Because they would have lost on constitutional grounds every time . And they damn well knew it .
Public Inquiries into Emergencies Act begin September 19
- Thread starter The_Foxer
- Start date
Ruling it illegal, & “BRANDING” it illegal are to very different things. In this case the Gov’t & much of the media branded it illegal much in the same vein as Trudeau/Singh branded it racist & misogynistic long before it reached Ottawa. The reaction was about optics and not legalities.
Just as the natives seemed to have every right to block highways, railways etc. They even had the right to have large fires on them it seems.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says it is UNLIKELY (?) that his party would pull their support for the Liberals if the Public Order Emergency Commission examining the federal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act concludes that doing so was not justified.
In an interview on CTV's Question Period, Singh said the New Democrats will reserve their judgement until all of the facts are aired by the national inquiry. But, Hypocritically speaking, "simply because it was the wrong decision wouldn't be enough for us to break, or to force the country into an election."
The NDP backed the Liberals' invocation of the Emergencies Act, citing national security concerns from scary Racist misogynistic fringe Western Canadians with unacceptable thoughts and beliefs allowing police and officials to use unprecedented powers to end the weeks-long protests.
In deciding to enter into a mutually-beneficial Non-Coalition Coalition’s Coalition (that’s definitely NOT a Coalition) confidence-and-supply agreement and come out of the closet one month after Trudeau revoked the Emergences Act, the NDP committed to propping up the minority Liberals in the House of Commons no matter what transpires in exchange for progress on longstanding NDP priorities.
apple.news
Singh said that he doesn't want to presuppose what Commissioner Paul Rouleau will conclude in his report due to Parliament by Feb. 20, and that his party is fully on board (???) for getting to the bottom of whether or not invoking the Emergencies Act was, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has called it, a "last resort."
"We've always said we want to get to the bottom of if it was the only option, if there was other options, if there were better approaches that could have been taken. And we completely support a full and transparent investigation into that," Singh said.
While the Non-Coalition Coalition’s Coalition (that’s definitely NOT a Coalition) has recently been tested with the advancement of a trio of affordability commitments, Singh said the NDP "always have the right to withdraw support," whether because of any potential revelations from this inquiry (which he says already is a non-issue) or a failure from the government to follow through on elements of their deal.
In an interview on CTV's Question Period, Singh said the New Democrats will reserve their judgement until all of the facts are aired by the national inquiry. But, Hypocritically speaking, "simply because it was the wrong decision wouldn't be enough for us to break, or to force the country into an election."
The NDP backed the Liberals' invocation of the Emergencies Act, citing national security concerns from scary Racist misogynistic fringe Western Canadians with unacceptable thoughts and beliefs allowing police and officials to use unprecedented powers to end the weeks-long protests.
In deciding to enter into a mutually-beneficial Non-Coalition Coalition’s Coalition (that’s definitely NOT a Coalition) confidence-and-supply agreement and come out of the closet one month after Trudeau revoked the Emergences Act, the NDP committed to propping up the minority Liberals in the House of Commons no matter what transpires in exchange for progress on longstanding NDP priorities.
NDP unlikely to pull support for Liberals if commission concludes use of Emergencies Act was unjustified: Singh — CTV News
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says it is unlikely that his party would pull their support for the Liberals if the Public Order Emergency Commission examining the federal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act concludes that doing so was not justified.
Singh said that he doesn't want to presuppose what Commissioner Paul Rouleau will conclude in his report due to Parliament by Feb. 20, and that his party is fully on board (???) for getting to the bottom of whether or not invoking the Emergencies Act was, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has called it, a "last resort."
"We've always said we want to get to the bottom of if it was the only option, if there was other options, if there were better approaches that could have been taken. And we completely support a full and transparent investigation into that," Singh said.
