It could have been worse if the protesters reacted how the cops wanted them to . The reaction of the protesters proved the were simply peaceful Canadians patriotically opposing government overreach .
Public Inquiries into Emergencies Act begin September 19
- Thread starter The_Foxer
- Start date
OTTAWA—Police dysfunction, stubborn politics and a “failure of federalism” turned last winter’s so-called “Freedom Convoy” protests into a national crisis that warranted the first-ever use of the Emergencies Act, Ontario Justice Paul Rouleau concluded in a much-anticipated report.
Rouleau determined — “with reluctance” — that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government met the “very high threshold” to trigger the act and create a host of extraordinary police powers to quash the protests. But Rouleau also called the protests “legitimate,” and blamed government leaders — at all levels — and police for failing to anticipate and “properly manage” the demonstrations against COVID-19 health measures, something he described as a predictable response to a disruptive pandemic.
apple.news
apple.news
Rouleau determined — “with reluctance” — that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government met the “very high threshold” to trigger the act and create a host of extraordinary police powers to quash the protests. But Rouleau also called the protests “legitimate,” and blamed government leaders — at all levels — and police for failing to anticipate and “properly manage” the demonstrations against COVID-19 health measures, something he described as a predictable response to a disruptive pandemic.
Justin Trudeau called out for labelling convoy protesters but Emergencies Act report finds he met threshold to shut them down — Toronto Star
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau testifies before the Public Order Emergency Commission public inquiry on Nov. 25, 2022, in Ottawa.
EDITORIAL: Time to amend Emergencies Act — Toronto Sun
Justin Trudeau had a rare moment of self-reflection as he responded to the release of the Rouleau Report. Asked if he regretted calling the protesters in Ottawa last year a fringe minority, he said yes, he has regrets. “Yeah, I wish I had said that differently,” Trudeau said. We wish he had said...
Wow it was OK to release the hounds because the protestors had a right to protest peacefullyOTTAWA—Police dysfunction, stubborn politics and a “failure of federalism” turned last winter’s so-called “Freedom Convoy” protests into a national crisis that warranted the first-ever use of the Emergencies Act, Ontario Justice Paul Rouleau concluded in a much-anticipated report.
Rouleau determined — “with reluctance” — that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government met the “very high threshold” to trigger the act and create a host of extraordinary police powers to quash the protests. But Rouleau also called the protests “legitimate,” and blamed government leaders — at all levels — and police for failing to anticipate and “properly manage” the demonstrations against COVID-19 health measures, something he described as a predictable response to a disruptive pandemic.
Justin Trudeau called out for labelling convoy protesters but Emergencies Act report finds he met threshold to shut them down — Toronto Star
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau testifies before the Public Order Emergency Commission public inquiry on Nov. 25, 2022, in Ottawa.EDITORIAL: Time to amend Emergencies Act — Toronto Sun
Justin Trudeau had a rare moment of self-reflection as he responded to the release of the Rouleau Report. Asked if he regretted calling the protesters in Ottawa last year a fringe minority, he said yes, he has regrets. “Yeah, I wish I had said that differently,” Trudeau said. We wish he had said...
Pretty much. It wasn’t about the protesters themselves, but justified squashing their rights and freezing their bank accounts due gov’t & law enforcement incompetence & mismanagement. Sounds about right.
Yes nothing at all about the right of patriotic Canadians to protest government actions in a peaceful manner . Parliment Hill is under perpetual protest and most fly completely under the radar as they are peaceful and non confrontational . What scared the powers that be they have never seen anything like this and had to nip it in the bud before it escalated. Such a sad state that only one MP actually stepped out of her office and engaged the protesters on numerous occasions ..
Justice Rouleau in his analysis of whether the government met the threshold set out in Section 3 of the act that a situation must be one that “cannot be effectively dealt with by any other law of Canada,” Rouleau concludes that the test is met on the basis of the modifier “effectively” as opposed to the verb “cannot.” In so doing, he essentially lowers the threshold for the act, giving a new basis for future governments to invoke the act rooted not in legal necessity, but administrative or operational incompetence.
