5 ms·

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.
  - KiwiJohnno 5y ago
    While I'm definitely wary of government overreach and not really a fan of the Pandemic management bill the Vic government passed to replace the use of state of emergency powers, at least this bill did say that its provisions could only be used if the state premier and health minister declared a "state of pandemic", and also the bill was heavily modified from its original reading after criticism from the legal profession and negotiation with the state opposition. So in actual reality those state of emergency powers to compel lockdowns, quarantine people and compel business to shut were NOT extended indefinitely, the government wrote them into legislation designed to cope with the current situation, and specified that they could only be used in a pandemic situation and NOT indefinitely. Yes before you say it the government could amend the bill again before the state of pandemic is declared over, or pass more draconian legislation or try and do anything it feels like. In the end it comes down to if you think the government is acting in good faith to do what is best for the population or not, and I can't think of much evidence they are actually acting in bad faith or otherwise misusing their powers. The situation in Canada is not the same, I very much do not like the idea of freezing people's bank accounts without oversight or recourse.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jdkee 5y ago
  Any reasonable person would not consider the suspension of due process in response to peaceable protests “a measured approach”. Due process, along with equal protections of the law, are about as fundamental to a lawful society as any rights afforded by a representative government.

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.
- KiwiJohnno 5y ago
  While I'm definitely wary of government overreach and not really a fan of the Pandemic management bill the Vic government passed to replace the use of state of emergency powers, at least this bill did say that its provisions could only be used if the state premier and health minister declared a "state of pandemic", and also the bill was heavily modified from its original reading after criticism from the legal profession and negotiation with the state opposition. So in actual reality those state of emergency powers to compel lockdowns, quarantine people and compel business to shut were NOT extended indefinitely, the government wrote them into legislation designed to cope with the current situation, and specified that they could only be used in a pandemic situation and NOT indefinitely. Yes before you say it the government could amend the bill again before the state of pandemic is declared over, or pass more draconian legislation or try and do anything it feels like. In the end it comes down to if you think the government is acting in good faith to do what is best for the population or not, and I can't think of much evidence they are actually acting in bad faith or otherwise misusing their powers. The situation in Canada is not the same, I very much do not like the idea of freezing people's bank accounts without oversight or recourse.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jdkee 5y ago
Any reasonable person would not consider the suspension of due process in response to peaceable protests “a measured approach”. Due process, along with equal protections of the law, are about as fundamental to a lawful society as any rights afforded by a representative government.