Quote:
Originally Posted by blender
One could argue that it exactly the situation you are describing that necessitated the EMA and justified its invocation.
In a federation composed of provinces with significant autonomy to handle affairs within their borders and a political climate that is characterized by unprecedented levels of ideological polarization, the ability for the federal government to take control and execute policy is necessary to the functionality of the country.
I appreciate the debate, as it is interesting and engaging, but this isn't a question of politics or ideology. It is about control and power. At the apex of the pyramid, there is only room for one entity. Democracy is a good system, but it is too cumbersome for a crisis. We wish it was better-equipped for such circumstances but it isn't, so we need a mechanism to account for that. Debating the circumstances around the use of emergency powers is a worthwhile exercise in an academic sense, but let's not be naive about the way things need to be when the chips are down.
|
This likely should exist within the emergencies act but it does not appear to currently exist. The act does not appear to contemplate a group having the ability and authority to end the emergency but choosing not to.
It only states “cannot be effectively dealt with” as opposed to is not being effectively dealt with.
One thing I hope comes out of this inquiry is recommendations for better clarity around what constitutes a Public Order Emergency both in terms of definition of national emergency and threat to the security of Canada.