Public Inquiries into Emergencies Act begin September 19
- Thread starter The_Foxer
- Start date
Why should you leave? Somebody’s got to help dig out the country with their taxes for the next couple of generations… and Trudeau is going to leave to go to his UN climate changey whatever position so his pension & trust fund aren’t going to help dig the nation out….
Anyway, tomorrow is the last day of the inquiry…& the last person to testify will be….Justin Trudeau.
In true headliner fashion, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is up last at the inquiry examining his government’s use of the Emergencies Act to quell the protests that roiled the country last winter.
Now, what’s left is one point on which the whole thing rests: The protests that gridlocked sites across Canada didn’t meet the test set out in the law that Ottawa brought into force for the first time ever, but the government maintains it was correct to invoke that law.
The legal justification for that assertion is locked behind the solicitor-client privilege that Mr. Trudeau and his government refuse to waive, leaving them pointing primly at an opaque container with “Just trust us” stamped on the lid.
So in one sense, there is little left for Mr. Trudeau to explain to the Public Order Emergency Commission on Friday.
But in truth, everything the inquiry has unearthed so far – the societal tension that spiralled into contempt blanketing the country; politicians and staffers snuffling through still-smoking debris looking for pretty storylines; diligent responsibility dodging; the sense that someone pushed the panic button early on and just kept mashing it until they arrived at the solution they may have already decided was necessary – lands at Mr. Trudeau’s feet because, well, it’s his show.
It’s Trudeau’s show and Friday he will have to answer for it — The Globe and Mail
The Prime Minister is up last at the inquiry examining his government’s use of the Emergencies Act to quell the protests that roiled the country this past winter
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, but the radical disclosure of this inquiry leaves most of the parties involved burnt to a crisp.
First, the shutters are about to slam down on this window of transparency. One week, everyone can see the gears turning and who was cranking them, and the next, it’s back to government officials treating Canadians like delicate children who can’t handle a straight answer on anything.
The nastier side effect that Mr. Trudeau will have to answer for on Friday, and far beyond, is that once the inquiry flipped over this big, damp rock, what scuttled out from under it into the light of day made it obvious why no one in government wants the public to see them at work in the first place.
There was petty backbiting that would make a pack of particularly passive-aggressive teenagers take approving notes. Various officials, organizations and levels of government hurled responsibility at each other like the music was about to stop and all they wanted was not to be the loser left holding the hot potato.
Politicians and staffers toggled between clutching their pearls over this pernicious crisis and breezily grinding it through a political sausage-making machine as they looked for flattering angles and stirring photo-ops.
The rest of the description of of this goat rodeo at the above link.
Mexico, Costa Rica, Chile, Argentina Nigeria, Spain Portugal...
Being taxed to survive is fucking retarded. Id rather be warm and pay modest bribes.
It doesn't
Freedom 55 is 4 months away.
Yep…yep….Quick summary.
Protest…unacceptable views declared….convoy towards Ottawa…must be racists & misogynists….Arrives at Ottawa…Trudeau disappears….Hot Tubs & Bouncy Castles…Police confusion that the protest has not balanced itself.
Protestors forget to go home after they made their point…Police confused that protest still hasn’t balanced itself. Border blockages come and then go at Windsor and Emerson and Coutts, but parking is still an issue in Ottawa….Government decides not to send in the military with tanks…but throws in the Emergencies Act after the borders are already open anyway ‘cuz….???….& that’s what we’re all still try’n to figure out. Ta-Da!! It’s the last day of the Inquiry.
A (the?) key piece of evidence may (or may not, but probably not) not see the light of day. During his testimony, Justice Minister David Lametti wouldn't explain the legal opinion the government received when invoking the act, citing solicitor-client privilege…instead of just Cabinet Confidence or Parliamentary Privilege.
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland cites economics and US phone calls…which aren’t justification under the Emergencies Act…& that pretty much brings us to 11/25/22.
Justin will make a statement today, then, usually in an inquiry, he would be cross-examined (time permitting in this case) and asked questions….& that’s where we find out if he’ll answer those questions (???) or answer questions that aren’t asked and have no relevance to the actual questions asked. Regardless, it’ll be an interesting clown show.
apple.news
Protest…unacceptable views declared….convoy towards Ottawa…must be racists & misogynists….Arrives at Ottawa…Trudeau disappears….Hot Tubs & Bouncy Castles…Police confusion that the protest has not balanced itself.
