30 ms·

I've seen a lot of commentary about the fact that the Emergencies Act provisions "expire" automatically after 30 days, and include "safeguards", ergo there's no

by cal5k 5y ago

I've seen a lot of commentary about the fact that the Emergencies Act provisions "expire" automatically after 30 days, and include "safeguards", ergo there's nothing worry about. People getting hung up on the text of the bill forget that it's merely an Act of Parliament, and thus can easily be amended or replaced via a simple majority vote. What played out last night indicates that none of these checks and balances really matter in a parliamentary system where the nuclear option of a non-confidence vote (and subsequent election) can be invoked to force any MPs with qualms to vote along party lines. It's easy to see what will happen next, based on this government's track record: they will introduce amendments to the Act, or new legislation containing only the provisions they would like to make permanent, and once again proclaim that voting against the amendment will result in a new election. They will probably also use it as an excuse to ram through their "Online Harms Bill", i.e. internet censorship, targeted at "misinformation" (disagreeable speech) and, many suspect, independent media outlets that the PM despises. Internet censorship + government-directed financial de-platforming = Canada's near-term future if the situation doesn't change somehow.

cranky908canuck 5y ago
A few hours ago, the government revoked the act. So while there are many things that could have been done to extend / abuse it, they don't seem likely to happen.
version_five 5y ago
I agree with you, just because comments like this are not popular here doesn't make them untrue.
wvenable 5y ago
What better check and balance to automatically topple of the government if you really disagree with invoking the act? It's a minority government even. I suspect most people commenting haven't even read the act. It's actually very short and would take you less time than reading this article. One should entirely get hung up on the text of the act -- it outlines exactly what is possible and the consequences. It's actually very reasonable but point that out doesn't produce enough outrage up votes or get articles published.
- cal5k 5y ago
  I've read the Act. It's quite rich that it proclaims to still be tethered to the Charter, and yet the act allows government to compel people to do a job against their will, ban protest in specified areas, seize/confiscate assets without a court order... it's like when a bully yells "stop hitting yourself!" while pummelling you with your own arm. I'm sure the rationale for why it's apparently Charter-compliant leans heavily on Section 1, but the courts have been far too generous in deferring to Parliament on use of Section 1 as a justification for "minor" infringements. It has also never been invoked before, and hence has not withstood the scrutiny of a Charter challenge yet. It may not, in fact, be Charter-compliant.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    It's interesting to observe the different failure modes of western nations in the last decade. Democracy is undermined by populism, parliamentary systems are unstable with regards to civil rights, the Fourth Estate of media is completely compromised by local corruption, massive conglomerates, rich activists, and weird tribal mobs that flit from panic to panic, all of them degrading anything and everything in pursuit of wealth or political advantage. Nothing is sacred or revered, to the extent that religion is being replaced by diy mysticism, ideology, politics, or Great Causes, be it climate or BLM or MAGA. In my mind, the solution is cultural. We need shared values and deep understanding of the principles that govern our countries. We need good faith debate and review of outdated laws, revision or excision of bad ideas - racial language, weird moral errata, and finally a sufficiently detailed and rigorous regulation of novel technology that older concepts fail to account for. Social media, adtech, and search engines aren't common carriers, but legislation shouldn't try to shoehorn regulation of platforms and communities into pre-internet legal paradigms. It's way past time for regulation and legislation of digital liberties. The 2nd amendment in the US didn't account for nuclear weapons. The war on drugs and the current global legal system around drugs didn't account for human nature and civil liberty. Section 230 and phone companies and cable TV aren't concepts that map properly to the modern internet, and we'll probably see radical changes at an increasing rate. Nailing down basic things like digital privacy rights, penalizing surveillance, rewarding innovation and fixing patents and copyright are crucial, but apparently it doesn't test well, so nobody is fundraising for that platform. Canada is not bad, but things can break down rapidly. Trudeau will fail on the side of authoritarian control, so any actual damage resulting from that should be fodder for debate on refining the system and protection from abuse. And if no damage is done, recognizing and reinforcing the fail-safe structures in government is probably necessary.
sparrish 5y ago
Few things are as permanent as a temporary government program.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  Or rather, a program that temporarily increases a government's power.
- mmastrac 5y ago
  This bill has a time limit built in. It is literally temporary powers, especially so in a minority parliamentary government.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >This bill has a time limit built in. It is literally temporary powers You could say the same about the PATRIOT act, which has been around for a little under 2 decades.
    - mmastrac 5y ago
      That's an American law, not a Canadian one.
    - yifanl 5y ago
      It's a bit stretching to take precedence from a foreign nation with different politics and different government structure.
      - gruez 5y ago
