Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by GGG

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

Yes in terms of money for givesendgo more was Canadian, but far more Americans donated than Canadians.

It was something along the lines of 51k American donations to 36k Canadian donations right? If Albertans were up in arms about foreign donations that went against Alberta oil, (which ended being almost nothing), they should be upset about this as well.

[GGG]

I think there is one clear quote from Trudeau that shows that the act was not yet required

"That was part of the problem, that not all tools were being used," Trudeau said.

In reference to a question of it all existing tools were used. The emergencies act is for when the government doesn’t have the tools not for when they poorly applied them previously.

The other section around Trudeau’s questioning that is interesting for what it doesn’t say is

During her examination, commission lawyer Shantona Chaudhury suggested to Trudeau that the protests did "not constitute a threat to the security of Canada as defined in the CSIS Act."

"As defined for the CSIS Act," Trudeau responded.

"Those words in the CSIS Act are used for the purpose of CSIS determining that they have authority to act against an individual a group or a specific plot ... for example."

Trudeau said that cabinet — not CSIS — decides whether to invoke the Emergencies Act.

Note he does not say that the cabinet found that they met the requirements under Section 2 of the CSIS act. Essentially he is saying the legislation in the emergencies act is worded poorly so we ignored it and used our own definition and made the decision it was an emergency

The government is also using privilege to not disclose the legal advice they used to determine if they met the standard in the act.

Trudeau also stated that he did not fully review the Ottawa police plan to clear the blockade and the Ottawa Feb 13 plan is redacted so the public is unable to see what changed in the plan as a result of the emergencies act.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6663167

I think the two questions the government needed to answer are still inserted.

1) did they meet the requirements of the act. - Unclear and no one has stated they definitively that they did or believed they did

2) were existing laws exhausted in dealing with the protest. - The answer appears to be no based on Trudeau’s testimony.

[blender]

It seemed very clear to me that Trudeau felt that the provincial government wasn't getting the job done. He was firm on the point during his testimony.

GGG, I think you and others are belabouring the point about CSIS requirements not being met when in actuality, the CSIS requirement isn't especially relevant to the invocation of EA. If it was, why would the head of CSIS recommend the Act be used? I think critics of the federal government are looking for something that isn't there.

As I've said before, the onus is on the government to justify their use of the EA, and in this case I believe they have. Does anyone honestly think that the occupation would have been cleared up as quickly without the federal intervention? The efficacy and utility of the federal government's actions here justify the decision.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by blender

It seemed very clear to me that Trudeau felt that the provincial government wasn't getting the job done. He was firm on the point during his testimony.

GGG, I think you and others are belabouring the point about CSIS requirements not being met when in actuality, the CSIS requirement isn't especially relevant to the invocation of EA. If it was, why would the head of CSIS recommend the Act be used? I think critics of the federal government are looking for something that isn't there.

As I've said before, the onus is on the government to justify their use of the EA, and in this case I believe they have. Does anyone honestly think that the occupation would have been cleared up as quickly without the federal intervention? The efficacy and utility of the federal government's actions here justify the decision.

I do. If I heard correctly, the head of the RCMP said they had a plan in place to do just that. However, Trudeau either didn't receive it, ignored it, or had already decide they were going ahead with the EA. Besides, I believe a deal had been worked out with the city of Ottawa, and the trucks and people were beginning to disperse when the EA was initiated.

I believe there was lots of evidence presented on both sides, for people to think they are right in either being for or against the EA.

Just my biased opinion.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

-snip-
I think the two questions the government needed to answer are still inserted.

1) did they meet the requirements of the act. - Unclear and no one has stated they definitively that they did or believed they did

2) were existing laws exhausted in dealing with the protest. - The answer appears to be no based on Trudeau’s testimony.

I think for 1), you won't get a clear answer because one does not exist. But I also think that a rational society can understand that laws written 40 years ago may not cover all situations it could potentially be used for today. It's like the constitutional originalist argument(which I strongly disagree with) used in the States. The world changes, so should our laws. The next reasonable step would be to look into this.

For 2) I don't think it comes down so much to existing laws as it did the situation and people involved in enforcing them were not doing it, either because they are imperfect humans, or were up against situations that made those laws ineffective. I believe that things only started to move once the weight and threat of the act were in the open.