Protestors forget to go home after they made their point…Police confused that protest still hasn’t balanced itself. Border blockages come and then go at Windsor and Emerson and Coutts, but parking is still an issue in Ottawa….Government decides not to send in the military with tanks…but throws in the Emergencies Act after the borders are already open anyway ‘cuz….???….& that’s what we’re all still try’n to figure out. Ta-Da!! It’s the last day of the Inquiry.
A (the?) key piece of evidence may (or may not, but probably not) not see the light of day. During his testimony, Justice Minister David Lametti wouldn't explain the legal opinion the government received when invoking the act, citing solicitor-client privilege…instead of just Cabinet Confidence or Parliamentary Privilege.
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland cites economics and US phone calls…which aren’t justification under the Emergencies Act…& that pretty much brings us to 11/25/22.
Justin will make a statement today, then, usually in an inquiry, he would be cross-examined (time permitting in this case) and asked questions….& that’s where we find out if he’ll answer those questions (???) or answer questions that aren’t asked and have no relevance to the actual questions asked. Regardless, it’ll be an interesting clown show.
Colby Cosh: Jokes about sending tanks into Ottawa elucidate the ruling-class psyche — National Post
The ministers are blowing off their conversation as mere banter. But discussions about sending in tanks are psychologically telling, even as a joke
Where’s Waldo?
apple.news
Seems familiar though…
Justin Trudeau's Emergencies Act testimony proves just as divisive as Freedom Convoy — National Post
Under initial questioning, Trudeau appeared well-briefed and comfortable. Under cross-examination, his answers grew shorter, less revealing: 'I can’t comment'
Seems familiar though…
Well, I’m not seeing/hearing anything on the Emergencies Act Inquiry from todays “testimony” yet, so there’s this I guess:
apple.news
The inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act is in its sixth week, which, it may be useful to note, is about five times longer than the act itself was in force.
Hold in mind that the act was actually only half-passed. It got through the Singh-Trudeau House of Commons. How could it not, Jagmeet Singh and Justin Trudeau having exchanged the political equivalent of lovers’ vows — in greeting card lingo pledging “to be there for each other” any time scandal or Pierre Poilievre’s troops got close to presenting a real challenge.
But it never made it to the Senate — a requirement of its legitimacy, all too soon forgotten — being conveniently called down (“Hours”) before it could be questioned or challenged there. After all, who would really want the most extreme response a government could make to any situation, something close to martial law, to be debated by BOTH the Commons and the Senate?
Anyway, the rest at the above link, & hopefully some news will trickle out in a few hours.
Oh, something is trickling out:
apple.news
OTTAWA – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told lawyers for the Public Order Emergency Commission that after three weekends of disarray in Ottawa it was the “right moment” to invoke the Emergencies Act?
Trudeau is testifying at the final day of the inquiry into his government’s use of the Emergencies Act. In his witness statement from an interview with commission lawyers he said it was a question about timing.
In the witness statement, Trudeau argued that CSIS doesn’t have a great deal of experience with domestic terrorism and has been challenged responding to it in recent years.
“He noted that CSIS does not necessarily have the right tools, mandate or even mindset to respond to the threat Canada faced at that moment,” he said. Wasn’t CSIS working off the same definitions that are in the Emergencies Act??
An Ottawa street was tied up — Wellington — for a few weeks. Inconvenient, annoying — yes, but all of Ottawa wasn’t put in some sort of civic hibernation with this protest. But let us grant that it was an emergency in or for Ottawa.
To a normal mind, the parked trucks on Wellington Street was not a replay of the Normandy landings. But the pervasive immaturity of the Trudeau cabinet, and himself, and the taste for show that characterizes both, suggest they had an appetite for a heroic role and the drama associated with “saving democracy.” And the lure of “War Measures Act — The Sequel” was too strong to resist.
Well, they found the right word for the thought, but considering the language they have used about the convoy — the talk of Nazis and supremacists and “foreign sources” and “terrorists” — I am extremely dubious that when that question was first put forward, it was with a chuckle or two. And is it so far from Trudeau’s chatter about a “fringe minority” that should not to be tolerated, to delusive fears requiring a full military response?