        it's a representative democracy filled with power-hungry people. the dynamics that would cause "temporary" laws to be renewed infinitely is the same. it's not like it's some quirk/loophole like filibusterers. if anything the more pragmatic (for lack of a better word) approach (as opposed to absolutist in the US) to freedom compared to the US makes it even more likely that authoritarian measures will remain.
    - 5y ago
j45 5y ago
Various internet bills have been attempted to be passed by the Canadian government in past years. Despite regular uproar and push back, the attempts continue. Based on the current situation it might not entirely be a surprise if new tools come out of this, either mysterious and cloaked, or out in the open. The question in some minds will be ensuring if existing tools and capabilities are not used, including existing enforcement of laws, what is the point of creating new ones? Any holes in today's legislation might have been the rushed legislation of the past.
christkv 5y ago
What amazes me is that you can pass a measure that strips the rights of the citizens with less than a super majority of 2/3 or even 3/4. This is a mockery of democracy.
- dmix 5y ago
  The NDP (left wing) party ended up supporting the emergencies act in parliament a few days after it was put in place by the Liberals. That provided them with a majority support to get 185-151 so about 55%. The only party against it was Conservatives and I believe Bloc Quebcios.
  - christkv 5y ago
    I’m talking about how some simple majority to strip citizens of basic rights it’s not what you expect of a country that pretends to be Democratic state. 50% + 1 vote is not a mandate for anything much less unlawful violations of your citizens human rights.
    - monkeybutton 5y ago
      As an amusing side note, "50% plus 1" is on its own a bit of a loaded phrase in Canada. Some argue that is enough of a majority for an entire province to secede via referendum.
      - christkv 5y ago
        I don't agree with that either. I don't view the tyranny of the simple majority in any favourable light especially now that everything in every country of the west is more and more polarised. In fact I would prefer parliaments to be elected by citizen lottery and do away with all the political class at every level.
- Zachery 5y ago
  Which rights were stripped of citizens exactly?
gorwell 5y ago
If anyone is not terrified by the precedent being set here, then they haven't yet imagined it in the hands of their political opponents.
- mmastrac 5y ago
  If you read the act itself, it's a measured approach to give the government limited powers for a limited time specifically because regular powers failed. We as Canadians don't want to give the government these powers all the time, so that's why we have an escape hatch here to maintain our democracy. It is a great approach and many of us are proud of it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - j4kp07 5y ago
  - damiante 5y ago
    Here in Victoria, Australia, we had similar emergency powers which were only valid for a couple of months. In practice, the government simply kept voting to extend its emergency powers until it passed a piece of legistlation that allowed it to keep the relevant powers from the emergencies act indefinitely.
    - cal5k 5y ago
      This. Invoking the Act in Canada was a blatantly political move, and they will not easily give up such powers once they get a taste of them. As is always the case with government.
      - srcreigh 5y ago
        Due to the minority government, I believe the Liberal party cannot extend on their own accord. The only reason it's ongoing is because NDP hesitantly voted to extend it too.
dblohm7 5y ago
> People getting hung up on the text of the bill forget that it's merely an Act of Parliament, and thus can easily be amended or replaced via a simple majority vote. ...and yet still subject to the constitution.
- jdkee 5y ago
  Where in the Canadian Bill of Rights is the suspension of due process sanctioned? See https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/FullText.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/FullText.htm... “Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms 1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law; (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; (c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of assembly and association; and (f) freedom of the press.”
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    Canadian constitutional law is esoteric and insanely complicated so the bill of rights you cited is not actually part of the constitution at all but can sometimes maybe be used since it's still in effect even if it's been superceded by the charter of rights (that is actually part of the constitution). The bill of rights preceded the charter by 2 decades, and didn't have the problematic clauses that makes it completely neuter itself. >Although the Bill of Rights remains in effect, many of its provisions were superseded by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. And unlike the Bill of Rights, the Charter is part of the Constitution — the highest law of the land. >The Charter can be limited by the notwithstanding clause, also known as the override clause. Section 33 permits federal, provincial and territorial governments to temporarily bypass Charter rights in section 2 and sections 7 to 15. Section 1 (probably what would make almost any emergency measure stand in court since "reasonable limits" is almost always judged in favor of what the state deems is reasonable) says: >1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society Section 33 (Not-withstanding clause, not used in this case but just goes to show how worthless the charter is as a bill of rights) : >33. Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 [those sections make up for most of the core basic human rights]
ayngg 5y ago
I consider the worst part to be that many Canadians (particularly the educated) seem to be fine this is happening, or even openly advocating for it. This more than anything else makes me very concerned about how Canada navigates the next little while.
- mmastrac 5y ago
