Public Inquiries into Emergencies Act begin September 19
- Thread starter The_Foxer
- Start date
That's the mockery. Ya gotta admit, telling people not to mock you is just asking for it.
The Emergencies Act states that a public order emergency of this nature must arise from the threat of violent extremism, not that it might merely create an opportunity for other bad actors. Approving the use of emergency powers to limit Canadians’ charter rights of freedom of speech and assembly because of their possible unintended consequences would have dystopian implications.
These serious constitutional infirmities may not be obvious if the government’s assertions are packaged withing alarming hypothetical scenarios and presented behind closed doors, untested through the cross-examination of expert witnesses. To make matters worse, the agencies tasked with formulating and delivering these confidential assessments have a history of being unfaithful to the law, and to the truth.
Less than two years ago, revelations of the security establishment’s disturbing approach to investigating and reporting on extremism led to harsh condemnation by the Federal Court, which criticized it for demonstrating “a degree of institutional disregard for — or, at the very least, a cavalier institutional approach to — the duty of candour and regrettably the rule of law.”
An official conclusion that the government had a reasonable basis to conclude that the Freedom Convoy represented a threat to the security of Canada predicated on secret intelligence detailing vague links between those engaged in peaceful protests and extremists would only deepen the public cynicism that Justice O’Connor warned about, especially since we have had so many other warnings from eminent jurists of the government’s propensity to exaggerate such claims.
apple.news
When it comes to the judgment of whether the Trudeau government abused its emergency powers, justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. Findings in favour of the government on the basis of secret evidence that might never be seen will never be trusted. The preservation of the rule of law requires, to use the Public Order Emergency Commission’s words, a “transparent and thorough review of the circumstances that led to the declaration of a public order emergency.”
Half a year has gone by since the Trudeau government took the unprecedented step of invoking the Emergencies Act to deal with protesters in Ottawa and at several border crossings. Yet the question of whether this was an appropriate and measured use of emergency powers or an unconstitutional power grab seems no closer to being answered — and likely won’t be, so long as Ottawa continues to hide behind a veil of secrecy.
These serious constitutional infirmities may not be obvious if the government’s assertions are packaged withing alarming hypothetical scenarios and presented behind closed doors, untested through the cross-examination of expert witnesses. To make matters worse, the agencies tasked with formulating and delivering these confidential assessments have a history of being unfaithful to the law, and to the truth.
Less than two years ago, revelations of the security establishment’s disturbing approach to investigating and reporting on extremism led to harsh condemnation by the Federal Court, which criticized it for demonstrating “a degree of institutional disregard for — or, at the very least, a cavalier institutional approach to — the duty of candour and regrettably the rule of law.”
An official conclusion that the government had a reasonable basis to conclude that the Freedom Convoy represented a threat to the security of Canada predicated on secret intelligence detailing vague links between those engaged in peaceful protests and extremists would only deepen the public cynicism that Justice O’Connor warned about, especially since we have had so many other warnings from eminent jurists of the government’s propensity to exaggerate such claims.
Ryan Alford: Hiding behind national security will erode trust in Emergencies Act inquiries — National Post
When it comes to the judgment of whether the Trudeau government abused its emergency powers, justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done
When it comes to the judgment of whether the Trudeau government abused its emergency powers, justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. Findings in favour of the government on the basis of secret evidence that might never be seen will never be trusted. The preservation of the rule of law requires, to use the Public Order Emergency Commission’s words, a “transparent and thorough review of the circumstances that led to the declaration of a public order emergency.”
Half a year has gone by since the Trudeau government took the unprecedented step of invoking the Emergencies Act to deal with protesters in Ottawa and at several border crossings. Yet the question of whether this was an appropriate and measured use of emergency powers or an unconstitutional power grab seems no closer to being answered — and likely won’t be, so long as Ottawa continues to hide behind a veil of secrecy.
So it’s Sept 21st now….so where are we at on the Public Inquiry into the Emergencies Act again???
Currently Trudeau’s in NY at the UN, & Singh is attacking the Conservatives because they’re also the opposition to the currently governing party? Makes sense?
During his almost eight years as Prime Minister, Trudeau has become an avatar for everything that people globally find insufferable about the virtue-signaling, self-righteous left, and Jagmeet Singh is attacking the Conservatives?
He’s an unrealistic, slick parody of what we think of when we envision what woke politics have done to western culture and how progressive men present themselves to the world.
They stand above the crowd, looking down and judging. They have some special insight into how the ‘civilized’ behave. The rest of us must be instructed, by force if necessary.
Two things come immediately to mind when I think of the careful caricature that is Justin Trudeau.
First, numerous, now-infamous photos that emerged during his re-election campaign showing him in full blackface at parties as a student and later as a teacher.
