Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1493630221139857410

According to the date on this tweet, it was the 15th. The arrests were the 14th.

[blender]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

Sounds like a hindsight argument. How could we know no emergency measures were required? The occupation in Ottawa was still ongoing.

It seems that the arguments against the use of the EM act are based on the fact that we don't want the government suspending people's rights at all, which is understandable, but the government must have that power and must be able to exercise it when they decide they need to. The convoy occupation in Ottawa was probably as mild of a case of civil emergency as you will find, but that doesn't change the fact that it could have gotten much more serious, and therein lies the crux. When is it too soon and when is it too late? Too soon and you are answering questions about government overreach and abuse of power; too late and people are dead in the street.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://twitter.com/user/status/1493630221139857410

According to the date on this tweet, it was the 15th. The arrests were the 14th.

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

Originally Posted by blender

Sounds like a hindsight argument. How could we know no emergency measures were required? The occupation in Ottawa was still ongoing.

It seems that the arguments against the use of the EM act are based on the fact that we don't want the government suspending people's rights at all, which is understandable, but the government must have that power and must be able to exercise it when they decide they need to. The convoy occupation in Ottawa was probably as mild of a case of civil emergency as you will find, but that doesn't change the fact that it could have gotten much more serious, and therein lies the crux. When is it too soon and when is it too late? Too soon and you are answering questions about government overreach and abuse of power; too late and people are dead in the street.

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.

[blender]

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.

[Azure]

The Coutts blockade was absolutely cleared without the EM. You can argue that circumstances happened that dictated the need for the RCMP to move and clear it out, but you simply cannot argue that the EM gave them that power.

Now, you can say that they found a clear threat and dealt with it, which is why it was cleared.

Fair point.

But supposedly that clear threat existed in Ottawa as well, no? I mean the EM clearly states 'threatens the security of Canada.'

We already know the government was completely full of #### when they said there was foreign involvement.

On Wednesday, Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair described the protest actions — which saw hundreds of people take part in a weeks-long occupation in downtown Ottawa and bring international trade to a halt by blocking key border crossings — as an overt attempt to disrupt both Canada’s economy and democracy.

“We have seen strong evidence that it was the intention of those who blockaded our ports-of-entry in a largely foreign-funded, targeted and coordinated attack,” Blair said, accusing the movement of intentionally idling factories, halting trade and sabotaging our already-fragile supply chain.

“We will not let any foreign entities that seek to do harm to Canada or Canadians erode trust in our democratic institutions, or question the legitimacy of our democracy.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...onvoy-protests

CSIS cleared that up and said it was bunch of crap.

A week before the Emergencies Act was invoked, Canada’s intelligence agency told senior government officials it had found no evidence of foreign actors or states financing the convoy protests.

Minutes of a meeting held on Feb. 6 with top-ranking officials from municipal, provincial and federal governments were tabled Tuesday at the Public Order Emergency Commission, led by Justice Paul Rouleau.

“There [are] no foreign actors identified at this point supporting or financing this convoy. FINTRAC is supporting this work/assessment and the banks are also engaged,” CSIS director David Vigneault said, according to the minutes.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...tests-funding/

I mean that would have been a very clear way to legally use the EM, as foreign involvement is a risk to Canadian security. But there wasn't any, and the Liberals lied about it.

[Fuzz]

Well you can't deny that some Americans had donated to the GoFundMe. Does that count as foreign funding? It sure sounds like it. And I believe it was Freeland testifying today that many of the 911 calls flooding Ottawa emergency lines were American(though I'm not sure how that would have worked?) and that Americans crossed the border to participate in the occupation, and they were worried more would join.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well you can't deny that some Americans had donated to the GoFundMe. Does that count as foreign funding? It sure sounds like it. And I believe it was Freeland testifying today that many of the 911 calls flooding Ottawa emergency lines were American(though I'm not sure how that would have worked?) and that Americans crossed the border to participate in the occupation, and they were worried more would join.

Before anyone answers that question one should think about their position on if foreign sources of money have been trying to stop oil sands from being developed. (The correct answer is neither had a meaningful impact)

CSIS is our intelligence agency they have not testified that their was a foreign threat so whether or not funding occurred CSIS did not believe this rose to the threat where the emergencies act could be declared.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blender

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.

I think your second paragraph is why we disagree. To me the public being in favour of the emergencies act is precisely when the most scrutiny and care is required. When the Mjoroty and the government agree is the time minority rights are most at risk.

I agree that the optics of the EA being used has a chilling affect on protests. That however is not a reason to use the act in of itself. I disagree that the police need lega cover greater than a court injunction declaring the protest illegal as was obtained for the Ambassador Bridge and CP rail protests.