  Canada is not America. We trade some freedoms for a healthier, more robust system. I find the American reactions to our system confusing, honestly. Our democracy is not in danger, nor are the majority of Canadians concerned about this. The greatest concerns seem to be from Americans and this is particularly bad on Reddit, where the Canadian subreddit has been captured by right-leaning Americans mainly.
  - AzzieElbab 5y ago
    How is “our democracy is not in danger” apply to people who had their funds frozen for supporting convoys? Does “our” means “mine” in this case?
  - monkeybutton 5y ago
    >Canada is not America. I think this bears repeating. Especially when one of the protest organizers tried to cite their "first amendment rights" in court: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tamara-lich-bail-hearing-february-19-1.6358307 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tamara-lich-bail-heari...
    - rescripting 5y ago
      Well they _do_ have the right to recognize Manitoba as a province, and many of them seem very vocal about it.
    - frabbit 5y ago
      The USA is not America either. And it is unfortunate that many Canadians do not understand that they are living in a state in which the parliament can be suspended by the unelected representative of the Queen (prorogation -- the same issue that led to Australia deciding they wanted to change their constitution) and that the not withstanding clause makes a mockery of the Charter. Hopefully this wakes a few people up and gives some new impetus to the reform movements.
srcreigh 5y ago
Shouldn't it be illegal for a political party to force any MP vote on any matter? The MP was voted in to represent the people, not the political party. I guess it's a race to the bottom and impossible to prevent coercion. I just wish there was a better way.
- michael1999 5y ago
  Should? Maybe. Is? No. But Michael Chong did get a bill through reminding MPs they can turf their leader, and it just got exercised for the first time. And some parts of the Conservative party are aghast that the lowly representatives of people overturned the will of the party.
- frabbit 5y ago
  The Westminister system with party whips actually enforces this behavior. Apparently it has been getting worse: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-mps-break-ranks-more-often-than-opposition/article8156279/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-m...
verisimi 5y ago
Have you seen the list of current US states of emergency? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i... This is to say that 'states of emergency' can be renewed..... forever....
- klyrs 5y ago
  Wrong country, again. States of emergency work very differently in Canada. Compare for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_emergency_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_emergency_in_Canada
  - jdkee 5y ago
    Canadian States of Emregency Acts must still comport with due process. “ Under the Emergencies Act, a declaration of an emergency by the Cabinet must be reviewed by Parliament.[33] Any temporary laws made under the act are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights, and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      Which is meaningless considering the chart allows for almost everything inside of it to be either suspended (as per section 1) or outright ignored even outside of an emergency (not-withstanding clause). So yes it's not reassuring for an emergency law to have to follow the charter that explicitly allows for almost anything in cases where it's needed (such as government declared emergencies...). The joys of having a "living constitution" where nothing is really set in stone and almost every right in the charter of rights can be just essentially ignored because of the very first section of said charter.
8note 5y ago
> proclaim that voting against the amendment will result in a new election. This is the expected behaviour and boon of having minority governments. When the government does something Canada doesn't like, a new election gets called
lhorie 5y ago
I'm curious about what comes out of the deliberations about whether it was appropriate to invoke the Emergencies Act, but at the same time, I feel like critics are engaging in doomsday porn when they characterize bank account freezing as some sort of indication of dystopic things to come. From the accounts I've heard, I can't really tell what the protestors were hoping to realistically accomplish. Pissing off a whole city for a whole month doesn't exactly have a great track record with regards to swaying policy. According to polls, most canadians opposed the protest. That doesn't mean they necessarily have an opinion on whether invoking of the act was appropriate or not. I think most canadians are sensible enough to let the lawyers figure that out than adding noise via their uninformed hot takes. My personal take is that canadians as a society just don't like gratuitously loud whining and would much rather get back to peacefulness. I think the police response speaks volumes about canadian values and what they represent, regardless of what laws say on paper: some people actually criticized the police response for being too "soft" on protesters but it was a good example that canadian police always prioritizes de-escalation[0]. They focused on reducing the risk of violence from breaking out even if it meant standing down; and arrests were largely related to dangerous threats (e.g. weapons) or gross disregard for public peace/safety. People keep making parallels to US politics, but one big difference is that Canadians just aren't as polarized as to disagree on core principles, i.e. there's much less inclination for political parties to double down into increasingly polarized, extremist tribes. So even if it turns out that invoking the Emergencies Act was a bad call this time, it doesn't necessarily follow that Canada will devolve into a tyranny. [0] https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/02/01/news/ottawa-officials-defend-soft-police-response-trucker-protesters https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/02/01/news/ottawa-offi...
charlieyu1 5y ago
We have gone through “the next 2 weeks are going to be important” for 2 years.