He also is only 50 years old, so the excuses of ‘that was the time’ don’t ring true in the same way it does for other people, who participated in something that we now recognize as unacceptable.
Trudeau said it was simply a mistake. But would he extend that same forgiveness to others? I doubt it.
Second, I think of his puritanical, dystopian COVID vaccine mandates and the brutal crackdown that he unleashed after his heavy-handed governance triggered mass strikes and protests.
As “freedom convoy” protesters descended on Ottawa and cities across Canada last winter, Trudeau insanely declared the protests “illegal” and championed the suppression of legitimate dissent through law enforcement and corporate censorship while the Liberal NDP non-coalition coalition came out’a the closet.
Trudeau is all about freedom, until direct democracy gets in the way of his agenda.
And recall, how Trudeau weighed in on American society when the country was dealing with violent riots triggered by the murder of George Floyd.
“We all watch in horror and consternation what’s going on in the United States,” he said, when asked about President Donald Trump’s call for the military to address the violence.
But Canadians truckers are honking their horns in Ottawa? Drag them to prison!
And before anyone cries hypocrisy — No, I did not have a problem with the Prime Minister of Finland when videos surfaced showing her drunk and dancing with friends. She was doing this privately, on her off-time, and was recorded in a private setting.
apple.news
But the public is getting wise to it. Trudeau narrowly won a third term as prime minister in the last elections.
Yes, even polite, progressive Canadians don’t seem nearly as enthralled with his Hollywood politics, behavior and looks as they used to be. He currently holds a 40 per cent approval rating in Canada.
He has long been the sanctimonious cartoon-version of the type of politician that people in San Francisco worship and people in the rest of the country are repulsed by.
He is the type of leader who passes judgment on those who accidentally use the ‘wrong’ pronoun, vote conservative or don’t abide by the same brand of politics that he preaches.
As far controversies go, there are worse things happening around the world. But Trudeau presents himself as the pinnacle of progressive perfection. That’s why this sing-song scandal is so entertaining.
You’d think he would know a little more about social decorum and just plain manners. Could he really not wait a few days to do something like this back home in Canada?
Currently Trudeau’s in NY at the UN, & Singh is attacking the Conservatives because they’re also the opposition to the currently governing party? Makes sense?
During his almost eight years as Prime Minister, Trudeau has become an avatar for everything that people globally find insufferable about the virtue-signaling, self-righteous left, and Jagmeet Singh is attacking the Conservatives?
He’s an unrealistic, slick parody of what we think of when we envision what woke politics have done to western culture and how progressive men present themselves to the world.
They stand above the crowd, looking down and judging. They have some special insight into how the ‘civilized’ behave. The rest of us must be instructed, by force if necessary.
Two things come immediately to mind when I think of the careful caricature that is Justin Trudeau.
First, numerous, now-infamous photos that emerged during his re-election campaign showing him in full blackface at parties as a student and later as a teacher.
He also is only 50 years old, so the excuses of ‘that was the time’ don’t ring true in the same way it does for other people, who participated in something that we now recognize as unacceptable.
Trudeau said it was simply a mistake. But would he extend that same forgiveness to others? I doubt it.
Second, I think of his puritanical, dystopian COVID vaccine mandates and the brutal crackdown that he unleashed after his heavy-handed governance triggered mass strikes and protests.
As “freedom convoy” protesters descended on Ottawa and cities across Canada last winter, Trudeau insanely declared the protests “illegal” and championed the suppression of legitimate dissent through law enforcement and corporate censorship while the Liberal NDP non-coalition coalition came out’a the closet.
Trudeau is all about freedom, until direct democracy gets in the way of his agenda.
And recall, how Trudeau weighed in on American society when the country was dealing with violent riots triggered by the murder of George Floyd.
“We all watch in horror and consternation what’s going on in the United States,” he said, when asked about President Donald Trump’s call for the military to address the violence.
But Canadians truckers are honking their horns in Ottawa? Drag them to prison!
And before anyone cries hypocrisy — No, I did not have a problem with the Prime Minister of Finland when videos surfaced showing her drunk and dancing with friends. She was doing this privately, on her off-time, and was recorded in a private setting.
Meghan McCain: Trudeau offends millions belting out Bohemian Rhapsody as world mourned Queen's death — National Post
He blows apart the insufferable moral superiority of the Left: It really is just fantasy
But the public is getting wise to it. Trudeau narrowly won a third term as prime minister in the last elections.
Yes, even polite, progressive Canadians don’t seem nearly as enthralled with his Hollywood politics, behavior and looks as they used to be. He currently holds a 40 per cent approval rating in Canada.
He has long been the sanctimonious cartoon-version of the type of politician that people in San Francisco worship and people in the rest of the country are repulsed by.
He is the type of leader who passes judgment on those who accidentally use the ‘wrong’ pronoun, vote conservative or don’t abide by the same brand of politics that he preaches.
