3 ms·

> The government turning to wartime measures […] The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war: * §3 For the purposes of this Act, a* national emergency is a

> The government turning to wartime measures […] The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war: * §3 For the purposes of this Act, a* national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or, (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada, and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. * https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)? The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Emergency_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Emergency_Commiss...

adamiscool8 2y ago
>The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war War is the obvious example that meets 3(a) and 3(b), because the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act, which was designed to give the government wide latitude for authoritarian actions desired in wartime. >The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified: The inquiry in question (led by a longstanding party member) found reluctantly: * I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming. Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion than the one I have arrived at. [1] In part, because the definition you cited is not the entry point for the federal proclamation, which is actually at s.16 of the act: * §16 In this Part, declaration of a public order emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 17(1); public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency; threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act. Even though the Canadian government was told by CSIS at the time: * Canada's intelligence agency didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security according to the definition in its enabling law [2] And comparatively, the last time this level of power was invoked domestically it was in response to separatist terrorism culminating in the murder of a government official. [3] >Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)? The criteria is not just "at risk" but "seriously endangered". The commission's report, in my opinion, takes a tortured approach to justifying the meeting of this threshold. [1] https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/public-order-emergency-commission-emergencies-act-freedom-convoy https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/public-order-emergenc... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-act-ottawa-1.6648413 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-... [3] https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-crisis https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-cr...

adamiscool8 2y ago

>The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war War is the obvious example that meets 3(a) and 3(b), because the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act, which was designed to give the government wide latitude for authoritarian actions desired in wartime. >The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified: The inquiry in question (led by a longstanding party member) found reluctantly: * I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming. Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion than the one I have arrived at. [1] In part, because the definition you cited is not the entry point for the federal proclamation, which is actually at s.16 of the act: * §16 In this Part, declaration of a public order emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 17(1); public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency; threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act. Even though the Canadian government was told by CSIS at the time: * Canada's intelligence agency didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security according to the definition in its enabling law [2] And comparatively, the last time this level of power was invoked domestically it was in response to separatist terrorism culminating in the murder of a government official. [3] >Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)? The criteria is not just "at risk" but "seriously endangered". The commission's report, in my opinion, takes a tortured approach to justifying the meeting of this threshold. [1] https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/public-order-emergency-commission-emergencies-act-freedom-convoy https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/public-order-emergenc... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-act-ottawa-1.6648413 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-... [3] https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-crisis https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-cr...