Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Yes, they raided and started arresting people the morning of the 14th and started clearing the blockade prior to the emergencies act being declared and it was completed by the 15th. On the 13th they stopped escavators and more trucks from joining. But if you want to get really tight on timelines I agree that after the 15th it was completed. But ambassador was cleared beforehand.
Edit: I should have added a source
https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/can...r-protest.html
I disagree that the arguments are based around any use of the act is wrong. The argument (at least my argument) is the government must follow the rules when suspending peoples rights. We have defined when the government “needs to” in the legislation which references section 2 of the CSIS legislation as the criteria.
Perhaps my argument is hindsight but let’s look with foresight question is they cleared the ambassador bridge and were in the process of clearing Coutts when the act was declared. The means that were available with out the suspension of rights were working when they were applied to clear the protest.
For me to agree that the emergencies act was required I would want two things to be made clear as part of the inquiry.
1) the conditions in the legislation for implementing the act were met.
2) that other means of dealing with the problem were exhausted prior to implementing the act.
What conditions in this inquiry would lead you to change your mind that the use of the act was not justified?
The other thing that bothers me is that it’s clear that the government new they were using a broader interpretation of emergency then was contained in the act yet when they presented this to Parliament as required they did not disclose that they broadened the definition because of the circumstances on the ground. Had they disclosed this information to the public, the house, and the senate then I could see your argument that the government needs to make immediate decisions and the situation forced their hand as being valid. However the government did not disclose this when the house voted on use of the act. |
Lots of valid points made.
If you are arguing that the government wanted to invoke the act, and purposely didn't disclose that they were applying a broader definition so that they wouldn't have any hindrance, then I would say you might be correct. Sort of an "act now, beg for forgiveness later" type of situation. Either way, the efficacy and utility of the decision to invoke the act justifies it's use. In this case, I'm ok with it and I don't think there is anything that will turn up during the inquiry that would make me feel that the act shouldn't have been used.
I think there is optics at play here, too. Let's be honest, what percentage of the population was sympathetic to the convoy protesters? Most people wanted them gone and the streets cleaned up. Is there going to be a serious pushback against the EM act? Not likely.
From the government's position there is also the impact on the occupation to consider. First, it sends a message to the occupiers that they no longer have the rights they had yesterday. Instantly the hangers-on will be separated from the hard-core. Second, it establishes a legal coverage for any police or military who may have to act in unconstitutional ways in breaking the occupation.
I get what you are saying and you are right to say it, as we need to hold our government to account. Just because I can argue the utility of the act in this case, doesn't mean I believe it should be used lightly or without oversight or consequence.