While the Non-Coalition Coalition’s Coalition (that’s definitely NOT a Coalition) has recently been tested with the advancement of a trio of affordability commitments, Singh said the NDP "always have the right to withdraw support," whether because of any potential revelations from this inquiry (which he says already is a non-issue) or a failure from the government to follow through on elements of their deal.
Of COURSE not - THEY VOTED FOR IT! It wouldn't have HAPPENED without them! How the hell can you say "that thing that we voted for with you that enabled you to do it? Yeah that was so wrong of us that we have to break our deal with you over us doing it".
Jaggers is the one who was on national television insisting that the convoy was american funded and that the protesters tried to burn a building down. All of which was completely false. You can hardly blame others for the misinformation YOU are spreading.
Too bad you didn't give a crap about what the facts were before.
(The NDP/Liberals & the 1/2 of the Green Party that “IS” Elizabeth May voted for it)
It would be pretty hypocritical but look at whom we’re talking about here.
Are you saying Jagmeet can’t, shouldn’t, or wouldn’t here?
Yeah, like the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois and the 1/2 of the Green Party that “ISN’T” Elizabeth May did, who voted against the use of the Emergencies Act. Oh well….
Five more weeks of testimony and then, assuming it’s on time, a report to be released on February 20th, 2023.
Again, we have only heard the first week of testimony but we can see which way the wind is blowing so far….and there might be something in the next five weeks that might actually Justin-ify the use of the nuclear sledgehammer of the Emergencies Act….but if so, then what? Or if not, then what?
I meant, will Canadians wake up to Justin Trudeau? That’s where I was going….
Well first lets get real - the whole green party is lizzie may
Along with her official Whip, Chardonnay.Fair point but he's already under a bit of fire for his hypocrisy and the deal with the libs - it wouldn't take much for him to get called on it hard with this one. I have no doubt he won't be afraid of the hypocrisy on a person level but both the libs and the cpc would ream him pretty bad over it.
He can of course - but probably not successfully. He MIGHT claim he was simply believing what the libs and media told him but that would make him look like even MORE of a lap dog. I think he would in a heart beat if he thought he could get away with it.
Not much will be said either way. If it comes back that they did the right thing of course it's over and everyone moves on. That's unlikely.
If it comes back that they did the wrong thing then the CPC will be up in arms rubbing their face in it and embarrassing them both, but justin will give a speech about how it seemed necessary given the facts they had at the time BUT they'll obviously have to "do better' moving forward and learn from the whole affair. Which (he will claim) is what Canadians want. For Canadians. Because canada is for Canadians, including canadians who aren't canadians yet. And if the CPC REALLY cared about rights they'd support the liberal bill requiring Canadians who are not yet citizens to be referred to as Canadian Citizens if they identify as citizens.
And people will roll their eyes and it'll be one more negative thing to think about justin but not much will change
Jaggers might actually take the bigger hit, .
Yeah, that’s both of them.Well first lets get real - the whole green party is lizzie may
He’s done whenever the next election happens. Either he’s done or the NDP is done.
Jagmeet has become the kingmaker & a joke simultaneously. Now that he’s in bed with Justin, he’s got to stay there or leave politics (at a federal level anyway) ‘cuz otherwise he’s toast.
He might claim that he believed the CBC exclusively and that his Google was broken. He might claim a lot of things but none of it would even be palatable let alone believable. Once Justin kicks him out’a bed, he’s homeless.
Somehow the wind doesn’t seem to be blowing that way. Keystone Cops at three or four different levels and Politicians of the same level of infighting incompetence, & once the untruths are exposed it’s down to honk-honk & hot tubs (& a bouncy castle for the kids).
VEZINA: How our federal government misused the Emergencies Act — Toronto Sun
Canada’s Emergencies Act is culturally and historically significant to the nation. Its previous iteration, the War Measures Act, was invoked only three times. Two of those were during the First and Second World Wars. The third time occurred in 1970 when the FLQ — violent Quebec separatists —...
A lesson we can all learn from. That sounds so familiar.
