Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

It's pretty simple for me. If you want to protest, awesome, go for it. Even if it's something I wholeheartedly disagree with. You want to protest, protest. Glad we can do that in this country.

Just get off the street. Protest on the sidewalks for months for all I care.

I lived in Ottawa for several years. Dealing with protests and demonstrations is just a part of life there. People who live there are pretty tolerant and used to it.

This wasn't a protest, it was an occupation. Infrastructure was taken over and it disrupted the lives of regular working people for too long. To most of the protestors that came from out of town, Ottawa is just a place, but it's home for the people that live there. They were also refusing to stop until they forced democratically elected people to capitulate to their demands, which is simply unacceptable. I get the dislike for Trudeau and the Liberals, but you can't disrupt democracy for what a minority fringe group wants. They even refer to themselves as a fringe minority and made bumper stickers with the phrase on it.

I still can't help but think the Ottawa police deserve a lot more of the blame here though. That police force is probably one of the most corrupt in Canada and did not do their jobs very well, and even assisted the convoy in some ways.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by cral12

fascinating thread on emerg act ruling

https://twitter.com/user/status/1749870692370112787

Luke LeBrun seems to be distorting what the judge stated. There was a lot of anger at the freedumb convoy, myself included, that wanted it removed. But I generally absolutely deplore disruptive protests as well.

Wanting something to be done (as the judge personally felt was needed and likely personally agreed with in principle), and invoking the Emergencies Act that the judge even states in hindsight that a more extensive record of the facts and the law was against the Charter are entirely different things. The judge put his personal opinion aside to make the ruling based on the charter, which is what judges are there to do.

The invoking of the Emergencies Act in this particular instance was "unreasonable and ultra vires", whether or not you personally agreed with its use and the resulting effectiveness (it was quite effective).

And Lebrun based on his tweets seems a bit...err extremely biased? To claim that the ruling is due to a technicality...is a stretch.

This in no way legitimizes the freedumb convoy, it's a ruling on the emergencies act as invoked in this specific situation.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Azure

That isn't even good enough. There needs to be a plan in place to take large scale protests and direct them to largely empty areas.

You shouldn't be allowed to disrupt entire areas for days or even weeks.

Once that is figured out, have fun protesting.

True, I agree with that. Especially in this case.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Lawsuits probably coming.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eme...ourt-1.7091891

A federal judge says the Liberal government's use of the Emergencies Act in early 2022 to clear convoy protesters was unreasonable.

"I conclude that there was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the decision to do so was therefore unreasonable and ultra vires," Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley wrote in a Tuesday decision. "Ultra vires" is a Latin term used by courts to refer to actions beyond the scope of the law.

The Federal Court case was brought by two national groups, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and two people whose bank accounts were frozen who argued Ottawa did not meet the legal threshold when it invoked the legislation, which had never been used before.

So the government was Ultra Vires in dealing with the Ultra Vile protesting restrictions due to an Ultra Virus?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I lived in Ottawa for several years. Dealing with protests and demonstrations is just a part of life there. People who live there are pretty tolerant and used to it.

This wasn't a protest, it was an occupation. Infrastructure was taken over and it disrupted the lives of regular working people for too long. To most of the protestors that came from out of town, Ottawa is just a place, but it's home for the people that live there. They were also refusing to stop until they forced democratically elected people to capitulate to their demands, which is simply unacceptable. I get the dislike for Trudeau and the Liberals, but you can't disrupt democracy for what a minority fringe group wants. They even refer to themselves as a fringe minority and made bumper stickers with the phrase on it.

I still can't help but think the Ottawa police deserve a lot more of the blame here though. That police force is probably one of the most corrupt in Canada and did not do their jobs very well, and even assisted the convoy in some ways.

They were clearly either complicit or incompetent. And not by a 'little.'

Also your Police Chief, Mayor and your Premier.

But the fact of the matter remains, those people should have been allowed to protest whatever their nonsense position was....and then politely but FIRMLY, directed to leave immediately.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

It is quite common here, I think in part because our cut-off is February 28 (vs December 31 in most provinces). Most people I know with kids born in January/February hold them back.

The cutoff is now December 31, FYI. Was changed a few years ago. I know because a friend's kid born in January, who would have gone to kindergarten at age four, had to be held back another year.

I'm one of those kids born early in the calendar year who wasn't held back, and I don't think I suffered for it one bit. Every kid is different though.

I guess my overarching point is holding all boys back an extra year seems unjustifiably sexist and totally unnecessary to me. I'd have been resentful as hell if I was arbitrarily held back just because of my gender.

[Mightyfire89]

I’m still wondering how early morning school start times affect males more than females.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

So the government was Ultra Vires in dealing with the Ultra Vile protesting restrictions due to an Ultra Virus?