Much of Rouleau’s rationale rests upon the well-established criminal law “reasonable belief” standard — which holds that perfect judgment is not required, but merely that a decision maker in possession of a certain set of facts acts in a way that is considered “reasonable.” There is little to quibble with here as a general principle.
But surprisingly, Rouleau simply shrugs off the government’s refusal to release the key legal opinion it received suggesting it met the legal threshold to invoke the act. Instead, Rouleau points to testimony from several witnesses — including the prime minister, attorney general and Clerk of the Privy Council — accepting that their own interpretation of this unknown advice was sufficient.
apple.news
apple.news
It’s clear, both from Rouleau’s report and to anyone who followed the events as they were unfolding, that the protests likely could have been brought under control earlier had it not been for systemic government failures and the inability of federal and provincial officials and law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate their actions.
But Rouleau seems to suggest that the government’s inability to effectively use the tools and resources in its employ justifies the use of a blunt instrument like the declaration of an emergency, even if such a declaration doesn’t seem justified based on a plain reading of the law.
The Emergencies Act states that an emergency can be declared if the government “believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists,” but simply deferring to the government’s belief on this question, which Rouleau seems to be doing, rather than interrogating it, is, again, a cop out.
There was no threat to the Canadian state or a threat of mass violence, so based on what the law actually says, the convoy protests did not rise to the level of a national emergency. Yet, Rouleau accepted the government’s argument that it is free to interpret the definition however it pleases.
And even though the government refused to produce the legal advice it was given to justify its actions, here Rouleau shrugged again. “Each of them (witnesses) explained what they believed those thresholds to be.
I do not need to see the legal advice itself in order to accept the evidence that they believed their conclusions to be justified in law,” he said.
Rouleau is correct, however, that it is ultimately up to the courts to determine whether the federal government was legally justified in its actions — a process that’s already underway. If there is a silver lining in this report, it’s that, by allowing his brother’s nephew to hold it up as a vindication, it may make Trudeau more likely to take seriously its recommendations on how governments can better work together, to ensure that future protests don’t escalate to a point where the government thinks that using the Emergencies Act is its only option. Freedom is fragile and must be protected and that losing freedoms is never more than one generation away.
Much of Rouleau’s rationale rests upon the well-established criminal law “reasonable belief” standard — which holds that perfect judgment is not required, but merely that a decision maker in possession of a certain set of facts acts in a way that is considered “reasonable.” There is little to quibble with here as a general principle.
But surprisingly, Rouleau simply shrugs off the government’s refusal to release the key legal opinion it received suggesting it met the legal threshold to invoke the act. Instead, Rouleau points to testimony from several witnesses — including the prime minister, attorney general and Clerk of the Privy Council — accepting that their own interpretation of this unknown advice was sufficient.
Aaron Wudrick: The Emergencies Act threshold is now incompetence, apparently — National Post
Commission concludes government can do what it wants, no matter what the legislation actually says
Jesse Kline: Emergencies Act report a slap in the face to Canadians — National Post
Trudeau Liberals get a pass and still no one can explain what the national emergency was
But Rouleau seems to suggest that the government’s inability to effectively use the tools and resources in its employ justifies the use of a blunt instrument like the declaration of an emergency, even if such a declaration doesn’t seem justified based on a plain reading of the law.
The Emergencies Act states that an emergency can be declared if the government “believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists,” but simply deferring to the government’s belief on this question, which Rouleau seems to be doing, rather than interrogating it, is, again, a cop out.
There was no threat to the Canadian state or a threat of mass violence, so based on what the law actually says, the convoy protests did not rise to the level of a national emergency. Yet, Rouleau accepted the government’s argument that it is free to interpret the definition however it pleases.
And even though the government refused to produce the legal advice it was given to justify its actions, here Rouleau shrugged again. “Each of them (witnesses) explained what they believed those thresholds to be.
I do not need to see the legal advice itself in order to accept the evidence that they believed their conclusions to be justified in law,” he said.