In then end, I think a lot of this is quibbling over details that don't really matter. The facts were that several protests had sprung up, with the threat of more, and that many different illegal things were happening at these protests. There were legitimate safety concerns, and the impacts were being felt economically across the country, and personally by many in Ottawa. While these protestors were attempting to assert their own rights, they were trampling all over many other peoples rights, and the government also has a duty to protect those. A government can't allow protesters to impinge rights of others indefinatly. By the time the EA was called, I feel we were well past that balance. The occupation always had the right to protest peacefully and legally, but they chose not to. Once the EA was called, actions were swift, and there was no over-reach(I don't consider the financial measures over-reaching). It was rescinded as soon as made sense. I think it did it's job protecting the rights of Canadians.

[blender]

@Fuzz.
Nailed it, IMO.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by blender

@Fuzz.
Nailed it, IMO.

Nope sorry.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1596279420645277696

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blender

It seemed very clear to me that Trudeau felt that the provincial government wasn't getting the job done. He was firm on the point during his testimony.

GGG, I think you and others are belabouring the point about CSIS requirements not being met when in actuality, the CSIS requirement isn't especially relevant to the invocation of EA. If it was, why would the head of CSIS recommend the Act be used? I think critics of the federal government are looking for something that isn't there.

As I've said before, the onus is on the government to justify their use of the EA, and in this case I believe they have. Does anyone honestly think that the occupation would have been cleared up as quickly without the federal intervention? The efficacy and utility of the federal government's actions here justify the decision.

I agree with you on the first point Trudeau was clearly frustrated other levels of government were failing at managing the protest. The provincial government not getting the job done is not in the criteria for invoking the EA. It’s that it can’t be dealt with effectively not that it isn’t being dealt with effectively.

National emergency

3 For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that

(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or

(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada

and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.

The CSIS definition is absolutely relevant to the EA. It’s the definition the EA gives to define what emergencies meet the criteria of the act. The bill that was based specifically does not say any emergency the government feels is an emergency. It lays out criteria that need to be met. The CSIS personal recommendation was two fold that the act should be implemented and it didn’t meet the act. If the government proceeded on a basis that was outside a strict definition then that should be the argument. Their legal advice should be removed from privilege and they should be testifying that they felt the intent of the act was met and couldn’t be hamstrung by outdated legislation. This information should have been presented to the public and the parliament.

To your final point the answer is we don’t know if the Occupation would have been resolved as quickly because the Feb 13th plan is redacted and can’t be compared to the other plan. Also “as quickly” is not the standard for use of the act. I however think we can assume it COULD have been. Ambassador was cleared prior to the act. Coutts had begun arresting an dispersing people prior to the act and a plan from the Ottawa Police was in place that we aren’t allowed to read.

You also have the testimony of the officer making very equivocal statements on if his operation would have been successful without the act.

I hope next weeks expert testimony will shed light around legal interpretation of the CSIS act stuff and whether failure of the Province to act is the same as the inability to act.

Edit: to respond to what Fuzz’s last point of it was time for the protests to end? Sure, but we have a process for that, it’s what they did at the ambassador bridge. Got to court, get an injunction, the police enforce the injunction in a very similar fashion to what they did after the EA.

I’ve been following pretty closely and haven’t seen it but have any government witnesses identified the specific powers they were lacking?

[PepsiFree]

There was no action on Coutts prior to the Emergency Act being put on the table. You could maybe argue that the threat of it was enough, but it’d be dumb to question why it even took that long and hand wave about it been unneeded in circumstances where the threat of it wasn’t enough.

If they could have done anything, why didn’t they? All we have is job-protecting excuses.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Nope sorry.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1596279420645277696

Lol...



Just an unfortunate image.

Not actually complaining about anything, I just thought the similarity was pretty funny.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Nope sorry.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1596279420645277696

Dude, no one here cares what you think.

[OldDutch]

Just going to interrupt this CBC/ Freedom convoy discussion to talk about a story I experienced 48hrs ago.

Given the 6 month delay to try and get our kids Tylenol, my wife and and I were at the Children’s Hospital. They prescribed my son Amoxicillin (common antibiotic) but told us they we completely out. At a kids hospital.

So we drove around the Pharmacies around town and yep all out too. Luckily we found pill form at one.

Defend the social ideology, I get it and agree, but this government is honestly risking our children with the total ineptitude at managing critical supply chain.

A major city in a first world country, out of antibiotics, totally blew my mind.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Just going to interrupt this CBC/ Freedom convoy discussion to talk about a story I experienced 48hrs ago.