Consider Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland’s Churchillian resolve: “I will never support negotiating with those who hold our democracy hostage.” A sentence that reveals she’s a hero in her own movie. Where was this deplorable hostage holding? Was Parliament stormed? The Speaker hauled off to the cab of a truck? Were MPs rounded up? Were militias surrounding the Commons? Or the Cottage? The Bat-Cave?
Freeland’s “courageous” declaration was pure nonsense and fantasy. Canadian democracy was never, not for a minute, being held “hostage.” Except, ironically, for the period of the Emergencies Act. Hers was language you get from a bad melodrama.
Justice Minister David Lametti in his turn at the inquiry — an inquiry whose purpose, as statutorily required, is to determine if invoking the Emergencies Act was justified — was less than Windex clear: He really couldn’t divulge anything about what led to the decision due to solicitor-client privilege. Asked if cabinet had received a legal opinion about the invocation of the act, he said he could not confirm or deny that.
“Trudeau government is refusing to release to the public inquiry the legal opinion it used to justify invoking the Emergencies Act against the truckers’ convoy, when the convoy didn’t meet the legal definition of a security threat in the Emergencies Act. What does that tell you?”
It started with “honk trauma” and has wound down with a splay of non-answers, claims of “cabinet confidentiality” on the very issues for which it was called, wildly inflated talk of an “occupation” and a comedy club routine about tanks.
What both the invocation and the inquiry show is how contemptuous this government — in particular all its chief ministers — are of ordinary, typical members of the Canadian citizenry.
They are not holding democracy “hostage,” but they are doing a good job of making a mockery of it.
Rex Murphy: Liberals make a mockery of Canadian democracy — National Post
What both the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the inquiry show is how contemptuous this government is of its citizens
Hold in mind that the act was actually only half-passed. It got through the Singh-Trudeau House of Commons. How could it not, Jagmeet Singh and Justin Trudeau having exchanged the political equivalent of lovers’ vows — in greeting card lingo pledging “to be there for each other” any time scandal or Pierre Poilievre’s troops got close to presenting a real challenge.
But it never made it to the Senate — a requirement of its legitimacy, all too soon forgotten — being conveniently called down (“Hours”) before it could be questioned or challenged there. After all, who would really want the most extreme response a government could make to any situation, something close to martial law, to be debated by BOTH the Commons and the Senate?
Anyway, the rest at the above link, & hopefully some news will trickle out in a few hours.
Oh, something is trickling out:
'No confidence' in police plan: Trudeau says he had no alternative to Emergencies Act — National Post
Trudeau testified he stands by the decision to use the act to clear Freedom Convoy protests: 'I am absolutely... confident that I made the right choice'
Trudeau is testifying at the final day of the inquiry into his government’s use of the Emergencies Act. In his witness statement from an interview with commission lawyers he said it was a question about timing.
In the witness statement, Trudeau argued that CSIS doesn’t have a great deal of experience with domestic terrorism and has been challenged responding to it in recent years.
“He noted that CSIS does not necessarily have the right tools, mandate or even mindset to respond to the threat Canada faced at that moment,” he said. Wasn’t CSIS working off the same definitions that are in the Emergencies Act??
An Ottawa street was tied up — Wellington — for a few weeks. Inconvenient, annoying — yes, but all of Ottawa wasn’t put in some sort of civic hibernation with this protest. But let us grant that it was an emergency in or for Ottawa.
To a normal mind, the parked trucks on Wellington Street was not a replay of the Normandy landings. But the pervasive immaturity of the Trudeau cabinet, and himself, and the taste for show that characterizes both, suggest they had an appetite for a heroic role and the drama associated with “saving democracy.” And the lure of “War Measures Act — The Sequel” was too strong to resist.
Well, they found the right word for the thought, but considering the language they have used about the convoy — the talk of Nazis and supremacists and “foreign sources” and “terrorists” — I am extremely dubious that when that question was first put forward, it was with a chuckle or two. And is it so far from Trudeau’s chatter about a “fringe minority” that should not to be tolerated, to delusive fears requiring a full military response?