OK....that's clever.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Luke LeBrun seems to be distorting what the judge stated. There was a lot of anger at the freedumb convoy, myself included, that wanted it removed. But I generally absolutely deplore disruptive protests as well.

Wanting something to be done (as the judge personally felt was needed and likely personally agreed with in principle), and invoking the Emergencies Act that the judge even states in hindsight that a more extensive record of the facts and the law was against the Charter are entirely different things. The judge put his personal opinion aside to make the ruling based on the charter, which is what judges are there to do.

The invoking of the Emergencies Act in this particular instance was "unreasonable and ultra vires", whether or not you personally agreed with its use and the resulting effectiveness (it was quite effective).

And Lebrun based on his tweets seems a bit...err extremely biased? To claim that the ruling is due to a technicality...is a stretch.

This in no way legitimizes the freedumb convoy, it's a ruling on the emergencies act as invoked in this specific situation.

If you don't think this ruling is essentially in favour of the applicants due to a technicality, I'm doubtful you read it. It's not "a stretch" at all.

The Emergencies Act by its very nature and purpose is meant to allow the government to violate Charter rights on the basis of there being a national emergency that makes the violations justifiable under Section 1 of the Charter.

In this case the judge found the use of the Act an unjustifiable violation of Section 2(b) and Section 8 Charter rights (freedom of expression and unreasonable search and seizure) because the proclamation and associated order and regulations of the Act in this case hypothetically could have been used against anyone in the country, because the proclamation didn't specify geographic limits to its applicability.

Furthermore, the ruling that the invocation of the Act in this case was ultra vires was not because of a violation of the Charter or anything of the sort. It was because under Section 3 of the Act it defines a "national emergency" as one that

... 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.

He held that this situation wasn't outside of the provinces' "capacity or authority to deal with it" and that it could have been "effectively dealt with under another law of Canada"—namely the Criminal Code as was the case at Coutts.

The fact that the Ottawa Police Service and OPP were not enforcing the laws available to it, and that the Government of Ontario failed to act, didn't mean that they didn't have the "capacity or authority to deal with it": they just chose to not deal with it. The Emergencies Act doesn't say that a province's/ the police's inaction constitutes a national emergency, just whether it's outside their capacity and authority. That's the technicality at the crux of the issue, and it is absolutely a technicality.

[Fuzz]

Ya, but not so much a technicality that Smith wasn't primed and ready to pounce all over it.

“This is another example of the Federal Court ruling against the federal government’s unconstitutional practices. Whether it’s this court decision or their defeat on plastics or the Impact Assessment Act, it is clear the federal government simply does not understand or respect the Constitution of Canada.

https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...CA3E2BB4F7E633


####ing hilarious, considering her flaunting of the laws and thinking she had US style pardon powers.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I haven't read the decision yet, however in CBC this morning they were saying the issue boiled down to the fact the government cited economic interests and that wasn't one of the criteria to be used, and that if it was then the evoking would have been justified.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I haven't read the decision yet, however in CBC this morning they were saying the issue boiled down to the fact the government cited economic interests and that wasn't one of the criteria to be used, and that if it was then the evoking would have been justified.

It's interesting, the CBC news page landing for "Canada" specifically doesn't even mention the ruling. You'd think it was news of interest.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I haven't read the decision yet, however in CBC this morning they were saying the issue boiled down to the fact the government cited economic interests and that wasn't one of the criteria to be used, and that if it was then the evoking would have been justified.

The gist in that respect is that the Emergencies Act says it can only be invoked if it's a situation that "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 "seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada". As I wrote before, in this case the judge held that the "proportion or nature" of the protests didn't exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it.

Under the second criterion, the government invoked the Act and declared a "pubic order emergency" in part to "preserve the security of Canada", but under Section 16 of the Act it defines "threats to the security of Canada" as whatever the definition is under Section 2 of the CSIS Act. That section in that piece of legislation says it means:

(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,

(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,

(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and

(d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,

but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).

So the CSIS Act doesn't consider economic factors. In the decision the judge wrote:

[296]This is not to say that the other grounds for invoking the Act specified in the Proclamation were not valid concerns. Indeed, in my view, they would have been sufficient to meet a test of “threats to the security of Canada” had those words remained undefined in the statute. [...] the words are capable of a broad and flexible interpretation that may have encompassed the type of harms caused to Canada by the actions of the blockaders. But the test for declaring a public order emergency under the EA requires that each element be satisfied including the definition imported from the CSIS Act. The harm being caused to Canada’s economy, trade and commerce, was very real and concerning but it did not constitute threats or the use of serious violence to persons or property.

[timun]

Originally Posted by chemgear

It's interesting, the CBC news page landing for "Canada" specifically doesn't even mention the ruling. You'd think it was news of interest.

The landing page for "Canada" agglomerates all news stories across the country, so it'll show the latest and greatest of all local articles, sports articles, etc.

