Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Slava]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Essentially, the Federal government has no jurisdiction over the streets of Ottawa or the roads leading to the borders that were blocked. When the entities that did have jurisdiction (municipalities and provinces) and the existing enforcement (local police and OPP) abrogated their responsibility to enforce order, what was there really left to do?

Yes, the Ambassador bridge was cleared before the Federal Emergencies Act was invoked, but it only happened because the province declared a State of Emergency on Feb 11th, which included similar restrictions on civil rights (ability to restrict peoples' movements) and draconian penalties for illegally protesting (up to $100K fine and 1 year in prison). Those powers were used to clear the bridge, but it doesn't seem like they were being used in Ottawa, and obviously would have no effect on the border blockade in Alberta or the various disruptions happening elsewhere (like in BC).

It's funny, provinces and territories declare States of Emergency all the time (it has happened about 25 times in the last decade) and no one bats an eye. But when the Federal government does the same, all of the sudden it's a slippery slope towards totalitarianism. I mean, I could see it if there were examples of the powers being abused. But temporarily shifting jurisdiction from the lower levels of government to the Federal Government in order to clear an illegal occupation? That basically doesn't even register for me.

I think you’re being disingenuous here regarding the other states of emergency. Most of the states of emergency declared are things like extreme weather events or forest fires. Things that are quite obviously an emergency and of course no one debates that when the city floods, they declare that an emergency.

This was a protest that the government didn’t like about them. Of course when you declare a state of emergency to quash that protest you’re going to get blasted as being a totalitarian. And frankly, that is a concern we should all be wary of. This time it’s easy to say “well those guys are dumb and I don’t like that protest, so shut’em down.” If this was a different protest against a different government though, that might not be the case.

And, I’m pretty hypocritical here. If these protests were in front of my business or house, I’d be 1000% in favour of rolling in the tanks.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

You can’t seriously believe that this protest was nothing more than one the government didn’t like and represented no threat to Canada either internally (violence and terrorism) or internationally (trade, commerce, reputation).

The only thing disingenuous is you trying to pretend this is less of an emergency than a big snowfall. It was the most obvious example of an emergency in the last decade and made declaring one for the weather look like a joke by comparison.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

You can’t seriously believe that this protest was nothing more than one the government didn’t like and represented no threat to Canada either internally (violence and terrorism) or internationally (trade, commerce, reputation).

The only thing disingenuous is you trying to pretend this is less of an emergency than a big snowfall. It was the most obvious example of an emergency in the last decade and made declaring one for the weather look like a joke by comparison.

You’ve just plain missed my point. I’m not saying this wasn’t an emergency. I’m saying that of course an emergency declared to deal with a protest is viewed completely differently than an emergency declared to deal with a natural disaster.

Regardless, my opinion is this was an emergency of their own making though.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

You can’t seriously believe that this protest was nothing more than one the government didn’t like and represented no threat to Canada either internally (violence and terrorism) or internationally (trade, commerce, reputation).

The only thing disingenuous is you trying to pretend this is less of an emergency than a big snowfall. It was the most obvious example of an emergency in the last decade and made declaring one for the weather look like a joke by comparison.

Why was this more of an emergency than the CP rail blockade.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why was this more of an emergency than the CP rail blockade.

Already answered dozens of times. I find it hard to believe you don’t know the answer so I’m not even sure why you’re asking.

[Roughneck]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1596570959346966528

(Apologies, I'm probably just going to be on a Yoho inspired twitter hit and run until the game starts)

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Already answered dozens of times. I find it hard to believe you don’t know the answer so I’m not even sure why you’re asking.

GGG’s approach lately seems to be “if I play dumb and you don’t entertain that then your position isn’t actually valid.” He’s had to have a lot explained to him and it doesn’t seem to matter.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

GGG’s approach lately seems to be “if I play dumb and you don’t entertain that then your position isn’t actually valid.” He’s had to have a lot explained to him and it doesn’t seem to matter.

I don’t think that is a fair characterization of my posting in this thread. You seem to have me as your latest poster to randomly criticize. I was having a very reasonable discussion with others so not sure what your problem is.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t think that is a fair characterization of my posting in this thread. You seem to have me as your latest poster to randomly criticize. I was having a very reasonable discussion with others so not sure what your problem is.

You're being disingenuous in you arguments though; the topic you asked about has been asked and answered several times, in discussions you've been apart of, it's just annoying.

[GGG]

Nm

[Major Major]

I certainly don't recall the jurisdictional police chief being paralyzed with self doubt, inaction and paranoia in the CP dispute. I don't recall hearing stories and reading testimony of utter operational failure within the leadership group of the OPP. I don't remember anyone saying that they required private companies to help clear the blockade who refused to help them. I don't remember the OPP we don't understand what a blockade is, and it's a surprise to us that it means they're blocking rail cars.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Slava

You’ve just plain missed my point. I’m not saying this wasn’t an emergency. I’m saying that of course an emergency declared to deal with a protest is viewed completely differently than an emergency declared to deal with a natural disaster.