I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

Before anyone answers that question one should think about their position on if foreign sources of money have been trying to stop oil sands from being developed. (The correct answer is neither had a meaningful impact)

CSIS is our intelligence agency they have not testified that their was a foreign threat so whether or not funding occurred CSIS did not believe this rose to the threat where the emergencies act could be declared.

Azure said

We already know the government was completely full of #### when they said there was foreign involvement.

The foreign involvement may not have risen to the level of a threat, that can be debated. But some of it existed.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by GGG

Before anyone answers that question one should think about their position on if foreign sources of money have been trying to stop oil sands from being developed. (The correct answer is neither had a meaningful impact)

CSIS is our intelligence agency they have not testified that their was a foreign threat so whether or not funding occurred CSIS did not believe this rose to the threat where the emergencies act could be declared.

Does this not have to do with the definition they are using? From what I've seen there was a ton of foreign donations, but they are using the terminology "foreign actors" meaning groups or governments. There were a lot of foreign donations weren't there?

They are using the foreign actor term to describe the group operating on behalf of the People's Republic of China in Toronto for example.

https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2...r-interference

[blender]

@GGG
I also appreciate the discussion.
In fact I do agree 100% with your comment about the will of the majority being a dangerous situation. That is a salient point.

I am now very interested in what Trudeau has to say tomorrow. In reading up a bit today I see that there is commentary suggesting that there could have been an argument to be made around his personal safety. The is certainly an overt and distasteful amount of anti-Trudeau rhetoric and commentary in the public discourse over the last decade. Combine that with the recent events in Washington and one can see how a threat could be perceived.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by blender

@GGG
I also appreciate the discussion.
In fact I do agree 100% with your comment about the will of the majority being a dangerous situation. That is a salient point.

I am now very interested in what Trudeau has to say tomorrow. In reading up a bit today I see that there is commentary suggesting that there could have been an argument to be made around his personal safety. The is certainly an overt and distasteful amount of anti-Trudeau rhetoric and commentary in the public discourse over the last decade. Combine that with the recent events in Washington and one can see how a threat could be perceived.

Armed with hot tubs and DJ turntables.

[Flambé]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Armed with hot tubs and DJ turntables.

Sounds like a pretty serious protest to me.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Does this not have to do with the definition they are using? From what I've seen there was a ton of foreign donations, but they are using the terminology "foreign actors" meaning groups or governments. There were a lot of foreign donations weren't there?

They are using the foreign actor term to describe the group operating on behalf of the People's Republic of China in Toronto for example.

https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2...r-interference

Partly - I think the CBC has a good summary

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6621944

Which does look at the foreign actor statement which at press time hadnt clarified the specific meaning.

However 88% of the Gofundme out of 10 million. Givesendgo was 60% Canadian

Givesendgo was frozen by Canadian courts I believe independently of the emergency act.
Givesendgo had 12 million

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Armed with hot tubs and DJ turntables.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1485474602696384516

Ya, nothing to worry about. Right after the threats to hang Pence during a violent insurrection of the US capitol?

[Fuzz]

For all the insults Trudeau takes it sure is nice to see him taking all questions reasonably at the commission, and answering the best he can. This is a good showing of democracy, and really makes Rob Doug Ford look the coward for declining to even show up.

If only Question Period were as civil as this has been.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

For all the insults Trudeau takes it sure is nice to see him taking all questions reasonably at the commission, and answering the best he can. This is a good showing of democracy, and really makes Rob Ford look the coward for declining to even show up.

If only Question Period were as civil as this has been.

Rob Ford has a reasonable excuse for not showing. He is currently, and was at all material times, deceased.

In fairness, he always did take questions asked of him. Hence the epic line "I didn't say that, I'd never say that, I'm a happily married man, I have enough to eat at home."

Although, I know you mean Doug, but I couldn't pass up quoting the Olivia Gondek response. Sorry.

[Fuzz]

Ah, the Ford Faux Pas! Guilty!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Rob Ford has a reasonable excuse for not showing. He is currently, and was at all material times, deceased.

In fairness, he always did take questions asked of him. Hence the epic line "I didn't say that, I'd never say that, I'm a happily married man, I have enough to eat at home."

Although, I know you mean Doug, but I couldn't pass up quoting the Olivia Gondek response. Sorry.

No excuse!!

[blender]

Trudeau gets way too much flak in general.
He has his warts and missteps but he is a good leader. His performance today was excellent.
I also saw him a few years ago at a town hall and he was under withering pressure from a bunch of angry indigenous men who wanted to show him up and get their shots in. He handled it extremely well. He let them speak, he answered questions directly, he wasn't afraid to correct them where they were wrong and he basically diffused the situation. The great majority of us wouldn't stand a chance of coping half as well as he did. I was very impressed. Not that that alone makes him a good leader; the bar is high and it should be. Nevertheless, he's not a joke like so many want to make him out to be, and he deserves respect even if we don't agree with his policies.