If you go to https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics—or at least if I go to that page—it's still the fourth link from the top and thus one of the top stories, but it has been bumped down by three articles published today. It is, quite literally, yesterday's news.

[Cappy]

Looking forward to future issue protests using the same tactics...

How many of these Convoy protestors are going to be of the same opinion when the same tactics are used by Idle No More 2.0?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by chemgear

It's interesting, the CBC news page landing for "Canada" specifically doesn't even mention the ruling. You'd think it was news of interest.

It is the first story when you go to cbc.ca.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by timun

The gist in that respect is that the Emergencies Act says it can only be invoked if it's a situation that "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 "seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada". As I wrote before, in this case the judge held that the "proportion or nature" of the protests didn't exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it.

Under the second criterion, the government invoked the Act and declared a "pubic order emergency" in part to "preserve the security of Canada", but under Section 16 of the Act it defines "threats to the security of Canada" as whatever the definition is under Section 2 of the CSIS Act. That section in that piece of legislation says it means:

(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,

(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,

(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and

(d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,

but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).

So the CSIS Act doesn't consider economic factors. In the decision the judge wrote:

[296]This is not to say that the other grounds for invoking the Act specified in the
Proclamation were not valid concerns. Indeed, in my view, they would have been sufficient to meet a test of “threats to the security of Canada” had those words remained undefined in the statute. [...] the words are capable of a broad and flexible interpretation that may have encompassed the type of harms caused to Canada by the actions of the blockaders. But the test for declaring a public order emergency under the EA requires that each element be satisfied including the definition imported from the CSIS Act. The harm being caused to Canada’s economy, trade and commerce, was very real and concerning but it did not constitute threats or the use of serious violence to persons or property.

That's exactly what they were saying, only I didn't want to type that out on my phone from memory and didn't have the capactiy at the time to pull up the research/citations.

Great work timun.

Also for the record it was CBC Radio that I was listening to in the car. The Current I believe is the program that's on at 8:30.

[GGG]

The best part is is I was exactly right with how this would go in court.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by timun

The landing page for "Canada" agglomerates all news stories across the country, so it'll show the latest and greatest of all local articles, sports articles, etc.

If you go to https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics—or at least if I go to that page—it's still the fourth link from the top and thus one of the top stories, but it has been bumped down by three articles published today. It is, quite literally, yesterday's news.

Huh, no wonder people try to press release bad news on a Friday afternoon.

Originally Posted by Wormius

It is the first story when you go to cbc.ca.

CBC.ca shows first story with the Bank of Canada being asked about rate cuts. The only mention on the page seems at the bottom of the page with a package of videos. Third after a gymnast with cancer and "Looksmaxxing: This incel uses a hammer to make his face more attractive."

LOL, what the actual #### is smashing your face with a hammer. Is that . . . news?

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by timun

He held that this situation wasn't outside of the provinces' "capacity or authority to deal with it" and that it could have been "effectively dealt with under another law of Canada"—namely the Criminal Code as was the case at Coutts.

The fact that the Ottawa Police Service and OPP were not enforcing the laws available to it, and that the Government of Ontario failed to act, didn't mean that they didn't have the "capacity or authority to deal with it": they just chose to not deal with it. The Emergencies Act doesn't say that a province's/ the police's inaction constitutes a national emergency, just whether it's outside their capacity and authority. That's the technicality at the crux of the issue, and it is absolutely a technicality.

While I appreciate your long detailed rebuttal (less so your claim that I haven't read), your example of a technicality here is different from the one LeBrun asserted in his tweeted example and one I alluded to for one. Two:

technicality

noun as in loophole; minor detail

technicality
noun [ C ]
UK /ˌtek.nɪˈkæl.ə.ti/ US /ˌtek.nəˈkæl.ə.t̬i/
a detail or small matter:
He was disqualified from the competition on a technicality.

https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/ass...-Emergency.pdf

Here is the official ruling in full, key conclusions in bold.

1. Was the Proclamation unreasonable?
With respect to the first question, the Court considered the decision under the reasonableness standard of
review and concluded that the answer was yes, the Proclamation was unreasonable and illegal (“ultra
vires”) of the Act.
While the Court recognized that the occupation of downtown Ottawa and the blockades of the ports of
entry were matters of serious concern calling for government and police action, the threshold of national
emergency required by the Act was not met. Under paragraph 3(a) of the Act, a national emergency is an
urgent and critical situation that exceeds the capacity or authority of the provinces to deal with it, and that
cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. The Proclamation applied the temporary
special measures in all of Canada’s provinces and territories, despite the lack of evidence that it was
necessary. Apart from the situation in Ottawa, the police were able to enforce the rule of law by applying
the Criminal Code and other legislation.
While the conclusion that the Proclamation was illegal (“ultra vires”) was sufficient to dispose of the
applications, the Court addressed the other issues should it be found to have erred in its findings on the
first question.
Second, the Court considered the threshold for “threats to the security of Canada.” Section 2 (c) of the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act [CSIS Act] defines threats to the security of Canada as
“activities…directed towards or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons
or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective.”
Under s. 17 of the Emergencies Act, the GIC required reasonable grounds to believe that the standard set
out in section 2 of the CSIS Act had been met.
The evidence in the record before the Court did not support a finding that the impugned activities reached
that threshold.