Rouleau is correct, however, that it is ultimately up to the courts to determine whether the federal government was legally justified in its actions — a process that’s already underway. If there is a silver lining in this report, it’s that, by allowing his brother’s nephew to hold it up as a vindication, it may make Trudeau more likely to take seriously its recommendations on how governments can better work together, to ensure that future protests don’t escalate to a point where the government thinks that using the Emergencies Act is its only option. Freedom is fragile and must be protected and that losing freedoms is never more than one generation away.
Looks like we have to wait for the judgements and testimony from class action suits.
The key is , no one could explain what the emergency actually was . Patriotic Canadians peacefully protesting government overreach and embarrassing the sitting government and it’s leader .Justice Rouleau in his analysis of whether the government met the threshold set out in Section 3 of the act that a situation must be one that “cannot be effectively dealt with by any other law of Canada,” Rouleau concludes that the test is met on the basis of the modifier “effectively” as opposed to the verb “cannot.” In so doing, he essentially lowers the threshold for the act, giving a new basis for future governments to invoke the act rooted not in legal necessity, but administrative or operational incompetence.
Much of Rouleau’s rationale rests upon the well-established criminal law “reasonable belief” standard — which holds that perfect judgment is not required, but merely that a decision maker in possession of a certain set of facts acts in a way that is considered “reasonable.” There is little to quibble with here as a general principle.
But surprisingly, Rouleau simply shrugs off the government’s refusal to release the key legal opinion it received suggesting it met the legal threshold to invoke the act. Instead, Rouleau points to testimony from several witnesses — including the prime minister, attorney general and Clerk of the Privy Council — accepting that their own interpretation of this unknown advice was sufficient.
Aaron Wudrick: The Emergencies Act threshold is now incompetence, apparently — National Post
Commission concludes government can do what it wants, no matter what the legislation actually saysIt’s clear, both from Rouleau’s report and to anyone who followed the events as they were unfolding, that the protests likely could have been brought under control earlier had it not been for systemic government failures and the inability of federal and provincial officials and law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate their actions.Jesse Kline: Emergencies Act report a slap in the face to Canadians — National Post
Trudeau Liberals get a pass and still no one can explain what the national emergency was
But Rouleau seems to suggest that the government’s inability to effectively use the tools and resources in its employ justifies the use of a blunt instrument like the declaration of an emergency, even if such a declaration doesn’t seem justified based on a plain reading of the law.
The Emergencies Act states that an emergency can be declared if the government “believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists,” but simply deferring to the government’s belief on this question, which Rouleau seems to be doing, rather than interrogating it, is, again, a cop out.
There was no threat to the Canadian state or a threat of mass violence, so based on what the law actually says, the convoy protests did not rise to the level of a national emergency. Yet, Rouleau accepted the government’s argument that it is free to interpret the definition however it pleases.
And even though the government refused to produce the legal advice it was given to justify its actions, here Rouleau shrugged again. “Each of them (witnesses) explained what they believed those thresholds to be.
I do not need to see the legal advice itself in order to accept the evidence that they believed their conclusions to be justified in law,” he said.
Rouleau is correct, however, that it is ultimately up to the courts to determine whether the federal government was legally justified in its actions — a process that’s already underway. If there is a silver lining in this report, it’s that, by allowing his brother’s nephew to hold it up as a vindication, it may make Trudeau more likely to take seriously its recommendations on how governments can better work together, to ensure that future protests don’t escalate to a point where the government thinks that using the Emergencies Act is its only option. Freedom is fragile and must be protected and that losing freedoms is never more than one generation away.
They spirited him out of the country to an undisclosed location .
Negative reactions to the Emergencies Act Inquiry Report across Saskatchewan
Images courtesy CBC
There is a universal negative reaction to the Emergencies Act (EA) Inquiry Report in Saskatchewan.
Prime Minister Trudeau explains quantum physics in 2016.
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics Wiki Commons
The purpose of the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) was to determine whether Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the federal government were justified in invoking the EA, formerly the War Measures Act. This was the first use of the EA.
Trudeau used the EA to stop an anti-vaccine and COVID-19 restrictions protest in downtown Ottawa, which went on for several weeks and attracted worldwide attention.