Given the 6 month delay to try and get our kids Tylenol, my wife and and I were at the Children’s Hospital. They prescribed my son Amoxicillin (common antibiotic) but told us they we completely out. At a kids hospital.

So we drove around the Pharmacies around town and yep all out too. Luckily we found pill form at one.

Defend the social ideology, I get it and agree, but this government is honestly risking our children with the total ineptitude at managing critical supply chain.

A major city in a first world country, out of antibiotics, totally blew my mind.

How is it the government’s job, though? How would this be any different in a situation not formed around a “social ideology”?

This was explained well by Street Pharmacist in the cold/flu thread, but blaming the government doesn’t actually make much sense. A lot of this comes down to basic supply and demand stuff and most of it has nothing to do with the government.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Nope sorry.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1596279420645277696

The title summary for this article is just soooooo hilariously whiny. Very on brand post Yoho, thanks.

When it comes time to render his judgment, hopefully Commissioner Rouleau won't be as complacent about this government as most Canadians seem to be.

SOMEBODY CARE! DEAR GOD WON'T SOMEBODY CARE!

What a soft little bitch. Lol... Nope sorry? What are you apologizing for? This stuff is gold

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There was no action on Coutts prior to the Emergency Act being put on the table. You could maybe argue that the threat of it was enough, but it’d be dumb to question why it even took that long and hand wave about it been unneeded in circumstances where the threat of it wasn’t enough.

If they could have done anything, why didn’t they? All we have is job-protecting excuses.

How did they clear the ambassador bridge without it? Isn’t that the better question?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Major Major

The title summary for this article is just soooooo hilariously whiny. Very on brand post Yoho, thanks.

When it comes time to render his judgment, hopefully Commissioner Rouleau won't be as complacent about this government as most Canadians seem to be.

SOMEBODY CARE! DEAR GOD WON'T SOMEBODY CARE!

What a soft little bitch. Lol... Nope sorry? What are you apologizing for? This stuff is gold

I think your comment of “Somebody Care” is right. People support the cause of removing the protestors and the outcome of no significant violence that they choose to accept the normalization of a massive loss of fundamental freedoms and not worry if the government followed the law or if it was necessary. It is enough for many that the government took action using all powers available regardless of the legality of that power. That’s isn’t an unreasonable position to take but certainly is a dangerous one.

So I agree with the sentiment - Somebody care.

[Mickey76]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Just going to interrupt this CBC/ Freedom convoy discussion to talk about a story I experienced 48hrs ago.

Given the 6 month delay to try and get our kids Tylenol, my wife and and I were at the Children’s Hospital. They prescribed my son Amoxicillin (common antibiotic) but told us they we completely out. At a kids hospital.

So we drove around the Pharmacies around town and yep all out too. Luckily we found pill form at one.

Defend the social ideology, I get it and agree, but this government is honestly risking our children with the total ineptitude at managing critical supply chain.

A major city in a first world country, out of antibiotics, totally blew my mind.

You almost word for word describe what happened to my brother and his little guy. I don’t see why there isn’t more outrage over this. We can differ very widely politically on all issues but I think we can all agree that we should not run totally out of essential kids medicine. This is a complete failure by the government.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

It’s a free market. The blame lies with the producers and suppliers. The government doesn’t produce these drugs.

It’s a complete failure by the greedy drug companies who have left children to suffer.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

It’s a free market. The blame lies with the producers and suppliers. The government doesn’t produce these drugs.

It’s a complete failure by the greedy drug companies who have left children to suffer.

Just like those greedy grocery stores that allow the grocery shelves to be empty.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think your comment of “Somebody Care” is right. People support the cause of removing the protestors and the outcome of no significant violence that they choose to accept the normalization of a massive loss of fundamental freedoms and not worry if the government followed the law or if it was necessary. It is enough for many that the government took action using all powers available regardless of the legality of that power. That’s isn’t an unreasonable position to take but certainly is a dangerous one.

So I agree with the sentiment - Somebody care.

Sorry, it's been normalized? You can't possibly make that claim at this point. I know it's a buzz term that gets thrown around a lot these days, but if something happens in response to exceptional circumstances, it would need to happen at least one more time under less exceptional circumstances to be considered normalized.

The F Trudeau crowd are predictably butthurt that through investigation most people agree that this was the right call. It solved an issue that was untenable. The normal solution was not able to.