Brendan Miller and Attorney General David Lametti have an exchange over redacted documents and solicitor-client privilege.
Subscribe to CTV News to watch more videos:
Connect with CTV News:
For the latest news visit:
For a full video offering visit the CTV News Network:
CTV News on Facebook:
CTV News on TikTok:
CTV News on Twitter:
CTV News on Instagram:
CTV News on Reddit:
—
CTV News is Canada's most-watched news organization both locally and nationally, and has a network of national, international, and local news operations.
This hearing is a disgrace to Canadians and an insult to our laws.
The fact that B Miller is allowed to continue to practice while being so incompetent? Perhaps. But the commission demonstrates Canada’s laws at work and is an excellent demonstration of how the rule of law ACTUALLY does work.
@Wallace,William I’m not a lieberal??? not sure of what you talking about?
@MrBrock314 It’s a blatant demonstration of how highly corrupted this government is .
Could have put a dog on the stand and got more information.
Sounds like you don’t understand anything about our laws or solicitor/client privilege. Maybe reading a book or two might help your ignorance.
I’m tired of these politicians liberals still don’t answer the questions sickening
He’s not allowed to – violating attorney-client privilege (here called solicitor-client privilege) is a disbarrable offense.
Inappropriate question…..wTF!!!
Hope the REAL, investigative journalists are watching and have the integrity to seek truth.
Who truth are you looking for
By that you mean you hope there’s someone out there who’ll tell you what you want to hear
What truth ? lol
Investigative journalists? Those things went extinct long ago. Now it’s just propagandist and spinners of truth. I’m regularly amazed how this isn’t understood.
AG comes across very Smug 😏
Almost on the right side of journalism. Almost a real source of news
Interesting that now various times is said that there were problems all over the country…
I think we SHOULD apply “FACTS to law”! Enough of the hiding facts to suit the cause.
Here’s your facts direct from the emergencies act:
….public welfare emergency means an emergency that is caused by a real or imminent…and that results or may result in a danger to life or property, SOCIAL DISTRUPTION or a BREAKDOWN IN THE FLOW OF ESSENTIAL GOODS, SERVICES or RESOURCES, so serious as to be a national emergency.
I would say a group of mouth breathers occupying a large portion of our capital city applies! To be honest the OPP should have sent swat teams in from the get go!
@Sean McIntyre well I guess you should be ready to Invoke the Emergency Act on Boxing Day sales, apparently it’s entirely interpretation!!!🤦♀️ I’m not sure how bouncy castles and hot tubs constitute a national emergency, especially given the fact that the blockades were dispersed before the Act was invoked…so your point?
@Sean McIntyre easy Sean, time for you to take a coffee break
If he wanted to answer he’d end up gagged like Jody did….
You mean the member of parliament who ran in an election in a different party? Who campaigned openly about her experiences on live tv? Yes, so gagged….
@MrBrock314 The resident Trudeaubot working hard to cover his bosses 💩
Holy crap, can anyone not just answer a straight question
LOL he did….not his fault that lawyer is sooooo bad he can’t even think of another way to word it or have paper work lol
You’re clearly not bright
Ask bad questions, get bad answers. In the lawyering profession, it’s all about how you word your questions whether you get at the truth or not. As a professional lawyer, B Miller is aware he can’t ask questions related to solicitor-client privilege but yet he did exactly that like 3 times in this video. He knew what the answer would be but he asked anyway. In other words, he wasted his time knowingly.
What’s the point of having him on the stand? Serious question.
Maybe they should have hired a lawyer competent enough to ask proper questions.
Lametti: You are asking me to apply facts to law … and I can’t do that.
This is a technical term – it means “you’ve asked me to lawyer” and that’s protected by lawyer-client privilege. It’s like asking OJ’s lawyer what they discussed – illegal. Or what Johnny Depp and his lawyer discussed – illegal. Same with asking what the federal government of Canada and the AG discussed – illegal.
@MrBrock314 The resident Trudeaubot working hard to cover his bosses 💩
Leave it to lawyers to openly demonstrate why the public loathes them. Fight all transparency in the interest of “solicitor client” privilege. The Government of Canada is supposed to serve Canadians. Why are we not allowed to know what legal briefs our elected officials receive?
It’s the same reason you’re not allowed to know the legal briefs that anybody receives – because without privilege it would be impossible for lawyers to effectively advise their clients, and without effective legal advice the administration of justice would grind to a halt.
@Scott Armstrong under normal circumstances I’d agree but this is a public hearing as to wether or not the government was justified in invoking the emergency measures act. During a hearing all information should be made available less it’s a matter of national security or personal identification information. All of this information should be seen in closed sessions to determine if it fits the criteria.
Is the Government of Canada on legal trial in this inquiry? If not, why is there not full transparency?
@Marcus Leja it is not a court of law, they are a council and only have the ability to make recommendations. Ultimately nothing will become of this unless they recommend opening a investigation with the RCMP and we all know how that goes
The RCMP: the government’s tool to harass law-abiding Canadians who pay taxes.
so why is the attorney general part of cabinet, maybe they shouldn’t be. also the minister of justice should be a different person to the AG.
Agreed
Ask yourself how Canada could ever have become the way it is now?
we were asleep! fat and happY
Mass immigration and a gynocentric society.
I hear vague statements like this all the time and yet no one can answer just how, exactly, Canada is any different now.
On the plus side, with Lametti dodging every question that was put is that he added nothing at all to support findings that the government acted in accordance with the law.
Ah, yes. Guilty until proven innocent.
This whole line of questioning is baffling. “I’m not asking you this question in your capacity as a lawyer, but in your position as a member of cabinet” doesn’t really work when the cabinet position is to be the government’s lawyer.
The Minister of Justice is not supposed to be the government’s lawyer.
@Marcus Leja Yes he is. It’s literally illegal to appoint a non-lawyer to the position.
The requirement for the Minister of Justice to be a lawyer doesn’t mean the Justice Minister is the government’s lawyer when the government is under legal defense.
no question answered! Wow!
Miller is completely incompetent. He must have been the lowest bidder.
I know that is is an inquiry and not a court of law, however, criminals should stick to the same tactic as Lemetti, when in court and cite Lemetti answers!
That woman gives a laugh, so condescending. I’m embarassed. They are both bullying the lawyer. What can we expect?
Why call the AG to witness at the Enquiry.? It seems he was in ‘privilege’ or ‘redacted’ or both for every in depth question.
A sad state of affairs in Canada.