As far controversies go, there are worse things happening around the world. But Trudeau presents himself as the pinnacle of progressive perfection. That’s why this sing-song scandal is so entertaining.
You’d think he would know a little more about social decorum and just plain manners. Could he really not wait a few days to do something like this back home in Canada?
turdOWE's hand picked "investigation" leader is in hospital. Couldn't take the chance of getting someone honest to investigate a criminal government action.
This guy goes back to Pierre so dont expect any truth out of this.
On Thursday (10/13/22), long-anticipated — and delayed — public hearings are set to begin for the independent judicial inquiry tasked with probing what happened during those weeks last winter, when anti-government protests occupied the streets around Parliament Hill, blockaded key border crossings, and peppered Canadian politics with frustration, conspiracy theories and COVID-19 misinformation.
Under the direction of Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Paul Rouleau, the inquiry will examine why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government reached for the Emergencies Act to quash the protests, a law that replaced the War Measures Act in 1988 and had never been used before.
This inquiry is about WHY the government chose to use the emergencies act, & NOT about the protest itself. Regardless of how this is going to be reframed….this is what the inquiry is actually about.
Rouleau’s inquiry is legally required under the Emergences Act itself, and will also look at the special powers created in the process. Those included allowing police officers to declare no-go zones on penalty of arrest and fines, compel tow-truck drivers to drag away protesters’ trucks, and force financial institutions to freeze the bank accounts of protest participants.
apple.news
According to the act, the federal emergencies legislation should only be used in a crisis of national scope that cannot be addressed by any other existing law.
The NDP supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act eight months ago, but Green (Matthew Green, NDP MP) said the Liberals still haven’t made the case why its use was necessary? That’s a weird position from someone in the Non-Coalition Coalitions NDP/Liberal Coalition, but here we are.
“It’s the government’s responsibility to provide the facts that justify the measures they invoked,” he said. This is very true, & it almost makes it seem like the NDP is still part of gov’t opposition, except the NDP backed the Gov’t without knowing the facts to justify invoking the Act then?
“We wanted to know what the preconditions were leading up to the invocation of the act,” he added. “We need to know that in order to have an opinion on whether or not it met the threshold” that the NDP agreed with and backed without knowing the preconditions (?) at the time then apparently?
Justice Paul Roseau has to submit his report to Parliament ahead of a February deadline set out in the act.
It’s a major undertaking. Under pressure from opposition parties, the government agreed this summer to provide the inquiry with documents that would normally be secret as cabinet confidences. An inquiry spokesperson at the time said that would include “all of the documentary inputs” the government had when it invoked the Emergencies Act, and the commission has already received thousands of them.
Rouleau has also commissioned research papers from experts on topics related to the inquiry’s work, several of which were posted online last week. Among them are papers on the freedoms of expression and assembly, the difficulties of governing emergencies in areas of overlapping jurisdiction, the role of social media (like the CBC?) in propagating misinformation around the protests, and the protest’s links to Alberta separatism.
The hearings will be livestreamed on the inquiry website, starting with an opening statement from Rouleau on Thursday morning.
Under the direction of Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Paul Rouleau, the inquiry will examine why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government reached for the Emergencies Act to quash the protests, a law that replaced the War Measures Act in 1988 and had never been used before.
This inquiry is about WHY the government chose to use the emergencies act, & NOT about the protest itself. Regardless of how this is going to be reframed….this is what the inquiry is actually about.
Rouleau’s inquiry is legally required under the Emergences Act itself, and will also look at the special powers created in the process. Those included allowing police officers to declare no-go zones on penalty of arrest and fines, compel tow-truck drivers to drag away protesters’ trucks, and force financial institutions to freeze the bank accounts of protest participants.
Did Justin Trudeau need the controversial Emergencies Act to stop the ‘Freedom Convoy’? A judge will hear the arguments for and against this week — Toronto Star
Protesters from the so-called "Freedom Convoy" are moved from Wellington Street in front of Parliament Hill in Ottawa by police officers on Feb. 19, 2022.
According to the act, the federal emergencies legislation should only be used in a crisis of national scope that cannot be addressed by any other existing law.
The NDP supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act eight months ago, but Green (Matthew Green, NDP MP) said the Liberals still haven’t made the case why its use was necessary? That’s a weird position from someone in the Non-Coalition Coalitions NDP/Liberal Coalition, but here we are.
“It’s the government’s responsibility to provide the facts that justify the measures they invoked,” he said. This is very true, & it almost makes it seem like the NDP is still part of gov’t opposition, except the NDP backed the Gov’t without knowing the facts to justify invoking the Act then?
“We wanted to know what the preconditions were leading up to the invocation of the act,” he added. “We need to know that in order to have an opinion on whether or not it met the threshold” that the NDP agreed with and backed without knowing the preconditions (?) at the time then apparently?
