Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Azure]

Well the CCLA still thinks using the Emergency Act was as a gross overreach of power, but I guess they're just a bunch of losers as well.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1594768414609915904

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well the CCLA still thinks using the Emergency Act was as a gross overreach of power, but I guess they're just a bunch of losers as well.

Good thing you’re here to repost it every three posts.

[CaptainCrunch]

Looks like the Convoy lawyer got tossed today, I don't know if its for just today or the duration. He got into a heated debate with the Commissioner of the Inquiry over redacted government documents that he had filed motions to get the unredacted documents with the Commissioner who didn't respond to the motions.

There's also the questions of a supposed plant by the government of a masked person with a confederate flag, who they accused of being with a public relations firm doing work for the government.

The whole thing is taking on a really surreal gong show feel today.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well the CCLA still thinks using the Emergency Act was as a gross overreach of power, but I guess they're just a bunch of losers as well.

My comment was direct at Yoho, a poster that throws all manner of $hit against the wall and when questioned or shown it isn't factual never responds.

At this point he is a caricature

[Flambé]

"However, the head of CSIS says he was able to advise the government to use the Emergencies Act by using a definition of threats to the security of Canada that was broader than the one in the Act."

That seems pretty important. Though I guess it wasn't bolded in the CCLA's statement, so easy to ignore. And easy to claim over reach, I guess.

[calculoso]

Is the CCLA a reasonable organization where some restrictions on liberties are ok, or are they against any restrictions at all? Comparison would be like the Tax Payers Federation, where every tax is a bad tax and should be eliminated. Does the CCLA think that any restriction is unacceptable?

[calculoso]

For anyone wondering how things are going in Ontario healthcare, things couldn’t be better, right Dougie?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1595215553316245505

https://twitter.com/user/status/1595229005879312386

https://twitter.com/user/status/1595202562449350656

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flambé

"However, the head of CSIS says he was able to advise the government to use the Emergencies Act by using a definition of threats to the security of Canada that was broader than the one in the Act."

That seems pretty important. Though I guess it wasn't bolded in the CCLA's statement, so easy to ignore. And easy to claim over reach, I guess.

The government needs to follow the legislation that was created in a time of sober reflection especially when it involves the mass suspension of rights.

They also still haven’t identified why they needed special powers even if the threat was as described.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its the question for me that civil servants and governments can take something like the EA, that is by design fairly narrow in the requirements for its invocation, and have civil servants change those requirements without study, without parliamentary oversight. Its concerning that the reports and analysis of the Convoy idiots came back with no credible threat, no foreign funding, and civil servants ie CSIS director and the head of the PC can simply say that they can expand on requirements.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well the CCLA still thinks using the Emergency Act was as a gross overreach of power, but I guess they're just a bunch of losers as well.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1594768414609915904

The CCLA will always advocate against ANY suspension of civil liberty; it is their mandate, and thankfully they are there to play their role, but citing it is irrelevant because their stance will always be the same. Its like saying the sky is blue.

And what CSIS thinks is not relevant, as they are not in a position of authority; they are offering an opinion, which they themselves acknowledge was not particularly relevant given that their own policies on this type of situation are outdated and need to be revised.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blender

The CCLA will always advocate against ANY suspension of civil liberty; it is their mandate, and thankfully they are there to play their role, but citing it is irrelevant because their stance will always be the same. Its like saying the sky is blue.

And what CSIS thinks is not relevant, as they are not in a position of authority; they are offering an opinion, which they themselves acknowledge was not particularly relevant given that their own policies on this type of situation are outdated and need to be revised.

The csis definition matters regardless of if it is out of date or not because that is what the legislation references

Interpretation

Marginal noteefinitions

16 In this Part,declaration of a public order emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 17(1); (déclaration d’état d’urgence)

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; (état d’urgence)

threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. (menaces envers la sécurité du Canada)

Declaration of a Public Order Emergency

Marginal noteeclaration of a public order emergency

17 (1) When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 25, may, by proclamation, so declare.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/....html#h-213927

Now I haven’t read the whole law so perhaps there are other exceptions that give broad latitude to the government on interpretation.

If not the CSIS testimony should be interpreted as. We told the government that they did not meet the requirements of the emergencies act.

[blender]

Originally Posted by GGG

The csis definition matters regardless of if it is out of date or not because that is what the legislation references






https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/....html#h-213927

Now I haven’t read the whole law so perhaps there are other exceptions that give broad latitude to the government on interpretation.

If not the CSIS testimony should be interpreted as. We told the government that they did not meet the requirements of the emergencies act.

I haven't read the whole law either, so fair play there, but my understanding was that CSIS did give their opinion that the situation did not constitute a significant enough threat to justify the use of emergency powers, but their criteria are, by their own admission, outdated to the point of not being appropriate for current times, and most importantly CSIS is not in the position of authority in this case.

Speaking more broadly, I think we are often naive to the challenges of running a country in extreme situations, and we are quick to criticize government actions given the amount of exposure that exists on social media. Bottom line is that governments need to be able to wield their absolute power in certain situations. Failure to exercise their monopoly of the means of violence is an invitation to anarchy. I'm not applying a value judgement; each case is different and needs to be judged on its own merit, but this particular case is a no-brainer in my opinion, especially given that there were no negative outcomes and order was restored efficiently and effectively.

[calgarygeologist]

An interesting list of candidates for the federal by-election in Ontario. There are 40+ people running and most are independent/Rhino as apparently the Rhino party has decided to stack the list of candidates as a protest to Trudeau's abandonment of his previous electoral reform promise.

https://www.elections.ca/Scripts/vis...D=-1&PAGEID=17

[Azure]

Big step in the right direction. Finally actually doing something about inflation other than just repeated interest rate increases.