Which (he will claim) is what Canadians want. For Canadians. Because canada is for Canadians, including canadians who aren't canadians yet. And if the CPC REALLY cared about rights they'd support the liberal bill requiring Canadians who are not yet citizens to be referred to as Canadian Citizens if they identify as citizens.
Jagmeet is for SURE going to take a bigger hit whenever an election actually happens. The NDP turfs him at that point or the NDP becomes the Green Party.
Because the protest was LEGAL until it wasn't per Trudeau. There may have been some illegal activities going on by some individuals (usually not associated with the convoy) but they were dealt with by the OPS. Not all lanes were blocked: emergency lanes were open throughout the convoy (as per testified by the OPP/OPS).
OTTAWA—Premier Doug Ford and his former solicitor-general Sylvia Jones will go to court to fight an order to appear at the federal inquiry looking at the unprecedented use of the federal Emergencies Act.
apple.news
Doug Ford ordered to testify before Emergencies Act inquiry — but he pushes back, implying he won’t do it — Toronto Star
Health Minister Sylvia Jones chats with Premier Doug Ford in this Aug. 9 file photo.
The inquiry’s lawyers say that information gathered so far in their formal investigation “made clear that Premier Ford and Minister Jones would have evidence, particularly within their knowledge, that would be relevant to the commission’s mandate.”
They asked Ford and Jones for interviews on Sept. 19, but the request “was refused,” according to the inquiry’s letter to civil liberties advocates and an Ottawa residents group which had demanded Ford be compelled to give evidence.
The interview request, from the commission of inquiry led by Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Paul Rouleau, was “renewed a number of times: all requests were refused,” said Rouleau’s co-counsel in that letter.
The commission then asked the premier and his top law-enforcement official to agree to testify “voluntarily,” but “as of last week,” the letter said that too was declined “for the moment.”
On Monday, the commission flexed its muscle and issued a summons, a legal order requiring them to appear. The inquiry was struck to look into the first-ever use of the Emergencies Act to end the occupation last winter by the “Freedom Convoy.”
At Queen’s Park, Andrew Kennedy, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said Ford and Jones are “seeking a judicial review to set aside the summons and receive a stay under the grounds the summons are inconsistent with the members’ parliamentary privilege.”
That means Ford and Jones have no plans to testify.
Parliamentary privilege is a kind of legal protection claimed for legislative and executive branches of government — an immunity that generally prevents MPs or cabinet ministers from being compelled by courts to testify about deliberations deemed essential to a parliamentary democracy. It is the same privilege that protects people who appear before parliamentary committees. But it may be waived — and has been, for example — in criminal cases.
“The commission’s mandate exists to examine the state of emergency declared by the federal government,” the attorney general’s office said.
“Ontario has worked with the commission by providing an extensive report outlining all key actions taken by Ontario, producing hundreds of documents including key cabinet documents that informed decision making and by making senior Ontario officials available to be called as witnesses,” the office said.
“We believe that questions about Ontario’s institutional response will be sufficiently addressed by the testimony from the two senior officials already selected by the commission,” it continued.
“Overall, our view has always been that this was a policing matter and the police witnesses that are testifying can best provide the commission with the evidence it needs.”
Last week, on Oct. 17 in Kanata, Ford was asked by reporters if he had declined an invitation to testify.
“Were you asked? Did you decline?” a local CBC reporter asked the premier.
“I’m not being asked,” replied Ford, noting Ontario Provincial Police officials as well as some top provincial government mandarins are taking part in the hearings.
According to a letter from commission lawyers, Ford and Jones were invited as early as Sept. 19 to give interviews, and later to testify but declined numerous invitations.
Sources close to Ford said while the commission asked to interview the premier on Sept. 19, he was not formally summoned to testify until after he made his comments on Oct. 17.
“An interview is not the same as a request to testify,” said the Ford confidant, who was not authorized to speak publicly.