Justice Paul Roseau has to submit his report to Parliament ahead of a February deadline set out in the act.
It’s a major undertaking. Under pressure from opposition parties, the government agreed this summer to provide the inquiry with documents that would normally be secret as cabinet confidences. An inquiry spokesperson at the time said that would include “all of the documentary inputs” the government had when it invoked the Emergencies Act, and the commission has already received thousands of them.
Rouleau has also commissioned research papers from experts on topics related to the inquiry’s work, several of which were posted online last week. Among them are papers on the freedoms of expression and assembly, the difficulties of governing emergencies in areas of overlapping jurisdiction, the role of social media (like the CBC?) in propagating misinformation around the protests, and the protest’s links to Alberta separatism.
The hearings will be livestreamed on the inquiry website, starting with an opening statement from Rouleau on Thursday morning.
Why did he evoke the act? 1%ers in downtown Ottawa got upset they couldnt find parking or walk their shitzuhs.
Wont anyone think of the shitzuhs?
Wont anyone think of the shitzuhs?
Was the only way to deal with this the extreme measure of invoking the Emergencies Act? It is the biggest hammer in a government’s arsenal and, in its current form, the measures had never been used. It is not to be used unless there is no other law that could resolve the situation.
That’s a high bar, but was it met? That question is at the heart of a probe headed by Ontario Justice Paul Rouleau beginning Thursday. The government was compelled to launch an inquiry after taking such extreme action and Rouleau’s examination is vital.
The Emergencies Act gave police the ability to arrest protesters in designated areas and gave financial institutions the power to freeze the accounts of protesters without a court order. The Liberals, with the support of the NDP, invoked the act on Feb. 14 and lifted it on Feb. 23…(just hours before the Senate could wade in on the issue).
www.thestar.com
With no spin, no obfuscation and no attempts at politicizing its response, the federal government must explain how it came to its decision to act. Why did they move with so little provincial buy-in? Why did they move when we subsequently learned federal cabinet was told of a potential, imminent breakthrough the night before they acted? Did any police entity request the Act be invoked? Is there a written request?
The Prime Minister will be called to testify and he must resist the temptation to use his testimony to remind Canadians that Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, an Ottawa MP, cuddled up to those who chose to hold the capital hostage. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino – who has provided muddy answers on police requesting the government move – and Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair are among ministers expected to be called to testify.
Representatives of all levels of law enforcement and all levels of government may be called, along with businesses and individuals hurt by the protest and protest participants themselves.
The requirement for this inquiry is clear. Canadians’ freedoms must never be curtailed without justification. The Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Civil Liberties Association both launched court challenges to the government decision last February arguing that the special powers handed to police and the banks violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Anything that strips rights from Canadians must be done as a last resort. Canadians deserve to know whether this was, indeed, a justified action of last resort. The protection of our rights and freedoms is at stake.
That’s a high bar, but was it met? That question is at the heart of a probe headed by Ontario Justice Paul Rouleau beginning Thursday. The government was compelled to launch an inquiry after taking such extreme action and Rouleau’s examination is vital.
The Emergencies Act gave police the ability to arrest protesters in designated areas and gave financial institutions the power to freeze the accounts of protesters without a court order. The Liberals, with the support of the NDP, invoked the act on Feb. 14 and lifted it on Feb. 23…(just hours before the Senate could wade in on the issue).
Star Editorial Board: What we need to learn from Emergencies Act inquiry
Canadians deserve to know whether imposing the Emergencies Act was indeed a justified action of last resort.
With no spin, no obfuscation and no attempts at politicizing its response, the federal government must explain how it came to its decision to act. Why did they move with so little provincial buy-in? Why did they move when we subsequently learned federal cabinet was told of a potential, imminent breakthrough the night before they acted? Did any police entity request the Act be invoked? Is there a written request?
The Prime Minister will be called to testify and he must resist the temptation to use his testimony to remind Canadians that Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, an Ottawa MP, cuddled up to those who chose to hold the capital hostage. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino – who has provided muddy answers on police requesting the government move – and Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair are among ministers expected to be called to testify.
Representatives of all levels of law enforcement and all levels of government may be called, along with businesses and individuals hurt by the protest and protest participants themselves.
The requirement for this inquiry is clear. Canadians’ freedoms must never be curtailed without justification. The Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Civil Liberties Association both launched court challenges to the government decision last February arguing that the special powers handed to police and the banks violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Anything that strips rights from Canadians must be done as a last resort. Canadians deserve to know whether this was, indeed, a justified action of last resort. The protection of our rights and freedoms is at stake.
We have Rights and Freedoms? When did the Feds lose responsibility on their end of the Duties that shore up Rights and Freedoms?