Trudeau invoking the EA is one of his most controversial decisions as it gave extraordinary powers to law enforcement to arrest and remove the protesters and tow away their vehicles. Also, the government could freeze the bank accounts of the protesters.
Commissioner Paul Rouleau said the Trudeau government invoking the EA met a “very high” threshold as a “lawful protest descended into lawlessness, culminating in a national emergency.”
"Invocation of the Emergencies Act is a drastic move, but it is not a dictatorial one,” said Rouleau.
Saskatchewan’s Justice Minister and Attorney General Bronwyn Eyre said “Saskatchewan’s position has always been invoking the act was unnecessary and that appropriate and effective action to deal with the protests and blockades last year could have been taken under existing federal, provincial, and municipal laws.”
Eyre “is currently reviewing the extensive report findings and recommendations” and “would like to thank the commission for its work.”
Prime Minister Trudeau testifies at the Emergencies [War Measures] Act Inquiry.
Screengrab.
Sask NDP Official Opposition Justice Critic Nicole Sarauer commented on the EA Inquiry Report.
“The use of the Emergencies Act was unprecedented and will have implications moving forward,” said Sarauer.
“Although we accept the findings of this report … we still believe that there was an opportunity to limit its use to specific regions impacted by blockades, rather than Canada-wide.”
Buffalo Party’s Mark “The Grizzly Patriot” Friesen is not surprised with the outcome.
“I am not the least bit surprised with the decision,” said Friesen.
“We have judicial corruption across this country, at every level. Why would we expect any difference in the case of the Emergencies Act Commission?”
Kelly Lorencz, The People’s Party of Canada Western Canada and Northern Territories lieutenant, found nothing unexpected in the report.
“The report presented today by Justice Rouleau on the use of the Emergencies Act was, if anything, predictable. All this report has done is solidify many Canadians' discontent not only with this Liberal government but all elected officials in Ottawa,” said Lorencz.
“When the convoy left Winnipeg, it was approximately 20-km long with a significant portion of participants from Western Canada. The implications of this report have the potential to fuel further Western alienation sentiments and create an even bigger divide in Canada. The report concluded the Prime Minister made judgement calls because he felt that the country was under a threat or danger, but from who?”
Nadine Ness of Unified Grassroots issued a statement.
Freedom Road: Canadian truckers took their protest over vaccine mandates to Ottawa in February, which led ultimately to the Liberal government invoking the Emergencies [War Measures] Act.
“I am disappointed, however, not surprised that Justice Rousseau ruled in this way. The man is a Liberals supporter and should have never been the one ruling over this. For a second, I had hoped his sense of duty would go above his own prejudice,” said Ness in a statement.
“It’s clear the legal definition was not met and the Liberals simply made up their own. This only further proves that we have lost the impartiality in our public service and to an extent our court system.”
“To most Canadians and everyone else around the world, this will be seen as a dark stain in our history and to freedom as a whole. This will only further the flames of distrust in and anger towards our government and will do irreparable damage for generations to come. Canada today is much less free of a nation than it was yesterday.”
“This may be the catalyst moment in time where many will realize how far we have strayed from our guiding principles that formed this once very great and free nation. This will destroy the Liberals party in the next election, and for that, I am very glad.”
Kelsey, Dave, and Richard of Acres of Truth issued a statement.
“As Canadian Citizens, we at Acres of Truth respect the Commission's decision, however, we strongly disagree. Currently, we have not had the time or opportunity to get through all of the points on why the commission has determined this, but the obvious question is: Will they provide Canadians with evidence as to how they came to this conclusion? It is our opinion that a peaceful assembly (which is a fundamental right) with bouncy castles, hot tubs, and road hockey is not a justifiable reason to enact the Emergencies Act, formerly the War Measures Act, on the nation's own citizens,” said Acres of Truth in a statement.
“This decision shows a total disregard of our Charter Of Rights and Freedoms and appears to be protecting the infantile ego of the Prime Minister and his office. May the beacon of light shine the truth on these men and women who stood strong for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians that gained attention around the world despite the government using lies, coercion, and violence to crush the greatest human rights protest in Canadian history.”
Images courtesy CBC
There is a universal negative reaction to the Emergencies Act (EA) Inquiry Report in Saskatchewan.