by cal5k 5y ago

cranky908canuck 5y ago

A few hours ago, the government revoked the act. So while there are many things that could have been done to extend / abuse it, they don't seem likely to happen.

version_five 5y ago

I agree with you, just because comments like this are not popular here doesn't make them untrue.

wvenable 5y ago

What better check and balance to automatically topple of the government if you really disagree with invoking the act? It's a minority government even. I suspect most people commenting haven't even read the act. It's actually very short and would take you less time than reading this article. One should entirely get hung up on the text of the act -- it outlines exactly what is possible and the consequences. It's actually very reasonable but point that out doesn't produce enough outrage up votes or get articles published.

cal5k 5y ago
I've read the Act. It's quite rich that it proclaims to still be tethered to the Charter, and yet the act allows government to compel people to do a job against their will, ban protest in specified areas, seize/confiscate assets without a court order... it's like when a bully yells "stop hitting yourself!" while pummelling you with your own arm. I'm sure the rationale for why it's apparently Charter-compliant leans heavily on Section 1, but the courts have been far too generous in deferring to Parliament on use of Section 1 as a justification for "minor" infringements. It has also never been invoked before, and hence has not withstood the scrutiny of a Charter challenge yet. It may not, in fact, be Charter-compliant.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  It's interesting to observe the different failure modes of western nations in the last decade. Democracy is undermined by populism, parliamentary systems are unstable with regards to civil rights, the Fourth Estate of media is completely compromised by local corruption, massive conglomerates, rich activists, and weird tribal mobs that flit from panic to panic, all of them degrading anything and everything in pursuit of wealth or political advantage. Nothing is sacred or revered, to the extent that religion is being replaced by diy mysticism, ideology, politics, or Great Causes, be it climate or BLM or MAGA. In my mind, the solution is cultural. We need shared values and deep understanding of the principles that govern our countries. We need good faith debate and review of outdated laws, revision or excision of bad ideas - racial language, weird moral errata, and finally a sufficiently detailed and rigorous regulation of novel technology that older concepts fail to account for. Social media, adtech, and search engines aren't common carriers, but legislation shouldn't try to shoehorn regulation of platforms and communities into pre-internet legal paradigms. It's way past time for regulation and legislation of digital liberties. The 2nd amendment in the US didn't account for nuclear weapons. The war on drugs and the current global legal system around drugs didn't account for human nature and civil liberty. Section 230 and phone companies and cable TV aren't concepts that map properly to the modern internet, and we'll probably see radical changes at an increasing rate. Nailing down basic things like digital privacy rights, penalizing surveillance, rewarding innovation and fixing patents and copyright are crucial, but apparently it doesn't test well, so nobody is fundraising for that platform. Canada is not bad, but things can break down rapidly. Trudeau will fail on the side of authoritarian control, so any actual damage resulting from that should be fodder for debate on refining the system and protection from abuse. And if no damage is done, recognizing and reinforcing the fail-safe structures in government is probably necessary.

sparrish 5y ago

Few things are as permanent as a temporary government program.

TimTheTinker 5y ago
Or rather, a program that temporarily increases a government's power.
mmastrac 5y ago
This bill has a time limit built in. It is literally temporary powers, especially so in a minority parliamentary government.
- gruez 5y ago
  >This bill has a time limit built in. It is literally temporary powers You could say the same about the PATRIOT act, which has been around for a little under 2 decades.
  - mmastrac 5y ago
    That's an American law, not a Canadian one.
  - yifanl 5y ago
    It's a bit stretching to take precedence from a foreign nation with different politics and different government structure.
    - gruez 5y ago
      it's a representative democracy filled with power-hungry people. the dynamics that would cause "temporary" laws to be renewed infinitely is the same. it's not like it's some quirk/loophole like filibusterers. if anything the more pragmatic (for lack of a better word) approach (as opposed to absolutist in the US) to freedom compared to the US makes it even more likely that authoritarian measures will remain.
  - 5y ago

j45 5y ago

Various internet bills have been attempted to be passed by the Canadian government in past years. Despite regular uproar and push back, the attempts continue. Based on the current situation it might not entirely be a surprise if new tools come out of this, either mysterious and cloaked, or out in the open. The question in some minds will be ensuring if existing tools and capabilities are not used, including existing enforcement of laws, what is the point of creating new ones? Any holes in today's legislation might have been the rushed legislation of the past.