2. Did the powers created by the Regulations and the Economic Order violate sections
2(b)(c)(d), 7 or 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, if so, could they be
saved under section 1 of the Charter?
Concerning the Charter, the Court found that the Regulations infringed the guarantee of freedom of
expression under s. 2(b), as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but
were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
The Economic Order infringed s. 8 of the Charter by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the
financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts.
The infringement of sections 2(b) and 8 of the Charter were found to be not minimally impairing, and
could not, therefore, be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
The Court found that there was no infringement of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association in paragraphs 2(c) and (d) of the Charter. Any infringement of s. 7 respecting the liberty
interests of the individual was found to be in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and
thus not a breach of the Charter.

3. Did the Regulations and the Economic Order violate the Canadian Bill of Rights?
Regarding the argument raised by the two men whose bank accounts were frozen, that their rights to due
process and the peaceful enjoyment of property under the Canadian Bill of Rights were violated the Court
found that there was no infringement.
In the result, the Applications for Judicial Review in files T-316-22 [CCLA], T-347-22 [CCF] and
T-382-22 [Applicants Edward Cornell and Vincent Gircys] are granted in part and the application in
T-306-22 is dismissed in full

There was multiple key questions, and the powers created did violate section 2 and 8 of the charter that could not be justified under section 1 along with the proclamation itself being unreasonable and illegal of the act as it failed to meet either conditions defining a national emergency. The Emergencies Act also does not give a carte blanche for the government to violate the charter with impunity. Your statement that the act allows the government to violate the charter is misleading. From the act itself:

AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;

It's written in the Emergencies Act this way where the government cannot arbitrarily define what constitutes a national emergency, and overreach its power past reasonable limits (section 1 of the charter), as it did.

Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, NB, NS, PEI, Alberta all opposed the Emergencies Act and deemed it unnecessary for their province. Outside of Ottawa, all police were able to enforce the law and already had the powers necessary (including Coutts and other cities within Ontario).

Doug Ford and Ontario's government inaction and police dragging their feet on enforcing the law that is in place, or towing companies being slow to act on requests does not suddenly make it a national emergency requiring the Emergencies Act enforced in all provinces and territory. Note that the original declaration and reasoning was largely addressing the border blockades and continuously reiterated the economic impact and perceived security threat. Below is the original proclamation from 2022.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/section58.html

You can read the full court case here, key statements excerpted.

https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/ass...2-T-382-22.pdf

The Prime Minister’s letter did not directly address the requirement in section 3(a) of the
EA that the situation be of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a
province to deal with it. As of February 15, 2022, this was only true in Ontario because of the
situation in Ottawa and that was in part due to the inability of the provincial and municipal
authorities to compel tow truck drivers to assist in the removal of the blockading vehicles. It is
not clear why that could not have been dealt with under the provincial legislation. The use of
military heavy equipment was considered but dismissed for reasons which remain redacted but I
accept as valid. There appears to have been no obstacle to assembling the large number of police
officers from a variety of other forces ultimately required to assist the OPS to remove the
blockade participants

Due to its nature and to the broad powers it grants the Federal Executive, the
Emergencies Act is a tool of last resort. The GIC cannot invoke the Emergencies Act because it is
convenient, or because it may work better than other tools at their disposal or available to the
provinces. This does not mean that every tool has to be used and tried to determine that the
situation exceeded the capacity or authority of the provinces. And in this instance, the evidence
is clear that the majority of the provinces were able to deal with the situation using other federal
law, such as the Criminal Code, and their own legislation.

For these reasons, I conclude that there was no national emergency justifying the
invocation of the Emergencies Act and the decision to do so was therefore unreasonable and
ultra vires

...

For these reasons, I am also satisfied that the GIC did not have reasonable grounds to
believe that a threat to national security existed within the meaning of the Act and the decision
was ultra vires

To dismiss the judge's ruling down to a mere technicality is ignorant of the importance of the ruling and frankly...a dangerous assertation. The ruling uses both the term unreasonable and ultra vires for a reason. This is in addition to the 2 violations of the charter (section 2 and 8) that would be violations and remain in effect even if the proclamation itself was considered reasonable and legal in an appeal.

Guess we await the decision on the appeal at this point in a year or two.