossing at Coutts, Alberta, either. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. There, I said it, and I’m glad. Pierre Poilievre and his supporters can eat my shorts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.