christkv 5y ago

What amazes me is that you can pass a measure that strips the rights of the citizens with less than a super majority of 2/3 or even 3/4. This is a mockery of democracy.

dmix 5y ago
The NDP (left wing) party ended up supporting the emergencies act in parliament a few days after it was put in place by the Liberals. That provided them with a majority support to get 185-151 so about 55%. The only party against it was Conservatives and I believe Bloc Quebcios.
- christkv 5y ago
  I’m talking about how some simple majority to strip citizens of basic rights it’s not what you expect of a country that pretends to be Democratic state. 50% + 1 vote is not a mandate for anything much less unlawful violations of your citizens human rights.
  - monkeybutton 5y ago
    As an amusing side note, "50% plus 1" is on its own a bit of a loaded phrase in Canada. Some argue that is enough of a majority for an entire province to secede via referendum.
    - christkv 5y ago
      I don't agree with that either. I don't view the tyranny of the simple majority in any favourable light especially now that everything in every country of the west is more and more polarised. In fact I would prefer parliaments to be elected by citizen lottery and do away with all the political class at every level.
Zachery 5y ago
Which rights were stripped of citizens exactly?

gorwell 5y ago

If anyone is not terrified by the precedent being set here, then they haven't yet imagined it in the hands of their political opponents.

mmastrac 5y ago
If you read the act itself, it's a measured approach to give the government limited powers for a limited time specifically because regular powers failed. We as Canadians don't want to give the government these powers all the time, so that's why we have an escape hatch here to maintain our democracy. It is a great approach and many of us are proud of it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- j4kp07 5y ago
- damiante 5y ago
  Here in Victoria, Australia, we had similar emergency powers which were only valid for a couple of months. In practice, the government simply kept voting to extend its emergency powers until it passed a piece of legistlation that allowed it to keep the relevant powers from the emergencies act indefinitely.
  - cal5k 5y ago
    This. Invoking the Act in Canada was a blatantly political move, and they will not easily give up such powers once they get a taste of them. As is always the case with government.
    - srcreigh 5y ago
      Due to the minority government, I believe the Liberal party cannot extend on their own accord. The only reason it's ongoing is because NDP hesitantly voted to extend it too.

dblohm7 5y ago

> People getting hung up on the text of the bill forget that it's merely an Act of Parliament, and thus can easily be amended or replaced via a simple majority vote. ...and yet still subject to the constitution.

jdkee 5y ago
Where in the Canadian Bill of Rights is the suspension of due process sanctioned? See https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/FullText.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/FullText.htm... “Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms 1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law; (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; (c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of assembly and association; and (f) freedom of the press.”
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  Canadian constitutional law is esoteric and insanely complicated so the bill of rights you cited is not actually part of the constitution at all but can sometimes maybe be used since it's still in effect even if it's been superceded by the charter of rights (that is actually part of the constitution). The bill of rights preceded the charter by 2 decades, and didn't have the problematic clauses that makes it completely neuter itself. >Although the Bill of Rights remains in effect, many of its provisions were superseded by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. And unlike the Bill of Rights, the Charter is part of the Constitution — the highest law of the land. >The Charter can be limited by the notwithstanding clause, also known as the override clause. Section 33 permits federal, provincial and territorial governments to temporarily bypass Charter rights in section 2 and sections 7 to 15. Section 1 (probably what would make almost any emergency measure stand in court since "reasonable limits" is almost always judged in favor of what the state deems is reasonable) says: >1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society Section 33 (Not-withstanding clause, not used in this case but just goes to show how worthless the charter is as a bill of rights) : >33. Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 [those sections make up for most of the core basic human rights]

ayngg 5y ago

I consider the worst part to be that many Canadians (particularly the educated) seem to be fine this is happening, or even openly advocating for it. This more than anything else makes me very concerned about how Canada navigates the next little while.