Consider Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland’s Churchillian resolve: “I will never support negotiating with those who hold our democracy hostage.” A sentence that reveals she’s a hero in her own movie. Where was this deplorable hostage holding? Was Parliament stormed? The Speaker hauled off to the cab of a truck? Were MPs rounded up? Were militias surrounding the Commons? Or the Cottage? The Bat-Cave?
Freeland’s “courageous” declaration was pure nonsense and fantasy. Canadian democracy was never, not for a minute, being held “hostage.” Except, ironically, for the period of the Emergencies Act. Hers was language you get from a bad melodrama.
Justice Minister David Lametti in his turn at the inquiry — an inquiry whose purpose, as statutorily required, is to determine if invoking the Emergencies Act was justified — was less than Windex clear: He really couldn’t divulge anything about what led to the decision due to solicitor-client privilege. Asked if cabinet had received a legal opinion about the invocation of the act, he said he could not confirm or deny that.
“Trudeau government is refusing to release to the public inquiry the legal opinion it used to justify invoking the Emergencies Act against the truckers’ convoy, when the convoy didn’t meet the legal definition of a security threat in the Emergencies Act. What does that tell you?”
It started with “honk trauma” and has wound down with a splay of non-answers, claims of “cabinet confidentiality” on the very issues for which it was called, wildly inflated talk of an “occupation” and a comedy club routine about tanks.
What both the invocation and the inquiry show is how contemptuous this government — in particular all its chief ministers — are of ordinary, typical members of the Canadian citizenry.
They are not holding democracy “hostage,” but they are doing a good job of making a mockery of it.
Little more trickling out:
OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offered a vigorous defence of his decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to a public inquiry on Friday, insisting he met all legal thresholds (?) to declare a public order emergency because the so-called “Freedom Convoy” protests COULD HAVE provoked serious violence IF the federal government had not acted.
Speaking at the final day of public hearings at the inquiry into that controversial and unprecedented decision, Trudeau admitted he had a private moment of hesitation before he invoked the act on Feb. 14, but ultimately determined he could not wait and possibly see someone killed or injured because of the protests across the country….just like he couldn’t wait for the BLM Protests, and the indigenous railway blockades, and every other protest during his entire reign since he took the PM Hat & the balanced budget from Stephen Harper.
Trudeau also said there was a “clear consensus” in support of the move from HIS cabinet ministers, as well as from his national security adviser and top officials at Canada’s national spy agency, the RCMP and the federal public service?
But the final call was his to make — and the decision weighed heavily, he said, asking how he would explain his hesitation “to the family of a police officer who wasn’t killed, or a grandmother who got run over by a reindeer, or a protester who knocked over by a horse. Won’t somebody think of the children? Those square cardboard…Uhm…water bottle..Uhm juice box water bottle things.”
“The responsibility of a prime minister is to make the tough calls and keep people safe,” Trudeau told the inquiry on Friday.
“I am absolutely, absolutely serene and confident that I made the right choice.”
In his testimony, delivered before a packed audience and presiding Ontario Judge Paul Rouleau, Trudeau also gave the government’s most direct explanation yet for why it felt the legal threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act had been met during last winter’s protest crisis.
The government decided to use a broader interpretation of the law’s definition of a national security threat, which is taken from the CSIS Act that governs Canada’s spy agency. And the inquiry has heard that CSIS decided the crisis didn’t meet that definition.
(When I was younger, I used to use broader interpretations of speed limits, but now I seem to use broader interpretations of stop signs…)
As Trudeau argued, the words in the two acts are the same but the context is different, with the Emergencies Act looking to evidence and advice from a broad range of police, security agencies and civil servants — not just CSIS. He also stressed that the decision to trigger the Emergencies Act, and determine whether the definition of a national security threat is met, lies with the prime minister and cabinet alone???
Uhm…does the Senate get a say? Not in this case but usually?
apple.news
OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offered a vigorous defence of his decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to a public inquiry on Friday, insisting he met all legal thresholds (?) to declare a public order emergency because the so-called “Freedom Convoy” protests COULD HAVE provoked serious violence IF the federal government had not acted.
Speaking at the final day of public hearings at the inquiry into that controversial and unprecedented decision, Trudeau admitted he had a private moment of hesitation before he invoked the act on Feb. 14, but ultimately determined he could not wait and possibly see someone killed or injured because of the protests across the country….just like he couldn’t wait for the BLM Protests, and the indigenous railway blockades, and every other protest during his entire reign since he took the PM Hat & the balanced budget from Stephen Harper.
