[GGG]

I haven’t read the whole thing but I was looking for the discussion around whether this met the strict requirements of the act. It’s worth reading the whole section on it but is conclusion is very interesting. Essentially earlier in the pages he states that it’s okay that cabinet and CSIS have different interpretations in whether the CSIS acts was met, it was unfortunate that the legal basis for cabinets conclusion that basis was not released, however it’s clear that cabinet believed they had met the threshold and that there were reasonable grounds to support that threshold. Pages 190-207 or so

https://publicorderemergencycommissi...-Emergency.pdf

I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming and I acknowledge that there is significant strength to the arguments against reaching it. It may well be that serious violence might have been avoided, even without the declaration of emergency. That it might have been avoided does not, however, make the decision wrong. There was an objective basis for Cabinet’s belief, based on compelling and credible information. That was what was required. The standard of reasonable grounds to believe does not require certainty.

Although he finds that the met the CSIS definition of emergency he also includes a recommendation to remove the clause and modernize the definition.

Recommendation 31: The incorporation by reference into the Emergencies Act of the
definition of “threats to the security of Canada” from the CSIS Act should be removed. Recommendation 32: There should be an in-depth review of Part II of the Act dealing
with public order emergencies with a view to:
a. ensuring that the definition of a public order emergency is modernized in order to capture the situations that could legitimately pose a serious risk to the public order, now and in the foreseeable future;
b. providing the government with the tools necessary to address these situations; and
c. ensuring that the threshold remains high, the invocation of the Act remains exceptional, and all appropriate safeguards are put in place to maintain Parliament’s ultimate and effective control over the steps taken by the Government in response to a public order emergency.
Recommendation 33: Section 25 of the Emergencies Act should be amended to include a requirement to consult with the territories.

The other thing I find throughout the report is his finding that this situation was preventable and shouldn’t have arose to the state of emergency. So the government in all its branches failed and that failure resulted in an emergency.

I find that problematic that government ineptitude can be used as a means to create conditions to suspend the rights of citizens. I don’t have a better solution though.

The other neat section is on the asset freezing which was generally considered appropriate but the lack of a method to unfreeze assets in the legislation was not appropriate.