Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
So I’ve asked this repeatedly and no one has answered so maybe you have one.
what specific powers we required that were not available to the government to end the protest? Why was Ambassador able to be cleared without these powers? On what basis do you believe the bolded? What piece of evidence from the commission leads you to believe this?
|
Essentially, the Federal government has no jurisdiction over the streets of Ottawa or the roads leading to the borders that were blocked. When the entities that did have jurisdiction (municipalities and provinces) and the existing enforcement (local police and OPP) abrogated their responsibility to enforce order, what was there really left to do?
Yes, the Ambassador bridge was cleared before the Federal Emergencies Act was invoked, but it only happened because the province declared a State of Emergency on Feb 11th, which included similar restrictions on civil rights (ability to restrict peoples' movements) and draconian penalties for illegally protesting (up to $100K fine and 1 year in prison). Those powers were used to clear the bridge, but it doesn't seem like they were being used in Ottawa, and obviously would have no effect on the border blockade in Alberta or the various disruptions happening elsewhere (like in BC).
It's funny, provinces and territories declare States of Emergency all the time (it has happened about 25 times in the last decade) and no one bats an eye. But when the Federal government does the same, all of the sudden it's a slippery slope towards totalitarianism. I mean, I could see it if there were examples of the powers being abused. But temporarily shifting jurisdiction from the lower levels of government to the Federal Government in order to clear an illegal occupation? That basically doesn't even register for me.