“No request to testify came until after the premier’s comment” in Kanata, the insider said.
Commission co-counsel Shantona Choudry and Jeff Lyon wrote Monday to civil liberties groups that had demanded the premier be summoned. But the commission later declined to provide any further comment to clarify the timing of its request to Ford and Jones.
“The commission appreciates that the Government of Ontario, including its elected leaders, played a central role in the events of January and February 2022 and, accordingly, agrees that they possess information that is relevant to the commission’s fact-finding mandate,” they said in the letter to the groups seeking Ford’s testimony.
The inquiry is already scheduled to hear from senior Ontario bureaucrats.
The letter indicates the commission lawyers first contacted the offices of the premier and attorney-general seeking documents as of July 27. Eventually, the Ontario government identified 800 documents it deemed relevant, and began releasing them in instalments.
Last winter, Ford declared a provincial emergency over convoys that also protested around Queen’s Park and Windsor.
And Ford has said he stood “shoulder-to-shoulder” with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and supported the federal emergency declaration.
However, documents at the inquiry show Trudeau complained to Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson early in the crisis that Ford was “hiding from” his political responsibilities in the Ottawa blockades.
Lawyer Paul Champ, acting for a coalition of Ottawa residents and businesses, said Monday, “The people of Ottawa deserve answers from their premier.”
Champ said he doesn’t think the premier was sympathetic to the convoy’s cause since Ford backed vaccine and mask mandates, but added Ford should come testify to clarify his government’s actions during the “chaos” of the blockades.
Lawyer Cara Zwibel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in a statement, blasted the Ford government for seeking to block the summons, saying “Ontario’s leadership is ... actively obstructing the commission’s work,” calling it an “abdication of its responsibility to the people of Ontario.
“We have seen this government resist transparency and accountability in many contexts, but this one is a particularly shocking example.”
“The federal Emergencies Act is a last resort that can only be used when all other legal authorities fall short. Premier Ford could have created a Red Zone around Parliament Hill and downtown Ottawa,” said lawyer Sujit Choudhry, for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, one of the groups that objects to the federal law being used.
“We are very disappointed that Premier Ford and Minister Jones are forcing the commission to go to court. They have relevant evidence and should testify before the commission as soon as possible,” Choudhry said.
If Ford (& then others) is/are allowed to do so, so much for accountability. It’s sets an ugly precedent. This will make the Emergencies Act the “go to” piece of legislation to combat political rivals going forward without answerability.
They asked Ford and Jones for interviews on Sept. 19, but the request “was refused,” according to the inquiry’s letter to civil liberties advocates and an Ottawa residents group which had demanded Ford be compelled to give evidence.
The interview request, from the commission of inquiry led by Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Paul Rouleau, was “renewed a number of times: all requests were refused,” said Rouleau’s co-counsel in that letter.
The commission then asked the premier and his top law-enforcement official to agree to testify “voluntarily,” but “as of last week,” the letter said that too was declined “for the moment.”
On Monday, the commission flexed its muscle and issued a summons, a legal order requiring them to appear. The inquiry was struck to look into the first-ever use of the Emergencies Act to end the occupation last winter by the “Freedom Convoy.”
At Queen’s Park, Andrew Kennedy, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said Ford and Jones are “seeking a judicial review to set aside the summons and receive a stay under the grounds the summons are inconsistent with the members’ parliamentary privilege.”
That means Ford and Jones have no plans to testify.
Parliamentary privilege is a kind of legal protection claimed for legislative and executive branches of government — an immunity that generally prevents MPs or cabinet ministers from being compelled by courts to testify about deliberations deemed essential to a parliamentary democracy. It is the same privilege that protects people who appear before parliamentary committees. But it may be waived — and has been, for example — in criminal cases.
“The commission’s mandate exists to examine the state of emergency declared by the federal government,” the attorney general’s office said.