mmastrac 5y ago
Canada is not America. We trade some freedoms for a healthier, more robust system. I find the American reactions to our system confusing, honestly. Our democracy is not in danger, nor are the majority of Canadians concerned about this. The greatest concerns seem to be from Americans and this is particularly bad on Reddit, where the Canadian subreddit has been captured by right-leaning Americans mainly.
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  How is “our democracy is not in danger” apply to people who had their funds frozen for supporting convoys? Does “our” means “mine” in this case?
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  >Canada is not America. I think this bears repeating. Especially when one of the protest organizers tried to cite their "first amendment rights" in court: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tamara-lich-bail-hearing-february-19-1.6358307 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tamara-lich-bail-heari...
  - rescripting 5y ago
    Well they _do_ have the right to recognize Manitoba as a province, and many of them seem very vocal about it.
  - frabbit 5y ago
    The USA is not America either. And it is unfortunate that many Canadians do not understand that they are living in a state in which the parliament can be suspended by the unelected representative of the Queen (prorogation -- the same issue that led to Australia deciding they wanted to change their constitution) and that the not withstanding clause makes a mockery of the Charter. Hopefully this wakes a few people up and gives some new impetus to the reform movements.

srcreigh 5y ago

Shouldn't it be illegal for a political party to force any MP vote on any matter? The MP was voted in to represent the people, not the political party. I guess it's a race to the bottom and impossible to prevent coercion. I just wish there was a better way.

michael1999 5y ago
Should? Maybe. Is? No. But Michael Chong did get a bill through reminding MPs they can turf their leader, and it just got exercised for the first time. And some parts of the Conservative party are aghast that the lowly representatives of people overturned the will of the party.
frabbit 5y ago
The Westminister system with party whips actually enforces this behavior. Apparently it has been getting worse: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-mps-break-ranks-more-often-than-opposition/article8156279/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-m...

verisimi 5y ago

Have you seen the list of current US states of emergency? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i... This is to say that 'states of emergency' can be renewed..... forever....

klyrs 5y ago
Wrong country, again. States of emergency work very differently in Canada. Compare for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_emergency_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_emergency_in_Canada
- jdkee 5y ago
  Canadian States of Emregency Acts must still comport with due process. “ Under the Emergencies Act, a declaration of an emergency by the Cabinet must be reviewed by Parliament.[33] Any temporary laws made under the act are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights, and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    Which is meaningless considering the chart allows for almost everything inside of it to be either suspended (as per section 1) or outright ignored even outside of an emergency (not-withstanding clause). So yes it's not reassuring for an emergency law to have to follow the charter that explicitly allows for almost anything in cases where it's needed (such as government declared emergencies...). The joys of having a "living constitution" where nothing is really set in stone and almost every right in the charter of rights can be just essentially ignored because of the very first section of said charter.

8note 5y ago

> proclaim that voting against the amendment will result in a new election. This is the expected behaviour and boon of having minority governments. When the government does something Canada doesn't like, a new election gets called

lhorie 5y ago

I'm curious about what comes out of the deliberations about whether it was appropriate to invoke the Emergencies Act, but at the same time, I feel like critics are engaging in doomsday porn when they characterize bank account freezing as some sort of indication of dystopic things to come. From the accounts I've heard, I can't really tell what the protestors were hoping to realistically accomplish. Pissing off a whole city for a whole month doesn't exactly have a great track record with regards to swaying policy. According to polls, most canadians opposed the protest. That doesn't mean they necessarily have an opinion on whether invoking of the act was appropriate or not. I think most canadians are sensible enough to let the lawyers figure that out than adding noise via their uninformed hot takes. My personal take is that canadians as a society just don't like gratuitously loud whining and would much rather get back to peacefulness. I think the police response speaks volumes about canadian values and what they represent, regardless of what laws say on paper: some people actually criticized the police response for being too "soft" on protesters but it was a good example that canadian police always prioritizes de-escalation[0]. They focused on reducing the risk of violence from breaking out even if it meant standing down; and arrests were largely related to dangerous threats (e.g. weapons) or gross disregard for public peace/safety. People keep making parallels to US politics, but one big difference is that Canadians just aren't as polarized as to disagree on core principles, i.e. there's much less inclination for political parties to double down into increasingly polarized, extremist tribes. So even if it turns out that invoking the Emergencies Act was a bad call this time, it doesn't necessarily follow that Canada will devolve into a tyranny. [0] https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/02/01/news/ottawa-officials-defend-soft-police-response-trucker-protesters https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/02/01/news/ottawa-offi...

charlieyu1 5y ago

We have gone through “the next 2 weeks are going to be important” for 2 years.