Prime Minister Trudeau explains quantum physics in 2016.
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics Wiki Commons
The purpose of the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) was to determine whether Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the federal government were justified in invoking the EA, formerly the War Measures Act. This was the first use of the EA.
Trudeau used the EA to stop an anti-vaccine and COVID-19 restrictions protest in downtown Ottawa, which went on for several weeks and attracted worldwide attention.
Trudeau invoking the EA is one of his most controversial decisions as it gave extraordinary powers to law enforcement to arrest and remove the protesters and tow away their vehicles. Also, the government could freeze the bank accounts of the protesters.
Commissioner Paul Rouleau said the Trudeau government invoking the EA met a “very high” threshold as a “lawful protest descended into lawlessness, culminating in a national emergency.”
"Invocation of the Emergencies Act is a drastic move, but it is not a dictatorial one,” said Rouleau.
Saskatchewan’s Justice Minister and Attorney General Bronwyn Eyre said “Saskatchewan’s position has always been invoking the act was unnecessary and that appropriate and effective action to deal with the protests and blockades last year could have been taken under existing federal, provincial, and municipal laws.”
Eyre “is currently reviewing the extensive report findings and recommendations” and “would like to thank the commission for its work.”
Prime Minister Trudeau testifies at the Emergencies [War Measures] Act Inquiry.
Screengrab.
Sask NDP Official Opposition Justice Critic Nicole Sarauer commented on the EA Inquiry Report.
“The use of the Emergencies Act was unprecedented and will have implications moving forward,” said Sarauer.
“Although we accept the findings of this report … we still believe that there was an opportunity to limit its use to specific regions impacted by blockades, rather than Canada-wide.”
Buffalo Party’s Mark “The Grizzly Patriot” Friesen is not surprised with the outcome.
“I am not the least bit surprised with the decision,” said Friesen.
“We have judicial corruption across this country, at every level. Why would we expect any difference in the case of the Emergencies Act Commission?”
Kelly Lorencz, The People’s Party of Canada Western Canada and Northern Territories lieutenant, found nothing unexpected in the report.
“The report presented today by Justice Rouleau on the use of the Emergencies Act was, if anything, predictable. All this report has done is solidify many Canadians' discontent not only with this Liberal government but all elected officials in Ottawa,” said Lorencz.
“When the convoy left Winnipeg, it was approximately 20-km long with a significant portion of participants from Western Canada. The implications of this report have the potential to fuel further Western alienation sentiments and create an even bigger divide in Canada. The report concluded the Prime Minister made judgement calls because he felt that the country was under a threat or danger, but from who?”
Nadine Ness of Unified Grassroots issued a statement.
Freedom Road: Canadian truckers took their protest over vaccine mandates to Ottawa in February, which led ultimately to the Liberal government invoking the Emergencies [War Measures] Act.
“I am disappointed, however, not surprised that Justice Rousseau ruled in this way. The man is a Liberals supporter and should have never been the one ruling over this. For a second, I had hoped his sense of duty would go above his own prejudice,” said Ness in a statement.
“It’s clear the legal definition was not met and the Liberals simply made up their own. This only further proves that we have lost the impartiality in our public service and to an extent our court system.”
“To most Canadians and everyone else around the world, this will be seen as a dark stain in our history and to freedom as a whole. This will only further the flames of distrust in and anger towards our government and will do irreparable damage for generations to come. Canada today is much less free of a nation than it was yesterday.”
“This may be the catalyst moment in time where many will realize how far we have strayed from our guiding principles that formed this once very great and free nation. This will destroy the Liberals party in the next election, and for that, I am very glad.”
Kelsey, Dave, and Richard of Acres of Truth issued a statement.
“As Canadian Citizens, we at Acres of Truth respect the Commission's decision, however, we strongly disagree. Currently, we have not had the time or opportunity to get through all of the points on why the commission has determined this, but the obvious question is: Will they provide Canadians with evidence as to how they came to this conclusion? It is our opinion that a peaceful assembly (which is a fundamental right) with bouncy castles, hot tubs, and road hockey is not a justifiable reason to enact the Emergencies Act, formerly the War Measures Act, on the nation's own citizens,” said Acres of Truth in a statement.