“Ontario has worked with the commission by providing an extensive report outlining all key actions taken by Ontario, producing hundreds of documents including key cabinet documents that informed decision making and by making senior Ontario officials available to be called as witnesses,” the office said.
“We believe that questions about Ontario’s institutional response will be sufficiently addressed by the testimony from the two senior officials already selected by the commission,” it continued.
“Overall, our view has always been that this was a policing matter and the police witnesses that are testifying can best provide the commission with the evidence it needs.”
Last week, on Oct. 17 in Kanata, Ford was asked by reporters if he had declined an invitation to testify.
“Were you asked? Did you decline?” a local CBC reporter asked the premier.
“I’m not being asked,” replied Ford, noting Ontario Provincial Police officials as well as some top provincial government mandarins are taking part in the hearings.
According to a letter from commission lawyers, Ford and Jones were invited as early as Sept. 19 to give interviews, and later to testify but declined numerous invitations.
Sources close to Ford said while the commission asked to interview the premier on Sept. 19, he was not formally summoned to testify until after he made his comments on Oct. 17.
“An interview is not the same as a request to testify,” said the Ford confidant, who was not authorized to speak publicly.
“No request to testify came until after the premier’s comment” in Kanata, the insider said.
Commission co-counsel Shantona Choudry and Jeff Lyon wrote Monday to civil liberties groups that had demanded the premier be summoned. But the commission later declined to provide any further comment to clarify the timing of its request to Ford and Jones.
“The commission appreciates that the Government of Ontario, including its elected leaders, played a central role in the events of January and February 2022 and, accordingly, agrees that they possess information that is relevant to the commission’s fact-finding mandate,” they said in the letter to the groups seeking Ford’s testimony.
The inquiry is already scheduled to hear from senior Ontario bureaucrats.
The letter indicates the commission lawyers first contacted the offices of the premier and attorney-general seeking documents as of July 27. Eventually, the Ontario government identified 800 documents it deemed relevant, and began releasing them in instalments.
Last winter, Ford declared a provincial emergency over convoys that also protested around Queen’s Park and Windsor.
And Ford has said he stood “shoulder-to-shoulder” with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and supported the federal emergency declaration.
However, documents at the inquiry show Trudeau complained to Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson early in the crisis that Ford was “hiding from” his political responsibilities in the Ottawa blockades.
Lawyer Paul Champ, acting for a coalition of Ottawa residents and businesses, said Monday, “The people of Ottawa deserve answers from their premier.”
Champ said he doesn’t think the premier was sympathetic to the convoy’s cause since Ford backed vaccine and mask mandates, but added Ford should come testify to clarify his government’s actions during the “chaos” of the blockades.
Lawyer Cara Zwibel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in a statement, blasted the Ford government for seeking to block the summons, saying “Ontario’s leadership is ... actively obstructing the commission’s work,” calling it an “abdication of its responsibility to the people of Ontario.
“We have seen this government resist transparency and accountability in many contexts, but this one is a particularly shocking example.”
“The federal Emergencies Act is a last resort that can only be used when all other legal authorities fall short. Premier Ford could have created a Red Zone around Parliament Hill and downtown Ottawa,” said lawyer Sujit Choudhry, for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, one of the groups that objects to the federal law being used.
“We are very disappointed that Premier Ford and Minister Jones are forcing the commission to go to court. They have relevant evidence and should testify before the commission as soon as possible,” Choudhry said.
So….in answer to your question, I have no idea….but this comes across as super greasy. The clock is ticking with less than five weeks left for testimony, and the report has to be released by February 20, 2023, so if Ford drags this out for five weeks through the courts… so will others.
If Ford (& then others) is/are allowed to do so, so much for accountability. It’s sets an ugly precedent. This will make the Emergencies Act the “go to” piece of legislation to combat political rivals going forward without answerability.
Maybe Trudeau is counting on Ford and Jones for something but they are not about to prop him up?