Regardless, my opinion is this was an emergency of their own making though.

The major issue I take with your point is that the incident clearly evolved from a protest to occupation before the EMA was enacted.

From the evidence and testimony I've read/heard so far, the only way this was "an emergency of their own making" is due to their misplaced trust of the systems and organizations already in place meant to act and protect Canadians.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think you’re being disingenuous here regarding the other states of emergency. Most of the states of emergency declared are things like extreme weather events or forest fires. Things that are quite obviously an emergency and of course no one debates that when the city floods, they declare that an emergency.

Over half of those states of emergency were related to COVID and resulted in most of the the temporary reduction in civil liberties that these people were protesting against. So no, I don't think it's disingenuous to compare them.

This was a protest that the government didn’t like about them. Of course when you declare a state of emergency to quash that protest you’re going to get blasted as being a totalitarian. And frankly, that is a concern we should all be wary of. This time it’s easy to say “well those guys are dumb and I don’t like that protest, so shut’em down.” If this was a different protest against a different government though, that might not be the case.

And, I’m pretty hypocritical here. If these protests were in front of my business or house, I’d be 1000% in favour of rolling in the tanks.

No, it was an illegal occupation; what they were protesting didn't matter a whole lot (though it did make them look more ridiculous than they already did). What made it an emergency was the complete inaction of lower levels of government and the police and a failure to even begin handling the situation.

When climate protesters block a bridge or an intersection in Vancouver, they're arrested within hours. When protesters blockaded the entrance to the Port of Vancouver (twice) in February of 2020 they were arrested and removed within a couple of days both times.

The only illegal protests that were significantly disruptive for the general public and the economy that were allowed to continue anywhere near as long as the convoy were the rail blockades, and that was in large part due to the murkier legal issues surrounding Aboriginal land title. It's not a coincidence that the longest blockade near Belleville occurred adjacent to and on Tyendinaga territory. And despite that, the Belleville blockade lasted 18 days, nearly a week less than the Ottawa occupation was allowed to continue for.

[flamesfever]

As far as protesting in Canada is concerned the Freedom Convoy and the Railway blockade were "firsts of a kind", and I believe the authorities and police were somewhat unprepared and baffled as to how to proceed. Also the various unusual and complex issues, that were involved, made it difficult to act in an effective and timely manner.

I think both events exposed the weakness in various parts of our system like the coordination of our various policing agencies, the lack of laws in place to handle such events, and the need for our politicians to start listening to each other.

[blender]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

As far as protesting in Canada is concerned the Freedom Convoy and the Railway blockade were "firsts of a kind", and I believe the authorities and police were somewhat unprepared and baffled as to how to proceed. Also the various unusual and complex issues, that were involved, made it difficult to act in an effective and timely manner.

I think both events exposed the weakness in various parts of our system like the coordination of our various policing agencies, the lack of laws in place to handle such events, and the need for our politicians to start listening to each other.

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.

[GGG]

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.

[opendoor]

Very similar language exists in the acts for the provinces though, and they all appeared to meet that standard. Ontario's for instance requires that basically one of two things is happening:

1) The normal resources and powers of the branches of government "cannot be relied upon without the risk of serious delay"; or

2) The normal resources and powers are "insufficiently effective to address the emergency."

That's more or less the same standard as the Federal law (at least as I read it), and they seemingly met it in this case based on the fact that lower levels of power (municipalities and local police) were ineffective, which meant the province needed additional temporary powers to address the emergency in a timely manner. Whether that ineffectiveness was due to lack of resources or incompetence is pretty much beside the point.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Very similar language exists in the acts for the provinces though, and they all appeared to meet that standard. Ontario's for instance requires that basically one of two things is happening:

1) The normal resources and powers of the branches of government "cannot be relied upon without the risk of serious delay"; or

2) The normal resources and powers are "insufficiently effective to address the emergency."

That's more or less the same standard as the Federal law (at least as I read it), and they seemingly met it in this case based on the fact that lower levels of power (municipalities and local police) were ineffective, which meant the province needed additional temporary powers to address the emergency in a timely manner. Whether that ineffectiveness was due to lack of resources or incompetence is pretty much beside the point.

That is significantly better wording than the federal law

note: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.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/....5/page-1.html

I think the two definitions between Ontarios and the Feds are significantly different. The Ontario definition was clearly met by this crisis. The federal one not so much the key being the AND at the end.

Ontario contemplates the failure of the body doing enforcement to act. The federal law does not.

[blender]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

During an emergency there is no difference between these two things.

In a case like this there will never be a consensus as to whether the definition of an emergency (which is nebulous at any time) has been met. It's an emergency when cabinet decides it is, and if they are wrong they will pay the price later.

You are splitting hairs.

[SebC]

GGG, supposing that the law was inadequate, as you seem to be suggesting, what would you have had the government do?