Supply-chain disruptions are piling on to the rising cost of living in Canada, and federal transport minister Omar Alghabra said that he is hoping to address this problem with new legislation.

The bill, which was tabled in the House of Commons yesterday (November 17), seeks to boost the Canadian supply chain through an improved transportation system, with a particular focus on port competitiveness and railroad safety.

Among other requirements, the proposal will oblige ports to gather more detailed information to share with railways, trucking companies, and shippers. Alghabra said that these steps will aim to enhance accountability, efficiency, and transparency.

https://www.mpamag.com/ca/news/gener...-issues/427948

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blender

I haven't read the whole law either, so fair play there, but my understanding was that CSIS did give their opinion that the situation did not constitute a significant enough threat to justify the use of emergency powers, but their criteria are, by their own admission, outdated to the point of not being appropriate for current times, and most importantly CSIS is not in the position of authority in this case.

Speaking more broadly, I think we are often naive to the challenges of running a country in extreme situations, and we are quick to criticize government actions given the amount of exposure that exists on social media. Bottom line is that governments need to be able to wield their absolute power in certain situations. Failure to exercise their monopoly of the means of violence is an invitation to anarchy. I'm not applying a value judgement; each case is different and needs to be judged on its own merit, but this particular case is a no-brainer in my opinion, especially given that there were no negative outcomes and order was restored efficiently and effectively.

The Criteria aren’t “their criteria” they are the legislation passed by government. The government also apparently agrees with the CSIS assessment that they didn’t meet the requirements of Section 2 of the act. Their purpose of the CSIS testimony appears to be to attempt to justify not following the section 2 definition.

What you are suggesting is the government not only to have power to suspend rights of citizens in very specific situations defined by parliament but you also want to grant the government the ability to arbitrarily amend these limited criteria as they see fit.

I think you are using backwards logic in saying because this situation turned out okay the government was right to expand the definition of emergency. In my opinion it’s the opposite if we allow a government without consultation of parliament to amend legislation without oversight then eventually it will end badly.

Secondly the government still hasn’t justified why the emergencies act was required and what powers were missing in their tool kit in order to end the protest.

Remember that the Coutts blockade was cleared before the emergencies act was put into place. What was so different that the Ottawa protest and ambassador protest that they could not have been cleared by the same means?

Justifying the use of the act based on the outcome is the opposite of the purpose of this inquiry. The inquiry is to decide if the conditions when implemented met the legal standard of the law.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

The Criteria aren’t “their criteria” they are the legislation passed by government. The government also apparently agrees with the CSIS assessment that they didn’t meet the requirements of Section 2 of the act. Their purpose of the CSIS testimony appears to be to attempt to justify not following the section 2 definition.

What you are suggesting is the government not only to have power to suspend rights of citizens in very specific situations defined by parliament but you also want to grant the government the ability to arbitrarily amend these limited criteria as they see fit.

I think you are using backwards logic in saying because this situation turned out okay the government was right to expand the definition of emergency. In my opinion it’s the opposite if we allow a government without consultation of parliament to amend legislation without oversight then eventually it will end badly.

Secondly the government still hasn’t justified why the emergencies act was required and what powers were missing in their tool kit in order to end the protest.

Remember that the Coutts blockade was cleared before the emergencies act was put into place. What was so different that the Ottawa protest and ambassador protest that they could not have been cleared by the same means?

Justifying the use of the act based on the outcome is the opposite of the purpose of this inquiry. The inquiry is to decide if the conditions when implemented met the legal standard of the law.

Do you mean discovering a plot to murderer RCMP, which caused a swift shift in the weight of the situation, and arrests were made. With the emergencies act declared that day I imagine the protesters recognized the gig was up. The protest movement fell apart at that point. I don't know how you repeat that in Ottawa.

“The development with weapons and the personal armour was not associated with us, and to keep that distance we decided to leave peacefully,” Marco Van Huigenbos, one of the protest organizers, said as a long line of trucks began to leave. “We made the decision yesterday to leave peacefully on our terms after the events that came to light with some of the members, participants of this protest having firearms and protective equipment,” he said Tuesday morning.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8621249/a...de-dismantled/

I did want to confirm the timeline, and the act was declared Feb 14th, which looks to be the same date the arrests were made and the blockade cleared up the morning of the 15th. So it isn't accurate to say the act had no effect, even though no measures had been used. It was still a psychological one which I could see affecting the spirit of the protesters given everything else that also occurred that day. "#### got real" as they say.

[GGG]

Nm

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Do you mean discovering a plot to murderer RCMP, which caused a swift shift in the weight of the situation, and arrests were made. With the emergencies act declared that day I imagine the protesters recognized the gig was up. The protest movement fell apart at that point. I don't know how you repeat that in Ottawa.


https://globalnews.ca/news/8621249/a...de-dismantled/

I did want to confirm the timeline, and the act was declared Feb 14th, which looks to be the same date the arrests were made and the blockade cleared up the morning of the 15th. So it isn't accurate to say the act had no effect, even though no measures had been used. It was still a psychological one which I could see affecting the spirit of the protesters given everything else that also occurred that day. "#### got real" as they say.

The raid and arrests that started the Coutts protest being cleared occurred early in the morning of the 14th prior to the act being declared.

Also the Ambassador bridge was cleared on the 13th and reopened to traffic

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/ti...194401810.html

If no measures were required the Act should have not been put in place.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1595611652447150080

Such a nice send off.

[Azure]

Evan Solomon was someone I always followed and figured did a great job especially during the convoy's and blockades.