Trudeau also said there was a “clear consensus” in support of the move from HIS cabinet ministers, as well as from his national security adviser and top officials at Canada’s national spy agency, the RCMP and the federal public service?
But the final call was his to make — and the decision weighed heavily, he said, asking how he would explain his hesitation “to the family of a police officer who wasn’t killed, or a grandmother who got run over by a reindeer, or a protester who knocked over by a horse. Won’t somebody think of the children? Those square cardboard…Uhm…water bottle..Uhm juice box water bottle things.”
“The responsibility of a prime minister is to make the tough calls and keep people safe,” Trudeau told the inquiry on Friday.
“I am absolutely, absolutely serene and confident that I made the right choice.”
In his testimony, delivered before a packed audience and presiding Ontario Judge Paul Rouleau, Trudeau also gave the government’s most direct explanation yet for why it felt the legal threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act had been met during last winter’s protest crisis.
The government decided to use a broader interpretation of the law’s definition of a national security threat, which is taken from the CSIS Act that governs Canada’s spy agency. And the inquiry has heard that CSIS decided the crisis didn’t meet that definition.
(When I was younger, I used to use broader interpretations of speed limits, but now I seem to use broader interpretations of stop signs…)
As Trudeau argued, the words in the two acts are the same but the context is different, with the Emergencies Act looking to evidence and advice from a broad range of police, security agencies and civil servants — not just CSIS. He also stressed that the decision to trigger the Emergencies Act, and determine whether the definition of a national security threat is met, lies with the prime minister and cabinet alone???
Uhm…does the Senate get a say? Not in this case but usually?
After one moment of hesitation, Justin Trudeau says he’s ‘serene’ he made right call to use Emergencies Act, inquiry hears — Toronto Star
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears as a witness at the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa Friday.
Two guys in Leafs jerseys drinking a beer on a streetcorner COULD provoke serious violence, if it breaks wrong (or right).
Yeah, those Maple Leafs are the devil......Look how they upset the normally nice civil fans in New Jersey the other night........What monsters those Leafs are.
Not only 'usually' but in this case specifically if what the rumours were at the time are accurate. The senate made it clear it was NOT going to ratify the act. Which is why he cancelled it just before they voted on it. The senators that spoke out were mildly horrified.
I suppose that you could say the senate only gets a say AFTER the act is enabled. Technically that's true.
This is pretty clear:
Under the Emergencies Act, the Governor in Council(i.e., the federal cabinet) may declare that an emergency exists. The emergency must be a "national emergency", which means an "urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature" that either "(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada".
Part II of the Emergencies Act describes "public order emergency" results from serious threats to the security of Canada. When defining "threats to the security of Canada", the act references the definition provided in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which includes espionage, sabotage, detrimental foreign influences, activities which support the threat or use of violence for a political, religious or ideological objective; or those activities which threaten to undermine or otherwise destroy, or overthrow the Government of Canada.The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act notes that "lawful advocacy, protest or dissent" do not constitute "threats to the security of Canada".
en.wikipedia.org
Then this is clearly not what’s being said above:
Trudeau said he believes government can legally invoke the act “if in their reasonable opinion, and I’m paraphrasing obviously, there are threats to the security of Canada, and it is a national emergency. That doesn’t mention ‘CSIS threshold’ anywhere.”
apple.news
A curious thing is happening before the Rouleau Commission inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act. Federal government witnesses are testifying that the phrase “threat to the security of Canada” in the Emergencies Act does not mean the same thing as “threats to the security of Canada” in the Canadian Security Intelligence Services (CSIS) Act. This is in spite of the fact that the Emergencies Act states UNEQUIVOCALLY that it relies on the CSIS Act definition.
www.theglobeandmail.com
Trudeau’s appearance serves as the grand finale on the 31st day of public hearings in which police, demonstrators and government officials and cabinet ministers have described their experience of last winter’s so-called “Freedom Convoy” — a protest movement that sparked a three-week occupation in downtown Ottawa, and border blockades across the country that ended without the use of the Emergencies Act.