“This decision shows a total disregard of our Charter Of Rights and Freedoms and appears to be protecting the infantile ego of the Prime Minister and his office. May the beacon of light shine the truth on these men and women who stood strong for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians that gained attention around the world despite the government using lies, coercion, and violence to crush the greatest human rights protest in Canadian history.”
Been interesting to see how this looks from the outside looking in…Forest for the trees…sort of thing. I’ve only read one Al Jazeera story so far as a non-Canadian source.
Looks like an amazingly clumsy and inept cover-up of a foolish and at best unnecessary action.
From the inside looking….Around?….It’s pretty weird too. Check out these different sources talking about the same report.
CBC:
Global News:
The Emergencies Act's 'very high threshold' was met, commissioner rules in major report — Global News
The “Freedom Convoy” amounted to a national emergency warranting the Emergencies Act, but it was an emergency that could’ve been avoided, the commissioner says.
Ottawa Citizen:
Glavin: Convoy protest — Trudeau started the fight with the truckers — Ottawa Citizen
Using vaccine mandates as a political wedge in the 2021 federal election was a very bad idea.
Toronto SUN:
GUNTER: Report on use of Emergencies Act is Liberal-biased — Toronto Sun
The elite view of the Freedom Convoy has won. Not the legal view. Not the view of law enforcement and Canada’s intelligence services, both of whom were sure the protesters who blockaded downtown Ottawa last winter posed no threat to our democracy or national security. They could be dealt with...
National Post:
Rupa Subramanya: Canada's democracy died a little Friday afternoon — National Post
Is Canada turning into an electoral autocracy? I ask this question in all seriousness. We’ve just witnessed the final chapter to the Emergencies Act invoked almost a year ago by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Friday afternoon declared legitimate in the report by Commissioner Paul Rouleau who...
CTV News:
'Could have done things better': justice minister on feds' engagement with protesters — CTV News
Justice Minister and Attorney General David Lametti says while he doesn't want to 'point fingers,' in hindsight the federal government could have 'done things better' and 'cooperated better' when it came to engaging with protesters and other levels of government during the 'Freedom Convoy' last...
Montreal Gazette:
Nothing. Seriously….nothing.
The above isn’t even touching on how this is reported in the Western 1/2 of our nation.
One big reason the commission supported the use of emergency measures was the government’s incompetent response to the convoy. In Canada, government incompetence can justify the seizure of your assets. Incompetence as an excuse for emergency powers is a terrible precedent to set.
Aside from bank freezes, social media surveillance also got the nod from the commission’s report. The commission recommended that social media surveillance be enhanced. While it’s good for those responsible for our protection to know what’s going on, it’s unnerving that the commission would recommend even more social media monitoring after shrugging off government overreach concerning the asset freezes. Rouleau found that banks relied heavily on the lists the RCMP made of people suspected of convoy involvement — which were made with social media surveillance.
In his defence, Rouleau still criticized political leaders, and even the media, for inflammatory commentary and for not acknowledging the lawful exercise of democratic rights by most protesters. He also found that the suspension of vehicle insurance was inappropriate and should not have been included.
Jamie Sarkonak: Freedom Convoy report sets dark precedent on freezing bank accounts — National Post
If you're heading to a protest, be sure to carry cash
Terence Corcoran: The left finally wakes to authoritarian nature of COVID lockdowns — Financial Post
Progressive scholars call for the academic left to probe excesses of pandemic response
Not that various government agencies didn't try their best to escalate the situation. Before the first truck had left the coast, turdOWE was vilifying the truckers and having his paid media flunkies report all kinds of fake news. Since the Nazi flag that was so predominately shown in newscasts was flown from a balcony of the hotel that the RCMP were quartered in, it was most likely an early attempt to discredit a bunch of hard working taxpayers that had reached their limit with government high-handedness.
One more problem that the media chose to twist is the fact that the Parliament buildings are the proper place to protest bad government policy. The Parliament belongs to all of us, it is not there for the enjoyment of Ottawa citizens.