Through the Emergencies Act, the government gave police special powers, including abilities to declare protests illegal in restricted areas and compel banks to freeze participants’ bank accounts.
en.wikipedia.org
CSIS Director David Vigneault testified that lawyers from the Department of Justice advised him that in the context of the Emergencies Act, the definition is broader? This belies both the text of the statute and everything we know about the drafting of the Emergencies Act.
Under the Emergencies Act, three threshold criteria must be met for the government to declare a public order emergency:
1) The invocation of emergency powers is contingent on there being no other laws available to respond effectively to the emergency. Emergency powers, in other words, are only available as a last resort.
2) In the specific context of a public order emergency, these extraordinary powers are available only if the emergency arises from a threat to the security of Canada and is so serious as to be a national emergency (another defined term). The text is explicit: when the phrase “threat to the security of Canada” is used in reference to a public order emergency, it is assigned the same meaning as in section 2 of the CSIS Act. Other pieces of national security legislation, such as the Security Offences Act, m.
(Section 2 includes four broadly conceived but specific threats: espionage or sabotage, foreign-influenced activities, subversion and terrorism/violent extremism)
3) Activities anywhere in the world, directed toward or in support of acts or threats of serious violence. Those acts or threats can be directed at either persons or property so long as they are done to achieve a political, religious or ideological objective. But as the commission has heard, CSIS made it clear to the government that the convoy protests did not meet its definition of a threat to the security of Canada.
The Emergencies Act requires as a starting point that a threat to the security of Canada as defined by the CSIS Act not only exists – but that the national emergency arises from that threat.
So how did Trudeau’s (Now Trudeau/Singh’s) cabinet and its legal advisers came to their reasoning? Solicitor Client Privilege….they aren’t saying. So much for safeguards or the sober second thought that the Senate is suppose to be.
Under the Emergencies Act, the Governor in Council(i.e., the federal cabinet) may declare that an emergency exists. The emergency must be a "national emergency", which means an "urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature" that either "(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada".
Part II of the Emergencies Act describes "public order emergency" results from serious threats to the security of Canada. When defining "threats to the security of Canada", the act references the definition provided in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which includes espionage, sabotage, detrimental foreign influences, activities which support the threat or use of violence for a political, religious or ideological objective; or those activities which threaten to undermine or otherwise destroy, or overthrow the Government of Canada.The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act notes that "lawful advocacy, protest or dissent" do not constitute "threats to the security of Canada".
Emergencies Act - Wikipedia
Then this is clearly not what’s being said above:
Trudeau said he believes government can legally invoke the act “if in their reasonable opinion, and I’m paraphrasing obviously, there are threats to the security of Canada, and it is a national emergency. That doesn’t mention ‘CSIS threshold’ anywhere.”
After one moment of hesitation, Justin Trudeau says he’s ‘serene’ he made right call to use Emergencies Act, inquiry hears — Toronto Star
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears as a witness at the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa Friday.
A curious thing is happening before the Rouleau Commission inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act. Federal government witnesses are testifying that the phrase “threat to the security of Canada” in the Emergencies Act does not mean the same thing as “threats to the security of Canada” in the Canadian Security Intelligence Services (CSIS) Act. This is in spite of the fact that the Emergencies Act states UNEQUIVOCALLY that it relies on the CSIS Act definition.
Opinion: The CSIS Act threshold on ‘threat to the security of Canada’ must be met
At the current Rouleau Commission, it has emerged that cabinet believes the definition set in the Emergencies Act is too narrow
www.theglobeandmail.com
Trudeau’s appearance serves as the grand finale on the 31st day of public hearings in which police, demonstrators and government officials and cabinet ministers have described their experience of last winter’s so-called “Freedom Convoy” — a protest movement that sparked a three-week occupation in downtown Ottawa, and border blockades across the country that ended without the use of the Emergencies Act.
Through the Emergencies Act, the government gave police special powers, including abilities to declare protests illegal in restricted areas and compel banks to freeze participants’ bank accounts.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia
CSIS Director David Vigneault testified that lawyers from the Department of Justice advised him that in the context of the Emergencies Act, the definition is broader? This belies both the text of the statute and everything we know about the drafting of the Emergencies Act.
Under the Emergencies Act, three threshold criteria must be met for the government to declare a public order emergency:
1) The invocation of emergency powers is contingent on there being no other laws available to respond effectively to the emergency. Emergency powers, in other words, are only available as a last resort.
2) In the specific context of a public order emergency, these extraordinary powers are available only if the emergency arises from a threat to the security of Canada and is so serious as to be a national emergency (another defined term). The text is explicit: when the phrase “threat to the security of Canada” is used in reference to a public order emergency, it is assigned the same meaning as in section 2 of the CSIS Act. Other pieces of national security legislation, such as the Security Offences Act, m.
(Section 2 includes four broadly conceived but specific threats: espionage or sabotage, foreign-influenced activities, subversion and terrorism/violent extremism)
3) Activities anywhere in the world, directed toward or in support of acts or threats of serious violence. Those acts or threats can be directed at either persons or property so long as they are done to achieve a political, religious or ideological objective. But as the commission has heard, CSIS made it clear to the government that the convoy protests did not meet its definition of a threat to the security of Canada.
The Emergencies Act requires as a starting point that a threat to the security of Canada as defined by the CSIS Act not only exists – but that the national emergency arises from that threat.
So how did Trudeau’s (Now Trudeau/Singh’s) cabinet and its legal advisers came to their reasoning? Solicitor Client Privilege….they aren’t saying. So much for safeguards or the sober second thought that the Senate is suppose to be.
Yeah, Hell of a coincidence in the timing. Literally hours before the Senate could voice an opinion, the Emergencies Act was shelved.
It's not surprising that the Senate's thumbs-up or thumbs-down is post facto. It is, after all, for dealing with emergencies. Many countries have laws that allow the executive to declare an emergency, but require that decision to be ratified by the legislature later.
Not this time though. Just a day after “Liberal/NDP/Elizabeth May” 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.
Justin Trudeau revokes Emergencies Act: 'Existing laws and bylaws are now sufficient'
Critics and opposition leaders have criticized the measures, particularly those meant to target money and bank accounts allegedly connected to convoy organizers and…
Yes, I know. I daresay this is an indication that the system worked. An unnecessary emergency was declared, the powers grabbed, then rescinded shortly before rescission would have been mandated by the Senate.Not this time though. Just a day after “Liberal/NDP/Elizabeth May” 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.
Justin Trudeau revokes Emergencies Act: 'Existing laws and bylaws are now sufficient'
Critics and opposition leaders have criticized the measures, particularly those meant to target money and bank accounts allegedly connected to convoy organizers and…nationalpost.com
It's probably the best we can do. The executive must be able to act quickly and decisively in emergencies. But there must also be a check against abuse, as this case so clearly demonstrates. That check, by necessity, takes time.
In the House, the Conservatives & Bloc & the half of the Green Party that isn’t Elizabeth May also made it clear that they didn’t back it.
The checks where put in place, in 1988, when the Emergencies Act was drafted, so that it’s requirements would ALWAYS be “narrower” than the CSIS requirements…& that’s the argument that the Trudeau/Singh Government arguing against (the checks) in place to keep Emergencies Act Overreach from ever happening in the first place.
Well, if this leads to an overhaul of the Emergencies Act, consider it cheap at the price.
Outside of Wartime, the Emergencies Act & its predecessor being the War Measures Act, have only been used by Trudeau’s….or in this last case Trudeau/Singh’s.If I had a say in the naming over the Overhaul, I know what I’d name it. Every Politician wants to leave a legacy and this could be it.
OTTAWA – As the public portion of the Emergencies Act inquiry came to an end Commissioner Paul Rouleau said he heard enough to decide whether the Trudeau government was right to invoke the legislation for the first time in history.
As Emergencies Act inquiry closes, commissioner says he has the evidence he needs
Rouleau said it was clear the convoy exposed divisions and he hopes his report helps heal those wounds so people can 'understand and move forward'
“I’m satisfied that I now have the evidence that I need to make the factual findings and answer the questions I’ve been mandated to (answer),” he said.
Those questions include whether the Trudeau government met the threshold required to invoke and whether it used the extraordinary powers responsibly.
(He also has a fact-finding mandate which will rule on what exactly happened leading with the protests by the Trudeau Government)
“I can assure the public we will do all that is possible to answer the questions raised by my mandate,” he said.
There’s only until early February for a written report to be submitted from this inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act which will be tabled in Parliament.